A question about Oswald

[Martin Weidmann]

What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?  His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.  If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?  Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?  Let me guess.  You don't have a clue or care.  It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.  It is also "possible" that the DPD lied about Oswald's explanation of the rifle.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy.  Just that all the evidence was fabricated to frame Oswald.  Wow.

And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle?  What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later?  HA HA HA.   That is the height of stupidity.  Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?  Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.  It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic.  I can't believe you are for real. 

I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card."  That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  But there is more.  You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial.  Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial?  The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.  There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.  It is insane to believe that is what happened.  There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this.  You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card.  Produce it to whom?  The investigation was in process.  How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?  You don't.  But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.  Good grief.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?

Who cares? Oswald is holding a rifle in March 1963..... Wow! Big deal...

Several years ago I was photographed holding a rifle. It wasn't mine and I haven't got a clue what happened to it.

His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.

No she didn't. She was shown the rifle found at the TSBD a few hours after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. You are not very good at it and it makes you look foolish.

If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?

Who knows... If Oswald did indeed own a rifle in March 1963, only he would be able to tell us what happened to it. Nobody has seen Oswald with a rifle, any rifle, since late March 1963. You don't get to speculate that the TSBD rifle was his, simply because you can't figure out what happened to the rifle Oswald allegedly had in March 1963.

Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?

What makes you so sure he lied?

It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.

Which again falsely assumes that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with and that's an assumption for which you have no credible evidence.

And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle?  What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later?  HA HA HA.   That is the height of stupidity.

I'm glad you understand and admit that what you just wrote is indeed the height of stupidity. Day claimed that he found the print on the rifle and then, instead of handing it over to the FBI on Friday evening, with all the other evidence, put it in his desk drawer and "forgot all about it" for a week. He then, rather conveniently "remembered" after Oswald was dead. And you accept that "cop said so" BS at face value... HAHAHAHAHAHA   The most important murder case of the century and this cop "forgets" about crucial evidence for an entire week? Give me a break.....

Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?

Trying to shift the burden of proof again..... You are the one who claimed Oswald's print was found on the rifle. You need to prove that and you can't. It's as simple as that!

Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.

Again, you, rather foolishly, claimed that Oswald's print was found on the rifle. I merely pointed out that this is not true. Instead his print was found on an evidence card that was suddenly produced after Oswald's death when it was clear there wasn't going to be a trial. And that evidence card does not, in no way shape or form, confirm that Oswald's print was found on the rifle.

I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card."  That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself, Sherlock?

But there is more.  You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. 

I am not suggesting anything of the kind for the simple reason that I don't know, due to the sloppy work of a DPD officer. I am stating as a matter of absolute fact that the evidence card was not presented by Day until 11/26/63, which is indeed after Oswald was killed.

Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial? 

What makes you think Day and perhaps others would risk their careers? The innocence project has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that DPD officers and Henry Wade did manufacture evidence in a large number of cases in which people were convicted only to be proven innocent many years later. I don't know any DPD officer who lost his career over it. Do you?

The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.

So what? Investigators are always satisfied with the guilt of a suspect before they pass the case on to a prosecutor. They are frequently proven wrong, which makes their opinion meaningless.

There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.

More evidence? What evidence was there already that conclusively showed Oswald killed Kennedy and did it by himself?

It is insane to believe that is what happened.

What is really utterly insane is dismissing possibilities simply because you don't like them.

You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card.  Produce it to whom?

Accept what as a fact? I have no idea what you are babbling on about. And as for the evidence card, it didn't show up until nearly a week after the murder. That is a fact. And you don't think that's even the least bit remarkable?

How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?  You don't.

True. I don't know... but that's exactly the point. Oswald's print on the rifle would be crucial evidence. The FBI had already examined the rifle and found no print or residue of a print being lifted. They concluded there was no print on the rifle. Don't you think that if Day had told anybody about the print on the evidence card it would have come out by now? If he had told somebody, why would that person also keep his mouth shut?

But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.

It also doesn't mean it isn't fabricated. So, what makes you so sure that it isn't fabricated?

[John Iacoletti]

What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?

Nobody knows. It can’t be exclusively identified.

  His own wife confirmed it was his rifle

November 22: “it could be the same rifle but I’m not sure”.

and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.

False. Six weeks earlier she saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

  If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?

You can either prove it is the same one or you cannot. And you cannot.

Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?

Circular. It doesn’t just follow that possessing a rifle in March (or even October) means that you own one in November.

  Let me guess.  You don't have a clue or care.  It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary

What “evidence and circumstances”?

and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.

There is also zero evidence that Oswald owned that rifle.

Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.  It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic. 

What’s astoundingly stupid is the argument that “cop said so” makes a claim factual, regardless of any other considerations.

I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card."  That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.

A conspiracy of one? Do you even understand what conspiracy means?

There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this.

Wrong again, “Richard”.

Carl Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence.  He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane.  He claimed that there were still visible ridges left after doing his lift.  Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all.  He found no traces of ridges there. Then a week later, Latona receives (separately from all the other evidence) an index card with a partial print on it. When asked by the WC to sign an affidavit regarding his handling of the print, Day refused.

In light of all this, “cop said so” doesn’t cut it.

How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?

Day claimed that he told both Fritz and Curry about the print, but both Fritz and Curry were asked about prints on the 23rd and both answered negative. The first recorded mention of any palmprint is by Wade on Sunday, after Oswald’s death.

[Richard Smith]

What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?

Who cares? Oswald is holding a rifle in March 1963..... Wow! Big deal...

Several years ago I was photographed holding a rifle. It wasn't mine and I haven't got a clue what happened to it.

His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.

No she didn't. She was shown the rifle found at the TSBD a few hours after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. You are not very good at it and it makes you look foolish.

If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?

Who knows... If Oswald did indeed own a rifle in March 1963, only he would be able to tell us what happened to it. Nobody has seen Oswald with a rifle, any rifle, since late March 1963. You don't get to speculate that the TSBD rifle was his, simply because you can't figure out what happened to the rifle Oswald allegedly had in March 1963.

Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?

What makes you so sure he lied?

It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.

Which again falsely assumes that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with and that's an assumption for which you have no credible evidence.

And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle?  What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later?  HA HA HA.   That is the height of stupidity.

I'm glad you understand and admit that what you just wrote is indeed the height of stupidity. Day claimed that he found the print on the rifle and then, instead of handing it over to the FBI on Friday evening, with all the other evidence, put it in his desk drawer and "forgot all about it" for a week. He then, rather conveniently "remembered" after Oswald was dead. And you accept that "cop said so" BS at face value... HAHAHAHAHAHA   The most important murder case of the century and this cop "forgets" about crucial evidence for an entire week? Give me a break.....

Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?

Trying to shift the burden of proof again..... You are the one who claimed Oswald's print was found on the rifle. You need to prove that and you can't. It's as simple as that!

Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.

Again, you, rather foolishly, claimed that Oswald's print was found on the rifle. I merely pointed out that this is not true. Instead his print was found on an evidence card that was suddenly produced after Oswald's death when it was clear there wasn't going to be a trial. And that evidence card does not, in no way shape or form, confirm that Oswald's print was found on the rifle.

I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card."  That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself, Sherlock?

But there is more.  You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. 

I am not suggesting anything of the kind for the simple reason that I don't know, due to the sloppy work of a DPD officer. I am stating as a matter of absolute fact that the evidence card was not presented by Day until 11/26/63, which is indeed after Oswald was killed.

Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial? 

What makes you think Day and perhaps others would risk their careers? The innocence project has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that DPD officers and Henry Wade did manufacture evidence in a large number of cases in which people were convicted only to be proven innocent many years later. I don't know any DPD officer who lost his career over it. Do you?

The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.

So what? Investigators are always satisfied with the guilt of a suspect before they pass the case on to a prosecutor. They are frequently proven wrong, which makes their opinion meaningless.

There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.

More evidence? What evidence was there already that conclusively showed Oswald killed Kennedy and did it by himself?

It is insane to believe that is what happened.

What is really utterly insane is dismissing possibilities simply because you don't like them.

You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card.  Produce it to whom?

Accept what as a fact? I have no idea what you are babbling on about. And as for the evidence card, it didn't show up until nearly a week after the murder. That is a fact. And you don't think that's even the least bit remarkable?

How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?  You don't.

True. I don't know... but that's exactly the point. Oswald's print on the rifle would be crucial evidence. The FBI had already examined the rifle and found no print or residue of a print being lifted. They concluded there was no print on the rifle. Don't you think that if Day had told anybody about the print on the evidence card it would have come out by now? If he had told somebody, why would that person also keep his mouth shut?

But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.

It also doesn't mean it isn't fabricated. So, what makes you so sure that it isn't fabricated?

So many words.  So far down the rabbit hole.  Here is the bottom line.  You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle.  That level of absurdity is astounding.  Find a dark place to assume the fetal position and give what you are suggesting some thought.  If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.  Or better yet.  Take this to the NY Times or some media outlet and make your case that you have demonstrated that Oswald was framed.  Get back to us with their response.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many words.  So far down the rabbit hole.  Here is the bottom line.  You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle.  That level of absurdity is astounding.  Find a dark place to assume the fetal position and give what you are suggesting some thought.  If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.  Or better yet.  Take this to the NY Times or some media outlet and make your case that you have demonstrated that Oswald was framed.  Get back to us with their response.

Here is the bottom line.  You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle.

I don't need you to tell me what I am contending.

That level of absurdity is astounding.

What exactly would be absurd about it? I bet you can't even provide an answer to that question, without making a complete fool of yourself

If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.

Unlike you, my friends and family are reasonable intelligent people and they all find it utterly absurd to believe (as you do) that a forensic officer would simply "forget" to report, for a whole week, that he "found" crucial evidence in one of the most important murder cases of the century.

[Richard Smith]

If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.

Unlike you, my friends and family are reasonable intelligent people and they all find it utterly absurd to believe (as you do) that a forensic officer would simply "forget" to report, for a whole week, that he "found" crucial evidence in one of the most important murder cases of the century.

There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.  This is just a baseless claim.  You haven't proven that he didn't mention it to anyone.  This was also in the very initial stages of the investigation.  A lot was going on.  And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle.  A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?  Failing to do so demonstrates some dim awareness of the absurdity of your idiotic claim. It is very amusing.  You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum.  HA HA HA. 

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.  This is just a baseless claim.  You haven't proven that he didn't mention it to anyone.  This was also in the very initial stages of the investigation.  A lot was going on.  And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle.  A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?  Failing to do so demonstrates some dim awareness of the absurdity of your idiotic claim. It is very amusing.  You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum.  HA HA HA.

So, you can't answer my question. Got it!


There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.

Except for the fact that he claims to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?

This is just a baseless claim.

For you, maybe, but only because you don't like it.

And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle.  A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.

It is indeed tin foil hat nonsense, and it's all coming from you. You are, once again, making stuff up and pretending I made such a claim.

But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?

Every time you get stuck, you bring out this NY Times BS. It is a sure sign that you know you've already lost the argument.

You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum. 

Where did I claim to have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? The answer is of course; ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION! Stop making stuff up, will ya!

The real bottom line is that you don't have a clue about where Day got that print from. All you have is that he claims to have lifted it from the rifle and, as far as you are concerned, what this cop said is good enough for you. Never mind that he did held back a crucial piece of evidence for several days! There isn't an investigation in the world where such conduct by a forensic officer would be acceptable but for "Richard Smith" it not a problem at all..... Pathetic!

[John Iacoletti]

So many words. 

This is why it’s a waste of time to engage with “Richard”. He’s a zealot. He’s not interested in any of the details. “Cop said so” is good enough for him. Cop said it, “Richard” believes it, and that settles it.

It’s like listening to the same church sermon over and over again for 15 years.

[Richard Smith]

So, you can't answer my question. Got it!


There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.

Except for the fact that he claims to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?

This is just a baseless claim.

For you, maybe, but only because you don't like it.

And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle.  A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.

It is indeed tin foil hat nonsense, and it's all coming from you. You are, once again, making stuff up and pretending I made such a claim.

But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.  Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?

Every time you get stuck, you bring out this NY Times BS. It is a sure sign that you know you've already lost the argument.

You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum. 

Where did I claim to have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? The answer is of course; ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION! Stop making stuff up, will ya!

The real bottom line is that you don't have a clue about where Day got that print from. All you have is that he claims to have lifted it from the rifle and, as far as you are concerned, what this cop said is good enough for you. Never mind that he did held back a crucial piece of evidence for several days! There isn't an investigation in the world where such conduct by a forensic officer would be acceptable but for "Richard Smith" it not a problem at all..... Pathetic!

Laughable.  You claimed that Day didn't "report" the finding of Oswald's print for a week AND that somehow proves that he must have fabricated the print.  A completely baseless and absurd conclusion.  Compounded by the fact that you haven't even proven that Day didn't report it to someone.  How exactly is it holding back evidence to report the print in the very first week of the investigation? HA HA HA.  That one is a knee slapper.  Particularly given all that was going on including the murder of Oswald.   Can you demonstrate to us that Day's conduct, even as you have characterized it without knowing the facts, was outside the normal investigative process of the DPD in 1963?   Of course not.