3 x 5 Index Card that is item # 14 On the List

[John Iacoletti]

Some of it was.....  How do you explain the FBI having that evidence in their possession if they didn't sign a document that listed each item that they had taken from the Dallas Police?

Perhaps they did, but that particular document ain’t it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin, Clearly you recognize and don't deny that evidence was released to the FBI at mid-night on 11/22/63..... There is ample substantiation that the evidence was listed and photographed prior to releasing it to FBI agent Vince Drain.  Drain was flown on a US Air Force Jet to Washington with the evidence.  There is also ample evidence that the evidence was received in the FBI Crime Lab on Saturday morning .....  The list that was typed up to document the evidence being released listed the "partial palm print off underside of gun barrel  C 2766"  as item number 14.   

That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?

And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?

[Walt Cakebread]

Perhaps they did, but that particular document ain’t it.

That document ( Evidence inventory list "A" ) is not evidence gathered on November 22 , 1963.....It is a list of the evidence that was gathered and released to the FBI at mid-night.

[Walt Cakebread]

That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?

And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?

Hi Martin, I'm very happy that a reasonable person has shown interest in this subject....( The 3 X 5 card which had the so called "palm print" scotch tape lift, stuck to it )
There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.

Yes, you're right  that's simply very evident....and without any doubt.   And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.   Thus an evidence inventory list that listed the items was typed up, and photos of that evidence were taken.   The photos had placards placed near the item of evidence that was being photographed.   There are photos of TWO  ( only TWO) spent shells with a placard that identifies them and the date 11/22/ 63 ....and item number 9 on the list is --- quote--- " 6.5 spent rounds  (2)" ---unquote   
At the time the evidence was released to the FBI ( midnight 11/ 22 /63 ) that's all there were....TWO spent 6.5 shells .   (on a later date, the liars added a third shell but at midnight there were only two.

So it's obvious that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22/63.  And item number 14 on the list says...quote...* 1  Partial palm print " Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip " ( quotation marks are from the evidence list)  on rifle C2766  ...unquote 

 That exact quote is the words that Lt Day scribbled on the card to identify the lift and where that lift had been found. 
The asterisk preceding the entry indicates that this piece of evidence was Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm, by Lt Day AND Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab , City Hall.

Day lied ( as D.A. Henry Wade had instructed)  that he had found the so called "palm print" on the metal barrel when he had the rifle disassembled.   Day said that he disassembled the rifle and found the print and lifted it from the metal barrel to keep it from being damagded or destroyed in the handling of the rifle.....  ( which is utter ridiculous, because if that print could have been deposited on a small 5 /8 inch diameter barrel  it would have been beneath the wooden foregrip and well protected from being damaged .... Self evident by the fact that the print would have been there and not damaged in the handling of the rifle prior to it's alleged discovery)

At any rate ...  The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .   

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Martin, I'm very happy that a reasonable person has shown interest in this subject....( The 3 X 5 card which had the so called "palm print" scotch tape lift, stuck to it )
There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.

Yes, you're right  that's simply very evident....and without any doubt.   And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.   Thus evidence an inventory list that listed the items was typed up, and photos of that evidence were taken.   The photos had placards placed near the item of evidence that was being photographed.   There are photos of TWO  ( only TWO) spent shells with a placard that identifies them and the date 11/22/ 63 ....and item number 9 on the list is --- quote--- " 6.5 spent rounds  (2)" ---unquote   
At the time the evidence was released to the FBI ( midnight 11/ 22 /63 ) that's all there were....TWO spent 6.5 shells .   (on a later date, the liars added a third shell but at midnight there were only two.

So it's obvious that this evidence list was typed up on 11/22/63.  And item number 14 on the list says...quote...* 1  Partial palm print " Off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip " ( quotation marks are from the evidence list)  on rifle C2766  ...unquote 

 That exact quote is the words that Lt Day scribbled on the card to identify the lift and where that lift had been found. 
The asterisk preceding the entry indicates that this piece of evidence was Taken from the 6th floor, 411 Elm, by Lt Day AND Detective Studebaker and taken to Crime Lab , City Hall.

Day lied ( as D.A. Henry Wade had instructed)  that he had found the so called "palm print" on the metal barrel when he had the rifle disassembled.   Day said that he disassembled the rifle and found the print and lifted it from the metal barrel to keep it from being damagded or destroyed in the handling of the rifle.....  ( which is utter ridiculous, because if that print could have been deposited on a small 5 /8 inch diameter barrel  it would have been beneath the wooden foregrip and well protected from being damaged .... Self evident by the fact that the print would have been there and not damaged in the handling of the rifle prior to it's alleged discovery)

At any rate ...  The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .

And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.

Under normal circumstances that would indeed be true, but in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures. When it happened, Oswald was still alive, and this transfer of evidence would have created a massive chain of custody problem had the case ever gone to court. This IMO is also the reason why the evidence was returned to the DPD the next day and why it was formally collected from them again a few days later. I think a case can be made for not documenting such a surreptitious transfer.

But, if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document? And what happened to a similar document that - if you are correct - must have existed for the return of the evidence on the 24th?

At any rate ...  The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .

But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?

[Walt Cakebread]

And The DPD and the FBI would have known that both parties required documentation of the evidence being released to the FBI.

Under normal circumstances that would indeed be true, but in this case the surreptitious transfer of the evidence to the FBI, only hours after the crime, was not normal and did not follow normal procedures. When it happened, Oswald was still alive, and this transfer of evidence would have created a massive chain of custody problem had the case ever gone to court. This IMO is also the reason why the evidence was returned to the DPD the next day and why it was formally collected from them again a few days later. I think a case can be made for not documenting such a surreptitious transfer.

But, if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document? And what happened to a similar document that - if you are correct - must have existed for the return of the evidence on the 24th?

At any rate ...  The palm print tale is a damned lie.... The evidence list clearly shows that the so called palm print was on the evidence inventory list that was typed up on 11/22/63 .

But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?

if the list was made for the purpose of the release of the evidence to the FBI, wouldn't one expect to find the signature of Drain on the document?

Actually, FBI agent Vince Drain's initials VED  are right there on the 3X5 index card...and so is the initials of Captain G.M. Doughty (GMD) and the date of 11-22-63

Drain was the agent representing the FBI and receiving the evidence and Dougherty was the DPD Captain who represented the DPD in releasing the evidence.

But if it is indeed a lie, what do you think it is supposed to cover up?

Oh Boy...Sigh...  I've posted this info many times...  And I can't believe I need to explain it to you.  You're one of the more intelligent and discerning members of this CF.   

Henry Wade told reporters that they had the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald ( booooo Hissss) by his jewels....  because they had found his prints on the rifle.

Wade was lying through his teeth....They had found NO identifying prints on the rifle.....( At least that's what the FBI reported.)   But since Wade had opened his big mouth in an attempt to convict Lee Oswald in the eyes of the public, The conspirators in Dallas ( Wade and his band of pirates) desperately needed proof for Henry Wades bold lie....And of course there was no such proof .....  But Henry Wade who was one of J.Edgar Hoover's "EXTRA SPECIAL" special agents ( ie; Undercover agent reporting directly to Hoover) so Hoover ordered Chief Curry to produce the proof that Detective Day had found the "palm Print" on that was on the 3 X 5 card on the rifle but had neglected to tell the FBI about finding the print.    Thus the lie was created.....And many willfully blind folks still believe the BS.

[Walt Cakebread]

That doesn't really answer my questions. There is no discussion IMO about the fact that Drain took evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
I asked the question as I seem to recall having read somewhere that DPD officers complained about the evidence returned on 11/24/63 because they couldn't say for sure if all of the evidence had been returned or if the evidence that was returned was the same as had been sent to Washington. The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?

And one more thing to consider. If the partial palm print had been examined on 11/23/63 and found to belong to Oswald, wouldn't that have been part of the interrogation of Oswald on that Saturday? And wouldn't it have been all over the news, just like everything else was?

The controvery of the Minox camera comes to mind. Obviously, had there been a list, they simply could have checked, right?

They didn't discover the spy camera until after they had released the evidence to the FBI.... They found it when they started searching Lee Oswald's Sea bags... And they had no legal right to search his personal luggage....They placed a placard by the stuff that had been in his sea bag that said the items were " Vountarily Given (to the) DALLAS PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald   Paine residence Irving Tex  11-22-63 " 

Mrs Paine had no legal right to give any of Lee Oswald's personal belongings to anybody....And Marina wouldn't have understood anything about an American citizen's rights regarding illegal search and seizure....

[Jack Trojan]

Walt, you are looking for contradictions between records and actions but you can't trust any of it. Like Trump, they flooded the zone with so much BS that you can't pin down the smoking gun.

IMO, the smoking gun is the way the evidence was handled. For example:



Are you spombleprofglidnoctobunstin' me? Why was EVERYONE handling crucial crime scene evidence without gloves??? Several people including top dog Fritz handled the shell casings with their bare hands. Fritz even staged the crime scene by casually tossing the hulls onto the floor for a photo-op. Would any other agency have handled all the evidence like the DPD, let alone while investigating the murder of the POTUS in the crime of the century?

The DPD's handling of the evidence (including the BYPs) is but one of the smoking guns.