RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

Is that an opinion or a comment?

Fact.

Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.

Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.

That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.

[Charles Collins]

Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.

Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.

That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.

You can believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t mean it happened that way. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible. If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

[Richard Smith]

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.  What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances?  Oswald was dead.  There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.  The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.  They had charged Oswald with the crimes.  But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print.  It is ludicrous.  Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.  Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print.  He was a "good ole boy."  So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President.  It's absurd.  There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print.  None.

[Martin Weidmann]

You can believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t mean it happened that way. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible. If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible.

Let me guess... all these "very knowledgeable people" just happen to be LNs, right?

But even if they are not, the fact that they have stayed out of the discussion is absolutely meaningless. All you've got is a pathetic appeal to authority in reverse....   

If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.

And there it is again, the LNs favorite tool; the attempt to shift the burden of proof. Never mind that the "cop said so" evidence lacks credibility or authenticity.....

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.  What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances?  Oswald was dead.  There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.  The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.  They had charged Oswald with the crimes.  But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print.  It is ludicrous.  Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.  Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print.  He was a "good ole boy."  So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President.  It's absurd.  There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print.  None.

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.

And still the WC (Rankin and Lieberer) questioned his story and wondered if the palmprint could have come from another source.... Go figure

There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.

True, but they still needed to convince the American public that Oswald was the lone gunman, as per the Katzenbach memo. Even for a charade investigation you still need "evidence" to wrap the case around Oswald, right?

But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print. 

Are we supposed to believe that a piece of evidence that lacks all credibility, has no chain of custody and can't be authenticated (because Day himself refused to give more details to the WC), is nevertheless valid evidence just because a cop said so?

Just one question; how many innocent people have been in prison due to police and prosecutorial conduct in Dallas alone? But in this particular case Wade and the DPD would never do such a thing, right?

[John Iacoletti]

The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing. 

LOL. They had no physical evidence placing that rifle in Oswald’s hands. Hence the need for the magic partial palmprint.

Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.

You mean like your baseless outlandish conclusion that Oswald could have gone down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard because “he did”?

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL. They had no physical evidence placing that rifle in Oswald’s hands. Hence the need for the magic partial palmprint.

You mean like your baseless outlandish conclusion that Oswald could have gone down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard because “he did”?

They had no physical evidence placing that rifle in Oswald’s hands.

They can't even place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.....

[Dan O'meara]

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.  What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances?  Oswald was dead.  There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him.  The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.  They had charged Oswald with the crimes.  But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print.  It is ludicrous.  Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless.  Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.  Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print.  He was a "good ole boy."  So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President.  It's absurd.  There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print.  None.

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.

Baseless??
Is that supposed to be a joke?

Let's start with Day's lie that he never had enough time to work on the palm print in order to make a positive identification.
Latona ID'd the lifted palm print as Oswald's, no problem, so it's not the case that the print couldn't be identified. It was a fundamental part of Day's job, to identify fingerprints, so it's not like Day didn't have the skills to do it.
It is Day's assertion that he simply didn't have enough time to make the identification and that with a bit more time he could've done it.
If you, Richard, find this acceptable as a rational explanation then you need help.
Day had his supposed lift of the palm print and a copy of Oswald's palm print the night of the assassination. He did not need the rifle to compare these prints. The prints taken from the rifle were, by a country mile, the most important pieces of evidence gathered that day as they could place the murder weapon in Oswald's hands. The top priority must have been to make an identification of these prints. There could have been no higher priority.
But that's not what happened.
The palm print lift was not given top priority. A positive identification was not made by the DPD when it was perfectly possible to do so.
The "lift" and the prints from Oswald himself were with Day for more than three days before he handed the evidence over to Drain.
Day lies about not having enough time to make the identification.
While incredibly weak explanations have been put forward for why Latona saw no print on the barrel [which I'll come to in a second], no LNer has tried to come up with an excuse, no matter how lame, to account for this obvious lie.

Why did Day lie about not having enough time to make the identification?

Latona - "...primarily our recommendation in the FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final photograph."

It is a basic procedure to be followed every time - photograph the print THEN lift it.
And it's obvious why this is. A photo is perfectly acceptable for use in identifying a print and, according to Latona, is the usual way prints are identified - from a photo, not from the actual print itself. The point being, a photo is non-invasive, it does no harm to the print.
Lifting a print destroys the relationship between the print and the object it is being lifted from. Also, lifting a print is not a guaranteed success, things can go wrong and the lift might not be complete. This is why the print must be photographed BEFORE a lift is attempted.

Day, inexplicably, did the opposite of this.
When he discovered the print on the barrel he did not photograph it immediately, which is strange because he had already photoed the trigger housing prints, so was all set up to do exactly that. Instead, he went straight to lifting the print and, according to the account Day gives in his WC testimony, it was a disaster. Part of the print came off, part of it stayed on the rifle. This is the precise reason a print is photographed before an attempted lift.
Mind-blowingly, Day decides to photograph the barrel AFTER the disastrous attempted lift.
Let that sink in for a minute.

In his report of an interview dated 9/8/64, SA Drain notes:

Lt. DAY stated he had no reason for not photographing this palm print first before attempting to lift it other than in the interest of time."

This is the only possible, rational reason for Day not photographing the print before lifting it - in this scenario he knew time was running out and was desperate to have a lift he could try to identify before the evidence was handed over to the FBI. He was so desperate he was willing to chance destroying this most important piece of evidence without making a photographic record of it.
But this didn't happen. According to Day he found out he had to stop working on the rifle AFTER he had lifted the print:

"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. I 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. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing..."


It would appear Day was lying to Drain about why he didn't take a photograph of the print.
And that still leaves us with the question - Why didn't Day take a photo of the palm print before his disastrous attempt to lift it?
Did he forget his most basic training? Was he a completely incompetent buffoon?
He'd already taken photos of the trigger housing prints. He was readying himself to take pictures after he lifted the print. So, it's not like he wasn't prepared to take pictures or that it was in any way a difficulty. He simply decided not to do so. Which is completely inexplicable in any rational way.
Unless, of course, there was no print to take a photograph of.
This is the only rational explanation for this, otherwise inexplicable, lapse in the most basic protocol for dealing with fingerprints.
It also explains how the print Day insisted remained on the barrel 'disappeared' by the time the rifle reached Latona.

Day is insistent that, after his aborted attempt to lift the print, there remained enough of the print left on the barrel to make an identification. In fact, Day claims he felt the amount of print left on the barrel was a better option to make an identification than the faint print he had lifted:

"I 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."
In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
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.

However, by the time the rifle reached Latona this print had disappeared.
Latona carried out a thorough examination of every piece of the rifle. He got in a photographic expert and a weapons expert to help him in the examination. Latona, who must be considered a leading fingerprint expert with decades of experience did not find the print that Day felt was the "best bet" for identification. Not only that, Latona never found any trace of evidence that a lift had even been attempted:

This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, 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.

There was no print and nothing to indicate "an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."
The palm print had completely disappeared. How can this be?
Arguments that have been presented regarding Latona's capability as a fingerprint expert are nonsense for a very simple reason - if Latona missed the print then it would still be there!
How did the print disappear? It seems inconceivable that someone of Latona's expertise simply missed it.
But it's worse than that.
For those who may have missed it the first time, just read through this statement by Day again:

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.

Day isn't talking about one print on the rifle barrel - he's talking about two prints!
What happened to these two prints?
How did they completely disappear by the time they reached Latona?
There are two possible explanations - the barrel was wiped clean before Drain collected it or there was never a print on the barrel in the first place.

In his 1985 book, "Reasonable Doubt", Henry Hurt reports the following from SA Drain:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

At first this appears to be an offhand opinion by someone who doesn't really know anything about fingerprinting. However, in Larry Sneed's book, "No More Silence", Drain goes on to qualify this opinion:

"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."


Through Drain we discover that it was the opinion of the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that the palm print was a forgery.

The only laughable thing is that you are using the word "baseless" regarding the "notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle..."
It is far from baseless.
It is unavoidable.
Your denial regarding these issues is also laughable.

[Jack Nessan]

The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.

Baseless??
Is that supposed to be a joke?

Let's start with Day's lie that he never had enough time to work on the palm print in order to make a positive identification.
Latona ID'd the lifted palm print as Oswald's, no problem, so it's not the case that the print couldn't be identified. It was a fundamental part of Day's job, to identify fingerprints, so it's not like Day didn't have the skills to do it.
It is Day's assertion that he simply didn't have enough time to make the identification and that with a bit more time he could've done it.
If you, Richard, find this acceptable as a rational explanation then you need help.
Day had his supposed lift of the palm print and a copy of Oswald's palm print the night of the assassination. He did not need the rifle to compare these prints. The prints taken from the rifle were, by a country mile, the most important pieces of evidence gathered that day as they could place the murder weapon in Oswald's hands. The top priority must have been to make an identification of these prints. There could have been no higher priority.
But that's not what happened.
The palm print lift was not given top priority. A positive identification was not made by the DPD when it was perfectly possible to do so.
The "lift" and the prints from Oswald himself were with Day for more than three days before he handed the evidence over to Drain.
Day lies about not having enough time to make the identification.
While incredibly weak explanations have been put forward for why Latona saw no print on the barrel [which I'll come to in a second], no LNer has tried to come up with an excuse, no matter how lame, to account for this obvious lie.

Why did Day lie about not having enough time to make the identification?

Latona - "...primarily our recommendation in the FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final photograph."

It is a basic procedure to be followed every time - photograph the print THEN lift it.
And it's obvious why this is. A photo is perfectly acceptable for use in identifying a print and, according to Latona, is the usual way prints are identified - from a photo, not from the actual print itself. The point being, a photo is non-invasive, it does no harm to the print.
Lifting a print destroys the relationship between the print and the object it is being lifted from. Also, lifting a print is not a guaranteed success, things can go wrong and the lift might not be complete. This is why the print must be photographed BEFORE a lift is attempted.

Day, inexplicably, did the opposite of this.
When he discovered the print on the barrel he did not photograph it immediately, which is strange because he had already photoed the trigger housing prints, so was all set up to do exactly that. Instead, he went straight to lifting the print and, according to the account Day gives in his WC testimony, it was a disaster. Part of the print came off, part of it stayed on the rifle. This is the precise reason a print is photographed before an attempted lift.
Mind-blowingly, Day decides to photograph the barrel AFTER the disastrous attempted lift.
Let that sink in for a minute.

In his report of an interview dated 9/8/64, SA Drain notes:

Lt. DAY stated he had no reason for not photographing this palm print first before attempting to lift it other than in the interest of time."

This is the only possible, rational reason for Day not photographing the print before lifting it - in this scenario he knew time was running out and was desperate to have a lift he could try to identify before the evidence was handed over to the FBI. He was so desperate he was willing to chance destroying this most important piece of evidence without making a photographic record of it.
But this didn't happen. According to Day he found out he had to stop working on the rifle AFTER he had lifted the print:

"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. I 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. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing..."


It would appear Day was lying to Drain about why he didn't take a photograph of the print.
And that still leaves us with the question - Why didn't Day take a photo of the palm print before his disastrous attempt to lift it?
Did he forget his most basic training? Was he a completely incompetent buffoon?
He'd already taken photos of the trigger housing prints. He was readying himself to take pictures after he lifted the print. So, it's not like he wasn't prepared to take pictures or that it was in any way a difficulty. He simply decided not to do so. Which is completely inexplicable in any rational way.
Unless, of course, there was no print to take a photograph of.
This is the only rational explanation for this, otherwise inexplicable, lapse in the most basic protocol for dealing with fingerprints.
It also explains how the print Day insisted remained on the barrel 'disappeared' by the time the rifle reached Latona.

Day is insistent that, after his aborted attempt to lift the print, there remained enough of the print left on the barrel to make an identification. In fact, Day claims he felt the amount of print left on the barrel was a better option to make an identification than the faint print he had lifted:

"I 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."
In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
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.

However, by the time the rifle reached Latona this print had disappeared.
Latona carried out a thorough examination of every piece of the rifle. He got in a photographic expert and a weapons expert to help him in the examination. Latona, who must be considered a leading fingerprint expert with decades of experience did not find the print that Day felt was the "best bet" for identification. Not only that, Latona never found any trace of evidence that a lift had even been attempted:

This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, 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.

There was no print and nothing to indicate "an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."
The palm print had completely disappeared. How can this be?
Arguments that have been presented regarding Latona's capability as a fingerprint expert are nonsense for a very simple reason - if Latona missed the print then it would still be there!
How did the print disappear? It seems inconceivable that someone of Latona's expertise simply missed it.
But it's worse than that.
For those who may have missed it the first time, just read through this statement by Day again:

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.

Day isn't talking about one print on the rifle barrel - he's talking about two prints!
What happened to these two prints?
How did they completely disappear by the time they reached Latona?
There are two possible explanations - the barrel was wiped clean before Drain collected it or there was never a print on the barrel in the first place.

In his 1985 book, "Reasonable Doubt", Henry Hurt reports the following from SA Drain:

"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”

At first this appears to be an offhand opinion by someone who doesn't really know anything about fingerprinting. However, in Larry Sneed's book, "No More Silence", Drain goes on to qualify this opinion:

"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."


Through Drain we discover that it was the opinion of the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that the palm print was a forgery.

The only laughable thing is that you are using the word "baseless" regarding the "notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle..."
It is far from baseless.
It is unavoidable.
Your denial regarding these issues is also laughable.

By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in fact, genuine.


The Palm Print

The lift of the palm print from the rifle by Lieutenant Day has sparked controversy over the years due to what has been labeled an "interrupted chain of evidence." This misunderstanding developed from the FBI's intrusion into the Dallas police investigation on the night of the assassination. The rifle was taken away from Lieutenant Day by the FBI before he had completed his analysis of it. At that time, the FBI did not receive the palm print just developed by Lieutenant Day. The print evidence stayed in the Crime Lab Office, and only the rifle was taken by FBI Agent Drain.

Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.

He told Rusty and me that he could tell it wasn't put on there recently by the way it took the fingerprint powder. He said what makes a print of this sort is a lack of moisture, and this print had dried out. He said he took a small camel hair brush and dipped it in fingerprint powder and lightly brushed it. He then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card. He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card and was certain that it was Oswald's. He also said that after the lift, he could still see an impression of the palm print left on the barrel.

Next, Lieutenant Day had intended to photograph the area of the rifle barrel from which the palm print lift had been made, but was again interrupted by Captain Doughty at about 10:00 PM. He was told once again to stop working on the gun and release it to FBI Agent Drain, who would arrive about 11:30 PM. Lieutenant Day did not have time to write any reports about what he had found, but did have time to reassemble the rifle before Drain arrived.

Drain took the rifle from the Dallas police at midnight on the day of the assassination and flew it to the FBI laboratory in Washington, DC.( The palm print lift done earlier by Lieutenant Day had left too little powder residue on the rifle barrel to be readily identified a second time when the FBI received it in Washington. The FBI was not aware that the palm print had been lifted at the time of their initial examination of the rifle.

When the FBI received the rifle Saturday in Washington, a comparison of the faint latent fingerprints found by Lieutenant Day on the trigger housing of the rifle was attempted by Sebastian Latona, the Supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division.(9) In Washington, Latona also photographed the fingerprints on the trigger housing which had already been photographed by Lieutenant Day in Dallas prior to his placing cellophane tape over them.

Latona could not make a positive identification since the fingerprints were extremely faint following the removal of the protective tape. Lieutenant Day's trigger-housing photographs (which Rusty has first generation copies of), made in the Dallas Crime Lab Office, were the best quality photographs made of the fingerprints found on the side of the trigger housing. The Dallas Crime Lab received the rifle back from the FBI in a pasteboard box. It remained unopened in the evidence room along with other physical evidence in the case. After a few days passed, orders came to release all of the physical evidence to the FBI. That is when the palm print was released for the first time to the FBI.

Lieutenant Day said that a few days after all of the evidence was turned over, an FBI Agent came to his house. He wanted to know when Lieutenant Day had lifted the palm print included in the evidence they had received because they had positively identified it themselves as Oswald's palm print. Lieutenant Day got the impression from the Agent that they thought they had missed it and he could "envision J. Edgar Hoover going into orbit." He then informed the Agent that he had lifted the palm print before releasing the gun on the night of the assassination.

The FBI requested and received the remaining physical evidence from the Dallas police on the Tuesday following the assassination, not aware of the palm print's existence. To say the least, they were surprised upon discovering the palm print included with the evidence. By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in fact, genuine.

Lieutenant Day believed at the time that he had not completely obliterated the palm print on the barrel after his lift and later stated that he had pointed out the area of the palm print to FBI Agent Drain when turning the rifle over to him. Drain, on the other hand, did not recall being shown the palm print.

Rusty was standing, by as Lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, "Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm print at that time."