And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?
It doesn't add up!
According to Day in his 1996 oral history, he didn't come in the next day (SaPersonay). The rifle was returned (in a big box) on Sunday, but Day wasn't there when it was returned. Day was directed not to do anything else with it and didn't open the box. And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t. He felt sure it was Oswald's print when he briefly examined it…that palm print that he got off the barrel.
And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t. Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint!
Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process such a crucial piece of evidence as the palmprint on the index card on Friday evening.
IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print and places it in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further.
The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has crucial and perhaps conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does...….. absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?
In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.
Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.
Wade was going by his memory because the DPD had been advised by the FBI not to release information on the evidence to the media. Here is an abbreviated list that I noted when I watched the video: witnesses, boxes with palmprints, three shells, gun (hidden) purchased via mail, ID card, pictures of LHO with the rifle, neighbor gave ride - package (supposedly curtain rods), breakroom encounter, bus (@Lamar Street), Taxi to Oakcliff, changed clothes, Tippit encounter with shells, Texas Theater - fight & arrest, brought to city jail, fingerprints on rifle on metal underside, parafin test.
One could argue that Wade was referring to the fingerprints near the trigger. However, Day has said those fingerprints were not clear enough to determine if they were a match or not. And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's. It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID. Wade later told Aynesworth he was told about the palmprint on 11/22/63. I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.
And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's.Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.
The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders
DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.
It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID. No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!
I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.
So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.
