RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[John Iacoletti]

Dan, I think that some of your words could be better selected. It wasn’t that Day said that he could not make a positive ID. But rather that he hadn’t yet spent enough time on it to say for certain one way or the other. He believed that it was a match based on his preliminary comparison. But it would have taken him some significant more time to be able to document everything so that he could say for certain that he had enough similarities to satisfy the requirements for certainty. Sadly, he was told to stop the processing that he was in the middle of.

So what was stopping him? He already (supposedly) had the lift and didn’t turn it over. He had days to continue examining it. If Savage is to be believed, everybody else in the office did on SaPersonay.The “didn’t have time” excuse falls flat when you consider that he “had time” to photograph and cover the trigger guard prints and Drain didn’t pick up the evidence until after midnight. Day was processing the rifle hours earlier.

I think that there was a very faint print left on the underside of the barrel. And that the FBI probably just missed seeing it.

Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.

Now if Latona had been told there was a print under the fore stock and still couldn’t find it, you might have a point. Sadly, Latona had no way of knowing to look for anything under the fore stock because Day only verbally told Drain and Drain failed to make it known to Latona.

But Day didn’t tell Drain.

Now, remember that the FBI did later scientifically confirm that the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it. This can be viewed as a concession (without Latona having to admit it) that they missed what was left on the barrel.

All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for your considered response Charles.
I still can't get my head around the DPD not realising the importance of the print, especially as it had appeared to be common knowledge according to Rusty.
I was unaware the FBI later confirmed the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it and will have to further research that particular area before drawing any conclusions.

Dan, see CE 2637. Hoover’s letter gives no indication of how this was done, or by whom, or if they had even talked to Day about what specific location he had taken his lift from. Why would the WC not speak to the person who actually did the work?

[Charles Collins]

So what was stopping him? He already (supposedly) had the lift and didn’t turn it over. He had days to continue examining it. If Savage is to be believed, everybody else in the office did on SaPersonay.The “didn’t have time” excuse falls flat when you consider that he “had time” to photograph and cover the trigger guard prints and Drain didn’t pick up the evidence until after midnight. Day was processing the rifle hours earlier.

Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.

But Day didn’t tell Drain.

All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.

So what was stopping him?

He was told to stop.


Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.

He said that no latent prints of value were developed. That’s not the same as nothing being there.


All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.

There are several irregularities on the rifle barrel that match up with irregularities on the lift tape.

[Charles Collins]

(GIF: John Mytton)

Thanks Jerry those are some great graphics by you and John Mytton. For what it is worth, if there are any remaining questions regarding the width of the lifting tape, Gary Savage states this on page 108 of his book “JFK First Day Evidence”:

He [Carl Day] told Rusty and me that he could tell it wasn’t put on there recently by the way it took the fingerprint powder. He said what makes a print of this sort is a lack of moisture, and this print had dried out. He said he took a small camel hair brush and dipped it in fingerprint powder and lightly brushed it. He then placed a strip of 2” scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card.

So, it appears that Carl Day stated to Gary Savage and Rusty Livingston that he used 2” tape.

[John Iacoletti]

So what was stopping him?

He was told to stop.

Stop processing the rifle. Since he didn’t turn over the index card lift he claims he took that night, he had all the time in the world to examine that.

Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.

He said that no latent prints of value were developed. That’s not the same as nothing being there.

He’s talking about the trigger guard prints, not the alleged location of the partial palmprint. He said there was no indication of the existence of any other prints.

All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.

There are several irregularities on the rifle barrel that match up with irregularities on the lift tape.

Yep, that’s Hoover’s claim. Where’s the science?

[Richard Smith]

Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.

Cases have been thrown out of court for a whole lot less than that. It's at best investigatory mishandling of evidence.

Can you cite us to these cases which have been thrown out for something less than a delay of a couple of days in reporting the evidence during the initial stages of the investigation?  Particularly when you have cited no formal procedure for doing so that was violated by Day.  Confusing this for your subjective opinion of how an investigation should be conducted with no actual knowledge of how the DPD processed evidence in 1963.

[Martin Weidmann]

Can you cite us to these cases which have been thrown out for something less than a delay of a couple of days in reporting the evidence during the initial stages of the investigation?  Particularly when you have cited no formal procedure for doing so that was violated by Day.  Confusing this for your subjective opinion of how an investigation should be conducted with no actual knowledge of how the DPD processed evidence in 1963.

Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC?

[David Von Pein]

Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC?

Via this January 2014 discussion....


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's also explained in CE3145. Didn't you even bother to read it?

Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that January '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.

But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in September of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.

Is that about the size of it, Garry?