The Palmprint

[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. 

[Dan O'meara]

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…

Please cite your source.

Drain's claims are cited in full in the OP.

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.

Wrong.

"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."

There was the report in July stating there was no palmprint on the rifle.
In Liebler's HSCA testimony we find that he and Redlich had a serious argument over the palmprint issue with Redlich not wanting to look into it any further but Liebler insisting the issue was resolved. After a discussion with Rankin it was decided to ask the FBI to further investigate the issue.
HSCA Exhibit #34 is a memo sent from Liebler to Rankin on 28th August outlining these issues:

To : J. Lee Rankin.
From : Wesley J. Liebeler.
Messrs . Griffin and Slawson and I raise questions covering the palmprint which Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the underside of the barrel of the K-1 rifle on November 22, 1963. That story is set forth on pages 7-10 of the proposed final draft of Chapter IV of the Report, copies of which are attached .
We suggest that additional investigation be conducted to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified . The only evidence we presently have on that print is the testimony of Lt. Day himself. He has stated that although he lifted the palmprint on November 22, 1963, he did not provide a copy of the lift to the FBI until November 26, 1963 (9 R 260-61) . He also testified that after the lift he "could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print." Mr. Latona of the FBI testified with respect to the lift of the palmprint, that "evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle" (Id. at 24) .
Additional problems are raised by the fact that
(1) Mr. Latona testified that the poor finish of the K-1 rifle made it absorbent and not conducive to getting a good print ;
(2) None of the other prints on the rifle could be identified because they were of such poor quality ;
(3) The other prints on the rifle were protected by cellophane while the area where the palmprint had been lifted was not, even though Lt. Day testified that after the lift the "([palm] print on gun was their best bet, still remained on there," when he was asked why he had not released the lift to the FBI on November 22, 1963
We should review the above circumstances at our conference with Agent Latona and Inspector Malley. The configuration of the palmprint should be reviewed to determine, if possible, whether or not it was removed from a cylindrical surface. The possibility that the palmprint or evidence of the lift was destroyed while the rifle was in transit should be reviewed with them. The exact condition of the rifle at the time It was turned over to the FBI Dallas office should be ascertained. Agent Latona should be asked if he can think of any explanation for the apparent conflict in the above testimony .
We should also
(1) Determine whether or not Lt. Day had assistance when he worked with the prints on the rifle . If he did, we should obtain statements from those who assisted him.
(2) Lt. Day should be asked why he preserved the fingerprints on the rifle, which were sufficiently clear to make positive identification, and yet did not preserve the palmprint, which was clear enough for that purpose.
(3) Lt. Day should also be asked why he removed only the palmprint and should be requestioned covering his recollection that he saw the palmprint still on the rifle after he made the lift .
(4) Lt. Day should be asked if he took any photographs of the palmprint on the rifle after the lift . He may have done so, since he did photograph the less valuable fingerprints, and the palmprint on the rifle, according to his testimony, was still the "best bet" for identification . It is also significant that Lt. Day stated that he was going to attempt to get a better print through use of photography


They needed "to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified."
It appears it is you who needs to broaden their reading list.
You also side-stepped the main criticism of your post:

"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".


Do you really believe this?

In my last post I raised the issue of Day's report in which he stated that he couldn't make the identification of the palmprint because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
Do you also believe this?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

And I can't fathom why you bold comments as though I made them.

The comments in bold are questions you've been avoiding over and over again.
You'd know this if you actually read the posts you are responding to.
If you actually read the posts you would be able to "fathom" what was going on.

...there is no doubt that the rifle left on the 6th floor was possessed by LHO.

 
Maybe they should have had an exorcism instead of an investigation.

[Charles Collins]

Please cite your source.

Drain's claims are cited in full in the OP.

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.

Wrong.

"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."

There was the report in July stating there was no palmprint on the rifle.
In Liebler's HSCA testimony we find that he and Redlich had a serious argument over the palmprint issue with Redlich not wanting to look into it any further but Liebler insisting the issue was resolved. After a discussion with Rankin it was decided to ask the FBI to further investigate the issue.
HSCA Exhibit #34 is a memo sent from Liebler to Rankin on 28th August outlining these issues:

To : J. Lee Rankin.
From : Wesley J. Liebeler.
Messrs . Griffin and Slawson and I raise questions covering the palmprint which Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the underside of the barrel of the K-1 rifle on November 22, 1963. That story is set forth on pages 7-10 of the proposed final draft of Chapter IV of the Report, copies of which are attached .
We suggest that additional investigation be conducted to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified . The only evidence we presently have on that print is the testimony of Lt. Day himself. He has stated that although he lifted the palmprint on November 22, 1963, he did not provide a copy of the lift to the FBI until November 26, 1963 (9 R 260-61) . He also testified that after the lift he "could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print." Mr. Latona of the FBI testified with respect to the lift of the palmprint, that "evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle" (Id. at 24) .
Additional problems are raised by the fact that
(1) Mr. Latona testified that the poor finish of the K-1 rifle made it absorbent and not conducive to getting a good print ;
(2) None of the other prints on the rifle could be identified because they were of such poor quality ;
(3) The other prints on the rifle were protected by cellophane while the area where the palmprint had been lifted was not, even though Lt. Day testified that after the lift the "([palm] print on gun was their best bet, still remained on there," when he was asked why he had not released the lift to the FBI on November 22, 1963
We should review the above circumstances at our conference with Agent Latona and Inspector Malley. The configuration of the palmprint should be reviewed to determine, if possible, whether or not it was removed from a cylindrical surface. The possibility that the palmprint or evidence of the lift was destroyed while the rifle was in transit should be reviewed with them. The exact condition of the rifle at the time It was turned over to the FBI Dallas office should be ascertained. Agent Latona should be asked if he can think of any explanation
for the apparent conflict in the above testimony .
We should also
(1) Determine whether or not Lt. Day had assistance when he worked with the prints on the rifle . If he did, we should obtain statements from those who assisted him.
(2) Lt. Day should be asked why he preserved the fingerprints on the rifle, which were sufficiently clear to make positive identification, and yet did not preserve the palmprint, which was clear enough for that purpose.
(3) Lt. Day should also be asked why he removed only the palmprint and should be requestioned covering his recollection that he saw the palmprint still on the rifle after he made the lift .
(4) Lt. Day should be asked if he took any photographs of the palmprint on the rifle after the lift . He may have done so, since he did photograph the less valuable fingerprints, and the palmprint on the rifle, according to his testimony, was still the "best bet" for identification . It is also significant that Lt. Day stated that he was going to attempt to get a better print through use of photography


They needed "to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified."
It appears it is you who needs to broaden their reading list.
You also side-stepped the main criticism of your post:

"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".


Do you really believe this?

In my last post I raised the issue of Day's report in which he stated that he couldn't make the identification of the palmprint because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
Do you also believe this?

I reread your original post. Apparently your source is a CT book by Henry Hurt (who obviously had an agenda). It always amazes me that people choose to believe anything that appears to support their CT ideas without any corroborating evidence to support them.

Let us first examine a statement that you made in your original post:

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.

The part in bold type is false. It is a conclusion that you jumped to without anything at all to support it. Nowhere does Drain say that it was the opinion of the experts that the print was forged. All Drain said was that they told him that they didn’t find any prints. The rest of Drain’s supposed statement to Henry Hurt the CT is strictly Drain apparently talking out of his rear end. I say that because everyone has opinions just like they all have rear ends. What you and Henry Hurt neglect to say anything about is that those same experts (when asked) subsequently confirmed the palm print came from the barrel of that specific rifle. If any of the experts actually had doubts, the confirmation of where the print came from apparently resolved them. If there was any way possible that the FBI could have shed the impression that they missed seeing the palm print on the barrel of the rifle, I believe that you can rest assured that they would have tried to pin the blame on Carl Day. That is exactly what Drain supposedly suggested to Henry Hurt the CT. Sadly for Drain and you, there is no evidence to support Drain’s supposed opinion. Neither of you are experts. Neither of you have a clue as to how this was even possible to do, let alone do it well enough to completely fool the real experts.

They needed "to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified."
It appears it is you who needs to broaden their reading list.

Thank you for the information on the Liebeler memo. I believe that I had previously read that but must have forgotten it.

In response, I will say that the questions were legitimate and understandable, and were answered to their satisfaction. The greater certainty was achieved. It is only the CT mindset that tries to spin this into something that it is not. Again, where is the evidence that a forged palm print happened or was even possible to achieve. You don’t need to be an expert and explain all the details of how this could have supposedly been done. Just cite an example for us showing that it was even possible to do this in 1963.



"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".


Do you really believe this?



No I don’t feel weird. Understand that Day testified that he DID examine the palm print and believed that it was a match. From there it was just a formality to document the matching points on the proper documents. The DPD and DA believed the case had been solved. Otherwise they would not have been likely to charge LHO with the murder of JFK. The palm print was not the only piece of evidence pointing toward LHO’s guilt. Day also testified that he was ordered to stop. Yet you continue to suggest that there was something sinister going on simply because you think they should have proceeded according to your ideas. Do you feel weird?



In my last post I raised the issue of Day's report in which he stated that he couldn't make the identification of the palmprint because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
Do you also believe this?

What is the issue? Even the man who is supposed to be the basis for your accusations (Vince Drain) tells us in Larry Sneed’s book “No More Silence” that he had know Day for a long time and that he thinks Day is an honest individual. What I truly believe is that you are barking up a wrong tree.

[Richard Smith]

And I can't fathom why you bold comments as though I made them.

The comments in bold are questions you've been avoiding over and over again.
You'd know this if you actually read the posts you are responding to.
If you actually read the posts you would be able to "fathom" what was going on.

...there is no doubt that the rifle left on the 6th floor was possessed by LHO.

 
Maybe they should have had an exorcism instead of an investigation.

I'm supposed to figure out what you are doing?  Some are bolded questions are those you have posed and some are comments that I made.  There is no consistency when you just bold something and respond to yourself in some instances and to others in other instances.