RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Alan Ford]

He preferred to let his earlier written signed statement stand instead of repeating it.

Nope--------he acknowledged (as he must) that the earlier written report was not the last word on the matter, but would require 'elaborat[ion]'. This elaboration he was not prepared to commit to writing

[Dan O'meara]

That Day's account of the palm print lift as viewed as 'suspect' is revealed in this memo:

"Mr Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent print..."


It is interesting that this aspect case raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" but seems to be a non-issue in the minds of LNers.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/National%20Enquirer%20FBI%20Records%20From%201-8-78%20Releases/Item%2039.pdf

[Chris Register]

How did a post about Landis finding an intact bullet get highjacked and turned into a discussion about Lt. Day and a palm print? Sounds like some just have to morph any interesting topic into their pet topic, and then beat their dead horse ad nauseum. I for one am interested in new evidence or testimony. As stated earlier, this Landis scenario has NEVER even been suggested in 60 years. It’s not as crazy as “Hickey fired the fatal shot”, so what can’t it be discussed intelligently like the ID of Mumford?

[Martin Weidmann]

How did a post about Landis finding an intact bullet get highjacked and turned into a discussion about Lt. Day and a palm print? Sounds like some just have to morph any interesting topic into their pet topic, and then beat their dead horse ad nauseum. I for one am interested in new evidence or testimony. As stated earlier, this Landis scenario has NEVER even been suggested in 60 years. It’s not as crazy as “Hickey fired the fatal shot”, so what can’t it be discussed intelligently like the ID of Mumford?

The Landis matter has been discussed. There's only so much to say about a topic like that. There isn't much point in going round and round in circles with the same speculation.

Threads hardly ever stay on topic and you didn't do much to keep on topic, did you now?

[Dan O'meara]

How did a post about Landis finding an intact bullet get highjacked and turned into a discussion about Lt. Day and a palm print? Sounds like some just have to morph any interesting topic into their pet topic, and then beat their dead horse ad nauseum. I for one am interested in new evidence or testimony. As stated earlier, this Landis scenario has NEVER even been suggested in 60 years. It’s not as crazy as “Hickey fired the fatal shot”, so what can’t it be discussed intelligently like the ID of Mumford?

A new book is coming out and an incredible 'revelation' accompanies it.
I think a lot of people have switched off due to that.

I'd like to propose something that is the only 'credible' scenario I can come up with that might explain part of Landis' claim [it will never explain his actions in terms of deliberately destroying the crime scene]

SA Johnsen notes that he receives a bullet from O P Wright minutes before JFK's body is taken out of Parkland.
Wright identifies the bullet as a "hunting slug" with a pointed tip. [this bullet magically transforms into CE399 when it reaches the FBI lab in Washington].

Connally doesn't appear to have been moved into Trauma Room #2 for quite some time.
Tomlinson is positive the bullet with the pointed tip was not on the stretcher identified as the one Connally used.
Could it be that the stretcher/gurney in the corridor outside the elevator was the one JFK was on?
Could it be that Tomlinson's discovery was slightly later than usually thought?
What happened to JFK's gurney after he was transferred to the casket?

[Charles Collins]

Not only that, this letter in no way explains the contradiction between the testimonies of Day and Latona.
It appears to be an unofficial "explanation" but it doesn't deal with the issue under question - why did the visible print Day insisted was on the rifle disappear by the time it reached Latona a few hours later?
In the debate so far no-one has even attempted to offer a credible explanation as to how this could have happened.
The suggestion that Latona just missed it is untenable.

Another point that is constantly "misunderstood" is that Day had the lift of the palm print to compare to the prints taken from Oswald earlier that day. Saying that Day had to stop processing the rifle doesn't mean anything - he had the two prints for comparison. He didn't need the rifle.

On 8/28/64 Wesley Leibeler wrote a memo to Rankin in which he reveals very serious misgivings concerning Day's testimony regarding the palm print. It may have been this that spurred Rankin on to get some answers from Hoover. However, none of the issues raised in this memo are dealt with in the Hoover letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wx4RencS6t5BBFjK2F3ocXEwz3IHBsMJ/view

All of the questions are answered. Hoover refers to the September 4 letter which I believe includes copies of the impressions from the rifle on palm print lift which match the impressions on their lift from the rifle in question. Between Day’s written and signed report from January 1964 and the additional questions answered in the attached report from Vincent Drain, the rest of the questions are also answered.

[Charles Collins]

That Day's account of the palm print lift as viewed as 'suspect' is revealed in this memo:

"Mr Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent print..."


It is interesting that this aspect case raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" but seems to be a non-issue in the minds of LNers.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/National%20Enquirer%20FBI%20Records%20From%201-8-78%20Releases/Item%2039.pdf

As I stated in the previous post, all of the questions were answered satisfactorily. What seems to have escaped the minds of the CT folks is that the WC was asking questions (they didn’t just accept the conclusions presented to them by the FBI, etc as the CT folks love to claim, instead they were potentially pursuing the possibility of a conspiracy, imagine that…).

[Dan O'meara]

As I stated in the previous post, all of the questions were answered satisfactorily. What seems to have escaped the minds of the CT folks is that the WC was asking questions (they didn’t just accept the conclusions presented to them by the FBI, etc as the CT folks love to claim, instead they were potentially pursuing the possibility of a conspiracy, imagine that…).

all of the questions were answered satisfactorily.

Where was it answered how the print disappeared by the time it got to Latona?
Latons had the rifle dismantled and examined every part of it.
Where was it answered why Day didn't have enough time to compare the print he lifted with Oswald's print?
He had the print in his possession for days and, according to Rusty, the print was doing the rounds later that day.
Where was it answered why Day didn't protect the print with cellophane like he did with the trigger housing prints?