Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[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.

 
 

[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.