Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[HSienzant]

I am prepered to argue and present counter evidence when Hank (or anyone) presents specific evidence pertaining to Oswalds alleged killing of JFK.

I can give you evidence out the wazoo.

Okay, the first person I call to the stand is Detective J.C.Day. Detective Day will testify he went to the Depository and photographed the rifle in place, and then personally took it to the Dallas Crime Lab when he photographed it and examined it and determined from the markings it was made in Italy and had the serial number of C2766.

I will give you the opportunity to cross-examine Day. For the purposes of this exercise, you can quote any sworn testimony given to the Warren Commission in 1964 and any evidence appearing in the 26 volumes. I will be the prosecution, you will serve as the defense attorney.

J.C.Day's testimony appears here in its entirety:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm

Let's start that trial. My first witness:
Mr. DAY. I was in the identification bureau at the city hall. About a quarter of one I was in the basement of the city hall, which is three floors under me actually I am on the fourth floor--and a rumor swept through there that the President had been shot. I returned to my office to get on the radio and wait for the developments. Shortly before 1 o'clock I received a call from the police dispatcher to go to 411 Elm Street, Dallas.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular building at that particular location?
Mr. DAY. The Texas School Book Depository, I believe is the correct name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go there?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I went out of my office almost straight up 1 o'clock. I arrived at the location on Elm about 1:12.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there?
Mr. DAY. I was directed to the sixth floor by the police inspector who was at the front door when I arrived.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who that was?
Mr. DAY. Inspector Sawyer.
... (discussion of shells and photographs omitted)
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any recollection as to what the serial number was of that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I recorded it at the time, C--2566.
Mr. BELIN. Before you say that----
Mr. DAY. C-2766, excuse me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"

Your witness.

Remember, you said you would present counter evidence. Not hearsay or argument or innuendo or quotes out of context or a YouTube video or conjecture, speculation, or assumption or articles by fellow conspiracy theorists. None of those are evidence. "Counter Evidence".

What questions do you ask Day and what are his answers?

Quote him directly, as I did above.

Next we will move on to William Waldman, who worked at Klein's Sporting Goods, and who was responsible for designing the business system Klein's used. Klein's is where the rifle was shipped from to Oswald's post office box. Waldman will attest to that and more.

Good luck, you will need it.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

The reported confusion on the part of some of the officers observing the recovery of the rifle at the TSBD has never much impressed me. The first picture here is a Mannlicher-Carcano, the second is a Mauser 1891. It's not surprising to me that someone who saw the rifle briefly, did not handle it and examine the markings could mistake the relatively rare Italian rifle for the similar appearing and much more common Mauser.

I’m not primarily arguing that the officers actually saw a Mauser, I’m saying they made that identification, in writing and verbally, when they found the weapon. This leave room for doubt, still not resolved, 55 years later.

If they misslabel the murderweapon in the crime of the century, what else did they got right?

For me, personally, it doesn’t really matter if they planted the Carcano on the 6th floor, or if they switched it later down the line. What matters is the muddy identification. It’s a good example of how evidence was handled by investigators right from the start. No secured provinience. No secured chain of custody. No secured crime scene.

This is not a mere formality.

 

[tinribmancer]

manifesto.. you are ignoring questions that are being put to you (just like your pal micahjava... he was afraid of the hard questions too!)

I repeat, if you do not believe that Oswald shot JFK, then you must think that someone else did...

Who do you think shot JFK?
Who do you think owned the Carcano found in the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
Who do you think ordered the Carcano from Kleins Sporting Goods and had it delivered to his PO Box?
Who do you think the witnesses saw shooting from the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?

You need to answer these questions... they are not going to go away!

I don't think you're going to get an answer. He keeps beating around the bush all the time.

Plus, if you look at all the posts he's made in the past 3 days. Before he returned after 2 years, this thread was at Page 16, now it's at 26 with most of his posts being "What's your evidence?", "Show me your evidence?", sometimes pretty hostile behaviour or getting pretty snarky at other posters.

 

[OKBob]

No. It’s not a rhetorically moral high ground to tell the truth. It’s the very definition of moral high ground, the truth.

Now you're begging the question. Do you know what it means to beg the question? If not, you should look it up and learn it.

 

[HSienzant]

I’m not primarily arguing that the officers actually saw a Mauser, I’m saying they made that identification, in writing and verbally, when they found the weapon. This leave room for doubt, still not resolved, 55 years later.

Hilarious, after spending what, five or more pages arguing for the Mauser, you now say 'nevermind'.

If they misslabel the murderweapon in the crime of the century, what else did they got right?

Nobody mislabeled anything. Two officers identified it as a Mauser (the more common weapon) instead of the Carcano (the less common weapon but the same basic design). It's like saying you saw a Volkswagen Beetle when you actually saw a Super Beetle (slightly larger and slightly different design). This is an example of the kind of 'stuff' conspiracy theorists throw against a wall hoping some of it sticks.

For me, personally, it doesn’t really matter if they planted the Carcano on the 6th floor, or if they switched it later down the line.

Hilarious, now you're begging the question once more, and giving us only two out of the possible choices. That's the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. The choice you're omitting, of course, is that the weapon was left there by Oswald after he used it.

What matters is the muddy identification. It’s a good example of how evidence was handled by investigators right from the start. No secured provinience. No secured chain of custody. No secured crime scene.

This is not a mere formality.

Nonsense. Two cops looked at it and thought it was a Mauser. The man responsible for taking possession of the weapon personally transported it back to the Crime Lab and photographed it and noted the markings. He initialed the weapon and identified the weapon in evidence as the weapon he marked. His testimony is above.

For the rifle, there is secured provenance. For the rifle, there is a secured chain of custody. For the rifle, there is a secured crime scene.

And this is what you decided to argue for starters? I can't wait until you get to your weaker arguments.

In the meantime, J.C. Day is on the stand. The guy who identified the rifle. Do you have any questions for HIM?

YOUR WITNESS.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't think you're going to get an answer. He keeps beating around the bush all the time.

Plus, if you look at all the posts he's made in the past 3 days. Before he returned after 2 years, this thread was at Page 16, now it's at 26 with most of his posts being "What's your evidence?", "Show me your evidence?", sometimes pretty hostile behaviour or getting pretty snarky at other posters.

And almost every sentence is in the form of a question. He seldom makes definitive claims, and he doesn't cite for most of his claims. And the cites he provides are conspiracy articles.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Nope. You were making an issue of the null hypothesis, and thought you caught me misstating something. You didn't.

I pointed out your rebuttal was a straw man argument, and challenged you to find the statement you were claiming I said. Clearly you couldn't, as you're asking me.

It's okay to admit you were wrong. We can all see that anyway.

Hank

So, you are NOT evoking the ”Null” as a reason for not providing evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Correct?

If so, why are you not providing evidence supporting your bald claim of Oswald having killed JFK?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, you are NOT evoking the ”Null” as a reason for not providing evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Correct?

If so, why are you not providing evidence supporting your bald claim of Oswald having killed JFK?

Good lord! Do you think someone else killed JFK?

 

[HSienzant]

So, you are NOT evoking the ”Null” as a reason for not providing evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Correct?

If so, why are you not providing evidence supporting your bald claim of Oswald having killed JFK?

Two more questions. We're on to you.

Been there, done that. You ignored it all from December of 2015. Remember?

Why do I need to restate all that evidence for you when you ignored it the first time, and if your posting history is any judge, will likely ignore it again? And tell me you won't bother debating any of it with me?

What's the point? I don't owe you anything.

The evidence is in the Warren Commission volumes & Report (27 books) and the HSCA volumes & Report (13 books).

The arguments for and against are here in the threads. Everything you need has been provided to you. Make an argument for Oswald's innocence, or not.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Hilarious, after spending what, five or more pages arguing for the Mauser, you now say 'nevermind'.

Wrong. I’m saying we still do not know if it was a Mauser or Carcano and that because there were no clear cut identification.

I’m open for the argument that they made a mistake, but that is still not proved, 55 years later, still counting.

Considering it was the alleged murder weapon, no matter what they actually saw, they made a mess out of it. THAT is a proven fact.

Nobody mislabeled anything. Two officers identified it as a Mauser (the more common weapon) instead of the Carcano (the less common weapon but the same basic design). It's like saying you saw a Volkswagen Beetle when you actually saw a Super Beetle (slightly larger and slightly different design). This is an example of the kind of 'stuff' conspiracy theorists throw against a wall hoping some of it sticks.

Wrong. Three of the police officers finding the rifle either made the wrong identification or they made the right one. One of them was not asked when interviewed by WC and did not ever retract his not formal statement known to a wider audience a couple of years later.

Hilarious, now you're begging the question once more, and giving us only two out of the possible choices. That's the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. The choice you're omitting, of course, is that the weapon was left there by Oswald after he used it.

I wrote: ”For me personally”, for a reason.

Nonsense. Two cops looked at it and thought it was a Mauser. The man responsible for taking possession of the weapon personally transported it back to the Crime Lab and photographed it and noted the markings. He initialed the weapon and identified the weapon in evidence as the weapon he marked. His testimony is above.

For the rifle, there is secured provenance. There is a secured chain of custody. There is a secured crime scene.

J.C. Day is on the stand. The guy who identified the rifle. Do you have any questions for HIM?

YOUR WITNESS.

Hank

So, who do we believe? Officer Day or the three officers finding the weapon stating it was a Mauser?

Lt. Day has been caught lying in other matters concerning technical evidence in the JFK murder case. But you trust him? Without reservations?

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped running away>

Do you think someone other than Oswald killed JFK, manifesto? You don't have to run away your whole life. That's what MicahJava does.

 

[HSienzant]

Wrong. I’m saying we still do not know if it was a Mauser or Carcano and that because there were no clear cut identification.

I’m open for the argument that they made a mistake, but that is still not proved, 55 years later, still counting.

Day's waiting for you to cross examine him. The defense can call witnesses after the state rests. Right now, do you have any questions for J.C.Day, or do you dismiss him as a witness?

Considering it was the alleged murder weapon, no matter what they actually saw, they made a mess out of it. THAT is a proven fact.

Still giving us argument. I thought you said you would cite counter evidence. Got any?

Wrong. Three of the police officers finding the rifle either made the wrong identification or they made the right one. One of them was not asked when interviewed by WC and did not ever retract his not formal statement known to a wider audience a couple of years later.

Still argument, no evidence. Awaiting your evidence.

I wrote: ”For me personally”, for a reason.

Right, so you could invoke a logical fallacy of a false dilemma and beg the question.

So, who do we believe? Officer Day or the three officers finding the weapon stating it was a Mauser?

Two officers who didn't handle the weapon, and only one who claimed it was a Mauser. The other said it 'appeared to be a Mauser', not that it was. So it's Weitzman - who didn't handle the weapon and retracted his claim - vs. Day, who did handle the weapon, photographed it, and noted the markings on it back at the crime lab. Craig is eliminated because you haven't established when Craig first mentioned the Mauser or why it overturns his affidavits and testimony that don't mention any Mauser. Does it matter that he first mentioned the Mauser in the 1970s? What if he waited until last year to bring that up? Would it still be a reasonable addition to his testimony?

Lt. Day has been caught lying in other matters concerning technical evidence in the JFK murder case. But you trust him? Without reservations?

More argument. No evidence.

The judge is going to dismiss Day from the stand unless you can quote something. Your client is going to be demanding better representation very soon if you don't start your cross-examination.

YOUR WITNESS.

Hank

 

[Whip]

Where do I hanging my ”whole argument” on the alleged identification of the alleged murder weapon? It’s a small detail in a vast field of crap

swept together in order to cover up the real culprits behind the assassination of JFK. A small detail, but an important one, yes.

small details are important or not? I'm kinda confused now.

 

[manifesto]

Two more questions. We're on to you.

Been there, done that. You ignored it all from December of 2015. Remember?

Why do I need to restate all that evidence for you when you ignored it the first time, and if your posting history is any judge, will likely ignore it again? And tell me you won't bother debating any of it with me?

What's the point? I don't owe you anything.

The evidence is in the Warren Commission volumes & Report (27 books) and the HSCA volumes & Report (13 books).

The arguments for and against are here in the threads. Everything you need has been provided to you. Make an argument for Oswald's innocence, or not.

Hank

You didn’t answer my question (as usual). Here it is again:

- So, you are NOT evoking the ”Null” as a reason for not providing evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Correct?​

Answer it, Hank. No ambiguation this time.

 

[HSienzant]

You didn’t answer my question (as usual). Here it is again:

- So, you are NOT evoking the ”Null” as a reason for not providing evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Correct?​

Answer it, Hank. No ambiguation this time.

Did you see me ever evoke that? Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

And didn't I ask you first? When did Roger Craig first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor? Do you intend to duck that forever?

Do you like when I answer a question with another question, as you do repeatedly?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

damn that's funny

Manifesto first came back claiming Oswald didn't have a trial and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty (invoking a criminal justice standard). Given an opportunity to participate in said trial and cross-examine witnesses the state calls, and then call his own witnesses, he sits there mute.

No questions from defense counsel, the witness is dismissed.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

And almost every sentence is in the form of a question. He seldom makes definitive claims, and he doesn't cite for most of his claims. And the cites he provides are conspiracy articles.

Hank

The reason I keep asking, Hank, is that you never provide what I’m asking you to do. Evidence supporting your bald claim of Oswald killing JFK.

When I make a claim, upon request I provide my sources and evidence.

I suggest you do the same.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

Answer the questions you've been asked, manifesto. Don't be a typical running away CTist.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think you're going to get an answer. He keeps beating around the bush all the time

Oh, that's probably true. Thing is though, if I keep asking these questions, it puts manifesto into the type of situation that Joseph Heller wrote about.

If he answers the questions, we can nail him down to provide evidence to support his assertion.

If he refuses to answer the questions, it says all we need to know about him... that he's afraid to put his money where his mouth is.

 

[HSienzant]

The reason I keep asking, Hank, is that you never provide what I’m asking you to do. Evidence supporting your bald claim of Oswald killing JFK.

When I make a claim, upon request I provide my sources and evidence.

I suggest you do the same.

The reason I keep asking, manifesto, is that you never provide what I’m asking you to do: When did Roger Craig first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Depository?

I am providing the evidence. I started with J.C.Day's testimony that he hand-carried the weapon found in the Depository back to the Crime Lab, photographed it there, and noted the details, like "Made Italy" (country of manufacture), "1940" (year of manufacture), "6.5" (caliber in mm), and "C2766" (the serial number).

We're awaiting your cross-examination. I will move on to my next witness after you're done with Day. If you have no questions for him, say that.

Remember that argument is not evidence. Neither is conspiracy site claims. Neither are logical fallacies and out of context quotes, conjecture, speculation, suspicion, or innuendo. We're awaiting your counter evidence, which you said you would provide. You can start by cross-examining J.C.Day.

Counselor, YOUR WITNESS.

Hank