BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Walt Cakebread]

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, ?

I'm clearly stating ( not suggesting) that CE 637 is conclusive and definite proof that the UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge that is now called "Oswald's Palm Print" was lifted from the wooden fore grip of a carcano.    That statement is strongly supported by the FACT that the bayonet slot ( the two parallel lines) is visible on the lifted smudge that Day stuck to a 3 X 5 white index card and then identified where that lift had been taken from..." Off underside of barrell near end of fore grip  c2766 ...JC Day  11/22/63.

I'm also clearly stating that the 3 X 5 index card with the cellophane tape with the smudge on it was released to FBI agent Vincent Drain ( VED)  by Captain George Dogherty  ( GMD) at midnight 11 /22/63....  And there is an evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11/ 22/ 63....  That 3 X 5 index card is listed ( item #14 ) on that evidence list.

later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel,

THERE WAS NO DAMNED LIFT TAKEN OFF THE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER METAL BARREL!.......THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS!.....  IT'S A LIE CREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

What you accept as being the truth, is the lie created by the authorities .... CE 637 was NOT lifted from the metal barrel.....it WAS definitely lifted from the WOODEN fore grip of the carcano ...and it was lifted while Day was working with the rifle in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon...and Tom Alyea watched Day lift that unidentifiable smudge , which the authorities later claimed was Lee Oswald's palm print......

[Zeon Mason]

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, ?

I'm clearly stating ( not suggesting) that CE 637 is conclusive and definite proof that the UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge that is now called "Oswald's Palm Print" was lifted from the wooden fore grip of a carcano.    That statement is strongly supported by the FACT that the bayonet slot ( the two parallel lines) is visible on the lifted smudge that Day stuck to a 3 X 5 white index card and then identified where that lift had been taken from..." Off underside of barrell near end of fore grip  c2766 ...JC Day  11/22/63.

I'm also clearly stating that the 3 X 5 index card with the cellophane tape with the smudge on it was released to FBI agent Vincent Drain ( VED)  by Captain George Dogherty  ( GMD) at midnight 11 /22/63....  And there is an evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11/ 22/ 63....  That 3 X 5 index card is listed ( item #14 ) on that evidence list.

later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel,

THERE WAS NO DAMNED LIFT TAKEN OFF THE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER METAL BARREL!.......THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS!.....  IT'S A LIE CREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

So Lt.Day lifted an UNIDENTIFIABLE?  smudge print from the WOODEN stock, which later would become CE 637. a palm print from Oswald found on the BARREL, because Lt.Day changed his story to that in his WC testimony?


Lt.Days WC testimony excerpt pertaining to the MC rifle:

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


Now, i am not saying Lt.Day was  incapable of "embellishment" after the  fact, and change his original finding of an undentifable smudge print on the wooden stock which was the original CE 637 to an altered version CE 637 and LT. Day WC testimony of lifting the print from the barrel. 

The question is why? Could the tape be reused? or some other tape be submitted later, after they took the rifle to the morgue 7 days later, and placed barrel in Oswalds dead hand, so as to get a palm print?

[Walt Cakebread]

So Lt.Day lifted an UNIDENTIFIABLE?  smudge print from the WOODEN stock, which later would become CE 637. a palm print from Oswald found on the BARREL, because Lt.Day changed his story to that in his WC testimony?


Lt.Days WC testimony excerpt pertaining to the MC rifle:

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


Now, i am not saying Lt.Day was  incapable of "embellishment" after the  fact, and change his original finding of an undentifable smudge print on the wooden stock which was the original CE 637 to an altered version CE 637 and LT. Day WC testimony of lifting the print from the barrel. 

The question is why? Could the tape be reused? or some other tape be submitted later, after they took the rifle to the morgue 7 days later, and placed barrel in Oswalds dead hand, so as to get a palm print?

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

This statement by J.C.Day is a bold faced lie......The two parallel lines indicate that the lift was taken from the wooden fore grip.    And not only that...The small diameter metal barrel ( 5/8") was too small to accept an adult man's palm print.   

And the wood grain is also visible on some copies of CE 637.....

And what's more...IF Day had found a print on the metal barrel while in the DPD crime lab, he would not have needed to lift it...

The reason for lifting a print is to keep it from being damaged......Well, in the lab there was no possibility of the print being damage ( if there had been a print)  And the wooden fore grip covers that part of the barrel which would have protected any print far better than lifting the print.....and what's more the FBI technician in Washington said that he could detect NOTHING that indicated that portion of the rifle had ever been examined with finger print powder.   

[Zeon Mason]

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

This statement by J.C.Day is a bold faced lie......The two parallel lines indicate that the lift was taken from the wooden fore grip.    And not only that...The small diameter metal barrel ( 5/8") was too small to accept an adult man's palm print.   

And the wood grain is also visible on some copies of CE 637.....

And what's more...IF Day had found a print on the metal barrel while in the DPD crime lab, he would not have needed to lift it...

The reason for lifting a print is to keep it from being damaged......Well, in the lab there was no possibility of the print being damage ( if there had been a print)  And the wooden fore grip covers that part of the barrel which would have protected any print far better than lifting the print.....and what's more the FBI technician in Washington said that he could detect NOTHING that indicated that portion of the rifle had ever been examined with finger print powder.

Im going to give Lt.Day some benefit of the doubt that he was COERCED into making one embellishment, and then another, and then another, incrementally, until he was so deep into it, that he had NO choice but to continue on with whatever the WCs final conclusion was to become.

I would like to think that he and perhaps Wietzman, and possibly even Studebaker, started out trying to be objective, but when the news came of Officer Tippet being shot, and Oswald found in the theater with a pistol, Imo, they became biased subconsciously at the least, and from that point forward, whatever "embellishment' or alterations, and even out right lies, they rationalized as "making sure the killer didn't get away with it"

And they believed that Oswald was the Cop killer, and Will Fritz had said this case was "cinched", LBJ and Hoover, their authoritarian leaders were adamant that Oswald MUST be found guilty and that conspiracy concerns should be avoided, in favor of wrapping up this investigation so the public could be reassured it was just a "lone nut"

[Colin Crow]

Colin the signature of Day is NOT identical....Nor is the time release the same.....  and there are other differences.......

These signatures were done at the same time. One on the original form and the WCE is the carbon copy of the original. The copy moved slightly so that the previous writing (the comment re the prints) appears in a slightly different position.

[Colin Crow]

DVP's comments re the curtain rods....... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html

"I've never denied that some curtain rods were found in Ruth Paine's garage. Why would I deny that FACT? It's a fact.

But by laughing and ridiculing Commission Exhibit No. 2640, you are implying that some rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. And that's just not so.

You wouldn't be gilding the lily just a touch, would you now, Ben?

As for fingerprinting Paine's rods --- big deal. If that is, indeed, true (and I've never been interested enough to verify whether it is true or not, but maybe it is), the authorities no doubt wanted to see if Oswald's prints might show up on those curtain rods (seeing as how the rods WERE in Ruth Paine's garage, and Lee Oswald did spend his last night of freedom in Ruth's house and had access to those rods the same day that he told fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier the "curtain rod" story).

So it makes perfect sense to me for the police (or the FBI) to want to fingerprint those rods. If they hadn't done so, I can hear the conspiracy theorists balking about how lax the authorities were. (The cops can't win for losing, can they, Ben?)

Maybe you'd better move on to your next paper-thin argument to try and make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Ben. Because this "curtain rod" thing is getting embarrassing for you.

David Von Pein
August 29-30, 2015"

A most perceptive explanation for fingerprinting........to avoid future criticism of "conspiracy theorists". No mention of the date problem with respect to the timing of the removal of them in the Paine garage on an evening eight days later and their release after processing by 7.50am the following morning.

[Alan Ford]

DVP's comments re the curtain rods....... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html

"I've never denied that some curtain rods were found in Ruth Paine's garage. Why would I deny that FACT? It's a fact.

But by laughing and ridiculing Commission Exhibit No. 2640, you are implying that some rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. And that's just not so.

You wouldn't be gilding the lily just a touch, would you now, Ben?

As for fingerprinting Paine's rods --- big deal. If that is, indeed, true (and I've never been interested enough to verify whether it is true or not, but maybe it is), the authorities no doubt wanted to see if Oswald's prints might show up on those curtain rods (seeing as how the rods WERE in Ruth Paine's garage, and Lee Oswald did spend his last night of freedom in Ruth's house and had access to those rods the same day that he told fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier the "curtain rod" story).

So it makes perfect sense to me for the police (or the FBI) to want to fingerprint those rods. If they hadn't done so, I can hear the conspiracy theorists balking about how lax the authorities were. (The cops can't win for losing, can they, Ben?)

Maybe you'd better move on to your next paper-thin argument to try and make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Ben. Because this "curtain rod" thing is getting embarrassing for you.

David Von Pein
August 29-30, 2015"

A most perceptive explanation for fingerprinting........to avoid future criticism of "conspiracy theorists". No mention of the date problem with respect to the timing of the removal of them in the Paine garage on an evening eight days later and their release after processing by 7.50am the following morning.

Indeed so, Mr Crow--------------he'll go on pretending not to have noticed the 3-15-64 submission date! 

And note how he never offers any solid reason why curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be fingerprinted. Just vague nonsense, like Mr Smith's 'due diligence'.

Mr von Pein, if you're reading this:

How would a positive test result for Mr Oswald's prints on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage have helped the investigation?