RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Jerry Organ]

I don't know if this clears anything up.
It appears Pinkston was interviewing Day some time after he had returned to the TSBD building on the day of the assassination.
I assume Day is referring to a print he had seen on the rifle during his processing of the rifle "in situ" - he is not referring to a palm print as he was yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle.

"Yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle" Did you mean Day has yet to return to police headquarters and work on the rifle. He had earlier removed (by holding it by the strap) the Carcano from the building and had locked it up in a drawer at police headquarters and then returned to the Depository. It was when Day returned to police headquarters later on that he disassembled the rifle. He also had the Tippit ambush-murder on his plate.

As you point out, Pinkston, seeing Day at the Depsoitory, could have gotten an update before the palm print was lifted. It was a "partial" palm-print, not a whole palm-print. Day ended up photographing the prints on the trigger-guard housing, but may have been considering photographing the palm-print as well.

As Martin points out, any trace of the prints noticed on the rifle disappeared by the time the rifle reached the FBI lab.
Has anyone ever given a reasonable explanation as to how this might have happened.

The lead FBI print expert Sebastian Latona had been there for 30 years and was Old-School. The print had to exhibit a certain number of points and clarity before he would even think to lift it. He said there were numerous prints and smudges on the rifle that he didn't bother with. I believe Day's lifting of the palm-print in Dallas rendered the print undesirable by time the rifle arrived in Washington.

The trigger-guard housing fingerprints Latona did bother with but he apparently didn't have the confidence or ability to combine various photos of the prints to make a meaningful match as was done by Vincent Scalice in the early-90s.

[Dan O'meara]

"Yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle" Did you mean Day has yet to return to police headquarters and work on the rifle. He had earlier removed (by holding it by the strap) the Carcano from the building and had locked it up in a drawer at police headquarters and then returned to the Depository. It was when Day returned to police headquarters later on that he disassembled the rifle. He also had the Tippit ambush-murder on his plate.

As you point out, Pinkston, seeing Day at the Depsoitory, could have gotten an update before the palm print was lifted. It was a "partial" palm-print, not a whole palm-print. Day ended up photographing the prints on the trigger-guard housing, but may have been considering photographing the palm-print as well.

As I understand it, Day had to disassemble the rifle to get to the palm print.
He left the TSBD building with the rifle, locked it up, then returned to the TSBD which is where, I believe, Pinkston questioned him. I don't believe Day was aware of the palm print on the rifle at that time so he must be referring to a print on the trigger housing.

The lead FBI print expert Sebastian Latona had been there for 30 years and was Old-School. The print had to exhibit a certain number of points and clarity before he would even think to lift it. He said there were numerous prints and smudges on the rifle that he didn't bother with. I believe Day's lifting of the palm-print in Dallas rendered the print undesirable by time the rifle arrived in Washington.

The trigger-guard housing fingerprints Latona did bother with but he apparently didn't have the confidence or ability to combine various photos of the prints to make a meaningful match as was done by Vincent Scalice in the early-90s.

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.

[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.