You claim to be well read but apparently you go blind when you see something you do not like. Latona clearly states the print was on the trigger guard. Again, not the barrel like you repeatedly claimed but the trigger guard.
Mr. LATONA. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?
Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the 'top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?
Mr. LATONA. Closest to the trigger area.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Left side. [/b]
Mr. EISENBERG. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.
Once again, you have to be taken by the hand and led through the basic aspects of this case.
Even though these things have been pointed out to you over and over and over again.
Here goes again, so listen up...
In his WC testimony, Day mentions THREE sets of prints on the rifle.
SET #1
Day dusts the rifle for prints while still on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea films it. While he is dusting he notices prints on the side of the trigger housing:
"I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints."
These are the prints that Latona is referring to in the passage you posted.
There is no dispute about these prints.
SET #2
This is the palmprint that Day alleges to lift from the underside of the barrel.
This is the magical palmprint that mysteriously disappeared.
This palmprint is the subject of this thread.
SET #3
During his WC testimony, Day is asked why he didn't hand over the lift of the palmprint he allegedly took with the rest of the evidence taken by the FBI on the night of the assassination. It was, after all, the most important piece of evidence the DPD collected that day. Day's quite pathetic excuse for not handing the lift over is that, when he took the lift he made such a bad job of it that the better part of the print remained on the rifle. He felt he didn't need to hand in the lift as he thought the "best bet" for identifying the print was still on the rifle.
As he is explaining this, out of the blue, he suddenly announces there was "another print" on the rifle. A third print:
"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
This third print was "under the wood part". This means he is NOT referring to the print on the trigger guard as those prints were not "under the wood part".
He had never mentioned this third print before this moment and it was never mentioned again.
Although it is not stated explicitly in his testimony, this third print can only have been on the barrel of the rifle as it was "under the wood part". Whereas the palmprint was towards the muzzle end of the rifle, this third print was "up near the trigger housing" (again confirming that it was not a reference to the prints that were
on the trigger housing).
I really hope this has cleared things up for you Jack.
You have been so confused in your posts.
Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI
is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.