When the SN was built

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  Down the rabbit hole we go! WEEEEE.  I'll play along to pass the time but you have gone over this a thousand times or more rolling out your contrarian nonsense. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.  Elvis wasn't fingerprinted, though, for comparison.  So we still can't rule him out using your defense attorney "logic."    Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints?  Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?  If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?  HA HA HA.  How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?  Have you invented that time machine that you require in every instance relating to Oswald's guilt.

WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.

As per usual you misrepresent the evidence. WC3131 states that the prints of those employees were compared with latent prints on (only) four boxes and that no identification was effected.
What this means, in the real world, is that there were in fact unidentified prints on those boxes which they could match to anybody. This can happen because the quality of the print simply wasn't good enough for comparison. What it doesn't do is rule out that the prints of others were on the boxes.

Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints? 

Day doesn't have to be "in on the conspiracy" to lie about finding the prints. We know for a fact he lied about other things, so why not about this? When Day found out, on Friday evening, that Frazier denied that the bag found in the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry in the morning, it was Day who desperately tried to concoct a bogus story to explain away the problem.

Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?

Are you for real? On Friday evening, the rifle goes to the FBI lab for examination. They find no prints on the weapon or even residue of a lifted print. Day learns this when the rifle is returned to him, the next day, and he doesn't mention such a crucial piece of evidence (as a previously lifted print) until all the evidence has to be handed over again to the FBI, two days after Oswald was killed. Was Day merely incompetent or did he really withhold crucial evidence for nearly a week?

If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?

Clarify the question....

How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?

That's easy. There is no contemporary report either by the FBI or DPD that confirms Day said anything to anybody, before the second shipment of evidence to the FBI. This can only mean one of two things; Day himself told nobody or he told somebody who in turn also kept his mouth shut. Either way, not really normal police procedure, right?

You really need to look at the bigger picture here; they have no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. They have boxes in the S/N with latent prints on them that can't be identified (and thus could belong to anybody) and they have Frazier's denial that the bag found at the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry. In other words, they have nothing even remotely solid, except for the rifle and the evidence card with Oswald's prints on them.

Yet, Day never figures that it might be a good idea if he just did his job and simply compared the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle with Oswald's actual prints.... Really?

[John Iacoletti]

Great point.  The contrarian rebuttal that this is not incriminatory because Oswald "worked there" is weak sauce.  A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald is the only TSBD employee who left his prints on these particular boxes.

  You don't know that.  There was one unidentified print.  And not all prints are liftable or identifiable at all. Especially after some time has passed.  Did anybody make any effort to see which employees filled orders from the sixth floor and when?

He also left his prints on the bag and rifle.

"The bag".  LOL.  You mean the "bag" that you cannot prove was found on the "sniper's nest" floor, or that ever contained a rifle?  That bag?

"His prints on the rifle".  LOL. Wrong again, "Richard".  There were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Imagine how unlucky Oswald would have to be to have left all this evidence because he "worked there" when no other employee who "worked there" did the same.  No reasonable person can believe that.  The prisons are full of criminals who left much less evidence than Oswald.

Name one.

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly. The only way you can believe he is innocent is if you want to believe he is innocent.

John I actually makes an excellent point. If the box had been handled by LHO as part of his work, the fingerprints would have been all over the top where he opened it to access the books inside. If memory serves me right, instead there were just a couple of palm prints and a single fingerprint. The SN boxes are just one more example of his guilt.

I could just as easily claim that his fingerprints would have been all over the undersides of the boxes if he had moved them to fashion a "sniper's nest".

[Richard Smith]

WC 3131 confirms that prints were taken for comparison from the TSBD employees who had access to the 6th floor.  None of their prints were identified as being on the boxes.

As per usual you misrepresent the evidence. WC3131 states that the prints of those employees were compared with latent prints on (only) four boxes and that no identification was effected.
What this means, in the real world, is that there were in fact unidentified prints on those boxes which they could match to anybody. This can happen because the quality of the print simply wasn't good enough for comparison. What it doesn't do is rule out that the prints of others were on the boxes.

Now you are suggesting Day was in on the conspiracy and lied about finding the prints? 

Day doesn't have to be "in on the conspiracy" to lie about finding the prints. We know for a fact he lied about other things, so why not about this? When Day found out, on Friday evening, that Frazier denied that the bag found in the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry in the morning, it was Day who desperately tried to concoct a bogus story to explain away the problem.

Why does "not mention it to anybody for days" make his claim suspect?

Are you for real? On Friday evening, the rifle goes to the FBI lab for examination. They find no prints on the weapon or even residue of a lifted print. Day learns this when the rifle is returned to him, the next day, and he doesn't mention such a crucial piece of evidence (as a previously lifted print) until all the evidence has to be handed over again to the FBI, two days after Oswald was killed. Was Day merely incompetent or did he really withhold crucial evidence for nearly a week?

If there was a frameup going on with the FBI, why didn't they simply confirm his findings?

Clarify the question....

How do you know who and when he spoke about the prints to anyone?

That's easy. There is no contemporary report either by the FBI or DPD that confirms Day said anything to anybody, before the second shipment of evidence to the FBI. This can only mean one of two things; Day himself told nobody or he told somebody who in turn also kept his mouth shut. Either way, not really normal police procedure, right?

You really need to look at the bigger picture here; they have no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. They have boxes in the S/N with latent prints on them that can't be identified (and thus could belong to anybody) and they have Frazier's denial that the bag found at the TSBD was the one he had seen Oswald carry. In other words, they have nothing even remotely solid, except for the rifle and the evidence card with Oswald's prints on them.

Yet, Day never figures that it might be a good idea if he just did his job and simply compared the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle with Oswald's actual prints.... Really?

So to summarize.  Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.  Such bad luck.  And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.  And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.  And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So to summarize.  Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes.  Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.  Such bad luck.  And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.  And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.  And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened.

Nobody asked for your flawed and bogus "summary".

Prints were taken from the other TSBD employees who worked on that floor.  None of their prints were identified, as Oswald's were, as being on those same boxes.  They also "worked there" but left no such identifiable prints.  Only Oswald did.

And didn't that come in handy, right?

And here we learn that for some unspecified reason, that Day would lie AFTER Oswald's death about finding prints on the rifle EVEN if he were not involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  Why he would do this is left to our imagination since there would be no prosecution of Oswald after his death and the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime and allow the guilty person to escape.

A far better question to ask (which is why you ignore it, of course) is; Why didn't Day say something when the FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle and Oswald was still alive? What possible reason could Day have had to stay silent?

the only possible reason to lie about the prints would be to frame him for the crime

You've answered your own question! 

How many (now proven) innocent people were convicted again over the years by Henry Wade and his corrupt ilk? In all those cases they allowed the guilty person to escape, right?

And Day's confirmation of finding Oswald's prints on the rifle is a "lie" because there is no "report" of him mentioning it for a whole week!  Of course, he very well could have done so verbally and there was simply no report to be made in that timeframe.

And now we're in La La Land. Again, finding a print of Oswald on the rifle used to kill Kennedy would be a big thing. The mere fact that Day allegedly managed to keep that print in his desk for six days means nobody knew about it or it simply wasn't there to begin with. Besides, nobody has ever come forward to confirm that Day told him about the print before Oswald died!

And even if he did not mention it, that alone does not cast doubt on his confirmation that it happened.

Only in your fantasy world. In the real world holding back a crucial piece of evidence for six days is not only a massive dereliction of duty but also destroys the chain of custody required for such evidence.

[Jack Nessan]

I could just as easily claim that his fingerprints would have been all over the undersides of the boxes if he had moved them to fashion a "sniper's nest".

Feel free to make all the claims you would like. Nothing will change the fact there were not any of LHO’s fingerprints found on top of the box supporting your claim that LHO had opened the box to remove books. Fingerprints or the lack of them on the bottom of the box actually is irrelevant.

[Richard Smith]

Feel free to make all the claims you would like. Nothing will change the fact there were not any of LHO’s fingerprints found on top of the box supporting your claim that LHO had opened the box to remove books. Fingerprints or the lack of them on the bottom of the box actually is irrelevant.

My recollection is that some of those boxes didn't even contain books.