Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow what a surprise, another liar! Yawn.
This basically encapsulates the CT case, whoever from whatever walk of life all these seemingly unconnected people collaborated in some way to convict poor little Oswald, from waitresses, to cab drivers, to fellow employees, to rooming house staff, to ticket sellers, to shoe salesman, to policeman, to the CIA, to the FBI and all the way up to LBJ, it looks like nobody wanted Kennedy alive.
So what this amounts to is that I would supply a Mountain of evidence and credible eyewitnesses in a long long line in court and Iacoletti would simply be reduced to claiming that alot of these innocent people for reasons only known to Iacoletti all got together in some massive stadium and decided to lie? But where does this go who benefitted and why, Oswald was insane whereas the alternative is simply unbelievable.



JohnM

Oh poor little boy, please get some help.... You really need it.

[Tim Nickerson]

Is the following incorrect

On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.

On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.

On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.

Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).

On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.

Matt,

Carl Day lifted a palm print off of the underside of the barrel of the rifle on Nov 22, 1963. He was both qualified and authorized to do so. FBI agent Nat Pinkston was aware on Nov 22, 1963 that Day had raised a partial latent print on the rifle.



On Nov 26, FBI Agent Vince Drain took possession of the print from the DPD. On Nov 29, Agent Sebastion Latona received the print and confirmed that it was Oswald's.

Some of the WC staff had doubts about that palm print. Rankin wrote a letter to Hoover on Sept 1, 1964 asking if the FBI could somehow match the palm print to the rifle barrel. Here is from Hoover's reply ten days later:



Wesley Liebeler was one of those who had questions about the palm print. From Liebeler's HSCA testimony:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/pdf/HSCA_Vol11_WC_3E2_Liebeler.pdf

Mr. DODD - I have just two questions really. You stated in regard to the rifle, the palm print, and I think on the boxes as well you had a bit of disagreement over whether or not those prints ought to be--was it verified or checked out? I wasn't sure what you meant. They had actually been run already once. There was some question of the absorption because of the wood. Had there already been a test on them?
Mr. LIEBELER - If I may, I will explain exactly what happened in both of those cases, it won't take very long. I think particularly the point on the rifle barrel may be worthwhile. The Dallas Police Department had gotten to the rifle. Very shortly thereafter they sent it to the FBI for fingerprint analysis. The FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle. Four days later the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited 4 days to send this lift to the FBI or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though the print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle barrel and it was still there. Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. It occurred to us that it was possible that in fact the palm print never came from the rifle. We only had the say-so of the Dallas Police Department to that effect and we weren't satisfied with that. We wanted the FBI to establish, if they could, whether that palm print in fact came from that rifle or not. At the time this question was raised no attempt whatever had been made to deal with that problem. Now after the discussion that Mr. Willens and Redlich and I had that was referred to in the testimony Mr. Rankin invited to his office the chief FBI fingerprint expert, Inspector Mally of the FBI, who was liaison with the Commission and I think Mr. Slawson and Mr. Griffin and Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich and Mr. Rankin met with them. I suggested to Mr. Latona, their fingerprint expert, that there might be some distortion in the lift because it had been taken from a cylindrical surface, sort of a Mercator projection is here, put your hand on a light bulb and take the lift and lay it flat, it might distort the lift from what it might have been on the surface. Latona went back and looked at the lift. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that, that that had come from that rifle.
 

[John Mytton]

.....Day claimed dried ridges were still present when he handed over the rifle.

Did Day hand the rifle directly to Latona?



JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

Mr. BELIN. Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify the print shown on Commission Commission Exhibit No. 637as being from the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?
Mr. DAY. Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.

  Again not a researcher so I could be way off, but it seems Day is saying they have either pictures or lifts of the prints in DPD possession and they have Oswald's prints including his palm print in their possession as well, but he/they still have not made a positive identification?

 Do the pictures Day took still exist? He also seems to say the boxes in the SN in later exhibits are not the same as he saw them that day

[Matt Grantham]

The chain of custody is Carl Day to Vincent Drain to Sebastion Latona.

 On the 26th?

[Tim Nickerson]

On the 26th?

From Carl Day to Vincent Drain on the 26th.

[Tim Nickerson]

Nothing presented proves ownership of that rifle.

Nothing could ever prove to you that Oswald owned the rifle. You are a Hardcore Conspiracy Buff. You cannot, and will not, view with an objective eye any evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.

[Jerry Freeman]

 Yes and hundreds of people have made an instant impression of you and unfortunately for you your use of a feeble irrelevant insult just makes you look like a Goose, congratulations!

Btw next time try harder because so far you're not even a challenge, just a piece of crap that needs scraping off the bottom of my shoe!
JohnM

   That rant just proves my point.