RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Jack Nessan]

Firstly Jack, when lifting a passage from somewhere it's customary to cite where you're getting it from and maybe even provide a little context.
Secondly, the passage you've posted doesn't deal with a single issue raised in the post you are responding to. Not a single one.
Thirdly, where is the report outlining this "discovery" [a discovery made all the more interesting by the fact the FBI didn't have a clue where the print was supposed to have been taken from].

But there is something I find quite perplexing about the print Day is described as lifting in the passage above:

It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel.

Where, exactly, on the rifle was this print that was sticking out from the barrel?
It couldn't have been "sticking out" on the underside of the barrel at the muzzle end, because there is a metal fixing on the barrel that the stock fixes to [pointed out by red arrow in pic below].

https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p

Thoughts?

What is not to understand. The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel. The whole idea that you were presenting about the palm print being faked is just obviously wrong.

The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?

[Dan O'meara]

What is not to understand. The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel. The whole idea that you were presenting about the palm print being faked is just obviously wrong.

The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?

What is not to understand.

It's ironic you should write this, Jack, as it appears it is you who is having a hard time understanding what's being said here.

The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel.

And this is the thing you don't seem to understand - nobody is saying that the palm print didn't come from the barrel of the rifle!!
I hope that's not blown your mind.
Everyone agrees that the palm print Day finally handed over to the FBI came from the barrel of the rifle.
On the surface of it the letter from Hoover, with the alleged comparison between the forged palm print and the print taken from the barrel of the rifle, appears to confirm that the palm print Day handed over came from the barrel of the rifle. Nobody is disputing this.
How can I be "obviously wrong" when I agree with the point you're making - that the palm print came from the barrel of the rifle?
I get the impression you've kind of stumbled into this discussion without having bothered to read what's gone before.
Please have a quick read of at least the last few pages just for some context before wading in.
Also, you've still not cited where you lifted that passage from.
It's also customary, when responding to a post, to actually deal with the issues raised in that post. If you could have a go at that, that'd be great.

The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?

It's also customary to actually read the post you are responding to.
I'll try again:

In the passage you posted Day refers to a print he sees "sticking out".
There are other times when Day mentions that he sees a print on the barrel sticking out from underneath the wooden stock.

Are you with me so far?

My question is this - where, on the barrel of the rifle, is this print sticking out from under the wooden stock?
I cannot put it any simpler than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is not to understand. The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel. The whole idea that you were presenting about the palm print being faked is just obviously wrong.

The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?

So naive...

If you can apply a tape to lift a print from an object, you can also apply a print already on a tape to an object and the result would be the same.

Besides, even if the five so-called "imperfections" are unique to the rifle found at the TSBD, it still tells you nothing about how the print got there (if it ever did) and when it was really lifted.

[Jack Nessan]

What is not to understand.

It's ironic you should write this, Jack, as it appears it is you who is having a hard time understanding what's being said here.

The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel.

And this is the thing you don't seem to understand - nobody is saying that the palm print didn't come from the barrel of the rifle!!
I hope that's not blown your mind.
Everyone agrees that the palm print Day finally handed over to the FBI came from the barrel of the rifle.
On the surface of it the letter from Hoover, with the alleged comparison between the forged palm print and the print taken from the barrel of the rifle, appears to confirm that the palm print Day handed over came from the barrel of the rifle. Nobody is disputing this.
How can I be "obviously wrong" when I agree with the point you're making - that the palm print came from the barrel of the rifle?
I get the impression you've kind of stumbled into this discussion without having bothered to read what's gone before.
Please have a quick read of at least the last few pages just for some context before wading in.
Also, you've still not cited where you lifted that passage from.
It's also customary, when responding to a post, to actually deal with the issues raised in that post. If you could have a go at that, that'd be great.

The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?

It's also customary to actually read the post you are responding to.
I'll try again:

In the passage you posted Day refers to a print he sees "sticking out".
There are other times when Day mentions that he sees a print on the barrel sticking out from underneath the wooden stock.

Are you with me so far?

My question is this - where, on the barrel of the rifle, is this print sticking out from under the wooden stock?
I cannot put it any simpler than that.

Day isn't talking about one print on the rifle barrel - he's talking about two prints!
What happened to these two prints?
How did they completely disappear by the time they reached Latona?
There are two possible explanations - the barrel was wiped clean before Drain collected it or there was never a print on the barrel in the first place.
 
In his 1985 book, "Reasonable Doubt", Henry Hurt reports the following from SA Drain:
 
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
 
At first this appears to be an offhand opinion by someone who doesn't really know anything about fingerprinting. However, in Larry Sneed's book, "No More Silence", Drain goes on to qualify this opinion:
 
"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."
 
 
Through Drain we discover that it was the opinion of the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that the palm print was a forgery.
 
The only laughable thing is that you are using the word "baseless" regarding the "notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle..."
It is far from baseless.
It is unavoidable.
Your denial regarding these issues is also laughable.

How could I have ever missed how sincere your belief that the palm print is authentic. Unfortunately for you, it was authenticated by means of the barrel irregularities which renders all this posting to idle conjecture and supposition and nothing more.

Buy a carcano rifle and take the stock off and it will become painfully obvious to you what Day is talking about. Anything short of that is you just stumbling around in the dark.

[John Iacoletti]

Unfortunately for you, it was authenticated by means of the barrel irregularities which renders all this posting to idle conjecture and supposition and nothing more.

Jack believes it because J. Edgar Hoover said so. No other details or consistencies necessary.

[Dan O'meara]

How could I have ever missed how sincere your belief that the palm print is authentic. Unfortunately for you, it was authenticated by means of the barrel irregularities which renders all this posting to idle conjecture and supposition and nothing more.

You really don't seem to be grasping this very simple concept Jack.
I am not saying that the palm print Day eventually handed over to the FBI didn't come from the Mannlicher Carcano.
I am saying that it did come from the MC. I can't put it in a way that is simpler for you to understand.
I am agreeing with you that the palm print came from the MC.
I can even go so far as to say the unsubstantiated and unofficial comparison between the palm print Day handed in and the print of the rifle barrel itself "authenticates" that the palm print Day handed in was from the barrel of the MC.
You really do not seem to grasp this simple concept.

Another simple concept that you don't seem to be grasping is that the comparison in the Hoover letter DOES NOT CONFIRM THERE WAS A PRINT ON THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE WHEN DAY FIRST EXAMINED IT.
Hoover's comparison letter CANNOT confirm this. It's impossible.
In my Reply#421 I laid out some serious issues regarding whether or not there was a palm print on the barrel of the MC. Through SA Drain we find out that it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged, that is to say, the palm print was not on the MC when Day first examined it and that he used one of the palm prints taken from Oswald and the MC to execute this forgery - "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” [SA Vince Drain]

Even though you were initially responding to Reply#421 you never dealt with a single issue raised in that post.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
You are in denial.

Buy a carcano rifle and take the stock off and it will become painfully obvious to you what Day is talking about. Anything short of that is you just stumbling around in the dark.

There's no need to buy a Carcano.
I posted a link to a picture of a dismantled Carcano and asked you [or any LNer for that matter] a very simple question.
You posted this passage from somewhere you have still refused to cite:

Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.


In this passage we learn that Day sees a print "sticking out from the barrel" and that this is the print he lifts from the barrel.
We know that the palm print lift Day took was from the underside of the barrel.
But when we look at a dismantled MC we see there is a piece of metal fixed to the underside of the barrel where the wooden stock attaches to the barrel at the muzzle end.
So, it is impossible for the print to be "sticking out" at this point because of the metal fixing on the underside of the barrel.

SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?

Here's the link to the picture in question so you can see exactly the problem Day has created for himself:

https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p

Answer the question Jack - where on the barrel of the MC is the print that is "sticking out"?

[Charles Collins]

You really don't seem to be grasping this very simple concept Jack.
I am not saying that the palm print Day eventually handed over to the FBI didn't come from the Mannlicher Carcano.
I am saying that it did come from the MC. I can't put it in a way that is simpler for you to understand.
I am agreeing with you that the palm print came from the MC.
I can even go so far as to say the unsubstantiated and unofficial comparison between the palm print Day handed in and the print of the rifle barrel itself "authenticates" that the palm print Day handed in was from the barrel of the MC.
You really do not seem to grasp this simple concept.

Another simple concept that you don't seem to be grasping is that the comparison in the Hoover letter DOES NOT CONFIRM THERE WAS A PRINT ON THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE WHEN DAY FIRST EXAMINED IT.
Hoover's comparison letter CANNOT confirm this. It's impossible.
In my Reply#421 I laid out some serious issues regarding whether or not there was a palm print on the barrel of the MC. Through SA Drain we find out that it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged, that is to say, the palm print was not on the MC when Day first examined it and that he used one of the palm prints taken from Oswald and the MC to execute this forgery - "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” [SA Vince Drain]

Even though you were initially responding to Reply#421 you never dealt with a single issue raised in that post.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
You are in denial.

There's no need to buy a Carcano.
I posted a link to a picture of a dismantled Carcano and asked you [or any LNer for that matter] a very simple question.
You posted this passage from somewhere you have still refused to cite:

Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.


In this passage we learn that Day sees a print "sticking out from the barrel" and that this is the print he lifts from the barrel.
We know that the palm print lift Day took was from the underside of the barrel.
But when we look at a dismantled MC we see there is a piece of metal fixed to the underside of the barrel where the wooden stock attaches to the barrel at the muzzle end.
So, it is impossible for the print to be "sticking out" at this point because of the metal fixing on the underside of the barrel.

SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?

Here's the link to the picture in question so you can see exactly the problem Day has created for himself:

https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p

Answer the question Jack - where on the barrel of the MC is the print that is "sticking out"?

it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged

This is a figment of your imagination. You jumped to this conclusion all by yourself.


SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?

Take a look at Jerry Organ’s graphic in post #293 of this thread.

[Dan O'meara]

it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged

This is a figment of your imagination. You jumped to this conclusion all by yourself.

You've tried this piss-weak approach already, Charles, and it was dealt with then.

"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.

This is Drain's opinion regarding the palm print Day handed in to the FBI, that it was faked using a pre-existing print of Oswald's and the MC.
But then Drain goes on to qualify this opinion in a piece that you posted trying to undermine Drain's opinion [talk about backfiring]:

"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."

Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His opinion was formed from "what they said" - the "they" in question being the FBI's specialists in fingerprints.
He got his opinion from the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
And that opinion was that the palm print had been faked.

Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.

Take a look at Jerry Organ’s graphic in post #293 of this thread.

I'm well aware of Jerry's graphic, just as I'm aware of Day's first FBI interview with Bardwell Odum taken the day after Latona received the fake palm print. From Pat Speer's website:

"[Day] also advised that even before he took the stock off, he saw what appeared to be traces of palm print coming out from under the wood near the back and of the metal portion of the gun. This print was partially covered by the wood."

It was Jack who posted some  piece he'd lifted from somewhere about the print that was "sticking out" being the print that was lifted and he was being called out on it.
But let's not forget the important thing here - it wasn't just the remainder of the print that Day supposedly lifted that went missing, it was this other print as well. Two prints that disappeared from the barrel of the rifle, not just one.
What are the chances Latona missed one print? - almost zero.
What are the chances Latona missed two prints?

And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?