When the SN was built

[Richard Smith]

Irrelevant as it is about what happened the second time the evidence was given to the FBI.

The first time this happened was on Friday evening at around 11 PM. It was flown to Washington, examined and returned to the DPD on Saturday, when Oswald was still alive.
The FBI found no trace of a print on the rifle, yet Day said nothing about the print he had allegedly lifted from the rifle until the evidence was turned over to the FBI the second time!

Why did Day stay silent after the FBI found no print or even a trace of a lifted print? What possible reason could Day have had to say nothing?

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.   

[Jack Nessan]

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

Might be right, if nothing else, using the prevailing Conspiracy Land Logic, LHO took all the books out and then retaped the empty box during the actual shooting and then ran to the lunchroom where he encountered Officer Baker. Totally innocent. Really, it could have happened that way you know.

[Jack Nessan]

So lack of fingerprints on the top is somehow relevant, but not lack of fingerprints anywhere else. Nice special pleading. But the real question is, how are fingerprints anywhere on a cardboard box evidence of murder?

According to the claim you made of LHO’s innocence that is exactly right. His fingerprints place him building the SN and not the result if him retrieving books from the box. If there is a better candidate for the assassin, other than the individual who built the SN and brought his rifle to the TSBD where it was found on the 6th floor and matched to the shells, bullet and fragments, now would be a good time to reveal who it is.

[Charles Collins]

Here’s CE 506 which depicts the position of the clipboard when found. This is the first time I have seen this photo. I cannot help but speculate that the rifle was hidden amongst those boxes when LHO arrived at the TSBD that morning. And that he might have left his clipboard there as he retrieved his rifle just after being seen by Givens.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?

[Richard Smith]

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity.

Repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it any more significant.

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.

Which was absolutely nothing. They had a rifle and a bag which at the time of charging Oswald neither could be linked to him.

Why do you keep avoiding the main question? When the FBI said, on Saturday morning, when Oswald was still alive, that they had found no print or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, why did Day keep his mouth shut? On Saturday, the expectation was still that Oswald would be going to trial, so why would Day compromise crucial evidence by not reporting he had lifted a print of the rifle? Don't you think that Fritz could have used a matching print in his interrogation of Oswald?

What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?

Who knows why Day did what he did? You would have to ask him. And then also ask him why he was so desperate to fabricate a bogus yjeory to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one Oswald had carried that morning?