RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

I seem to remember Day testifying that it was standard procedure to obtain two sets of prints in case one had a smear or defect, hopefully the other one would be okay. If you look at Day’s testimony, I seem to remember him testifying about who took prints, perhaps there is an exhibit number associated with his testimony.


Edit: I found it:

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 629" I ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. That is the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know where this print was taken?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it was taken by Detective J. B. Hicks in Captain Fritz' office on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three. Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you took more than one?
Mr. DAY. In most cases, when making comparisons, we will take at least two to insure we have a good clear print of the entire palm.
Mr. BELIN. Now, based----
Mr. DAY. One might be smeared where the other would not.

Thanks Charles, should've spotted that myself.

I was trying to ascertain whether or not there was an extra set of hand prints in evidence, that is, more than had been testified to.
This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.
This would'vecleared up some of the more troublesome issues regarding this aspect of the case [although I know you don't find it troublesome that the only print that can tie Oswald to the murder weapon apparently vanishes on its way to Latona or that Day Lied about not having enough time to identify the palm print]

As usual, it all ends up in a kind of limbo.
I'm aware of two sets of hand prints taken by Knight [four hand prints in total]
I'm aware of one set of hand prints taken by Hicks [two in total]
This would give us a grand total of THREE RIGHT PALM PRINTS.
And this is what Day apparently says in his testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three.

It's a pity he didn't leave it at that. He then goes on:

Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.

Only one set of hand prints was taken in Fritz's office and two were taken by Knight in the ID bureau.
He might have just got these mixed up but it would be nice if he hadn't.
We also have this:

Mr. Belin: Sergeant, did you make any other tests or obtain any other evidence or information from Lee Harvey Oswald other than the paraffin that you made?
Mr. Barnes: I obtained palm prints from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. Belin: When did you do this?
Mr. Barnes: Immediately before we made---no, immediately after, I am sorry, immediately after we made the paraffin test.

Barnes seems to be testifying that he took Oswald's palm prints.
I'm assuming he is talking about the set of prints that have Hick's name on them but that would indicate it was Hicks who took the prints and not Barnes.
It's the usual muddy waters.
And that's without getting into the fact that Day appears to be talking about two different palm prints on the barrel, not one!

[Dan O'meara]

Mr. Belin: Did you just take the palm prints, or did you also take fingerprints?
Mr. Barnes: We took both.
Mr. Belin:What is your process of doing that?
Mr. Barnes: Rolling his hands, an ink roller over his palm, and then we have a metal cylinder bar about an inch in diameter that we place the card on and then roll his hands to make it print on the fingerprint card.

Mr. Hicks: I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records.

I don't know much about fingerprinting but it appears Hicks and Barnes are using very different methods to obtain their prints.

[Charles Collins]

Thanks Charles, should've spotted that myself.

I was trying to ascertain whether or not there was an extra set of hand prints in evidence, that is, more than had been testified to.
This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.
This would'vecleared up some of the more troublesome issues regarding this aspect of the case [although I know you don't find it troublesome that the only print that can tie Oswald to the murder weapon apparently vanishes on its way to Latona or that Day Lied about not having enough time to identify the palm print]

As usual, it all ends up in a kind of limbo.
I'm aware of two sets of hand prints taken by Knight [four hand prints in total]
I'm aware of one set of hand prints taken by Hicks [two in total]
This would give us a grand total of THREE RIGHT PALM PRINTS.
And this is what Day apparently says in his testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three.

It's a pity he didn't leave it at that. He then goes on:

Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.

Only one set of hand prints was taken in Fritz's office and two were taken by Knight in the ID bureau.
He might have just got these mixed up but it would be nice if he hadn't.
We also have this:

Mr. Belin: Sergeant, did you make any other tests or obtain any other evidence or information from Lee Harvey Oswald other than the paraffin that you made?
Mr. Barnes: I obtained palm prints from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. Belin: When did you do this?
Mr. Barnes: Immediately before we made---no, immediately after, I am sorry, immediately after we made the paraffin test.

Barnes seems to be testifying that he took Oswald's palm prints.
I'm assuming he is talking about the set of prints that have Hick's name on them but that would indicate it was Hicks who took the prints and not Barnes.
It's the usual muddy waters.
And that's without getting into the fact that Day appears to be talking about two different palm prints on the barrel, not one!

This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.

Do you really think it was possible to do that? Has anyone actually tried to accomplish this on a actual rifle?

[Dan O'meara]

This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.

Do you really think it was possible to do that? Has anyone actually tried to accomplish this on a actual rifle?

Do you really think it's impossible?
Do you really think the FBI's top fingerprint man overlooked a print on the rifle?
Do you really think Day didn't have enough time to compare the lift he'd taken with the prints taken from Oswald?

There was no palm print on the barrel by the time Latona received the rifle.
The arguments you've put forward to counter this have been a little silly.
Do you really think Latona just covered the rifle with powder before examining the rifle for fingerprints?
Do you really think Latona couldn't see very well?

I do not buy the things you buy regarding this aspect of the case.
Day had over two days to compare the [fake] lift he'd taken with Oswald's prints. He lied when he said he didn't have enough time. He lied when he said there was a perfectly good print left on the barrel when it was shipped off to Latona.

So I decided to check the record to see if there was a set of prints taken that weren't in the evidence.
Lo and behold, Barnes insists he, personally, took a set of prints using an inkless pad. And I can't find these prints in evidence.
This must be one of the two sets of prints taken in Fritz's office that Day refers to.
Perhaps - perhaps not.

The gross inconsistencies in this aspect of the case have painted me into a corner where I either have to accept staggering incompetence on behalf of Day of such magnitude that it's hard to contemplate. OR. Day tried to manipulate the evidence to nail their man

Can it be done?
Can a print be faked in such a way?
Surely you'd have to ask a fingerprint expert like Day. I imagine someone like that would have the expertise to do such a thing.

[Charles Collins]

Do you really think it's impossible?
Do you really think the FBI's top fingerprint man overlooked a print on the rifle?
Do you really think Day didn't have enough time to compare the lift he'd taken with the prints taken from Oswald?

There was no palm print on the barrel by the time Latona received the rifle.
The arguments you've put forward to counter this have been a little silly.
Do you really think Latona just covered the rifle with powder before examining the rifle for fingerprints?
Do you really think Latona couldn't see very well?

I do not buy the things you buy regarding this aspect of the case.
Day had over two days to compare the [fake] lift he'd taken with Oswald's prints. He lied when he said he didn't have enough time. He lied when he said there was a perfectly good print left on the barrel when it was shipped off to Latona.

So I decided to check the record to see if there was a set of prints taken that weren't in the evidence.
Lo and behold, Barnes insists he, personally, took a set of prints using an inkless pad. And I can't find these prints in evidence.
This must be one of the two sets of prints taken in Fritz's office that Day refers to.
Perhaps - perhaps not.

The gross inconsistencies in this aspect of the case have painted me into a corner where I either have to accept staggering incompetence on behalf of Day of such magnitude that it's hard to contemplate. OR. Day tried to manipulate the evidence to nail their man

Can it be done?
Can a print be faked in such a way?
Surely you'd have to ask a fingerprint expert like Day. I imagine someone like that would have the expertise to do such a thing.

That’s quite a tirade that you generated; apparently to avoid answering one simple question. If you want to believe that it could have been done, go right ahead. I ask again though, has anyone shown that it could have been done by actually doing it on an actual rifle?

[Dan O'meara]

That’s quite a tirade that you generated; apparently to avoid answering one simple question. If you want to believe that it could have been done, go right ahead. I ask again though, has anyone shown that it could have been done by actually doing it on an actual rifle?

Pointing out the insurmountable problems with this aspect of the case and some of the weak counter-arguments supporting these incredibly unlikely events is hardly a tirade.
I was simply reiterating the issues that have informed my emerging view regarding Day's transparent 

I am unaware of anyone trying to replicate this type of forgery but I'm hardly alone in believing it could be done:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.

Another indication the palm print was faked can be found in this devastating article about the staggering incompetence/corruption that occurred during the investigation of the assassination.:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/d/12LFwzP_tXUVE5tMM-qekgfYiL1PQK4L5H-aQ2Dmk0SE/htmlpresent?pli=1

[scroll down to "And what’s with the fiber trapped under the lift?"]

[Charles Collins]

Pointing out the insurmountable problems with this aspect of the case and some of the weak counter-arguments supporting these incredibly unlikely events is hardly a tirade.
I was simply reiterating the issues that have informed my emerging view regarding Day's transparent 

I am unaware of anyone trying to replicate this type of forgery but I'm hardly alone in believing it could be done:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.

Another indication the palm print was faked can be found in this devastating article about the staggering incompetence/corruption that occurred during the investigation of the assassination.:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/d/12LFwzP_tXUVE5tMM-qekgfYiL1PQK4L5H-aQ2Dmk0SE/htmlpresent?pli=1

[scroll down to "And what’s with the fiber trapped under the lift?"]

Here’s a quote of Drain from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 259-260:

Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said. As to Lieutenant Day, I’ve known him a long time, and I think that he’s an honest individual. If he thought that there was a print there, whether there was or not, he was sincere in what he had to say. I would not want to cast any reflection on Day.


And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions. I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here’s a quote of Drain from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 259-260:

Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said. As to Lieutenant Day, I’ve known him a long time, and I think that he’s an honest individual. If he thought that there was a print there, whether there was or not, he was sincere in what he had to say. I would not want to cast any reflection on Day.


And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions. I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.

I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. - Vincent Drain 

But Day is an honest individual....   

And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions.

Which were never answered.... Go figure!

I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.

Of course you don't.... Quelle surprise