RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[John Iacoletti]

I was under the impression there was no sign of any prints when the rifle got to the FBI Lab but, perhaps, it was meant there were no "usable" prints.

No, Latona said “there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle”.

[David Von Pein]

No, Latona said “there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle”.

Let's have a look at the entire statement that Sebastian Latona made to the Warren Commission (at 4 H 24).

Emphasis added by DVP:

SEBASTIAN F. LATONA -- "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."

[Martin Weidmann]

Let's have a look at the entire statement that Sebastian Latona made to the Warren Commission (at 4 H 24).

Emphasis added by DVP:

SEBASTIAN F. LATONA -- "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."

 "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.

Which basically confirms that Day didn't tell Drain (or anybody else at the FBI) about the palmprint on 11/22/63.

There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints

Which is Latona's personal observation and thus carries evidentiary weight

This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete ."

Which is nothing more than an assumption on Latona's part, after he had been informed about Day's claim. There may just as well have been no print to begin with.

that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."

Which is in clear contradiction with what Day testified;

Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

[Dan O'meara]

"We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.

Which basically confirms that Day didn't tell Drain (or anybody else at the FBI) about the palmprint on 11/22/63.

There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints

Which is Latona's personal observation and thus carries evidentiary weight

This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete ."

Which is nothing more than an assumption on Latona's part, after he had been informed about Day's claim. There may just as well have been no print to begin with.

that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."[/size]

Which is in clear contradiction with what Day testified;

Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

I'm not 100% on this - when Latona says "..indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard.", is he saying that he detected traces of cellophane on the trigger guard that revealed a print had been lifted?

[Charles Collins]

I'm not 100% on this - when Latona says "..indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard.", is he saying that he detected traces of cellophane on the trigger guard that revealed a print had been lifted?

If I remember correctly, Day left cellophane stuck to the trigger guard in order to help protect the prints. And Day said he didn’t do the same for the palm print because the wooden fore stock protected it.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not 100% on this - when Latona says "..indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard.", is he saying that he detected traces of cellophane on the trigger guard that revealed a print had been lifted?

For what it is worth, I think he's actually seeing cellophane on the trigger guard.

[John Iacoletti]

evidently the lifting had been so complete

“Evidently”. LOL.

[Royell Storing]

“Evidently”. LOL.

  Yeah, and "evidently" Mr Copperfield somehow got that elephant off of the stage without anyone in the audience seeing that happen.