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?
I have read that and it's just about the most pathetic excuse imaginable; He "preferred to let the written record speak for itself".
The mere fact that the WC asked him to explain the palmprint matter in an affidavit (under oath) as late as September 1964 should tell you one thing; they were not convinced by Day's story. In other words; it's pretty clear they questioned the veracity of his previous statements.
Obviously, by that date and being under time pressure, they hardly had any other option but to "accept" Day's version of events as not doing so would cause doubt about Oswald being the shooter and they couldn't have that, but if you step back and think about it rationally, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.
This was the biggest murder case of the decade and here's the chief forensic officer of the DPD completely messing up a piece of potentially crucial evidence, by holding back the print, not sharing it with the FBI for several days and not even bothering to compare the print with those of Oswald's, thus displaying a total lack of interest in the matter. And then there people like DVP and "Richard Smith" who see no problem at all... Go figure!
What possible reason could Day have had for his refusal to produce an affidavit? Why would he prefer to stand by his statements in an internal report?
