The Palmprint

[Charles Collins]

The DPD had jurisdiction over this crime. Carl Day had lifted the palm print from the barrel of the rifle and had examined and compared it to the extent that he believed it to be a match with LHO’s palm print. All he still needed to do, in order to be able to swear that they are a match, was to document the matching points by indicating them on the proper documents. Apparently, he felt that that documentation was not terribly urgent because he didn’t expect to need to swear that they were a match right away. That being said, Day has said that he probably would have kept on processing the evidence if he had not been ordered to stop processing the evidence.
The FBI did not have jurisdiction over this crime on 11/22/63. However, the DPD higher ups agreed to let the FBI process certain requested items. The rifle was one of those items. Carl Day did not receive orders to turn over the palm print lift. Without orders to turn it over to the FBI, he was entirely correct to keep it.
The confusion only began when, due to LHO unexpectedly being murdered by Ruby, the subsequent FBI investigation involved acquiring the additional evidence. Questions were asked and answered satisfactorily to the FBI and the WC.
There is no basis for anyone to contend that Day forged anything. You have never even given us any indication that anyone has ever successfully forged a palm print lift by placing a fake palm print on a gun barrel. You have been asked in the other thread, but have never even indicated how you think this is even possible. This is simply another paranoid attempt to make something out of nothing.

[Zeon Mason]

CT options to explain the palm print on the MC rifle ( and the paper bag ):

Option A: They would have to get the alive 
Oswald in the same room with the  MC rifle, and the paper bag ,  and force his hand onto the paper and onto the barrel.

Option B: the 2 guys who visited the dead Oswald at the morgue would have to place  the paper bag and  MC rifle barrel on the inked hands of Oswald.

Because the FBI seems not to have become aware  that any print had been found on the MC rifle until after the 2 guys had visited the morgue, a week after the assassination, then as a CT/skeptic , imo option B is the more probable concerning the rifle print. Otherwise on day 2 post tragic event. the press most  likely would have been told a print had been found on the rifle.

The print on the paper bag , however , could have been from an alive Oswald with his hands cuffed behind him in the same room with a paper bag or just a sheet of paper   taken from the roll at the TSBD , which then was made into a bag back at TSBD under the guise of “experiment “ to see if it was possible that Oswald could have make a bag at the station on the 1st floor of TSBD.

LN option ( for the bag )

Option C: Oswald made the pager bag and the one palm print in the lower middle of the bag may be the answer to why Buell W.Frazier thought he saw  Oswald carrying the bag with bottom of bag in the palm (cup) of his right hand and the top part of bag under his armpit.

Dan Rather ( and others since) demonstrated that if the 34.5” package was carried with the butt end of the stock in the palm of the hand and the barrel  in the armpit , that the wooden stock would have extended approx 8 inches above the shoulder line of Oswald and therefore should have been noticeable to BWF.

But no palm print was found on the bottom of the bag. The only palm print on the bag was approx lower/  center of the bag and most importantly, the orientation of the right hand was such that the thumb was pointing  towards the bottom (taped ) end of the bag.

Therefore the only  one probable way the bag could been carried by Oswald with right hand on the lower middle of the bag with thumb pointed down towards the taped end of bag  AND give BWF an impression that the bottom of the bag was in the palm (cup) of Oswald’s hand AND  the top of the bag under Oswald’s armpit WITHOUT any extension of the upper portion of bag visible above Oswald’s shoulder line… is as follows..

Oswald gripped the bag in the middle of the bag with his right hand , placing the folded end (top) of the bag ( with narrow end of wooden stock under his armpit , and the folded and taped (bottom) end of the bag with the larger butt end of the stock, extended beyond the palm of his right hand by the distance( indicated in the photo of the bag ) from the palm print to the bottom taped end of the bag.

Basically what  BWF saw was an illusion of the bottom part of the bag being in Oswald’s palm of his right hand possibly due to the angle of the bag from the armpit to where Oswald was holding the lower middle  portion of the bag in a “cup” like grip and the extended 8 inches (or more) beyond the hand was blocked by the angle of LOS to BWF by Oswald’s  forearm (as viewed from behind by BWF from some distance probably at least 10 ft away  or farther).

LN option for the MC rifle print anomaly:

Option D: Confusion caused by overlapping FBI/DPD/CIA/SS investigations and everybody else and their brother plus the gaggle of press reporters resulting in miscommunication and mishandling  of evidence.

One final note about the  lack  of oil on the paper bag and no parts tearing the paper or slipping out the untaped   folded top part of the bag: This indicates the probability that a plastic bag was used to roll up the parts with barrel and stock which were then taped securely together and that the paper bag was merely the outer “camouflage” bag to facilitate the curtain rod story Oswald told BWF.

[Richard Smith]

CT options to explain the palm print on the MC rifle ( and the paper bag ):

Option A: They would have to get the alive 
Oswald in the same room with the  MC rifle, and the paper bag ,  and force his hand onto the paper and onto the barrel.

Option B: the 2 guys who visited the dead Oswald at the morgue would have to place  the paper bag and  MC rifle barrel on the inked hands of Oswald.

Because the FBI seems not to have become aware  that any print had been found on the MC rifle until after the 2 guys had visited the morgue, a week after the assassination, then as a CT/skeptic , imo option B is the more probable concerning the rifle print. Otherwise on day 2 post tragic event. the press most  likely would have been told a print had been found on the rifle.

The print on the paper bag , however , could have been from an alive Oswald with his hands cuffed behind him in the same room with a paper bag or just a sheet of paper   taken from the roll at the TSBD , which then was made into a bag back at TSBD under the guise of “experiment “ to see if it was possible that Oswald could have make a bag at the station on the 1st floor of TSBD.

LN option ( for the bag )

Option C: Oswald made the pager bag and the one palm print in the lower middle of the bag may be the answer to why Buell W.Frazier thought he saw  Oswald carrying the bag with bottom of bag in the palm (cup) of his right hand and the top part of bag under his armpit.

Dan Rather ( and others since) demonstrated that if the 34.5” package was carried with the butt end of the stock in the palm of the hand and the barrel  in the armpit , that the wooden stock would have extended approx 8 inches above the shoulder line of Oswald and therefore should have been noticeable to BWF.

But no palm print was found on the bottom of the bag. The only palm print on the bag was approx lower/  center of the bag and most importantly, the orientation of the right hand was such that the thumb was pointing  towards the bottom (taped ) end of the bag.

Therefore the only  one probable way the bag could been carried by Oswald with right hand on the lower middle of the bag with thumb pointed down towards the taped end of bag  AND give BWF an impression that the bottom of the bag was in the palm (cup) of Oswald’s hand AND  the top of the bag under Oswald’s armpit WITHOUT any extension of the upper portion of bag visible above Oswald’s shoulder line… is as follows..

Oswald gripped the bag in the middle of the bag with his right hand , placing the folded end (top) of the bag ( with narrow end of wooden stock under his armpit , and the folded and taped (bottom) end of the bag with the larger butt end of the stock, extended beyond the palm of his right hand by the distance( indicated in the photo of the bag ) from the palm print to the bottom taped end of the bag.

Basically what  BWF saw was an illusion of the bottom part of the bag being in Oswald’s palm of his right hand possibly due to the angle of the bag from the armpit to where Oswald was holding the lower middle  portion of the bag in a “cup” like grip and the extended 8 inches (or more) beyond the hand was blocked by the angle of LOS to BWF by Oswald’s  forearm (as viewed from behind by BWF from some distance probably at least 10 ft away  or farther).

LN option for the MC rifle print anomaly:

Option D: Confusion caused by overlapping FBI/DPD/CIA/SS investigations and everybody else and their brother plus the gaggle of press reporters resulting in miscommunication and mishandling  of evidence.

One final note about the  lack  of oil on the paper bag and no parts tearing the paper or slipping out the untaped   folded top part of the bag: This indicates the probability that a plastic bag was used to roll up the parts with barrel and stock which were then taped securely together and that the paper bag was merely the outer “camouflage” bag to facilitate the curtain rod story Oswald told BWF.

Why go to all the trouble and incredible risk of faking Oswald's print on the rifle and bag after he was dead and the authorities were satisfied of his guilt?  Why pile on after the fact to frame an already dead guy when the fantasy conspirators knew there would never be a trial?  And even if you want to believe the print was fake, that does not negate evidence and circumstances from a variety of different sources that places the 6th floor rifle in Oswald's possession.  That is what matters.  With or without the print, the evidence puts the rifle left at the crime in the possession of LHO.  After six decades, there is not one iota of evidence that links that particular rifle to any person other than LHO.  At worst, a fake print would only mean that the DPD was attempting to frame a guilty person for the crime.  It would not change the fact that Oswald used the rifle to assassinate JFK.

[Dan O'meara]

You are ignoring the totality of evidence and circumstances.  The photo and print do link Oswald to the rifle.  But that is not all the evidence.  Klein's sent a rifle with a specific serial number to Oswald's PO Box.  I assume that you must agree that Oswald obtained that rifle.  Otherwise what happened to it?  It wasn't sent back to them.  It is not still at the Dallas post office.  There is no accounting for it except the most logical conclusion that something sent to his PO Box was obtained by the owner of that box.  What else?  Oswald's own wife confirms that he came into possession of a rifle in the relevant timeframe.  She took pictures of Oswald holding this rifle.  The rifle that Klein's sent to Oswald's PO Box has the SAME serial number as the rifle left at Oswald's place of employment.  Photo experts have indicated the rifle in those photos is the same one found in the TSBD.  This doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.  The fact that it also has Oswald's prints on it is a cherry on top to link him to that rifle.  With or without the print, there is no doubt Oswald possessed that specific rifle.  His wife confirms that he stored it in the Paine's garage.  We know he visited the Paine residence the night before the assassination.  We know he carried a long package to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way except to carry his rifle.  Oswald's prints are also found on the long bag next to the SN.  We know his rifle is gone from the Paine's garage just hours after the assassination and that rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except for being the one found at the TSBD.  Oswald had a chance to explain all this.  Instead he lied about his ownership of any rifle.  A lie is indicative of guilt.   This is a stone cold solid case with or without the print.  It is difficult even to imagine how there could be any more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to crime.

You are ignoring the totality of evidence and circumstances.

Let me explain something Richard.
This thread is about the legitimacy of the palmprint Day allegedly lifted from the underside of the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor.
That's it.
That's all.
It's about this very specific aspect of the case.
It's not about the "totality of evidence", as you like to refer to the list of things you constantly regurgitate at any given moment.
It's a debate about a specific detail (something I know you're not a massive fan of).

Third time's the charm, apparently:

"If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?"

To be honest, this is a rhetorical question.
The answer is YES - you do believe that, hours after the assassination the DPD had their prime suspect in custody, the rifle they thought was the murder weapon, a legible palmprint taken from the rifle and at least three sets of palmprints taken from their suspect.
The DPD were under instant and immense pressure to solve this case, the murder of the President.
They had in their possession everything they needed to slam dunk the case there and then.
However, you believe that, instead of matching Oswald's palmprint to the palmprint lifted from the assassination weapon, they just ignored this utterly crucial piece of evidence.
That's what you, and anyone who thinks the palmprint is genuine, believes!
It's almost as crackers as your belief that the palmprint of the assassin on the assassination weapon is of little evidentiary value.


And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.

You're a fanboy of the Warren Commission and have swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.
But here we have the Commission calling into question the legitimacy of the palmprint. Why do you think they did that? What were the issues that raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission"?

Remember, this is just about the palmprint so we don't need The List again.

[Dan O'meara]

The DPD had jurisdiction over this crime. Carl Day had lifted the palm print from the barrel of the rifle and had examined and compared it to the extent that he believed it to be a match with LHO’s palm print. All he still needed to do, in order to be able to swear that they are a match, was to document the matching points by indicating them on the proper documents. Apparently, he felt that that documentation was not terribly urgent because he didn’t expect to need to swear that they were a match right away. That being said, Day has said that he probably would have kept on processing the evidence if he had not been ordered to stop processing the evidence.
The FBI did not have jurisdiction over this crime on 11/22/63. However, the DPD higher ups agreed to let the FBI process certain requested items. The rifle was one of those items. Carl Day did not receive orders to turn over the palm print lift. Without orders to turn it over to the FBI, he was entirely correct to keep it.
The confusion only began when, due to LHO unexpectedly being murdered by Ruby, the subsequent FBI investigation involved acquiring the additional evidence. Questions were asked and answered satisfactorily to the FBI and the WC.
There is no basis for anyone to contend that Day forged anything. You have never even given us any indication that anyone has ever successfully forged a palm print lift by placing a fake palm print on a gun barrel. You have been asked in the other thread, but have never even indicated how you think this is even possible. This is simply another paranoid attempt to make something out of nothing.

There is no basis for anyone to contend that Day forged anything.

For starters, there is Drain's revelation that the Fingerprint Specialists at the FBI thought it was faked.
There is also this mysterious July report that Willens mentions (that I can't track down) stating there was no palmprint on the rifle. I assume it's an FBI report which would mean the FBI thought it was a fake even though they had examined the rifle and the palmprint lift! If it was an FBI report, this confirms Drain's statements.
And, of course, there are the various issues that raised the serious question in the minds of the Commission regarding the authenticity of the palmprint. Issues that were so troublesome a further investigation was ordered to get to the bottom of things.

Apart from that, everything was just peachy.

Apparently, he felt that that documentation was not terribly urgent because he didn’t expect to need to swear that they were a match right away. That being said, Day has said that he probably would have kept on processing the evidence if he had not been ordered to stop processing the evidence.

Do you not feel weird suggesting that no-one at the DPD thought it was very urgent that a legible palmprint had been lifted from the murder weapon and could be compared with at least three sets of palmprints taken from their prime suspect who they had in custody.
The eyes of the world were on the DPD. They were under instant and immense pressure to solve this case and you're saying they didn't think matching the print lifted from the murder weapon to prints taken from their main suspect was "terribly urgent". 

One of the extraordinary issues that caused the Commission to question the legitimacy of the palmprint was this lack of urgency.
If Day really had a legible print from the rifle, why didn't he compare it to the prints taken from Oswald? He had days to make this comparison but he never did it.
Your excuse - that he was told to stop processing the evidence - is garbage because trying to match the two sets of prints isn't "processing the evidence". It's examining the evidence that's already been processed. It's called 'solving the case'.
But Day didn't do this.
In fact, he did the very opposite.
And that's just one of the reasons the Commission thought the palmprint might be fake.

And as for me coming up with an example of how the forgery was done...I don't have a clue how it was done! I don't know anything about faking prints. I'm not a fingerprint expert. You need to ask the Fingerprint Specialists at the FBI how it was done. It was their suggestion, not mine.
I'm just examining how valid their suggestion is.

[Dan O'meara]

Almost seven weeks after the assassination, Day finally gets around to making a report about his activities that day. This is what he has to say about the palmprint:

"Lieutenant Day returned to the Identification Bureau about 7:00 P.M. and started checking the rifle for prints. Two fingerprints were found on the side of the rifle near the trigger and magazine housing and a palm print was found on the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the stock . It appeared probable these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle, was released to the F.B.I. to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. The prints were not very good for comparison purposes."

Here we have Day's excuse for not identifying the palmprint on the barrel of the rifle as Oswald's - Before he could make a positive identification the rifle was released to the FBI.
Because the rifle was released to the FBI there was no way Day could make the identification.
Why?
Why couldn't Day make the identification because the rifle was released?
He didn't need the rifle to make the identification because he had taken a lift of the palmprint!
He had the lift of the palmprint and a palmprint taken from Oswald, so why couldn't he make the identification?
What has it got to do with the rifle being released to the FBI?
Can anyone explain this?

[Charles Collins]

There is no basis for anyone to contend that Day forged anything.

For starters, there is Drain's revelation that the Fingerprint Specialists at the FBI thought it was faked.
There is also this mysterious July report that Willens mentions (that I can't track down) stating there was no palmprint on the rifle. I assume it's an FBI report which would mean the FBI thought it was a fake even though they had examined the rifle and the palmprint lift! If it was an FBI report, this confirms Drain's statements.
And, of course, there are the various issues that raised the serious question in the minds of the Commission regarding the authenticity of the palmprint. Issues that were so troublesome a further investigation was ordered to get to the bottom of things.

Apart from that, everything was just peachy.

Apparently, he felt that that documentation was not terribly urgent because he didn’t expect to need to swear that they were a match right away. That being said, Day has said that he probably would have kept on processing the evidence if he had not been ordered to stop processing the evidence.

Do you not feel weird suggesting that no-one at the DPD thought it was very urgent that a legible palmprint had been lifted from the murder weapon and could be compared with at least three sets of palmprints taken from their prime suspect who they had in custody.
The eyes of the world were on the DPD. They were under instant and immense pressure to solve this case and you're saying they didn't think matching the print lifted from the murder weapon to prints taken from their main suspect was "terribly urgent". 

One of the extraordinary issues that caused the Commission to question the legitimacy of the palmprint was this lack of urgency.
If Day really had a legible print from the rifle, why didn't he compare it to the prints taken from Oswald? He had days to make this comparison but he never did it.
Your excuse - that he was told to stop processing the evidence - is garbage because trying to match the two sets of prints isn't "processing the evidence". It's examining the evidence that's already been processed. It's called 'solving the case'.
But Day didn't do this.
In fact, he did the very opposite.
And that's just one of the reasons the Commission thought the palmprint might be fake.

And as for me coming up with an example of how the forgery was done...I don't have a clue how it was done! I don't know anything about faking prints. I'm not a fingerprint expert. You need to ask the Fingerprint Specialists at the FBI how it was done. It was their suggestion, not mine.
I'm just examining how valid their suggestion is.

For starters, there is Drain's revelation that the Fingerprint Specialists at the FBI thought it was faked.

Please cite your source. Here is Drain’s account as he told it in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 259:

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.

I highlighted the relevant phrases. Nothing there about anyone thinking that anyone forged anything. This is simply a case of asking the question as to why they didn’t find any fingerprints. And their questions being answered satisfactorily to the ones asking them. Yet you are apparently trying to spin it into something that it never was.


And, of course, there are the various issues that raised the serious question in the minds of the Commission regarding the authenticity of the palmprint. Issues that were so troublesome a further investigation was ordered to get to the bottom of things.

It appears to me that this was simply one of 51 questions brought up by one of the historians during the final push in reviewing and editing the report. Here is what is written in Howard Willens’ book “History Will Prove Us Right”, page 344:

Goldberg’s review of this draft chapter included general comments and fifty-one specific observations or questions. He wanted to put the discussion of Oswald’s movements after leaving the depository ahead of the section dealing with Tippit’s murder, which was implemented in subsequent drafts. He pointed out the need for more precision and clarity in the discussion of the critical evidence identifying Oswald as the assassin of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit—for example, the palm print on the rifle, the various descriptions of the suspect before the Tippit shooting, Oswald’s taking the rifle to the depository, the exact time of the Tippit shooting, and the eyewitness testimony regarding this event. These, too, were passed on to Redlich.35

I see nothing about any “serious questions in the minds of the commission”. Just some easily answered clarifications being requested.


You might want to consider broadening your reading list to include both sides of the argument. If you approach things with an open mind, you might begin to see things in a different light. Just a friendly suggestion…

[Richard Smith]

You are ignoring the totality of evidence and circumstances.

Let me explain something Richard.
This thread is about the legitimacy of the palmprint Day allegedly lifted from the underside of the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor.
That's it.
That's all.
It's about this very specific aspect of the case.
It's not about the "totality of evidence", as you like to refer to the list of things you constantly regurgitate at any given moment.
It's a debate about a specific detail (something I know you're not a massive fan of).

Third time's the charm, apparently:

"If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?"

To be honest, this is a rhetorical question.
The answer is YES - you do believe that, hours after the assassination the DPD had their prime suspect in custody, the rifle they thought was the murder weapon, a legible palmprint taken from the rifle and at least three sets of palmprints taken from their suspect.
The DPD were under instant and immense pressure to solve this case, the murder of the President.
They had in their possession everything they needed to slam dunk the case there and then.
However, you believe that, instead of matching Oswald's palmprint to the palmprint lifted from the assassination weapon, they just ignored this utterly crucial piece of evidence.
That's what you, and anyone who thinks the palmprint is genuine, believes!
It's almost as crackers as your belief that the palmprint of the assassin on the assassination weapon is of little evidentiary value.


And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.

You're a fanboy of the Warren Commission and have swallowed down their findings hook, line and sinker.
But here we have the Commission calling into question the legitimacy of the palmprint. Why do you think they did that? What were the issues that raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission"?

Remember, this is just about the palmprint so we don't need The List again.

So much noise.  And I can't fathom why you bold comments as though I made them.  Bottom line - with or without the print, there is no doubt that the rifle left on the 6th floor was possessed by LHO.  You ignore all the facts and circumstances that link Oswald to that rifle including the serial number.  It's Oswald's rifle.  That's all that matters.  If no print had been found, the conclusion would be same due to totality of other evidence and circumstances.  I'm not so sure why this is hard for you to accept.  EVEN IF YOU WERE CORRECT - and you are not - that the print was faked it does not make one iota of difference as to Oswald's guilt.