RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[John Iacoletti]

“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”

Those are the words of Vincent Drain. Not the words of Carl Day. If you are going to claim that Day was told to turn over the palm print you need better evidence than Vincent Drain’s words.

I don’t believe Day was told to turn over the palm print. Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

[John Iacoletti]

Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth.

Her name was Doris.

[Charles Collins]

I don’t believe Day was told to turn over the palm print. Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

From memory, I believe that Day said he told both Curry and Fritz about it on the night of 11/22/63 before Drain took the rifle to Washington DC. I don’t remember where that was said, but I seem to remember reading that. Maybe someone else has a better memory and can locate that statement.



But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

No, I don’t believe Drain lied. I think your idea of “all of the evidence” in the context of Drain’s report is wrong. I think that Drain was referring to all of the evidence that the FBI had requested. The DPD had a freaking truckload of evidence, the FBI had only requested a few items. Drain told Sneed what part of that evidence the FBI had requested. I quoted this in a recent post in this thread.


Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

I don’t. In this case, Sneed allowed his interviewees to tell their stories in their own words. Drain’s elaboration of what evidence the FBI had requested essentially agrees with Day’s statements. I am pointing this out.

[Royell Storing]

  Jerry - Thanks for posting the Landis snippet from his "Original Report" along with the visual aids/still shots. I am not sure what your position is regarding Landis having seen a motorcycle at the Elm St. curb There is no way Landis was referencing the Hargis motorcycle. The motorcycle Landis saw/reported, along with the Black Male were both on the (N Elm Curb. The Hargis motorcycle was on the (S) Elm curb. 

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

From memory, I believe that Day said he told both Curry and Fritz about it on the night of 11/22/63 before Drain took the rifle to Washington DC.

Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.

No, I don’t believe Drain lied. I think your idea of “all of the evidence” in the context of Drain’s report is wrong. I think that Drain was referring to all of the evidence that the FBI had requested.

That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.

I don’t. In this case, Sneed allowed his interviewees to tell their stories in their own words. Drain’s elaboration of what evidence the FBI had requested essentially agrees with Day’s statements. I am pointing this out.

But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.

[Charles Collins]

Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.

That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.

But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.

Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.

And according to one of the memos or letters from the WC regarding their questions, Wade was saying on Sunday that they had a palm print. There was a lot of misinformation and confusion during that weekend.




That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.

Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct. All of this has already been explained. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. I couldn’t care less. But you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.



But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.

Inconsistencies are common in real life cases. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically.

[Martin Weidmann]

Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.

And according to one of the memos or letters from the WC regarding their questions, Wade was saying on Sunday that they had a palm print. There was a lot of misinformation and confusion during that weekend.


That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.

Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct. All of this has already been explained. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. I couldn’t care less. But you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.



But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.

Inconsistencies are common in real life cases. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically.

And according to one of the memos or letters from the WC regarding their questions, Wade was saying on Sunday that they had a palm print.

By then, the rifle had been returned from Washington.

Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct.

That's your opinion.

you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.

That works both ways.

Inconsistencies are common in real life cases.

Sure, but so many and in the most important murder case of the decade? Where is the cut off point for making excuses for all the things that happened but shouldn't have?

[John Iacoletti]

Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct. All of this has already been explained. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. I couldn’t care less. But you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.

Despite what anybody tried to claim later, there is no other way to interpret "all the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".

Inconsistencies are common in real life cases. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically.

Read Pat Speer's chapter, already cited, on Day's morphing "memories". It seems that you are all over these when they suit your purposes.