Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[John Iacoletti]

Wow what a surprise, another liar! Yawn.

What do you mean "another"?  Who's the first liar, you?

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.

Nice strawman.  Never mind what I think about Carl Day.  Let's go with the FBI agent who Day gave his evidence to:

"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print COULD BE SEEN and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he CAUTIONED DRAIN to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory."

"DRAIN FLATLY DISPUTES THIS, claiming that DAY NEVER showed him such a print. "I just don't believe there was ever a print," said Drain. He noted that there was increased pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case."

"Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated: "All I can figure is that it [Oswald's print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened." -- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109

So what this amounts to is that I would supply a Mountain of evidence and credible eyewitnesses in a long long line in court

No you wouldn't.  This "mountain of evidence" is a figment of your imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Where does the Pinkston memo say that this was the supposed barrel print and not a trigger guard print?

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:

Well that settles it.  J Edgar Hoover said so.  The same guy who said that the public needed to be convinced that Oswald was the real assassin.  Where can I find Latona ever saying that he matched the "pits and scores and marks and rust spots"?  Let's see the match.

[John Iacoletti]

He had enough time to lift it, as is evidenced by the fact that he did lift it.

So either Day (or Pinkston) lied about this, or it's not the same print.

[John Iacoletti]

Actually I have a picture of that in a folder a guy who is sort of JFK researcher who gave it to me It is basically a photograph that shows the Neely street background and then just has a cutout that is black where Oswald's figure appears  I am not sure if it available online somewhere

[Matt Grantham]

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.

 Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.  Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another

 That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN

[Matt Grantham]

 Thanks John That is the one

[John Iacoletti]

Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.

It doesn't count for much.  First of all handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and subjective.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3835&context=penn_law_review

Secondly, this identification was done based on two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.  That's unreliable even by handwriting "analysis" standards (such as they are/were).

Thirdly, even if this identification was perfectly accurate (and not just wishful thinking), all that would tell you is that Oswald filled out an order blank, not that he killed the president.

  Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another

Sure, it's evidence, but evidence of what exactly?  The amount written on the coupon doesn't match the amount of the alleged money order, Klein's didn't even make a copy of the payment for this order coupon, nor was there anything to tie that particular coupon or that particular money order with that particular rifle.  Nor is there any evidence that a package from Klein's was ever shipped through the postal service to PO box 2915, or picked up or signed for by Oswald or anybody else.

That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN

That's because it's all speculation, assumptions, and handwaving.

P.S. it's John I, with a capital i, not L

[Walt Cakebread]

What do you mean "another"?  Who's the first liar, you?

Nice strawman.  Never mind what I think about Carl Day.  Let's go with the FBI agent who Day gave his evidence to:

"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print COULD BE SEEN and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he CAUTIONED DRAIN to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory."

"DRAIN FLATLY DISPUTES THIS, claiming that DAY NEVER showed him such a print. "I just don't believe there was ever a print," said Drain. He noted that there was increased pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case."

"Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated: "All I can figure is that it [Oswald's print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened." -- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109

No you wouldn't.  This "mountain of evidence" is a figment of your imagination.

If you'd open your eyes to the evidence you would know that the palm print WAS listed among the evidence ( item #14) that as turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.   The clerk who typed up the evidence list placed quotation marks around the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of fore grip "

Those are the exact words that Lt Day scribbled on the white card on which he had placed the cellophane tape that held what he imagined to be a palm print.    Tom Alyea watched Detective Day lift that smudge the Day thought might be a print while they were on the sixth floor of the TSBD a about 1:45 pm that afternoon.

The white card with the note on it was turned over to the FBI at midnight and it later became CE 634......

The quotation identifies the evidence ......