The Palmprint

[Dan O'meara]

The issue of the palmprint cropped up on another thread and, rather than derail that thread, I figured one should be started to deal with this issue as it is worth examining in detail.
It's my opinion that the palmprint was forged and I will lay out my reasons for holding this view in a series of posts.
The idea that this print was forged isn't some kooky CT notion plucked out of thin air. As we shall see, it was first raised by the Warren Commission itself, weeks before the Report was published.

I'd like to start with Henry Hurt's, "Reasonable Doubt" (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985). In this book Hurt interviewed both Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"Crucial questions remain concerning the legitimacy of Oswald's print on the Mannlicher-Carcano. The Warren Report cited this palm print confidently as evidence linking Oswald to what it considered the assassination rifle."  [pg 106]

In my opinion, the palmprint lifted from the barrel of the rifle was the most important piece of evidence collected on the day of the assassination. Even more important than the rifle, as it directly connected Oswald to the supposed murder weapon. The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be overstated. Once it was realised that a useable print had been lifted from the rifle every effort should have been made to identify this print against the ones taken from the prime suspect. Remember, Carl Day, the fingerprint specialist for the Dallas Police Department, had in his possession a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon and a fresh set of Oswald's palmprint to make a comparison. It should have been the highlight of the investigation, the focal point. A non-stop effort should have been made to make the identification and nail Oswald.
But that's not what happened.
Instead, Day just put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
The events surrounding the palmprint that followed it's 'discovery' were so suspicious that the Warren Commission doubted the palmprint was genuine. As Hurt explains:

"However, in 1978 a document was released by the FBI that showed the Warren Commission to be highly doubtful about the legitimacy of the palm print. Dated August 28th, 1964, less than one month from the release of the Warren Report, the internal FBI memo stated: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] 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 has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason the matter needs to be resolved."   [pg 107]

What were the "circumstances that now exist"?
Why did these "circumstances" create "serious questions in the minds of the Commission"?
What the Commission needed was evidence that the print came from the barrel of the rifle. This evidence arrived in the form of a letter sent by Hoover in which he revealed that the irregularities present on the barrel of the rifle were also present on the palmprint lift Day had taken. The palmprint had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle. End of story.
Although Hoover's letter never addressed the "circumstances" that led to the Commission questioning whether the print was legitimate, it was good enough for the Commission.
And it might have stayed this way if it hadn't been for Hurt's interviews of Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print could be seen and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory.
Drain flatly disputes this, claiming Day never showed him such a print. 'I just don't believe there was ever a print,' said Drain, He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it (Oswald's print) was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”  [pg 109]

Day insisted he pointed out the print to Drain. He also pointed out the fingerprint dust used to bring out the print and he warned Drain to be careful when transporting the rifle. So this wasn't a casual conversation according to Day. However, Drain insists this never happened, that he was never shown such a print. Drain then goes on to make an extraordinary claim - "I just don't believe there ever was a print".
It's one thing to dispute whether or not Day mentioned the print but quite another to claim that the print was never even there. Why would Drain make such a claim?
But Drain goes a step further, he accuses someone (and he can only mean Day) of taking one of Oswald's fresh prints and planting it on the barrel of the rifle! Presumably Day then lifted this planted print and claimed it to be genuine.
As we shall see, this series of events proposed by Drain would explain the "circumstances" that had troubled the "minds of the Commission".
But why would Drain believe the palmprint had been forged? Why would he believe it was faked in this specific way? Drain was not a fingerprint expert, he had nothing to do with fingerprinting techniques. What would make him believe it was even possible to fake a print in such a way?
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."

Although he refers to it as a "fingerprint" it is clear Drain is talking about his comments regarding the faking of the palmprint he had made to Hurt and which were published in "Reasonable Doubt". Drain makes it clear that the comments he made were based on the opinions of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His comment -  "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle." - was not his own opinion. It was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
If the experts in Washington were correct it would explain a lot of the strange "circumstances" that troubled the Warren Commission.
It would also explain how a fake palmprint could be authenticated as coming from the barrel of the rifle - because it did come from the barrel of the rifle! It just wasn't on the rifle when Day first inspected it.

[Richard Smith]

No mas.  The print was not necessary to link Oswald to the rifle.   There is an abundance of evidence to do so including a serial number and picture of him holding it.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to know how there could be any more evidence of this fact.  If you want to entertain a baseless fantasy that Day fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president risking the loss of his job and prison to frame a dead guilty person, then knock yourself out.   Even if it were true - and it is not - it would not make one iota of difference in the guilt of Oswald.  There is no doubt the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to him.  There is no explanation for its presence at the crime scene except for Oswald bringing it and using it to assassinate JFK.  Oswald was given an opportunity to explain its presence and he lied to the police. 

[Mitch Todd]

The issue of the palmprint cropped up on another thread and, rather than derail that thread, I figured one should be started to deal with this issue as it is worth examining in detail.
It's my opinion that the palmprint was forged and I will lay out my reasons for holding this view in a series of posts.
The idea that this print was forged isn't some kooky CT notion plucked out of thin air. As we shall see, it was first raised by the Warren Commission itself, weeks before the Report was published.

I'd like to start with Henry Hurt's, "Reasonable Doubt" (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985). In this book Hurt interviewed both Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"Crucial questions remain concerning the legitimacy of Oswald's print on the Mannlicher-Carcano. The Warren Report cited this palm print confidently as evidence linking Oswald to what it considered the assassination rifle."  [pg 106]

In my opinion, the palmprint lifted from the barrel of the rifle was the most important piece of evidence collected on the day of the assassination. Even more important than the rifle, as it directly connected Oswald to the supposed murder weapon. The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be overstated. Once it was realised that a useable print had been lifted from the rifle every effort should have been made to identify this print against the ones taken from the prime suspect. Remember, Carl Day, the fingerprint specialist for the Dallas Police Department, had in his possession a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon and a fresh set of Oswald's palmprint to make a comparison. It should have been the highlight of the investigation, the focal point. A non-stop effort should have been made to make the identification and nail Oswald.
But that's not what happened.
Instead, Day just put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
The events surrounding the palmprint that followed it's 'discovery' were so suspicious that the Warren Commission doubted the palmprint was genuine. As Hurt explains:

"However, in 1978 a document was released by the FBI that showed the Warren Commission to be highly doubtful about the legitimacy of the palm print. Dated August 28th, 1964, less than one month from the release of the Warren Report, the internal FBI memo stated: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] 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 has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason the matter needs to be resolved."   [pg 107]

What were the "circumstances that now exist"?
Why did these "circumstances" create "serious questions in the minds of the Commission"?
What the Commission needed was evidence that the print came from the barrel of the rifle. This evidence arrived in the form of a letter sent by Hoover in which he revealed that the irregularities present on the barrel of the rifle were also present on the palmprint lift Day had taken. The palmprint had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle. End of story.
Although Hoover's letter never addressed the "circumstances" that led to the Commission questioning whether the print was legitimate, it was good enough for the Commission.
And it might have stayed this way if it hadn't been for Hurt's interviews of Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print could be seen and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory.
Drain flatly disputes this, claiming Day never showed him such a print. 'I just don't believe there was ever a print,' said Drain, He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it (Oswald's print) was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”  [pg 109]

Day insisted he pointed out the print to Drain. He also pointed out the fingerprint dust used to bring out the print and he warned Drain to be careful when transporting the rifle. So this wasn't a casual conversation according to Day. However, Drain insists this never happened, that he was never shown such a print. Drain then goes on to make an extraordinary claim - "I just don't believe there ever was a print".
It's one thing to dispute whether or not Day mentioned the print but quite another to claim that the print was never even there. Why would Drain make such a claim?
But Drain goes a step further, he accuses someone (and he can only mean Day) of taking one of Oswald's fresh prints and planting it on the barrel of the rifle! Presumably Day then lifted this planted print and claimed it to be genuine.
As we shall see, this series of events proposed by Drain would explain the "circumstances" that had troubled the "minds of the Commission".
But why would Drain believe the palmprint had been forged? Why would he believe it was faked in this specific way? Drain was not a fingerprint expert, he had nothing to do with fingerprinting techniques. What would make him believe it was even possible to fake a print in such a way?
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."

Although he refers to it as a "fingerprint" it is clear Drain is talking about his comments regarding the faking of the palmprint he had made to Hurt and which were published in "Reasonable Doubt". Drain makes it clear that the comments he made were based on the opinions of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His comment -  "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle." - was not his own opinion. It was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
If the experts in Washington were correct it would explain a lot of the strange "circumstances" that troubled the Warren Commission.
It would also explain how a fake palmprint could be authenticated as coming from the barrel of the rifle - because it did come from the barrel of the rifle! It just wasn't on the rifle when Day first inspected it.

Again, the FBI fingerprint lab confirmed that the underside of the barrel left uniquely-identifying marks on the palm print. So the palm print had to have been recovered from the underside of the barrel.  The rifle was turned over to Drain Friday night about 11:45 CST. That would have been the last possible opportunity for Day to generate the palm print. So Drain's notion that the print was generated as "some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night" is rank BS.

Also, Drain's claim that the FBI lab "said that they didn’t find any fingerprints" is also rank They testified that they found prints on the rifle. There are even pictures of prints. Either Day [should be Drain]  didn't understand what he'd been told, or simply let his imagination get the  better of him. 

[Jack Nessan]

The issue of the palmprint cropped up on another thread and, rather than derail that thread, I figured one should be started to deal with this issue as it is worth examining in detail.
It's my opinion that the palmprint was forged and I will lay out my reasons for holding this view in a series of posts.
The idea that this print was forged isn't some kooky CT notion plucked out of thin air. As we shall see, it was first raised by the Warren Commission itself, weeks before the Report was published.

I'd like to start with Henry Hurt's, "Reasonable Doubt" (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985). In this book Hurt interviewed both Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"Crucial questions remain concerning the legitimacy of Oswald's print on the Mannlicher-Carcano. The Warren Report cited this palm print confidently as evidence linking Oswald to what it considered the assassination rifle."  [pg 106]

In my opinion, the palmprint lifted from the barrel of the rifle was the most important piece of evidence collected on the day of the assassination. Even more important than the rifle, as it directly connected Oswald to the supposed murder weapon. The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be overstated. Once it was realised that a useable print had been lifted from the rifle every effort should have been made to identify this print against the ones taken from the prime suspect. Remember, Carl Day, the fingerprint specialist for the Dallas Police Department, had in his possession a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon and a fresh set of Oswald's palmprint to make a comparison. It should have been the highlight of the investigation, the focal point. A non-stop effort should have been made to make the identification and nail Oswald.
But that's not what happened.
Instead, Day just put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
The events surrounding the palmprint that followed it's 'discovery' were so suspicious that the Warren Commission doubted the palmprint was genuine. As Hurt explains:

"However, in 1978 a document was released by the FBI that showed the Warren Commission to be highly doubtful about the legitimacy of the palm print. Dated August 28th, 1964, less than one month from the release of the Warren Report, the internal FBI memo stated: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] 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 has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason the matter needs to be resolved."   [pg 107]

What were the "circumstances that now exist"?
Why did these "circumstances" create "serious questions in the minds of the Commission"?
What the Commission needed was evidence that the print came from the barrel of the rifle. This evidence arrived in the form of a letter sent by Hoover in which he revealed that the irregularities present on the barrel of the rifle were also present on the palmprint lift Day had taken. The palmprint had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle. End of story.
Although Hoover's letter never addressed the "circumstances" that led to the Commission questioning whether the print was legitimate, it was good enough for the Commission.
And it might have stayed this way if it hadn't been for Hurt's interviews of Day and Drain regarding the palmprint:

"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print could be seen and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory.
Drain flatly disputes this, claiming Day never showed him such a print. 'I just don't believe there was ever a print,' said Drain, He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it (Oswald's print) was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”  [pg 109]

Day insisted he pointed out the print to Drain. He also pointed out the fingerprint dust used to bring out the print and he warned Drain to be careful when transporting the rifle. So this wasn't a casual conversation according to Day. However, Drain insists this never happened, that he was never shown such a print. Drain then goes on to make an extraordinary claim - "I just don't believe there ever was a print".
It's one thing to dispute whether or not Day mentioned the print but quite another to claim that the print was never even there. Why would Drain make such a claim?
But Drain goes a step further, he accuses someone (and he can only mean Day) of taking one of Oswald's fresh prints and planting it on the barrel of the rifle! Presumably Day then lifted this planted print and claimed it to be genuine.
As we shall see, this series of events proposed by Drain would explain the "circumstances" that had troubled the "minds of the Commission".
But why would Drain believe the palmprint had been forged? Why would he believe it was faked in this specific way? Drain was not a fingerprint expert, he had nothing to do with fingerprinting techniques. What would make him believe it was even possible to fake a print in such a way?
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."

Although he refers to it as a "fingerprint" it is clear Drain is talking about his comments regarding the faking of the palmprint he had made to Hurt and which were published in "Reasonable Doubt". Drain makes it clear that the comments he made were based on the opinions of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His comment -  "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle." - was not his own opinion. It was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
If the experts in Washington were correct it would explain a lot of the strange "circumstances" that troubled the Warren Commission.
It would also explain how a fake palmprint could be authenticated as coming from the barrel of the rifle - because it did come from the barrel of the rifle! It just wasn't on the rifle when Day first inspected it.

On August 28th the Warren Commission raised the question about the palmprint. On September 4th 1964 the FBI answered the Warren Commission concerns about the palmprint by authenticating the palmprint by using irregularities found on the barrel.

"However, in 1978 a document was released by the FBI that showed the Warren Commission to be highly doubtful about the legitimacy of the palm print. Dated August 28th, 1964, less than one month from the release of the Warren Report, the internal FBI memo stated: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] 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 has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason the matter needs to be resolved."   [pg 107]
The FBI's answer to the Warren Commission's concerns.

Honorable J. Lee Rankin General Counsel The President's Commission 200 Maryland Avenue, Northeast Washington, D . C.

 September 4, 1964 By Courier Service Reference is made to your letter dated September 1, 1964, concerning a palm print which Lieutenant J . C . Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the barrel of the assassination weapon, Commission Number 139 . This palm print lift has been compared with the assassination rifle in the FBI Laboratory . The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having com from the assassination rifle in the area of the wooden foregrip . This conclusion is based on a comparison of irregularities in the surface of the metal of the barrel with the impressions of these irregularities an shown in the lift . A photograph marked to show several of the irregularities referred to is attached. The results of the other investigation requested in your letter will be subsequently furnished . Sincerely yours, COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 2637

I do not see the issue. Any concerns expressed by the Warren Commission were answered by the FBI. A case is being made based solely on the statement of Agent Drain, nothing more. Someone with absolutely no experience in fingerprint analysis, but still forming an opinion based on what?  If he was quoting the fingerprint experts where is the cite? Where is the explanation of how it was faked. Who was being quoted? I think now you have a good idea of why he was removed from Dallas during the investigation.

This still all boils down to the FBI authenticated the palm as sourced from the rifle with no asterisks or reservations as to how it got there or explaining a different possibility as to origin. The only dissenting opinion is Agent Drain's.

[Dan O'meara]

No mas.  The print was not necessary to link Oswald to the rifle.   There is an abundance of evidence to do so including a serial number and picture of him holding it.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to know how there could be any more evidence of this fact.  If you want to entertain a baseless fantasy that Day fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president risking the loss of his job and prison to frame a dead guilty person, then knock yourself out.   Even if it were true - and it is not - it would not make one iota of difference in the guilt of Oswald.  There is no doubt the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to him.  There is no explanation for its presence at the crime scene except for Oswald bringing it and using it to assassinate JFK.  Oswald was given an opportunity to explain its presence and he lied to the police.

No mas.

If you can't take it any more then go away.
Don't read this thread.
You're intractable position on this issue has been made clear.

The print was not necessary to link Oswald to the rifle.

I agree.
The Back Yard Photos are damning enough by themselves and they were in the possession of the DPD while Oswald was still in custody.
But it is the palmprint that puts the alleged murder weapon in the hands of Oswald.
I'm sure you'll agree, like I do, that the palmprint was the most important piece of evidence discovered that day for this very reason.
But the handling of this piece of evidence was so suspicious that it raised "serious questions in the minds of the Commission". In my opinion, the issues that troubled the WC are so extraordinary they cannot be ignored.

If you want to entertain a baseless fantasy that Day fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president risking the loss of his job and prison to frame a dead guilty person, then knock yourself out.

We'll see how "baseless" this accusation is. The WC didn't find it baseless, did they? They were concerned enough to question the legitimacy of the palmprint. Hoover had to step in with his letter.
So what were these "baseless" issues that had the WC in a panic?

There is no explanation for its presence at the crime scene except for Oswald bringing it and using it to assassinate JFK.

There is a very obvious alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle on the 6th floor - somebody other than Oswald put it there to frame him for the actual shooting.
In this case, the success of framing Oswald relies on the following logic - Oswald's rifle was found at the scene, therefore Oswald put it there, therefore Oswald took the shots.
Does that ring any bells?

[Dan O'meara]

Again, the FBI fingerprint lab confirmed that the underside of the barrel left uniquely-identifying marks on the palm print. So the palm print had to have been recovered from the underside of the barrel.

Yeah Mitch, I know.
I make that exact point in my post.
The very last line of the post you are responding to is this:

"It would also explain how a fake palmprint could be authenticated as coming from the barrel of the rifle - because it did come from the barrel of the rifle! It just wasn't on the rifle when Day first inspected it."

I am not disputing that it was Oswald's print.
I am not disputing that the print was taken from the underside of the rifle.
There's no need to go there "again".

The rifle was turned over to Drain Friday night about 11:45 CST. That would have been the last possible opportunity for Day to generate the palm print. So Drain's notion that the print was generated as "some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night" is rank BS.

Where was the evidence Sunday night/Monday morning?
Drain doesn't believe there was a palmprint on the rifle when he first received it on the night of the 22nd. He may have believed it was faked when the evidence was returned to the DPD. This is speculation on his part. But his notion that the print was faked in a specific manner is speculation on the part of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau".
When the print was faked and how it was faked are two completely separate issues.
I assume you agree that Drain did make the claim that the print had been faked and that he got this opinion from the FBI's fingerprint specialists?

Also, Drain's claim that the FBI lab "said that they didn’t find any fingerprints" is also rank They testified that they found prints on the rifle. There are even pictures of prints. Either Day didn't understand what he'd been told, or simply let his imagination get the  better of him.

Maybe Drain was told there were no useable prints. No prints from which an identification could be made.

[Dan O'meara]

On August 28th the Warren Commission raised the question about the palmprint. On September 4th 1964 the FBI answered the Warren Commission concerns about the palmprint by authenticating the palmprint by using irregularities found on the barrel.

"However, in 1978 a document was released by the FBI that showed the Warren Commission to be highly doubtful about the legitimacy of the palm print. Dated August 28th, 1964, less than one month from the release of the Warren Report, the internal FBI memo stated: "[Warren Commission General Counsel] 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 has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason the matter needs to be resolved."   [pg 107]
The FBI's answer to the Warren Commission's concerns.

Honorable J. Lee Rankin General Counsel The President's Commission 200 Maryland Avenue, Northeast Washington, D . C.

 September 4, 1964 By Courier Service Reference is made to your letter dated September 1, 1964, concerning a palm print which Lieutenant J . C . Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the barrel of the assassination weapon, Commission Number 139 . This palm print lift has been compared with the assassination rifle in the FBI Laboratory . The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having com from the assassination rifle in the area of the wooden foregrip . This conclusion is based on a comparison of irregularities in the surface of the metal of the barrel with the impressions of these irregularities an shown in the lift . A photograph marked to show several of the irregularities referred to is attached. The results of the other investigation requested in your letter will be subsequently furnished . Sincerely yours, COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 2637

I do not see the issue. Any concerns expressed by the Warren Commission were answered by the FBI. A case is being made based solely on the statement of Agent Drain, nothing more. Someone with absolutely no experience in fingerprint analysis, but still forming an opinion based on what?  If he was quoting the fingerprint experts where is the cite? Where is the explanation of how it was faked. Who was being quoted? I think now you have a good idea of why he was removed from Dallas during the investigation.

This still all boils down to the FBI authenticated the palm as sourced from the rifle with no asterisks or reservations as to how it got there or explaining a different possibility as to origin. The only dissenting opinion is Agent Drain's.

I do not see the issue.

I know.

[Richard Smith]

No mas.

If you can't take it any more then go away.
Don't read this thread.
You're intractable position on this issue has been made clear.

The print was not necessary to link Oswald to the rifle.

I agree.
The Back Yard Photos are damning enough by themselves and they were in the possession of the DPD while Oswald was still in custody.
But it is the palmprint that puts the alleged murder weapon in the hands of Oswald.
I'm sure you'll agree, like I do, that the palmprint was the most important piece of evidence discovered that day for this very reason.
But the handling of this piece of evidence was so suspicious that it raised "serious questions in the minds of the Commission". In my opinion, the issues that troubled the WC are so extraordinary they cannot be ignored.

If you want to entertain a baseless fantasy that Day fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president risking the loss of his job and prison to frame a dead guilty person, then knock yourself out.

We'll see how "baseless" this accusation is. The WC didn't find it baseless, did they? They were concerned enough to question the legitimacy of the palmprint. Hoover had to step in with his letter.
So what were these "baseless" issues that had the WC in a panic?

There is no explanation for its presence at the crime scene except for Oswald bringing it and using it to assassinate JFK.

There is a very obvious alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle on the 6th floor - somebody other than Oswald put it there to frame him for the actual shooting.
In this case, the success of framing Oswald relies on the following logic - Oswald's rifle was found at the scene, therefore Oswald put it there, therefore Oswald took the shots.
Does that ring any bells?

I do not agree that the palmprint was the most important piece of evidence for the reason that I've already given and you appear to accept.  There is ample evidence to link Oswald to the rifle even absent the print.  I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important.  If you agree that the BY photos show Oswald holding the rifle, then you accept that Oswald handled the rifle and his prints could be on it.  The presence of his print on the rifle on 11.22 doesn't mean it came from that day.   What is important is the presence of his rifle at the crime scene on the day of the crime.  If you agree, as you seemingly appear to do so, that this rifle belonged to Oswald and was found at Oswald's place of employment, then the only explanation for its presence is that Oswald brought it there.  There is not a scintilla of evidence that anyone else had access to Oswald's rifle.  When given an opportunity to explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene, Oswald lied and denied ownership of it.  No criminal in history could ever be convicted of a crime if they could just float the baseless claim that the murder weapon linked to them was planted.  The evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that the rifle was in the sole control of LHO.  No evidence after six decades and counting rebuts that evidence or provides any basis whatsoever to reach a different conclusion.  Simply because it was "possible" for the print to have been planted does not create doubt.  AND even if the print were planted, that would simply mean the DPD framed a guilty person.