JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on July 09, 2024, 12:44:06 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 BS: 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 BS: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"...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..."
There are two issues here:
1] The Commission questioned the legitimacy of the palmprint. The reason it questioned the legitimacy was due to "circumstances that now exist". What were these "circumstances" that raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" about the authenticity of the print.
2] This doubt led to a simple question - did the palmprint come from the barrel of the rifle or not?
On one hand we have the issues that led to the Commission questioning the authenticity of the print, on the other we have the Commission wanting to know if the print came from the rifle or not.
The letter from Hoover (CE 2637) only answers the second point - whether or not the print came from the rifle or not.
IT DOES NOT shed any light on any of the issues that led to the Commission questioning the authenticity of the print in the first place.
All these questions remained unanswered and disappeared in the minds of the Commission once they were satisfied the print came from the rifle.
-
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 267:
Our effort to document critical facts in Chapter 4 prompted new investigative requests in July and August. While exploring a possible escape route for Oswald, we asked the Secret Service to provide additional information on city bus routes in Dallas and Greyhound bus routes southbound out of Dallas.30 We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle and to obtain slides or originals of a picture taken by a photographer showing Oswald being removed from the movie theater by police officers.
I believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has an online copy of Howards journal which he kept contemporaneously with his work on the staff of the Warren Commission. If you REALLY think that the reason they requested the follow up is THAT important, you might find more information in his journal.
-
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.
I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important
I'm going to assume this comment is some kind of weird joke or a senior moment.
The palmprint is direct evidence placing the rifle found on the 6th floor in the hands of Oswald. The Back Yard Photos show Oswald holding the same type of rifle and that's all.
As far as the DPD were concerned the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor was the murder weapon.
They had their prime suspect for the assassination in custody. In the same building as the rifle.
The palmprint could link the two and, because of that, is clearly the most important piece of evidence discovered that day.
Your assertion that the Back Yard Photos were somehow stronger evidence of Oswald's connection to the rifle is really odd. and I think you should distance yourself from it.
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?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
-
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 267:
Our effort to document critical facts in Chapter 4 prompted new investigative requests in July and August. While exploring a possible escape route for Oswald, we asked the Secret Service to provide additional information on city bus routes in Dallas and Greyhound bus routes southbound out of Dallas.30 We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle and to obtain slides or originals of a picture taken by a photographer showing Oswald being removed from the movie theater by police officers.
I believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has an online copy of Howards journal which he kept contemporaneously with his work on the staff of the Warren Commission. If you REALLY think that the reason they requested the follow up is THAT important, you might find more information in his journal.
Thank you for that information Charles. I will make every effort to find out about this report that there was no palmprint as early as July.
Obviously, Day gave his testimony on April 22nd (along with Curry and Fritz, neither of who made any mention of Day's claim that he had told them about the palmprint.)
Latona had given his evidence at the beginning of April so alarm bells must have been ringing as early as then. They must have become deafening after Day gave his testimony.
And just to say, I don't think it's THAT important that the Commission requested a "follow up".
I think it's THAT important because the Commission questioned the legitimacy of the print. This wasn't crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. This was a fundamental doubt about the sole piece of evidence that directly put the assassination weapon in the hands of the assassin.
Don't you agree that the palmprint was of ultimate importance for this very reason?
Don't you agree it was unusual for the Commission to doubt the veracity of this evidence?
-
I do not see the issue.
I know.
And now neither do you.
No answer to the dates of the WC inquiries and the FBI responses? Looks like you are back to chasing your tail. Unless you can date the palmprint, how does it place LHO firing the shots or how is it even important? It is known to be LHO’s rifle. It is known to have fired the shots by having been matched to the shells, bullet, and fragments. It is all there, the only thing that is missing is your understanding of the dates and information provided by the FBI to the WC concerning the WC’s concerns. There is no issue unless you ignore the information, evidence, and dates of correspondence. It makes for a fanciful story but that is all.
The FBI answered not only the WC’s concerns but also yours. They authenticated the palmprint on September 4th. All the WC’s concerns were voiced in July and August. It was all answered on September 4th .
The rifle was matched to the bullet and fragments. It is the murder weapon and it is Oswalds. The palmprint truly does not matter unless you can place a date on it.
-
I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important
I'm going to assume this comment is some kind of weird joke or a senior moment.
The palmprint is direct evidence placing the rifle found on the 6th floor in the hands of Oswald. The Back Yard Photos show Oswald holding the same type of rifle and that's all.
As far as the DPD were concerned the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor was the murder weapon.
They had their prime suspect for the assassination in custody. In the same building as the rifle.
The palmprint could link the two and, because of that, is clearly the most important piece of evidence discovered that day.
Your assertion that the Back Yard Photos were somehow stronger evidence of Oswald's connection to the rifle is really odd. and I think you should distance yourself from it.
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?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place?
They had
Ugh. The BY photos and Klein's documents doesn't place just A rifle in Oswald's hands. It places THE rifle in his hands. That rifle had a specific serial number. The same one as the one left on the 6th floor. It is the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Klein's. It is the only rifle associated with him during the relevant time period. He is pictured holding the rifle. His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage. When she directs the police to that location on 11.22 just hours after the crime, Oswald's rifle is not there. After 60 years there is only one way to account for his missing rifle. It is the one found at his place of employment. That is confirmed by the serial number. His print is a cherry on top. There are additional circumstances that lend themselves to this conclusion. Oswald made a singular trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday where his wife confirms he kept the rifle on the night before the assassination. He carries a long package to work with him the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way than containing the rifle. His prints are on the bag found next to the SN nest. He lies about owning any rifle. It's a drumbeat of overwhelming and evidence and circumstances. There is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle found belonged to Oswald and that he carried to the TSBD that morning.
-
Ugh. The BY photos and Klein's documents doesn't place just A rifle in Oswald's hands. It places THE rifle in his hands. That rifle had a specific serial number. The same one as the one left on the 6th floor. It is the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Klein's. It is the only rifle associated with him during the relevant time period. He is pictured holding the rifle. His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage. When she directs the police to that location on 11.22 just hours after the crime, Oswald's rifle is not there. After 60 years there is only one way to account for his missing rifle. It is the one found at his place of employment. That is confirmed by the serial number. His print is a cherry on top. There are additional circumstances that lend themselves to this conclusion. Oswald made a singular trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday where his wife confirms he kept the rifle on the night before the assassination. He carries a long package to work with him the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way than containing the rifle. His prints are on the bag found next to the SN nest. He lies about owning any rifle. It's a drumbeat of overwhelming and evidence and circumstances. There is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle found belonged to Oswald and that he carried to the TSBD that morning.
Nice tirade Richard (talk about "no mas")
Let's try again eh?
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?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
I couldn't disagree more when you refer to the print of the suspected assassin on the assassination weapon as "a cherry on top". I find that really difficult to process.
And how you can imagine that a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano is stronger evidence than Oswald's actual print on the actual rifle found on the floor the shots were taken from, is way beyond me.
Just to emphasise the point I'm making:
According to you, on the day of the assassination the DPD had lifted a legible print from the weapon they believed was the assassination weapon. This print could identify who shot the President of the United States. And you think this piece of evidence was a "cherry on top"?
You attribute less importance to this piece of evidence than you do a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano. ???
-
Nice tirade Richard (talk about "no mas")
Let's try again eh?
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?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
I couldn't disagree more when you refer to the print of the suspected assassin on the assassination weapon as "a cherry on top". I find that really difficult to process.
And how you can imagine that a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano is stronger evidence than Oswald's actual print on the actual rifle found on the floor the shots were taken from, is way beyond me.
Just to emphasise the point I'm making:
According to you, on the day of the assassination the DPD had lifted a legible print from the weapon they believed was the assassination weapon. This print could identify who shot the President of the United States. And you think this piece of evidence was a "cherry on top"?
You attribute less importance to this piece of evidence than you do a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano. ???
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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…
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
;D
Maybe they should have had an exorcism instead of an investigation.
-
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.
-
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.
;D
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.
-
According to Lt.Days WC testimony, it seems his opinion of the print lifted from the MC rifle was that it was NOT a fresh print recently placed on the barrel.
Therefore even if it can be concluded that miscommunication is the cause of Lt.Day failing to record anything in an affidavit of finding the print and informing Drain about it, if the print is an OLD print then that cannot be proof that Oswald used the MC on Nov 22/63.
-
According to the Fort Worth press , an FBI camera and crime lab kit spent a long time in the morgue. " The director of Miller Funeral Home, Paul Groody , also said the FBI came out the night Oswald was killed. Groody had gotten to the funeral home with his body something in the neighborhood of 11 o'clock at night . It is a several hour procedure to prepare the remains. After this time , some place in the early morning, agents came. I say agents because I am not familiar at the moment as to whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what they were. But agents did come and when they did come they fingerprinted . And the only reason that we knew they did is that they were carrying the satchel and equipment asked us if they might have the preparation room to themselves. And after it was over , we found ink on Lee Harvey Oswald's hands showing that they had fingerprinted him and palm printed him. We had to take that ink back off in order to prepare him for burial and eliminate that ink .
-
According to the Fort Worth press , an FBI camera and crime lab kit spent a long time in the morgue. " The director of Miller Funeral Home, Paul Groody , also said the FBI came out the night Oswald was killed. Groody had gotten to the funeral home with his body something in the neighborhood of 11 o'clock at night . It is a several hour procedure to prepare the remains. After this time , some place in the early morning, agents came. I say agents because I am not familiar at the moment as to whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what they were. But agents did come and when they did come they fingerprinted . And the only reason that we knew they did is that they were carrying the satchel and equipment asked us if they might have the preparation room to themselves. And after it was over , we found ink on Lee Harvey Oswald's hands showing that they had fingerprinted him and palm printed him. We had to take that ink back off in order to prepare him for burial and eliminate that ink .
-
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.
It always amazes me that Nutters lose there ability to comprehend any evidence that shakes their belief system.
I've already presented a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the legitimacy of the palmprint was being questioned almost from the beginning. But you can't seem to see this evidence for some reason.
And, to be honest, I've not even started on the bulk of evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the night of the 22nd - and, no doubt, you won't be able to see any of that evidence either.
It is thanks to you we have the July report mentioned by Willens stating that there was no palmprint on the rifle. Of course, this is not corroborating evidence there was no palmprint on the rifle as far as you're concerned.
Just because you refuse to look, doesn't mean the corroborating evidence is not there.
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.
You don't get to choose what Drain was referring to or when he was "talking out of his rear end" ;D
If the Willens July report turns out to be an FBI report it will more than support Drain's opinion and that this opinion came from the FBI experts Drain refers to.
And why wouldn't the FBI write such a report - they'd examined the rifle from end to end and found not a speck to indicate the barrel of the rifle had even been processed. Either it hadn't been processed or it had been wiped clean.
As far as the FBI were concerned there was no print on the barrel of the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
There was no fingerprint dust on the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
And then, out of nowhere, a palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle barrel shows up!!
And I don't need to be an expert to fake a print...Day does. And he was.
And you have zero idea how easy or difficult it would be to fake such a print either. I'm sure you're not going to show us how difficult or easy it would be to fake such a print.
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.
Not a single issue that was raised was "answered to their satisfaction".
Not one.
When I have the time I will present an analysis of the Liebler memo demonstrating how the issues raised were cleverly side-stepped.
For now, one example will suffice - Latona reported that there wasn't even a trace that the barrel had been processed for prints, let alone an actual remaining print. Yet Day testified that there was a clear print still left on the rifle. This is a complete contradiction.
In his interview with Hurt, Day insisted that, not only was the print on the rifle but there was fingerprint dust as well. Where did the print and the dust go?
Please explain how this issue was "answered to their satisfaction".
"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?
So you actually believe that the DPD had a match for Oswald's print on the assassination weapon by the night of the assassination?
You believe they neglected to mention it in any of the constant stream of interviews that were being given to TV and radio?
Can you explain how this staggeringly important piece of evidence went under the radar?
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.
What is the issue??
The issue is that, in the only report Day made concerning the palmprint, he stated that he couldn't make the identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
If he had a legible palmprint lifted from the rifle, why couldn't he make the identification?
In his report he is suggesting that he never made such a lift, which is the only reason he wouldn't be able to make an identification with the rifle gone. Unless you can think of an alternative reason.
-
It always amazes me that Nutters lose there ability to comprehend any evidence that shakes their belief system.
I've already presented a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the legitimacy of the palmprint was being questioned almost from the beginning. But you can't seem to see this evidence for some reason.
And, to be honest, I've not even started on the bulk of evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the night of the 22nd - and, no doubt, you won't be able to see any of that evidence either.
It is thanks to you we have the July report mentioned by Willens stating that there was no palmprint on the rifle. Of course, this is not corroborating evidence there was no palmprint on the rifle as far as you're concerned.
Just because you refuse to look, doesn't mean the corroborating evidence is not there.
You don't get to choose what Drain was referring to or when he was "talking out of his rear end" ;D
If the Willens July report turns out to be an FBI report it will more than support Drain's opinion and that this opinion came from the FBI experts Drain refers to.
And why wouldn't the FBI write such a report - they'd examined the rifle from end to end and found not a speck to indicate the barrel of the rifle had even been processed. Either it hadn't been processed or it had been wiped clean.
As far as the FBI were concerned there was no print on the barrel of the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
There was no fingerprint dust on the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
And then, out of nowhere, a palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle barrel shows up!!
And I don't need to be an expert to fake a print...Day does. And he was.
And you have zero idea how easy or difficult it would be to fake such a print either. I'm sure you're not going to show us how difficult or easy it would be to fake such a print.
Not a single issue that was raised was "answered to their satisfaction".
Not one.
When I have the time I will present an analysis of the Liebler memo demonstrating how the issues raised were cleverly side-stepped.
For now, one example will suffice - Latona reported that there wasn't even a trace that the barrel had been processed for prints, let alone an actual remaining print. Yet Day testified that there was a clear print still left on the rifle. This is a complete contradiction.
In his interview with Hurt, Day insisted that, not only was the print on the rifle but there was fingerprint dust as well. Where did the print and the dust go?
Please explain how this issue was "answered to their satisfaction".
So you actually believe that the DPD had a match for Oswald's print on the assassination weapon by the night of the assassination?
You believe they neglected to mention it in any of the constant stream of interviews that were being given to TV and radio?
Can you explain how this staggeringly important piece of evidence went under the radar?
What is the issue??
The issue is that, in the only report Day made concerning the palmprint, he stated that he couldn't make the identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
If he had a legible palmprint lifted from the rifle, why couldn't he make the identification?
In his report he is suggesting that he never made such a lift, which is the only reason he wouldn't be able to make an identification with the rifle gone. Unless you can think of an alternative reason.
These are your words:
The issue is that, in the only report Day made concerning the palmprint, he stated that he couldn't make the identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
If he had a legible palmprint lifted from the rifle, why couldn't he make the identification?
In his report he is suggesting that he never made such a lift, which is the only reason he wouldn't be able to make an identification with the rifle gone.
Day had already made an identification but had not yet documented it formally so that he could legally swear it was a match. He was ordered to stop processing and turn the rifle over to the FBI.
These are the actual words written in the report you alluded to:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
You have jumped to a conclusion and tried to twist the words (underlined) in the report to mean something that they simply do not. All the report says is that Day’s work on the rifle was ordered to be halted (before it was completed) due to orders to stop processing it and turn it over to the FBI.
This example of twisting of words and jumping to conclusions by you is only one of many in your arguments.
Gary Savage in his book “First Day Evidence,” page 196 tells us:
“Also on the night of the assassination, Rusty [Livingston] saw the palm print that Lieutenant Day had found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found earlier in the day and concurred that the palm print was Oswald’s.”
Gary Savage tells also tells us in his book that Rusty was standing right there and witnessed Day telling Drain about the palm print location. And that Rusty believed Drain was only half listening to Day while also listening to another FBI agent. It appears to me that Day’s words simply did not stick in Drain’s memory. This intrusion by the FBI into the investigation by the DPD caused other items to be confused, miscommunication to happen, etc. It is definitely not the normal and typical way an investigation takes place.
You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, I really don’t care. You apparently wished to discuss the palm print when you started this thread. If your intent is to try to persuade others that you are correct, I suggest you need something more that just twisted words and false conclusions.
-
These are your words:
The issue is that, in the only report Day made concerning the palmprint, he stated that he couldn't make the identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
If he had a legible palmprint lifted from the rifle, why couldn't he make the identification?
In his report he is suggesting that he never made such a lift, which is the only reason he wouldn't be able to make an identification with the rifle gone.
Day had already made an identification but had not yet documented it formally so that he could legally swear it was a match. He was ordered to stop processing and turn the rifle over to the FBI.
These are the actual words written in the report you alluded to:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
You have jumped to a conclusion and tried to twist the words (underlined) in the report to mean something that they simply do not. All the report says is that Day’s work on the rifle was ordered to be halted (before it was completed) due to orders to stop processing it and turn it over to the FBI.
This example of twisting of words and jumping to conclusions by you is only one of many in your arguments.
Anyone can underline a few words and say just look at these words and no others.
Let's have another look at the relevant passage from the report, this time let's look at the whole thing rather than the section you would like to emphasise:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
The report states that the print was probably Oswald's but a positive identification couldn't be made because the rifle had to be released to the FBI.
This is not twisting any words or jumping to any conclusions.
"It appeared probable that these prints were from...Oswald, but the rifle was released to the [FBI]...before...positive identification of the prints could be made."
As usual, you are in denial. You always are.
In his report Day makes no mention of the lifted palmprint, he makes no mention that he keeps the lifted palmprint instead of handing it over to Drain along with "all other evidence collected by the Crime Scene Search."
He makes no mention of using the lifted palmprint to make a positive identification of the assassin of the President of the United States. Supposedly, exactly the same print that Latona DID make a positive ID of Oswald from.
Why couldn't Day make the identification from the lifted palmprint? He had days to make it, he had Oswald's prints and he had the lifted palmprint. Why couldn't he make the identification?
The excuse you always come up with is exactly the same excuse Day uses in his report - the reason Day couldn't make a positive identification of the palmprint is because he was asked to stop processing the rifle.
It's a crazy excuse that makes zero sense.
IF HE HAD THE LIFTED PALMPRINT HE COULD'VE USED THAT TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION.
Day did not need the rifle to make the identification so the excuse that he couldn't make a positive identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI is insane.
Gary Savage in his book “First Day Evidence,” page 196 tells us:
“Also on the night of the assassination, Rusty [Livingston] saw the palm print that Lieutenant Day had found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found earlier in the day and concurred that the palm print was Oswald’s.”
Gary Savage tells also tells us in his book that Rusty was standing right there and witnessed Day telling Drain about the palm print location. And that Rusty believed Drain was only half listening to Day while also listening to another FBI agent. It appears to me that Day’s words simply did not stick in Drain’s memory. This intrusion by the FBI into the investigation by the DPD caused other items to be confused, miscommunication to happen, etc. It is definitely not the normal and typical way an investigation takes place.
You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, I really don’t care. You apparently wished to discuss the palm print when you started this thread. If your intent is to try to persuade others that you are correct, I suggest you need something more that just twisted words and false conclusions.
Day reports that he only mentioned the palmprint to Curry and Fritz. He makes no mention of Rusty and the boys "concurring" with him.
Day states that he alone worked on the print. He gives the distinct impression it was some kind of big secret and not the most important piece of evidence linking Oswald to the crime.
Day is also clear that he specifically showed Drain where the print and the powder was and "warned" him about how this most important piece of evidence should be transported. Once again, Day's description of events seems at odds with Rusty's.
Of course, Fritz never confirms that Day told him about the palmprint.
The very next day Curry is bemoaning the lack of print evidence, clearly unaware that Day has told him anything.
And Drain flatly denies Day ever mentioned it to him.
It's almost as if Day never told Curry, Fritz or Drain about the palmprint.
It appears to me that Day’s words simply did not stick in Drain’s memory.
When the rifle reached Latona, a few hours after Day had handed it over, there was no palmprint on the rifle. There was no black powder on the rifle. Where did it go Charles?
Why did Day use black powder on a dark surface, and not grey powder as everyone in fingerprinting is taught?
Why didn't Day photograph the print before trying to lift it? This is fingerprinting 101.
Why didn't Day protect the exposed palmprint like he did with the smears on the magazine housing?
Why doesn't anyone remember Day telling them about the palmprint?
Why didn't he use the lifted palmprint to identify the assassin of the President?
Why did he just put the lifted palmprint in his drawer and leave it there?
Why wasn't the palmprint mentioned by anyone until the evening of the 24th, after Oswald was dead?
There are so many more things to get into regarding how suspicious this issue is. It shouldn't be possible to ask a single one of the above questions if basic procedure had been followed. Day is clearly not telling the truth on some issues, he makes contradictory statements on others that should be straight-forward.
And make no mistake, not a single one of the issues raised above was dealt with at any point.
Not a single one of these questions were ever satisfactorily answered.
-
It’s difficult to understand why Oswald would not have used gloves while disassembling the 2 main rifle parts , barrel and wooden stock which he then supposedly made a paper bag approx 36” in length to carry the rifle in BW Fraziers car and then into TSBD.
For some reason Oswald WAS able to not leave several other prints on the paper when he was ripping it off the roll at TSBD and folding up the paper to hide it in his jacket (or somewhere) when he went home with BW Frazier on Thursday afternoon and when he MADE the bag using tape( either in TSBD Thursday or at home Friday).
Then strangely Oswald was able to grip the top of his paper bag with just one hand pressing his hand & fingers hard enough to carry the 8lb package swinging it along just a few inches off the ground (perLinnie May Randle) yet leave no multi finger or palm print there at the top of the bag.
When Oswald was placing the package in the back seat of BW Fraziers car and when he lifted it out again , for some reason, no additional prints indicating that action were found on the bag either.
All that was found was one small partial print of one finger near the top of the bag and one palm print with some fingers in the middle of the bag.
Then when Oswald was supposedly assembling the MC rifle in the TSBD on Friday Nov22/63, (the 7th floor most likely) he did not care to use gloves then either? Was he just unable to realize how touching the barrel with his bare hand might very well leave a print?
Then he did not use any gloves while he was firing the rifle (allegedly) from the SE 6th floor TSBD window.
Yet SUDDENLY, just after firing the last shot Oswald DID apparently realize that he was not wearing gloves and so he began wiping off the rifle as he was running with it at double time speed (8ft/sec) so that he would not have to waste another 10 secs or more when he stopped at the boxes near the staircase ( off all places 🤔 …to hide the rifle?
This is what the official WC report wants us to believe. The problem is it seems just too incredible that a man with a fairly high IQ and ability to speak fluent Russian, could be this inept.
Therefore in the anomaly of Lt.Day vs Drain concerning the finding of a palm print on the barrel , when taken together with all the other anomalies, it has to be more than just negligence/ miscommunication , hence why some of us remain skeptical of the WC conclusions.
-
It’s difficult to understand why Oswald would not have used gloves while disassembling the 2 main rifle parts , barrel and wooden stock which he then supposedly made a paper bag approx 36” in length to carry the rifle in BW Fraziers car and then into TSBD.
For some reason Oswald WAS able to not leave several other prints on the paper when he was ripping it off the roll at TSBD and folding up the paper to hide it in his jacket (or somewhere) when he went home with BW Frazier on Thursday afternoon and when he MADE the bag using tape( either in TSBD Thursday or at home Friday).
Then strangely Oswald was able to grip the top of his paper bag with just one hand pressing his hand & fingers hard enough to carry the 8lb package swinging it along just a few inches off the ground (perLinnie May Randle) yet leave no multi finger or palm print there at the top of the bag.
When Oswald was placing the package in the back seat of BW Fraziers car and when he lifted it out again , for some reason, no additional prints indicating that action were found on the bag either.
All that was found was one small partial print of one finger near the top of the bag and one palm print with some fingers in the middle of the bag.
Then when Oswald was supposedly assembling the MC rifle in the TSBD on Friday Nov22/63, (the 7th floor most likely) he did not care to use gloves then either? Was he just unable to realize how touching the barrel with his bare hand might very well leave a print?
Then he did not use any gloves while he was firing the rifle (allegedly) from the SE 6th floor TSBD window.
Yet SUDDENLY, just after firing the last shot Oswald DID apparently realize that he was not wearing gloves and so he began wiping off the rifle as he was running with it at double time speed (8ft/sec) so that he would not have to waste another 10 secs or more when he stopped at the boxes near the staircase ( off all places 🤔 …to hide the rifle?
This is what the official WC report wants us to believe. The problem is it seems just too incredible that a man with a fairly high IQ and ability to speak fluent Russian, could be this inept.
Therefore in the anomaly of Lt.Day vs Drain concerning the finding of a palm print on the barrel , when taken together with all the other anomalies, it has to be more than just negligence/ miscommunication , hence why some of us remain skeptical of the WC conclusions.
The old argument that the evidence is so conclusive of Oswald's guilt that he must be innocent. Do you think that if Oswald had worn gloves that he would have gotten away with the assassination of the president? Oswald accepted his death or arrest as part of the calculation as to whether to commit this act. He decided to do it knowing that meant he would die or be arrested. Don't deprive him of the one act in his life for which he was successful.
-
Anyone can underline a few words and say just look at these words and no others.
Let's have another look at the relevant passage from the report, this time let's look at the whole thing rather than the section you would like to emphasise:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
The report states that the print was probably Oswald's but a positive identification couldn't be made because the rifle had to be released to the FBI.
This is not twisting any words or jumping to any conclusions.
"It appeared probable that these prints were from...Oswald, but the rifle was released to the [FBI]...before...positive identification of the prints could be made."
As usual, you are in denial. You always are.
In his report Day makes no mention of the lifted palmprint, he makes no mention that he keeps the lifted palmprint instead of handing it over to Drain along with "all other evidence collected by the Crime Scene Search."
He makes no mention of using the lifted palmprint to make a positive identification of the assassin of the President of the United States. Supposedly, exactly the same print that Latona DID make a positive ID of Oswald from.
Why couldn't Day make the identification from the lifted palmprint? He had days to make it, he had Oswald's prints and he had the lifted palmprint. Why couldn't he make the identification?
The excuse you always come up with is exactly the same excuse Day uses in his report - the reason Day couldn't make a positive identification of the palmprint is because he was asked to stop processing the rifle.
It's a crazy excuse that makes zero sense.
IF HE HAD THE LIFTED PALMPRINT HE COULD'VE USED THAT TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION.
Day did not need the rifle to make the identification so the excuse that he couldn't make a positive identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI is insane.
Day reports that he only mentioned the palmprint to Curry and Fritz. He makes no mention of Rusty and the boys "concurring" with him.
Day states that he alone worked on the print. He gives the distinct impression it was some kind of big secret and not the most important piece of evidence linking Oswald to the crime.
Day is also clear that he specifically showed Drain where the print and the powder was and "warned" him about how this most important piece of evidence should be transported. Once again, Day's description of events seems at odds with Rusty's.
Of course, Fritz never confirms that Day told him about the palmprint.
The very next day Curry is bemoaning the lack of print evidence, clearly unaware that Day has told him anything.
And Drain flatly denies Day ever mentioned it to him.
It's almost as if Day never told Curry, Fritz or Drain about the palmprint.
It appears to me that Day’s words simply did not stick in Drain’s memory.
When the rifle reached Latona, a few hours after Day had handed it over, there was no palmprint on the rifle. There was no black powder on the rifle. Where did it go Charles?
Why did Day use black powder on a dark surface, and not grey powder as everyone in fingerprinting is taught?
Why didn't Day photograph the print before trying to lift it? This is fingerprinting 101.
Why didn't Day protect the exposed palmprint like he did with the smears on the magazine housing?
Why doesn't anyone remember Day telling them about the palmprint?
Why didn't he use the lifted palmprint to identify the assassin of the President?
Why did he just put the lifted palmprint in his drawer and leave it there?
Why wasn't the palmprint mentioned by anyone until the evening of the 24th, after Oswald was dead?
There are so many more things to get into regarding how suspicious this issue is. It shouldn't be possible to ask a single one of the above questions if basic procedure had been followed. Day is clearly not telling the truth on some issues, he makes contradictory statements on others that should be straight-forward.
And make no mistake, not a single one of the issues raised above was dealt with at any point.
Not a single one of these questions were ever satisfactorily answered.
The report states that the print was probably Oswald's but a positive identification couldn't be made because the rifle had to be released to the FBI.
This is not twisting any words or jumping to any conclusions.
It most certainly is twisting words and jumping to conclusions. First, your false premise: Day’s report does not say that positive ID couldn’t be made. That is apparently your unsupported (jumped to) conclusion. Therefore any assumption/jumping to conclusions/twisting of words regarding reasons why (or because) it couldn’t be made simply do not apply or make any sense whatsoever.
Day was ordered to stop his processing and turn the rifle over to the FBI. Day followed his orders. Going from memory, Day did not work on SaPersonay 11/23/63. On Sunday 11/24/63 I believe that Day was busy annd involved in further processing of the sixth floor of the TSBD. When news came to Day of the death of LHO on Sunday he knew that there could be no trial for a dead man. The rifle had been returned to the DPD on Sunday 11/24/63. However the box containing the rifle was never opened by Day and the DPD. It soon went back to the FBI along with the palm print.
Why couldn't Day make the identification from the lifted palmprint? He had days to make it, he had Oswald's prints and he had the lifted palmprint. Why couldn't he make the identification?
Again, no one said that Day couldn’t. That is your false premise as I indicated above.
IF HE HAD THE LIFTED PALMPRINT HE COULD'VE USED THAT TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION.
Day did not need the rifle to make the identification so the excuse that he couldn't make a positive identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI is insane.
I agree. However, you keep making that insane allegation. Again, your false premise is that Day couldn’t make the ID as I explained above.
-
The report states that the print was probably Oswald's but a positive identification couldn't be made because the rifle had to be released to the FBI.
This is not twisting any words or jumping to any conclusions.
It most certainly is twisting words and jumping to conclusions. First, your false premise: Day’s report does not say that positive ID couldn’t be made. That is apparently your unsupported (jumped to) conclusion. Therefore any assumption/jumping to conclusions/twisting of words regarding reasons why (or because) it couldn’t be made simply do not apply or make any sense whatsoever.
Day was ordered to stop his processing and turn the rifle over to the FBI. Day followed his orders. Going from memory, Day did not work on SaPersonay 11/23/63. On Sunday 11/24/63 I believe that Day was busy annd involved in further processing of the sixth floor of the TSBD. When news came to Day of the death of LHO on Sunday he knew that there could be no trial for a dead man. The rifle had been returned to the DPD on Sunday 11/24/63. However the box containing the rifle was never opened by Day and the DPD. It soon went back to the FBI along with the palm print.
Why couldn't Day make the identification from the lifted palmprint? He had days to make it, he had Oswald's prints and he had the lifted palmprint. Why couldn't he make the identification?
Again, no one said that Day couldn’t. That is your false premise as I indicated above.
IF HE HAD THE LIFTED PALMPRINT HE COULD'VE USED THAT TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION.
Day did not need the rifle to make the identification so the excuse that he couldn't make a positive identification because he had to give the rifle to the FBI is insane.
I agree. However, you keep making that insane allegation. Again, your false premise is that Day couldn’t make the ID as I explained above.
;D
Let's have a closer look at my "insane allegation".
This is the relevant section of the report:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
I think it is correct to say that this report is saying the following:
It appeared probable the palmprint was Oswald's but the rifle was released to the FBI before a positive identification of the prints could be made.
It is saying that a positive identification of the prints wasn't made BECAUSE the rifle was released to the FBI.
Do you agree with this interpretation or not?
If not, why not.
-
;D
Let's have a closer look at my "insane allegation".
This is the relevant section of the report:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
I think it is correct to say that this report is saying the following:
It appeared probable the palmprint was Oswald's but the rifle was released to the FBI before a positive identification of the prints could be made.
It is saying that a positive identification of the prints wasn't made BECAUSE the rifle was released to the FBI.
Do you agree with this interpretation or not?
If not, why not.
No, because it doesn’t say that.
-
No, because it doesn’t say that.
That is exactly what it says.
Interpret what it says otherwise.
-
So we are supposed to believe that Day had this print lifted before he released the rifle to Drain but that Day told ONLY Drain and NO ONE ELSE about having lifted this print ?
Are we supposed to believe Day when he said he could still see some of the print left on the barrel AFTER he made the lift, yet the FBI couldn’t find that remnant of print when they dusted the rifle?
Why was not a note affixed to the rifle about the print being found?
It stinks about as bad as the SS having a HQ with window overlooking the roof top that Crooks was crawling slowly up before taking shots at Trump, and the SS saw nothing?
It’s a weird parallel with Crooks and Oswald being KOOKs who were able to find the unsecured building closest to their targets even though SS and police were all over the place and did not spot them.
Yet it took Oswald 3 shots to hit JFK as close as only 50 yds away and not farther than 100 yds and Crooks could not even hit a stationary large 6’3” x 1’8” target at 130 yds firing a semi auto rifle and taking 7-8 shots.
Me thinks the explanation is that when KOOKs are the assassins their state of mind being totally demented interferes with their ability to concentrate and aim accurately.
It also makes me reconsider MK ultra and if these KOOKs were being psychologically prepared and or hypnotic suggestion to be fixated on a particular person and the buildings were purposely left unsecured with a probability of expectation by their handlers that the KOOKS would likely perform if the target was presented to them as a sitting duck at close range.
-
No, because it doesn’t say that.
Yes it does.
That's how the English language works.
Your insane interpretation of what you want it to say is irrelevant.
It appeared probable the palmprint was Oswald's but the rifle was released to the FBI before a positive identification of the prints could be made.
It is blaming the lack of a positive identification of the probable prints on the fact the rifle was taken away.
That's what is being said.
If you think the English language works in a different way, let's hear it.
Let's hear your interpretation of this passage. Walk:
-
The key point is that if Day had the lifted print in his procession then how could the act of giving the rifle to the FBI have prevented Day from verifying the print matched Oswald , given that Oswald was fingerprinted within hours after his arrest?
-
The key point is that if Day had the lifted print in his procession then how could the act of giving the rifle to the FBI have prevented Day from verifying the print matched Oswald , given that Oswald was fingerprinted within hours after his arrest?
No, the key point is that no one has established that Day couldn’t have.
Day was ordered to stop processing. Day followed his orders. That is the reason that it wasn’t done.
A snip from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 238-239:
Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI. I told him, “There’s a trace of a print here” and showed him where it was. It was just a verbal communication to him. I didn’t have time to make any written reports; I just gave it to him and he signed for it without saying anything. I don’t remember whether he wrapped it up with anything or not, but he took it on to Washington that night. It’s a funny thing about that. We had a few other items around such as some of his clothes and paper off the roll at the Book Depository that we didn’t do anything else with. I didn’t send the card lift either. They told me not to do anything else, so I didn’t even look at it again. …
… About four or five days later, an FBI man rolled up at the house and wanted to know where I had gotten the palm print. In Washington, they didn’t find any prints on the gun at all. I don’t know why they didn’t locate that piece of print that I thought was still there. However, if I had received it with powder all over it, I probably would have thrown up my hands because somebody else had been messing with it. I suspect that’s what happened with the man in Washington. There were too many irons in the fire, too many fingers in the pie! But anyway, they didn’t find any prints, or didn’t find that one or were unable to do anything with what I thought was on there. It may have been that there wasn’t enough there, but I thought I could still see it. But anyway, I sent this palm print on the card to Washington. Of course, they identified it as Oswald’s, but they thought that I had gotten it off the gun after it had been sent back to us, which wasn’t true. So they were in kind of a stew. They thought their man in Washington had missed the print. After I explained what had happened, I guess that got him off the hook.
To know that Day told the FBI a few days after the assassination that he lifted the palm print on 11/22/63. And then to believe that Day would then turn around and write a report to his superiors a few weeks later that says he couldn’t verify the ID (due to the rifle being sent away) is pure lunacy.
Altering Day’s report’s sentences by leaving out relevant phrases and trying to insert words he didn’t use (and trying to pass that off as what one is supposed to think Day was trying to say) is an insult to anyone with any intelligence. All this ridiculous argument is is someone trying to support their point of view by using blatantly dishonest means.
-
So Lt.Day has this palm print on a card which he just lifted from the rifle and Day is apparently suggesting that in HIS opinion it’s “probable” the print is from Oswald’s hand.
But then Day puts this print card containing a probable Oswald print lifted from the rifle and he interprets instructions from the FBI to stop all processing of the rifle to mean: “do nothing more with any print card containing a lifted probable print of Oswald or any other bit of evidence you may have found while inspecting the rifle and just set all that aside until we get back to you”?
From those quotes from a book written by a 3rd party , the apparent explanation by Lt. Day seems to be this was just an unfortunate mistake due to confusion of overlapping investigating agencies.
So IDK for certain but imo the Worst “mistake” was Lt. Day unwilling to sign ANY affidavit explaining why FBI agent Drain was not informed about the print card instead Day waiting years later to explain why to a 3rd party author.
-
So Lt.Day has this palm print on a card which he just lifted from the rifle and Day is apparently suggesting that in HIS opinion it’s “probable” the print is from Oswald’s hand.
But then Day puts this print card containing a probable Oswald print lifted from the rifle and he interprets instructions from the FBI to stop all processing of the rifle to mean: “do nothing more with any print card containing a lifted probable print of Oswald or any other bit of evidence you may have found while inspecting the rifle and just set all that aside until we get back to you”?
From those quotes from a book written by a 3rd party , the apparent explanation by Lt. Day seems to be this was just an unfortunate mistake due to confusion of overlapping investigating agencies.
So IDK for certain but imo the Worst “mistake” was Lt. Day unwilling to sign ANY affidavit explaining why FBI agent Drain was not informed about the print card instead Day waiting years later to explain why to a 3rd party author.
he interprets instructions from the FBI to stop all processing of the rifle to mean: “do nothing more with any print card containing a lifted probable print of Oswald or any other bit of evidence you may have found while inspecting the rifle and just set all that aside until we get back to you”?
His instructions were not from the FBI. They were from his superiors in the DPD. Have you ever been in any kind of military or military-like organization (like the DPD)? If you haven’t, the first thing you learn is that you MUST follow orders, period. That is what Lt. Day did, follow his orders.
From those quotes from a book written by a 3rd party …
Actually the book is based on actual transcripts from recordings of interviews of each subject. The narratives are directly from the transcripts.
From the introduction section of “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
What follows are the stories in their entirety as they were related to me. I have made no changes in context or meaning, nor have I attempted to insert my own opinions into the narratives. One of my goals has been to allow the people to speak for themselves. The only alterations are in sentence structure and grammar to make the narratives more readable. Each subject was given the opportunity to critically review their original transcript and the completed narrative, and to make any necessary corrections or additions. Though few alterations were made, I have complied when requested by deleting certain detrimental comments about others as well as stories told to me in confidence which in no way altered the story of the assassination or its investigation. …
…. In converting the information from the transcripts to the narratives, occasional reorganization was necessary since the interviews sometimes meandered from one subject to another. As a result, transitional sentences were inserted to facilitate continuity. Nothing was changed to alter any substance from the original transcripts. …
…. Here are the stories of those participants as they would want their stories told. Open your mind and listen to what they have to say.
It appears to me that your comment regarding a 3rd party book shouldn’t be a major concern.
-
No, the key point is that no one has established that Day couldn’t have.
Day was ordered to stop processing. Day followed his orders. That is the reason that it wasn’t done.
A snip from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 238-239:
Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI. I told him, “There’s a trace of a print here” and showed him where it was. It was just a verbal communication to him. I didn’t have time to make any written reports; I just gave it to him and he signed for it without saying anything. I don’t remember whether he wrapped it up with anything or not, but he took it on to Washington that night. It’s a funny thing about that. We had a few other items around such as some of his clothes and paper off the roll at the Book Depository that we didn’t do anything else with. I didn’t send the card lift either. They told me not to do anything else, so I didn’t even look at it again. …
… About four or five days later, an FBI man rolled up at the house and wanted to know where I had gotten the palm print. In Washington, they didn’t find any prints on the gun at all. I don’t know why they didn’t locate that piece of print that I thought was still there. However, if I had received it with powder all over it, I probably would have thrown up my hands because somebody else had been messing with it. I suspect that’s what happened with the man in Washington. There were too many irons in the fire, too many fingers in the pie! But anyway, they didn’t find any prints, or didn’t find that one or were unable to do anything with what I thought was on there. It may have been that there wasn’t enough there, but I thought I could still see it. But anyway, I sent this palm print on the card to Washington. Of course, they identified it as Oswald’s, but they thought that I had gotten it off the gun after it had been sent back to us, which wasn’t true. So they were in kind of a stew. They thought their man in Washington had missed the print. After I explained what had happened, I guess that got him off the hook.
To know that Day told the FBI a few days after the assassination that he lifted the palm print on 11/22/63. And then to believe that Day would then turn around and write a report to his superiors a few weeks later that says he couldn’t verify the ID (due to the rifle being sent away) is pure lunacy.
Altering Day’s report’s sentences by leaving out relevant phrases and trying to insert words he didn’t use (and trying to pass that off as what one is supposed to think Day was trying to say) is an insult to anyone with any intelligence. All this ridiculous argument is is someone trying to support their point of view by using blatantly dishonest means.
Garbage. 30 years too late. Drain said that evening Washington was calling every 15 minutes to find out what they had.
It is beyond dumb to think Drain didn't know exactly what that was before he left Dallas.
Interesting that NO DPD officers went to DC, instead it was only Drain and a top FBI from New Orleans, Warren deBrueys.
Harold Weisberg described deBrueys to the Grand Jury in the Shaw trial:
"...Warren deBrueys is fluent in Spanish, translates documents, he is one of these Spanish experts,
he is one of the Oswald experts, Pena had been an informant for him reporting on those for Castro.
When Oswald left New Orleans so did deBnueys. When Oswald wound up in Dallas so did deBrueys.
When he was no longer in Dallas neither was deBrueys. He came back to New Orleans when Oswald got murdered,
a remarkable coincidence, gentlemen. " https://jfk.boards.net/post/3290/thread
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sebastian Latona | WC Testimony
Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?
Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those
are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears
the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald.
Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon.
I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else.
And no latent prints of value were developed. https://jfk.boards.net/post/4930/thread
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and we are still waiting for your interpretation of:
“… 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 that these prints were from the right palm and fingers of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the rifle was released to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be sent to Washington, D.C. before the examination was completed and positive identification of the prints could be made. …”
-
Garbage. 30 years too late. Drain said that evening Washington was calling every 15 minutes to find out what they had.
It is beyond dumb to think Drain didn't know exactly what that was before he left Dallas.
Look at the confusion still surrounding the recent Trump assassination attempt. Basic questions are still unanswered a month later. Apply that to events in the JFK assassination that were occurring on the fly within 24 hours of event. Investigations of these types can be chaotic.
-
Look at the confusion still surrounding the recent Trump assassination attempt. Basic questions are still unanswered a month later. Apply that to events in the JFK assassination that were occurring on the fly within 24 hours of event. Investigations of these types can be chaotic.
lame.
Either the print is on the rifle that night or it is not.
-
lame.
Either the print is on the rifle that night or it is not.
There has to be some odd conspiracy theory around to account for the FBI using the irregularities of the Carcano's rifle barrel to match LHO’s palm print on the Carcano's rifle barrel. If not, maybe the time has come to invent one.
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
-
There has to be some odd conspiracy theory around to account for the FBI using the irregularities of the Carcano's rifle barrel to match LHO’s palm print on the Carcano's rifle barrel. If not, maybe the time has come to invent one.
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
Only problem = it cannot be confirmed coming off the rifle on 11/22.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reasonable Doubt | Henry Hurt
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said [FBI Agent Vincent] 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.”
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4933/thread
-
Only problem = it cannot be confirmed coming off the rifle on 11/22.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reasonable Doubt | Henry Hurt
“I just don’t believe there ever was a print,” said [FBI Agent Vincent] 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.”
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4933/thread
Nor can it be confirmed LHO placed it on the barrel on 11/22. But it was on the barrel of the rifle.
“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.”
So, this is the conspiracy theory? SA Drain speculating about something he knows nothing about.
Is that your opinion or just the opinion of a person with no fingerprint identification experience at all?
-
Nor can it be confirmed LHO placed it on the barrel on 11/22. But it was on the barrel of the rifle.
“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.”
So, this is the conspiracy theory? SA Drain speculating about something he knows nothing about.
Is that your opinion or just the opinion of a person with no fingerprint identification experience at all?
I posted what I needed to say. You continue with lame excuses.
-
I posted what I needed to say. You continue with lame excuses.
What you stated was the conspiracy theory is built around the palmprint somehow having been supposedly planted on the barrel of the rifle but not by the FBI, who in the end authenticated the palmprint as having been from the barrel of the rifle and matching it to LHO. Clear as mud. Need to add anything further to the subject?
-
What you stated was the conspiracy theory is built around the palmprint somehow having been supposedly planted on the barrel of the rifle but not by the FBI, who in the end authenticated the palmprint as having been from the barrel of the rifle and matching it to LHO. Clear as mud. Need to add anything further to the subject?
Typical nutter garbage. I won't waste my time.
-
lame.
Either the print is on the rifle that night or it is not.
What confused logic. With or without the palmprint there is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle belonged to Oswald. It has a serial number. The rifle with that serial number was sent to Oswald's PO box. Oswald was photographed holding that rifle. It was left at Oswald's place of employment. The print is just a cherry on top of the ice cream sundae of guilt.
-
What confused logic. With or without the palmprint there is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle belonged to Oswald. It has a serial number. The rifle with that serial number was sent to Oswald's PO box. Oswald was photographed holding that rifle. It was left at Oswald's place of employment. The print is just a cherry on top of the ice cream sundae of guilt.
As usual, it is you who is confused Richard.
Using your renowned "logic" can you tell us what it means if there was no palmprint on the rifle when Day first examined it on the evening of the assassination. What does that mean?
Day testified that there was a clearly identifiable palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when it was handed over to Drain. Elsewhere he has stated that, not only was there a print, there was also fingerprint powder still on the barrel when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later Latona, the fingerprint specialist for the FBI, found no print on the barrel and no fingerprint powder.
What happened to the print and the fingerprint powder?
Where did it go?
-
Typical nutter garbage. I won't waste my time.
SA Drain--- “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.”
This theory is just garbage. Everyone's time is being wasted by it. Just because SA Drain was a box of rocks does not mean you have to be.
If you could just explain how it is possible to transfer the print from a card back to the rifle barrel.
-
CT Speculation: Lt. Day never lifted any print from the MC rifle before the rifle was handed over to FBI agent Drain.
Lt.Days claim: A palm print was lifted from the MC rifle (including some grain pattern matching the wooden stock of MC rifle) and the print was transferred to a card. This action by Lt. Day occurred BEFORE custody of the rifle was transferred to the FBI.
The Dilemma: The FBI received the MC rifle and upon examination found no prints on the MC rifle nor any evidence of powder that would indicate that Lt. Day had ever dusted for prints nor was the FBI made aware that Day had lifted a print and transferred the print to a card.
Explanations by Lt. Day:
A. There was a failure to communicate with FBI agent Drain.
B. The card was not given to Agent Drain because Lt. Day was given an order by the FBI to immediately stop any processing/inspection of the rifle.
Question: Does an order by the FBI to Lt.Day to
stop the process of inspection of the rifle “immediately” defacto prevent Lt. Day from handing over the card with the lifted print when the rifle was transferred to FBI agent Drain?
If the answer is no, then the CT arrives to the question how the card was created many days later well past Lt. Days inspection of the rifle , let alone FBI Latona’s inspection of the rifle.
Speculation about how the card was created after the FBI had inspected the MC rifle and found no prints:
Options:
A. The rifle was forced into one hand of an alive Oswald ( or he was somehow tricked to hold the rifle ) while he was in custody)
B. The rifle was forced into one hand of a dead Oswald ( most likely at the morgue)
C. A lift of some portion of grain of the stock and some pattern of the barrel perhaps was lifted with tape and then applied to a card. Then Oswald’s hand was pressed to the card transferring his print overtop of the grain pattern on the card.
Now the CT reaches a dead end unless there is some way to prove from examination by some of the card or some witness that any of the 3 options above can be validated.
Are there some other CT options?
-
As usual, it is you who is confused Richard.
Using your renowned "logic" can you tell us what it means if there was no palmprint on the rifle when Day first examined it on the evening of the assassination. What does that mean?
Day testified that there was a clearly identifiable palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when it was handed over to Drain. Elsewhere he has stated that, not only was there a print, there was also fingerprint powder still on the barrel when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later Latona, the fingerprint specialist for the FBI, found no print on the barrel and no fingerprint powder.
What happened to the print and the fingerprint powder?
Where did it go?
It's a false premise that the print was faked, but I have already explained the implications even if that were the case. At worst, it would mean that for some inexplicable reason that the DPD decided to frame a guilty person for a crime after he was dead, and the authorities were already satisfied he had committed the crime based on the totality of the other evidence. It would raise zero doubt as to whether Oswald owned this particular rifle since there is overwhelming evidence EVEN in the absence of the print to link him, and him alone, to the rifle found on the 6th floor. The rifle used to assassinate JFK.
-
It's a false premise that the print was faked, but I have already explained the implications even if that were the case. At worst, it would mean that for some inexplicable reason that the DPD decided to frame a guilty person for a crime after he was dead, and the authorities were already satisfied he had committed the crime based on the totality of the other evidence. It would raise zero doubt as to whether Oswald owned this particular rifle since there is overwhelming evidence EVEN in the absence of the print to link him, and him alone, to the rifle found on the 6th floor. The rifle used to assassinate JFK.
It's a false premise that the print was faked
It shouldn't surprise me how stupid you can be...but it still does.
The idea that there was no palmprint on the rifle when Day examined it comes from your heroes - the Warren Commission.
You love the Warren Commission so much. You suck down everything they have to say without question.
But here we have your heroes questioning whether or not Day really lifted the palmprint from the rifle.
It must be so confusing for you when the people you love so much argue among themselves.
An FBI document dated August 28th, 1964, reveals that: "[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."
The Warren Commission were wondering if the palmprint originated from "some other source".
They were questioning whether or not the palmprint really came from the barrel of the rifle.
In effect, they were questioning whether the palmprint was real or fake.
A memo sent from Liebler to Rankin on 28th August stated: "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...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."
The whole Liebler memo lays out a multitude of issues regarding the legitimacy of the palmprint.
And that's not all.
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” [page 267]: "We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle"
The Warren Commission was aware of a report in JULY '64 that there was no palmprint on the rifle!!
If there was no palmprint on the rifle then where did it come from?
The "false premise", as you call it, originated with your heroes - the Warren Commission.
How do you explain that?
There are so many massive problems with the palmprint but one stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Day testified that he lifted the palmprint from the barrel of the rifle, but left so much of the print on the rifle he felt that what was left on the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of making an identification. It must be remembered that a certain identification of Oswald was made from the partial print that Day allegedly lifted, so whatever he left on the barrel of the rifle must have been even better than what he lifted.
Also, let's not forget that Day testified that there was not one, BUT TWO sets of prints on the barrel of the rifle!
Also, let's not forget that Day stated there was fingerprint powder still on the barrel of the rifle from where he made the lift.
And this is not surprising. Below is a pic of the actual lift. The arrows highlight that the tape did not pick up all the fingerprint powder, so this powder must have been left on the barrel.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pLcG4j1m/palmprintactual.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Two sets of prints and a good portion of black fingerprint powder were on the barrel of the rifle when Day handed it over to the FBI.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, there was not a speck of either set of prints or fingerprint powder to be seen on the barrel of the rifle.
There's no point asking YOU where the prints and powder went as you don't have a clue what's going on.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT AS FAR AS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONCERNED.
Because you're a zealot you can just skirt over this kind of thing but any rational person has to stop and ask questions.
At worst, it would mean that for some inexplicable reason that the DPD decided to frame a guilty person for a crime after he was dead,
Where would we be without the usual dose of Richard "logic".
If the print was faked, this was done BEFORE the DPD was aware there was any other evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
It was done BEFORE Oswald was dead.
Your argument - that the DPD wouldn't falsify evidence linking Oswald to the rifle because they already had loads of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle - is the the usual mental nonsense, because they had ZERO evidence linking Oswald to the rifle when the print was faked.
Do you understand how stupid your argument is?
I doubt it.
-
Lt.Day lifted a print and it was transferred to a card right?
So why did not Day hand over this card to FBI agent Drain when the rifle was transferred to Drains custody?
Was there some protocol in place requiring all physical evidence to remain in the possession of Fritz office that prevented Day from handing the card to Drain when he took possession of the rifle?
-
Lt.Day lifted a print and it was transferred to a card right?
So why did not Day hand over this card to FBI agent Drain when the rifle was transferred to Drains custody?
Was there some protocol in place requiring all physical evidence to remain in the possession of Fritz office that prevented Day from handing the card to Drain when he took possession of the rifle?
The DPD was asked to transfer ALL evidence collected regarding the assassination to the FBI.
A print from the alleged murder weapon that could be tied to the prime suspect already in custody would have been the star piece of evidence that day. Of even more evidentiary importance that the rifle itself.
On the day of the assassination the palmprint would have been THE ONLY piece of evidence collected that would've tied Oswald to the alleged murder weapon.
The importance of the palmprint supposedly lifted by Day cannot be over-estimated.
So...why wasn't it the star of the show when the evidence was handed over to the FBI?
Why wasn't it the star of the show linking Oswald to the murder weapon??
Nutters cannot offer any explanation.
But there must be an explanation!
There must be an explanation why Day didn't hand over this most important piece of evidence. There must be an explanation why the two sets of prints and the black fingerprint powder disappeared from the barrel of the rifle.
There must be an explanation why Day didn't photograph the palmprint before he lifted it?
All these mysteries disappear if we accept that the palmprint was faked.
-
The DPD was asked to transfer ALL evidence collected regarding the assassination to the FBI.
A print from the alleged murder weapon that could be tied to the prime suspect already in custody would have been the star piece of evidence that day. Of even more evidentiary importance that the rifle itself.
On the day of the assassination the palmprint would have been THE ONLY piece of evidence collected that would've tied Oswald to the alleged murder weapon.
The importance of the palmprint supposedly lifted by Day cannot be over-estimated.
So...why wasn't it the star of the show when the evidence was handed over to the FBI?
Why wasn't it the star of the show linking Oswald to the murder weapon??
Nutters cannot offer any explanation.
But there must be an explanation!
There must be an explanation why Day didn't hand over this most important piece of evidence. There must be an explanation why the two sets of prints and the black fingerprint powder disappeared from the barrel of the rifle.
There must be an explanation why Day didn't photograph the palmprint before he lifted it?
All these mysteries disappear if we accept that the palmprint was faked.
All these mysteries disappear if we accept that the palmprint was faked.
Until you acknowledge the FBI put this to bed in September of 1964, after all this hand wringing had taken place, simply by the authentication of the palm print on the barrel of the Carcano by referencing the irregularities of the Carcano barrel, it will be forever a mystery.
-
All these mysteries disappear if we accept that the palmprint was faked.
Until you acknowledge the FBI put this to bed in September of 1964, after all this hand wringing had taken place, simply by the authentication of the palm print on the barrel of the Carcano by referencing the irregularities of the Carcano barrel, it will be forever a mystery.
Yeah Jack, you use this child-like "logic" over and over again.
JUST LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO.
The unofficial letter you refer to DOES NOT PROVE THE PRINT WASN'T FAKED.
When will you get that into your thick skull.
The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in this thread.
Such as - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to between being handed over by Day and received by Latona?
They disappeared.
Jack, answer this simple question - how could they disappear?
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer this question.
It doesn't answer why Day used black powder on a dark surface when a novice would have known to use grey powder.
It doesn't answer why Day didn't photograph the print before he attempted the lift, when a novice would have known to do this.
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.
It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.
It doesn't answer why Day just stuck the lifted palmprint in his drawer when every ounce of his energy should have been used to identify this print as belonging to Oswald.
It doesn't answer why Day insisted he didn't have enough time to make the identification when he had the lifted palmprint and Oswald's actual palmprint for days. Plenty of time to make the identification.
There are so many issues that Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer.
The point of the letter is to give gullible buffoons an easy way out.
Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.
-
Yeah Jack, you use this child-like "logic" over and over again.
JUST LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO.
The unofficial letter you refer to DOES NOT PROVE THE PRINT WASN'T FAKED.
When will you get that into your thick skull.
The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in this thread.
Such as - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to between being handed over by Day and received by Latona?
They disappeared.
Jack, answer this simple question - how could they disappear?
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer this question.
It doesn't answer why Day used black powder on a dark surface when a novice would have known to use grey powder.
It doesn't answer why Day didn't photograph the print before he attempted the lift, when a novice would have known to do this.
Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.
It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.
It doesn't answer why Day just stuck the lifted palmprint in his drawer when every ounce of his energy should have been used to identify this print as belonging to Oswald.
It doesn't answer why Day insisted he didn't have enough time to make the identification when he had the lifted palmprint and Oswald's actual palmprint for days. Plenty of time to make the identification.
There are so many issues that Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer.
The point of the letter is to give gullible buffoons an easy way out.
Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.
“Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.”
Dan, this is actually two points, but I will be OK with it. It will just take longer to answer.
Point 1: “where did the two sets of prints disappear to.”
What two sets of prints?
Point 2: “where did the fingerprint powder disappear to.”
No idea, but I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?
“The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in the thread.”
Hoover wrote an unofficial document, which authenticated the palmprints, to Rankin and to the WC on FBI letterheads? For what reason? The lab authenticated the palmprint, not Hoover.
Authenticating means just that. They positively identified the palmprint to the exclusion of all others.
FBI Report -- “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”
I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?
The only real question here is why are you struggling with this? Hard to imagine how someone could not understand authenticating a palmprint on a barrel of a rifle using the irregularities of the barrel.
“Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.”
“It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.”
First, it is not unofficial, and second how is it a major conspiracy guy like yourself cannot weave a story about the possible reason for Curry and Fritz, and Day’s omission? It seems as if that would be some kind of a given for a real die-hard conspiracy guy. The problem will always be it was authenticated by the FBI Lab.
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had
-
“Answer just one point Jack - where did the two sets of prints and the fingerprint powder disappear to.”
Dan, this is actually two points, but I will be OK with it. It will just take longer to answer.
Point 1: “where did the two sets of prints disappear to.”
What two sets of prints?
Point 2: “where did the fingerprint powder disappear to.”
No idea, but I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?
“The point of Hoover's unofficial letter was to avoid answering the very questions being raised in the thread.”
Hoover wrote an unofficial document, which authenticated the palmprints, to Rankin and to the WC on FBI letterheads? For what reason? The lab authenticated the palmprint, not Hoover.
Authenticating means just that. They positively identified the palmprint to the exclusion of all others.
FBI Report -- “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”
I bet the fingerprint powder went to the same place the powder that he applied to the magazine housing of the carcano while he was on the 6th floor in front of numerous cops went to. You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to. Just curious but why aren’t you worried about that powder and its color?
The only real question here is why are you struggling with this? Hard to imagine how someone could not understand authenticating a palmprint on a barrel of a rifle using the irregularities of the barrel.
“Hoover's unofficial letter doesn't answer why Day didn't hand the lifted palmprint to the FBI with the rest of the evidence gathered that day.”
“It doesn't answer why Curry and Fritz appeared to have no knowledge of the palmprint when Day testified that he told them about it.”
First, it is not unofficial, and second how is it a major conspiracy guy like yourself cannot weave a story about the possible reason for Curry and Fritz, and Day’s omission? It seems as if that would be some kind of a given for a real die-hard conspiracy guy. The problem will always be it was authenticated by the FBI Lab.
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had
What two sets of prints?
;D
Although it's irritating, I have to admire your chutzpah for taking part in a debate when you are so unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of it.
Once again I find myself in a position where I have to hold your hand and guide you through these most basic points.
You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]
I really do recommend that you read through Day's WC testimony. It will really help your understanding of this aspect of the case.
Now...... this thread is called "The Palmprint". This is a reference to a palmprint that Day claimed to have found on the barrel of the MC. This is one of the two sets of prints supposedly discovered that day. I should be surprised that I have to point out to you that this whole thread is about a set of prints left on the barrel of the MC. But I'm not.
This is going to come as a real shock to you and the rest of the Nutters who troll this forum:
"Mr. Belin: Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. Day: 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."
You must be really shocked to learn that Day testified that there was two sets of prints.
If only you were aware of the most basic aspects of this case. Please read the testimonies of the people involved before you feel you have the right to make some kind of comment on the case.
But the point isn't your massive ignorance of the case, it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand that Day was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC when he handed it over to Drain?
Do you need a diagram?
As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both of these prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared.
Like all Nutters, the only thing you can say when asked how this could be is that you have "No idea".
"NO IDEA."
Like all Nutters, you have NO IDEA how two sets of prints and accompanying fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the MC by the time it reached Latona.
"You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to"
Where you got the idea from, that the powder on the magazine housing "disappeared", just shows your massive ignorance of the case [yet again].
When you get a chance, read the WC testimony of Paul Strombaugh:
Mr. Stombaugh: Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.
You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.
You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.
Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?
You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
This is not good enough.
Oswald's palmprint on the murder weapon would be the most important piece of evidence discovered on the day of the assassination.
For this evidence to simply disappear is unacceptable.
How Nutters can just ignore it is unbelievable.
Either:
1] There was never a print on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the evening of the assassination.
2] Day's treatment of the palmprint was so embarrassingly inept that he wiped the barrel clean himself before giving it to Drain.
3] Day never even disassembled the rifle when he was examining it.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/65nS2Zph/Daypalmprint-DPD.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Could this be Day hurrying away with a fresh print of Oswald's right hand in one hand and an ink roller in the other.
I wonder where he's going with that?
I wonder why he never mentioned that he actually took a print of Oswald's right hand?
-
What two sets of prints?
;D
Although it's irritating, I have to admire your chutzpah for taking part in a debate when you are so unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of it.
Once again I find myself in a position where I have to hold your hand and guide you through these most basic points.
You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]
I really do recommend that you read through Day's WC testimony. It will really help your understanding of this aspect of the case.
Now...... this thread is called "The Palmprint". This is a reference to a palmprint that Day claimed to have found on the barrel of the MC. This is one of the two sets of prints supposedly discovered that day. I should be surprised that I have to point out to you that this whole thread is about a set of prints left on the barrel of the MC. But I'm not.
This is going to come as a real shock to you and the rest of the Nutters who troll this forum:
"Mr. Belin: Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. Day: 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."
You must be really shocked to learn that Day testified that there was two sets of prints.
If only you were aware of the most basic aspects of this case. Please read the testimonies of the people involved before you feel you have the right to make some kind of comment on the case.
But the point isn't your massive ignorance of the case, it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand that Day was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC when he handed it over to Drain?
Do you need a diagram?
As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both of these prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared.
Like all Nutters, the only thing you can say when asked how this could be is that you have "No idea".
"NO IDEA."
Like all Nutters, you have NO IDEA how two sets of prints and accompanying fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the MC by the time it reached Latona.
"You will answer your own question when you explain where the finger print powder on the magazine housing disappeared to"
Where you got the idea from, that the powder on the magazine housing "disappeared", just shows your massive ignorance of the case [yet again].
When you get a chance, read the WC testimony of Paul Strombaugh:
Mr. Stombaugh: Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.
You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.
You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.
Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?
You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
This is not good enough.
Oswald's palmprint on the murder weapon would be the most important piece of evidence discovered on the day of the assassination.
For this evidence to simply disappear is unacceptable.
How Nutters can just ignore it is unbelievable.
Either:
1] There was never a print on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the evening of the assassination.
2] Day's treatment of the palmprint was so embarrassingly inept that he wiped the barrel clean himself before giving it to Drain.
3] Day never even disassembled the rifle when he was examining it.
Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle.
DM---“it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.”
DM---“As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.”
DM---“You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]”
Huh? What he states is there is “possibly” another print under the wood by the trigger housing. Two sets of prints on the barrel? Where does that even come from? It is not even possible to interpret Lt. Day’s statement in that way.
“Mr. DAY. 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.”
As you can see, LT Day never ever stated that there were two sets of prints on the barrel. They were never two sets of prints on the barrel. Not Ever. Lt Day thought the FBI should work to develop “Possibly” a print by the trigger guard or magazine housing. Lt Day was not sure it would even be a good print. Lt Day thought the prints were of LHO’s fingers. He photographed them instead of dust them with powder. The photographs of the prints are CE 721 and CE 722.
Here is the possible source of your delusion and confusion:
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. 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.
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.
Once again you have managed to misinterpret the testimony of the people involved and have managed to create your own evidence. Mistakes and misinterpretations do occur but you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Instead of just reading an answer from the witness, try and understand it in the context of how it is asked.
-----------------------------------------------
DM---“You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.”
DM---“You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.”
DM---“You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
But. unlike the gullible morons who swallow down everything the WC has to say, for some of us the "no idea" nonsense isn't good enough.”
DM---“You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.”
DM---"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
DM- “Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?”
Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever.
But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari
Actually, I think even the most witless of people can figure out how dust could be missing from a surface of a smooth metal barrel. I was trying to be civil and not point it out.
Also, “all over the gun” would include the barrel. Stombaugh kind of shoots your whole storyline down by stating it was all over the woodstock. Hoover’s letter authenticating Oswald’s print on the barrel also removes any doubt as to authenticity of the palmprint.
To summarize your post: The palmprint is authentic courtesy of the FBI lab, the gun did have fingerprint powder all over it, and there is only one palmprint on the barrel. You are trying to make some point here but what is it again?
But as it turns out the finger print powder did not disappear. Just ask Stombaugh.
-
Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle.
DM---“it's the fact that when Day handed the rifle over to Drain on the night of the assassination, he was saying there was two sets of prints on the barrel of the MC.”
DM---“As I have clearly demonstrated in earlier posts, not only was there two sets of prints on the barrel rifle [according to Day], there was also black fingerprint powder when Day handed the rifle over to Drain.”
DM---“You are going to be really shocked to discover that in his WC testimony, Day stated that there were TWO sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the MC [MC stands for Mannlicher-Carcano. It's the make of rifle used to frame Oswald for the shooting]”
Huh? What he states is there is “possibly” another print under the wood by the trigger housing. Two sets of prints on the barrel? Where does that even come from? It is not even possible to interpret Lt. Day’s statement in that way.
“Mr. DAY. 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.”
As you can see, LT Day never ever stated that there were two sets of prints on the barrel. They were never two sets of prints on the barrel. Not Ever. Lt Day thought the FBI should work to develop “Possibly” a print by the trigger guard or magazine housing. Lt Day was not sure it would even be a good print. Lt Day thought the prints were of LHO’s fingers. He photographed them instead of dust them with powder. The photographs of the prints are CE 721 and CE 722.
Here is the possible source of your delusion and confusion:
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. 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.
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.
Once again you have managed to misinterpret the testimony of the people involved and have managed to create your own evidence. Mistakes and misinterpretations do occur but you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Instead of just reading an answer from the witness, try and understand it in the context of how it is asked.
-----------------------------------------------
DM---“You have "no idea" how the prints and the powder could have disappeared between Day and Latona.”
DM---“You think that by saying you have no idea somehow answers the problem.
BUT IT DOESN'T.”
DM---“You have "no idea" how this happened.
Nutters in general have no idea how this happened.
But. unlike the gullible morons who swallow down everything the WC has to say, for some of us the "no idea" nonsense isn't good enough.”
DM---“You know nothing about this aspect of the case.
You really should keep your mouth closed.”
DM---"Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
DM- “Hoovers unofficial letter doesn't answer this key question - how did the prints and powder disappear from the barrel of the rifle between being handed over by Day and being received by Latona?”
Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever.
But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari
Actually, I think even the most witless of people can figure out how dust could be missing from a surface of a smooth metal barrel. I was trying to be civil and not point it out.
Also, “all over the gun” would include the barrel. Stombaugh kind of shoots your whole storyline down by stating it was all over the woodstock. Hoover’s letter authenticating Oswald’s print on the barrel also removes any doubt as to authenticity of the palmprint.
To summarize your post: The palmprint is authentic courtesy of the FBI lab, the gun did have fingerprint powder all over it, and there is only one palmprint on the barrel. You are trying to make some point here but what is it again?
But as it turns out the finger print powder did not disappear. Just ask Stombaugh.
"Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle."
;D Really Jack??
So now I have to hold your hand and guide you through a basic English lesson?
The lengths you Nutters will go to, to misrepresent the evidence, is amazing.
Firstly, the plural of "scenario" is not "scenari". It is "scenarios"
Secondly, let's have a look at your childish attempt to subvert Day's testimony:
"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."
"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints" - This is a reference to the MC being sent to the FBI.
"Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there," - the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle. Day stated that he felt the part of the print that was left on the underside of the barrel of the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of getting an identification. He is insistent that this partial print "still remained" on the rifle when he handed the rifle over to Drain.
"and, too, there was another print," - this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. This is a definitive statement. There is no 'maybe', 'perhaps' or 'possibly'. Day is stating unequivocally that there were two sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. There can be no doubt of that.
"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." - here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Unlike the blatant falsehood you are trying to peddle, Day DOES NOT use the word "possibly" in relation to whether or not there was a second print on the rifle. He is absolutely certain there was a second print. He uses the word "possibly" when he is describing the position of this second print on the barrel of the rifle.
Your childish attempt to twist the meaning of Day's testimony represents the depths you Nutters are willing to go.
It is just another sad example of a Nutter in denial.
The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI. Elsewhere he has stated there was also fingerprint powder on the rifle where he had tried to lift the palmprint, and that it was still on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both sets of prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared from the underside of the barrel of the rifle. It was as if nobody had even looked at this area of the rifle.
Where did all this evidence go?
As far as Nutters are concerned, they have "no idea" and think that's a good enough answer.
It is not.
Even members of the Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint.
There is something incredibly suspicious going on here but Nutters can just turn a blind eye.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari"
Yet again, I have to hold your hand and guide you through the basics of this case ::)
It's getting really boring.
Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.
Hopefully that all makes sense.
Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged:
"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."
Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.
Do you understand now, Jack?
Do you now understand how fingerprint powder can be both missing and all over the rifle at the same time.
Do you now understand that both scenari are possible?
Even though there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle there was none on the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip.
There were no prints, even though Day claimed there were two sets of prints there.
It is obvious that Day lied about processing this part of the rifle.
And that is why your heroes, the Warren Commision, questioned the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever."
I only ask the following question because I'm interested to see what lunacy you come up with next.
How, exactly, does Hoover's unofficial letter tell us what happened to the two sets of prints and fingerprint powder that disappeared from the underside of the rifle between Day and Latona?
You have already admitted that you have "no idea" what happened.
If the answer is in Hoover's unofficial letter, as you insist it is, then how come you have "no idea"?
Now, I already know the answers to these questions but I'm interested to see how you try to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
-
"Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle."
;D Really Jack??
So now I have to hold your hand and guide you through a basic English lesson?
The lengths you Nutters will go to, to misrepresent the evidence, is amazing.
Firstly, the plural of "scenario" is not "scenari". It is "scenarios"
Secondly, let's have a look at your childish attempt to subvert Day's testimony:
"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."
"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints" - This is a reference to the MC being sent to the FBI.
"Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there," - the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle. Day stated that he felt the part of the print that was left on the underside of the barrel of the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of getting an identification. He is insistent that this partial print "still remained" on the rifle when he handed the rifle over to Drain.
"and, too, there was another print," - this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. This is a definitive statement. There is no 'maybe', 'perhaps' or 'possibly'. Day is stating unequivocally that there were two sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. There can be no doubt of that.
"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." - here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Unlike the blatant falsehood you are trying to peddle, Day DOES NOT use the word "possibly" in relation to whether or not there was a second print on the rifle. He is absolutely certain there was a second print. He uses the word "possibly" when he is describing the position of this second print on the barrel of the rifle.
Your childish attempt to twist the meaning of Day's testimony represents the depths you Nutters are willing to go.
It is just another sad example of a Nutter in denial.
The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI. Elsewhere he has stated there was also fingerprint powder on the rifle where he had tried to lift the palmprint, and that it was still on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both sets of prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared from the underside of the barrel of the rifle. It was as if nobody had even looked at this area of the rifle.
Where did all this evidence go?
As far as Nutters are concerned, they have "no idea" and think that's a good enough answer.
It is not.
Even members of the Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint.
There is something incredibly suspicious going on here but Nutters can just turn a blind eye.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari"
Yet again, I have to hold your hand and guide you through the basics of this case ::)
It's getting really boring.
Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.
Hopefully that all makes sense.
Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged:
"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."
Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.
Do you understand now, Jack?
Do you now understand how fingerprint powder can be both missing and all over the rifle at the same time.
Do you now understand that both scenari are possible?
Even though there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle there was none on the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip.
There were no prints, even though Day claimed there were two sets of prints there.
It is obvious that Day lied about processing this part of the rifle.
And that is why your heroes, the Warren Commision, questioned the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever."
I only ask the following question because I'm interested to see what lunacy you come up with next.
How, exactly, does Hoover's unofficial letter tell us what happened to the two sets of prints and fingerprint powder that disappeared from the underside of the rifle between Day and Latona?
You have already admitted that you have "no idea" what happened.
If the answer is in Hoover's unofficial letter, as you insist it is, then how come you have "no idea"?
Now, I already know the answers to these questions but I'm interested to see how you try to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”
This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?
----------------------------
Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?
LT Day---"and, too, there was another print,"
DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?
-----------------------------------------
DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”
Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.
Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
-
DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”
This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?
----------------------------
Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?
LT Day---"and, too, there was another print,"
DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?
-----------------------------------------
DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”
Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.
Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.
Some of the things you post are so stupid its difficult to know if you're serious.
When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?
-
The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.
Some of the things you post are so stupid its difficult to know if you're serious.
When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?
“When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?”
I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.
Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not.
If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.
The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber.
When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing.
Lt Day ...”I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose"
Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
-
For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:
(https://i.vgy.me/8pIP0Q.jpg)
-
For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:
(https://i.vgy.me/8pIP0Q.jpg)
Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.
-
Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.
I looked at that website. It appears that they are selling that schematic (pdf download) for $1.50 in case anyone is interested. Personally, I don’t need it (to understand how the parts fit together).
-
“When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?”
I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.
Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not.
If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.
The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber.
When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing.
Lt Day ...”I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose"
Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.
Like all Nutters, you would rather post utter nonsense than admit you're wrong.
A few posts ago you were insisting Day never mentioned two sets of prints. After giving you an English lesson you now accept he did state there were two sets of prints but now you want to argue about where on the rifle this second print was! You really are a joke.
Time for yet another English lesson.
When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!
Do you understand this very simple point?
There is another point you have tried to ignore.
Day stated this second print was "under the wood". This means that the second print was UNDER THE WOOD.
There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
When he states that the print was NEAR the trigger housing, he is simply referring to which end of the barrel the print was located - not the end near the muzzle, the end near the trigger housing.
If you disagree with this then state exactly where on the rifle this second print is. If it's not on the trigger housing then where is it?
[not even you are stupid enough to try and argue the second print is on the trigger housing.]
Not that it means anything.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea how the two sets of prints and all the black fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the rifle by the time it reached Latona.
The answer is simple - there was never any prints or powder on the barrel of the rifle, or the barrel was wiped completely clean.
Day stated that he told Fritz, Curry and Drain about the palmprint. There is absolutely no evidence of this but plenty of evidence that he never told any of them about the print.
Day lied about not having enough time to identify the print.
The FBI did not receive the palmprint until the 29th - a full week after the assassination.
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in Day's account of the palmprint that all disappear when it is realised he is lying.
Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.
-
I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.
Like all Nutters, you would rather post utter nonsense than admit you're wrong.
A few posts ago you were insisting Day never mentioned two sets of prints. After giving you an English lesson you now accept he did state there were two sets of prints but now you want to argue about where on the rifle this second print was! You really are a joke.
Time for yet another English lesson.
When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!
Do you understand this very simple point?
There is another point you have tried to ignore.
Day stated this second print was "under the wood". This means that the second print was UNDER THE WOOD.
There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
When he states that the print was NEAR the trigger housing, he is simply referring to which end of the barrel the print was located - not the end near the muzzle, the end near the trigger housing.
If you disagree with this then state exactly where on the rifle this second print is. If it's not on the trigger housing then where is it?
[not even you are stupid enough to try and argue the second print is on the trigger housing.]
Not that it means anything.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea how the two sets of prints and all the black fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the rifle by the time it reached Latona.
The answer is simple - there was never any prints or powder on the barrel of the rifle, or the barrel was wiped completely clean.
Day stated that he told Fritz, Curry and Drain about the palmprint. There is absolutely no evidence of this but plenty of evidence that he never told any of them about the print.
Day lied about not having enough time to identify the print.
The FBI did not receive the palmprint until the 29th - a full week after the assassination.
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in Day's account of the palmprint that all disappear when it is realised he is lying.
Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.
It is more like English is your third language. You have managed to have completely prove the opposite and do not seem to realize it. Your claims of two prints on the barrel have become a distant memory. You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there. You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?
The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?
Begging for someone to please believe you, that there is a conspiracy is not the same as actually proving it and with zero evidence of any kind to boot. You believe there is the appearance of impropriety just by your reasoning alone, so that means there has to be a conspiracy?
DM---Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.
This is not proof of a conspiracy. LHO's rifle being found on the 6th floor and being matched to the bullet and fragments is proof of LHO's guilt not a conspiracy. If not LHO, who and why?
-
It is more like English is your third language. You have managed to have completely prove the opposite and do not seem to realize it. Your claims of two prints on the barrel have become a distant memory. You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there. You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?
The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?
Begging for someone to please believe you, that there is a conspiracy is not the same as actually proving it and with zero evidence of any kind to boot. You believe there is the appearance of impropriety just by your reasoning alone, so that means there has to be a conspiracy?
DM---Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.
This is not proof of a conspiracy. LHO's rifle being found on the 6th floor and being matched to the bullet and fragments is proof of LHO's guilt not a conspiracy. If not LHO, who and why?
???
Wow!!
Even for you, this insane rant of a post is next level.
I'll deal with the craziest part of it first, then try to pick my way through this swamp of Nutter confusion and delusion.
You posted:
"You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?"
In the post you are responding to. I wrote this:
"When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!"
I wrote that the second print was not on the trigger housing. I wrote it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I even put the word "NOT" in bold print.
Yet you have somehow interpreted this as me "admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel"!!
How have you interpreted what I have written this crazy way?
How have you interpreted it as the exact opposite of what I actually posted??
How confused are you?
Can't you understand basic English?
I also posted this:
"There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
I specifically stated that, as far as the second print is concerned, Day was talking about it being on the barrel. It's totally obvious what I'm saying but you seem to be so confused that you understand it as the opposite of what's being said!
Then we have this gem:
"You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there."
I have already patiently explained this 'mystery' to you but you just don't get it.
Rather than explain it all again I will simply reproduce my earlier post:
Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.
Hopefully that all makes sense.
Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged:
"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."
Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.
Stombaugh testified that the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder.
But when the rifle was disassembled the underside of the barrel, which had been covered with wood, was clean.
There was no fingerprint powder and no prints.
I can't state this any more simply.
The rifle was covered with fingerprint powder, but not the part of the barrel that had been covered by the wooden stock.
Do you understand what is being said here?
Do you understand that there is no mystery or contradiction?
The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?
Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it.
More importantly, it doesn't explain where the print and the fingerprint powder that Day insisted was on the barrel of the rifle when sent it to the FBI, disappeared to.
And that is the question that is being asked.
How did the print and fingerprint powder disappear?
You have already stated that you don't know. It is the only honest thing you have posted on this thread.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea what happened to the print and powder.
Like all Nutters, you don't think there is anything wrong with this. You don't think there's anything mysterious or suspicious about it.
Like all Nutters, you don't do any thinking for yourself.
Your opinions are provided for you and are based on the investigation into the assassination.
But what if the investigation was corrupt?
Would that cause you to have second thoughts? [ :D as if]
-
???
Wow!!
Even for you, this insane rant of a post is next level.
I'll deal with the craziest part of it first, then try to pick my way through this swamp of Nutter confusion and delusion.
You posted:
"You now are admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel. Exactly what is your point again?"
In the post you are responding to. I wrote this:
"When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!"
I wrote that the second print was not on the trigger housing. I wrote it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I even put the word "NOT" in bold print.
Yet you have somehow interpreted this as me "admitting the second print Lt Day referred to was on the trigger housing not the barrel"!!
How have you interpreted what I have written this crazy way?
How have you interpreted it as the exact opposite of what I actually posted??
How confused are you?
Can't you understand basic English?
I also posted this:
"There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
I specifically stated that, as far as the second print is concerned, Day was talking about it being on the barrel. It's totally obvious what I'm saying but you seem to be so confused that you understand it as the opposite of what's being said!
Then we have this gem:
"You posted Mr Strombaugh detailing the black finger print powder all over the rifle, yet claim the powder is not there."
I have already patiently explained this 'mystery' to you but you just don't get it.
Rather than explain it all again I will simply reproduce my earlier post:
Stombaugh testified that the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder.
But when the rifle was disassembled the underside of the barrel, which had been covered with wood, was clean.
There was no fingerprint powder and no prints.
I can't state this any more simply.
The rifle was covered with fingerprint powder, but not the part of the barrel that had been covered by the wooden stock.
Do you understand what is being said here?
Do you understand that there is no mystery or contradiction?
The FBI authenticated the palm print on the Carcano due to the irregularities of the barrel appearing in the finger print. Exactly what is your problem with that again?
Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it.
More importantly, it doesn't explain where the print and the fingerprint powder that Day insisted was on the barrel of the rifle when sent it to the FBI, disappeared to.
And that is the question that is being asked.
How did the print and fingerprint powder disappear?
You have already stated that you don't know. It is the only honest thing you have posted on this thread.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea what happened to the print and powder.
Like all Nutters, you don't think there is anything wrong with this. You don't think there's anything mysterious or suspicious about it.
Like all Nutters, you don't do any thinking for yourself.
Your opinions are provided for you and are based on the investigation into the assassination.
But what if the investigation was corrupt?
Would that cause you to have second thoughts? [ :D as if]
The Gospel and an indisputable fact according to Dan:
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
DM---”Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged”
The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you.
If he did not disassemble the rifle, how would he have known it was thoroughly dusted with powder?
Maybe the only one you should be questioning is Mr. Stombaugh. He verified the rifle had been thoroughly dusted with fingerprint powder. For some reason known only to you, you seem to think Mr Stombaugh performed some half-baked examination of the rifle. Probably because you need it to be that way to continue with this ever-evolving discombobulated conspiracy rant.
We are making progress though. Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated. Maybe look at the diagram of the carcano that will help you fill in the missing information in your posts about the trigger housing.
---------------
Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano. If you are denying that you should stop referring to Lt Day as having lifted it.
-
The Gospel and an indisputable fact according to Dan:
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
DM---”Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged”
The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you.
If he did not disassemble the rifle, how would he have known it was thoroughly dusted with powder?
Maybe the only one you should be questioning is Mr. Stombaugh. He verified the rifle had been thoroughly dusted with fingerprint powder. For some reason known only to you, you seem to think Mr Stombaugh performed some half-baked examination of the rifle. Probably because you need it to be that way to continue with this ever-evolving discombobulated conspiracy rant.
We are making progress though. Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated. Maybe look at the diagram of the carcano that will help you fill in the missing information in your posts about the trigger housing.
---------------
Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano. If you are denying that you should stop referring to Lt Day as having lifted it.
Enough is enough.
It's one thing dealing with someone who comes across as a very unintelligent child, it's another dealing with a downright liar.
I cannot believe you have posted this lie yet again:
"Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated."
In my last two posts I have made it absolutely clear that the second print that Day mentioned WAS NOT on the trigger housing.
It is clear you are just going to repeat this meaningless lie over and over again no matter what I post.
In any debate, lying is the lowest tactic that can be used. It is the strategy of a genuine loser.
"The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you."
This is another lie.
Stombaugh DID NOT disassemble the Carcano. Do not continue with this lie.
In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.
But you don't.
So you don't.
It was only when the rifle was disassembled that the part of the barrel covered by the wood was revealed and it was Latona who examined it. He reported there were no prints on this part of the rifle and no sign that it had even been processed for prints. That is to say there was no fingerprint powder on this part of the rifle. The barrel was clean.
Where did the prints and the powder go?
They were either never there or Day wiped the barrel clean.
"Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano."
I know they did.
I was correcting another one of your lies.
You posted that the FBI authenticated the palmprint ON the Carcano.
THE PALMPRINT WAS NOT ON THE CARCANO WHEN THE FBI AUTHENTICATED IT.
This is a lie!
This is what I posted in response to your lie:
"Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it."
No doubt you will carry on with these lies but I will just refer you back to this post.
Like all Nutters, you resort to outright lies when confronted with evidence/testimony that undermines your belief system.
Like all Nutters, you are a zealot.
It is very interesting that there are no reasonable Nutters on this forum and there never has been. Every single one reverts to spouting utter nonsense or lies rather than engage in a genuine debate about the numerous troubling aspects of this case.
-
Enough is enough.
It's one thing dealing with someone who comes across as a very unintelligent child, it's another dealing with a downright liar.
I cannot believe you have posted this lie yet again:
"Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated."
In my last two posts I have made it absolutely clear that the second print that Day mentioned WAS NOT on the trigger housing.
It is clear you are just going to repeat this meaningless lie over and over again no matter what I post.
In any debate, lying is the lowest tactic that can be used. It is the strategy of a genuine loser.
"The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you."
This is another lie.
Stombaugh DID NOT disassemble the Carcano. Do not continue with this lie.
In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.
But you don't.
So you don't.
It was only when the rifle was disassembled that the part of the barrel covered by the wood was revealed and it was Latona who examined it. He reported there were no prints on this part of the rifle and no sign that it had even been processed for prints. That is to say there was no fingerprint powder on this part of the rifle. The barrel was clean.
Where did the prints and the powder go?
They were either never there or Day wiped the barrel clean.
"Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano."
I know they did.
I was correcting another one of your lies.
You posted that the FBI authenticated the palmprint ON the Carcano.
THE PALMPRINT WAS NOT ON THE CARCANO WHEN THE FBI AUTHENTICATED IT.
This is a lie!
This is what I posted in response to your lie:
"Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it."
No doubt you will carry on with these lies but I will just refer you back to this post.
Like all Nutters, you resort to outright lies when confronted with evidence/testimony that undermines your belief system.
Like all Nutters, you are a zealot.
It is very interesting that there are no reasonable Nutters on this forum and there never has been. Every single one reverts to spouting utter nonsense or lies rather than engage in a genuine debate about the numerous troubling aspects of this case.
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.
----------------------
DM---”In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.”
What I know is you make things up. Here I will quote it for you, even something as simple as this is now messed up.:
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Not an “expert”, an “examiner”---- You know an assistant. Stombaugh most likely had one too.
It is not firearms expert it is firearms examiner. Why would the same examiner not be available for Mr Stombaugh? Do you think they just ship the parts and pieces around willy nilly and hope things do not get misplaced?
---------------------------
You should refer to something in an attempt to understand the testimony. I would not think your misguided posts would be a good choice.
So two or maybe three different people handled the firearm after Lt Day and before Mr Latona. Mr Stombaugh mentions all the fingerprint powder. The Firearms examiner is not questioned. From this you accuse Lt Day of fabricating evidence?
-
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.
;D
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.
-
When examining the investigation into the assassination of JFK, it is very difficult to discern between the staggering incompetence of the investigation and outright corruption.
Day insists that when he handed the rifle over to the FBI there were at least one set of visible prints (if not two sets of prints) and black fingerprint powder on the barrel of the rifle. The rifle was packed in a crate and flown out to Washington. When it was examined, a few hours after it had left Dallas, the prints and powder had vanished from the barrel of the rifle.
This is not incompetence, this is no reasonable assumption other than corruption.
The most brazen example of corruption in this investigation is that, a few short hours after Oswald was killed Hoover, the head of the FBI, had already decided what the investigation was going to show - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
The investigation was in it's infancy but it had already been decided what the outcome was going to be!
Above all else, the Warren Commission investigation was an FBI investigation and the FBI were working towards a predetermined outcome.
How anyone can have any kind of faith in such an investigation is beyond me.
-
;D
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.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/bs.gif
Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's----
Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.
Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.
DM--”Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.”
Says you. No, it was one more person handling the rifle. A person not involved in the case. A person we know nothing about while you make all these claims of conspiracy. Mr. Stombaugh stated there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle. Mr Latona stated there was very little. Your “expert” handled it in between with no credentials listed. From this information, you somehow manage to blame LT Day?
-
When examining the investigation into the assassination of JFK, it is very difficult to discern between the staggering incompetence of the investigation and outright corruption.
Day insists that when he handed the rifle over to the FBI there were at least one set of visible prints (if not two sets of prints) and black fingerprint powder on the barrel of the rifle. The rifle was packed in a crate and flown out to Washington. When it was examined, a few hours after it had left Dallas, the prints and powder had vanished from the barrel of the rifle.
This is not incompetence, this is no reasonable assumption other than corruption.
The most brazen example of corruption in this investigation is that, a few short hours after Oswald was killed Hoover, the head of the FBI, had already decided what the investigation was going to show - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
The investigation was in it's infancy but it had already been decided what the outcome was going to be!
Above all else, the Warren Commission investigation was an FBI investigation and the FBI were working towards a predetermined outcome.
How anyone can have any kind of faith in such an investigation is beyond me.
In the last 11 pages you could have provided some kind of proof and have not provided anything but a clearly flawed and biased opinion. This post is just a compilation of your opinion with an added plea of please believe.
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/bs.gif
Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's----
Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.
Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.
DM--”Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.”
Says you. No, it was one more person handling the rifle. A person not involved in the case. A person we know nothing about while you make all these claims of conspiracy. Mr. Stombaugh stated there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle. Mr Latona stated there was very little. Your “expert” handled it in between with no credentials listed. From this information, you somehow manage to blame LT Day?
"Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?"
:D
Why do you bother posting this crazy nonsense?
Don't you have anything better to do?
Just for a laugh explain exactly what you mean by saying print 3 is a "recant" of print 1 and print 2.
This is what Day said:
"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."
When he says "the print on the gun was their best bet" he is referring to the palmprint he said was left on the barrel when he tried his botched attempt to lift it. This is the magical print that vanished.
He then says there was another print that was under the wood and near the trigger housing.
I can't wait to hear your explanation.
-
Here's another little mystery i came across while going through Day's WC testimony.
Maybe you could help me out with it Jack, you're unique outlook might come in useful.
Day is testifying about when he first discovered the magical palmprint:
"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose...On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off."
Now, my interpretation of this is that Day saw traces of the palmprint sticking out from under the wooden stock. When he takes the wood off he sees the palmprint on the underside of the barrel. In the pic below I've put a red arrow to point out where Day is referring to when he says the print "extended under the woodstock" and was on "the bottom side of the barrel".
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK0Bb1dK/Carcano1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
What do you reckon Jack?
Is this a fair interpretation of what Day testified to?
-
"Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?"
:D
Why do you bother posting this crazy nonsense?
Don't you have anything better to do?
Just for a laugh explain exactly what you mean by saying print 3 is a "recant" of print 1 and print 2.
This is what Day said:
"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."
When he says "the print on the gun was their best bet" he is referring to the palmprint he said was left on the barrel when he tried his botched attempt to lift it. This is the magical print that vanished.
He then says there was another print that was under the wood and near the trigger housing.
I can't wait to hear your explanation.
Excuse me. Recant is what I was thinking you should be doing with the two palm prints storyline. Reiterate is what Day was doing in restating the two prints he noted.
Lt Day is only talking about two prints. Reiterate is what Lt Day was doing about the two prints.
Print one is actually two fingers (right middle and right ring finger) but is the print covered by the cellophane on the trigger guard as noted by Latona. It is alternately referred to as a print or prints. Basically, one print of two fingers.
Print two is the palm print which is under the fore end of the stock.
-
Here's another little mystery i came across while going through Day's WC testimony.
Maybe you could help me out with it Jack, you're unique outlook might come in useful.
Day is testifying about when he first discovered the magical palmprint:
"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose...On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off."
Now, my interpretation of this is that Day saw traces of the palmprint sticking out from under the wooden stock. When he takes the wood off he sees the palmprint on the underside of the barrel. In the pic below I've put a red arrow to point out where Day is referring to when he says the print "extended under the woodstock" and was on "the bottom side of the barrel".
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK0Bb1dK/Carcano1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
What do you reckon Jack?
Is this a fair interpretation of what Day testified to?
You have posted the wrong Carcano rifle. That looks like the M91 TS and has a shorter barrel. You want the 91/38 rifle. I would think the WC located exactly where it was found on the barrel. Can you make your point anyway with the wrong rifle?
-
So What was the date/time when the FBI received possession of this fingerprint card that Lt.Day supposedly made by transferring the supposedly lifted prints from MC rifle, but for some reason Day was unwllling or unable to hand over this card along with the MC rifle when Day was instructed to hand over ALL evidence on Nov 22/63 to the FBI?
-