RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

You should read your quotations more closely:

"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."

So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau."

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.


Your analysis of this article is as weak as some of the counter-arguments you've put forward.
I would urge any reader interested in the investigation to have a look through some of the questions that really do need answering:

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

[Charles Collins]

You should read your quotations more closely:

"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.

So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”

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.


Your analysis of this article is as weak as some of the counter-arguments you've put forward.
I would urge any reader interested in the investigation to have a look through some of the questions that really do need answering:

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

So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”


No, it was Drain’s comment. You are jumping to conclusions.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”


No, it was Drain’s comment. You are jumping to conclusions.

Hilarious

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.

[Dan O'meara]

So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”


No, it was Drain’s comment. You are jumping to conclusions.

Really Charles?
A comment can't be an opinion?
Drain said the following:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened."

That is an opinion.
He went on to qualify this opinion - that it wasn't based on his own personal experience, it was based on what he'd been told by the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
Therefore, according to Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint specialists that the palm print was faked. That a print taken from Oswald was used to create this forgery. And Drain adopted the opinion of these experts when he made his "comment".

Let that sink in for a minute.

[Charles Collins]

Really Charles?
A comment can't be an opinion?
Drain said the following:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened."

That is an opinion.
He went on to qualify this opinion - that it wasn't based on his own personal experience, it was based on what he'd been told by the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
Therefore, according to Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint specialists that the palm print was faked. That a print taken from Oswald was used to create this forgery. And Drain adopted the opinion of these experts when he made his "comment".

Let that sink in for a minute.

You are jumping to conclusions. You do that all the time.

[Dan O'meara]

You are jumping to conclusions. You do that all the time.

 

Is that an opinion or a comment?
Rather than weakly flap around with your baseless accusations, why not explain how I have jumped to a conclusion.
If you disagree with my interpretation of what Drain is saying then please enlighten us as to your own interpretation.

[Charles Collins]

Is that an opinion or a comment?
Rather than weakly flap around with your baseless accusations, why not explain how I have jumped to a conclusion.
If you disagree with my interpretation of what Drain is saying then please enlighten us as to your own interpretation.

Is that an opinion or a comment?

Fact.

[Dan O'meara]

Is that an opinion or a comment?

Fact.

Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.

Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.

That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.