RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

Says the guy who has discredited himself a long time ago as a die hard propagandist who has no interest in the truth, whatsoever.

Case in point; VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all.
A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.

[David Von Pein]

VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all. A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.

The Pinkston memo that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle. I've had many CTers tell me that Lt. Day never found a print on that gun at all. And, they'll say, it was only many days later that the FBI suddenly "discovered" an Oswald print on the underside of the gun.

Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.

Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct? Answer: Commission Exhibit No. 637. [EDIT -- Also see this follow-up post.]

------------------------------------

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"

LIEUTENANT J.C. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."

MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"

MR. DAY -- "It has the name "J.C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."

(Also see 4 H 260 and 4 H 261.)

------------------------------------

The Pinkston memo would be more accurate if it said that Lt. Day had not had time to FULLY LIFT the print.

CTers, of course, will still insist I'm full of crap and Day never saw or lifted ANY Oswald print, even though CE637 (which is DATED 11-22-63 and SIGNED by J.C. Day) is right there in evidence for the CTers to see. (But it's probably phony evidence and Lt. Day was merely lying through his teeth in his testimony on page 261 of volume 4, the CTers will say.)

And 'round and 'round we go until doomsday.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s2000-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg

[Martin Weidmann]

The Pinkston memo that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle. I've had many CTers tell me that Lt. Day never found a print on that gun at all. And, they'll say, it was only many days later that the FBI suddenly "discovered" an Oswald print on the underside of the gun.

Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.

Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct? Answer: Commission Exhibit No. 637.

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"

LIEUTENANT J.C. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."

MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"

MR. DAY -- "It has the name "J.C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."

(Also see 4 H 260 and 4 H 261.)

The Pinkston memo would be more accurate if it said that Lt. Day had not had time to FULLY LIFT the print.

CTers, of course, will still insist I'm full of crap and Day never saw or lifted ANY Oswald print, even though CE637 (which is DATED 11-22-63 and SIGNED by J.C. Day) is right there in evidence for the CTers to see. (But it's probably phony evidence and Lt. Day was merely lying through his teeth in his testimony on page 261 of volume 4, the CTers will say.)

And 'round and 'round we go until doomsday.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s2000-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg

Hilarious.

First you claim that "Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print." when that memo confirms no such thing.

And then you admit the memo does not say that at all, claiming that was only because the memo was incorrect.

You can't make this stuff up.....

CTers, of course, will still insist I'm full of crap

Can you blame them?

The Pinkston memo would be more accurate if it said that Lt. Day had not had time to FULLY LIFT the print.

But the memo only talks about a parcial print (and doesn't even specify if it was a palm- or fingerprint) when Day himself claimed that he had fully lifted the palm print. He just had no time to photograph it. At least that's what he said in his Oral History interview.

The problem with all of this is that the FBI examined the rifle as soon as they received it and they found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted. So, if there was a print lifted by Day prior to giving the rifle to the FBI, it must have been a 100% perfect lift that left no trace of the print behind on the rifle, which doesn't match what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

The Pinkston memo may well be talking about a completely different parcial print which Day said he saw but did not lift.

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.

This would of course mean that the memo isn't talking about the palm print and Day did not tell Pinkston about that print at all.

The bottom line is a simple one. Your claim that the Pinkston memo confirms that Day lifted a print from the rifle on 11/22/63 is simply not true, which leaves you only with "Lt Day said so" and what Day said doesn't match what the FBI said.

[Michael Capasse]

The bottom line is a simple one. Your claim that the Pinkston memo confirms that Day lifted a print from the rifle on 11/22/63 is simply not true, which leaves you only with "Lt Day said so" and what Day said doesn't match what the FBI said.

 

[John Iacoletti]

The Pinkston memo that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle.

The memo doesn’t mention a palmprint at all.

Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.

If this memo is talking about the palmprint (and Day really lifted one on 11/22), then why does the memo say he didn’t lift it?

Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct?

“Day said so”.  LOL.

[Richard Smith]

If you didn’t follow the proper procedures for discovering evidence and creating a chain of custody, would you mention the evidence in your report?

First question: “Where’s the bullet?”

How would his superiors have responded if he said he left it on a stretcher or operating table?

That doesn't make any sense.  Why would Landis have concluded at the time he wrote the report that he didn't follow the proper procedures?  His entire explanation for his alleged actions is that he was safeguarding the bullet by removing it from the car and placing it on the exam table.  He thought then and continues to explain that he did the correct thing under the chaotic circumstances.  Not the improper thing.  The bullet was discovered on a stretcher.  He wouldn't even have cause to know it was lost or moved.

[Dan O'meara]

Day's WC testimony:

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 was to be released to the FBI for them to complete.

Pinkston Memo

Lt. CARL DAY...advised on 11/22/63, he had processed a rifle discovered on the sixth floor...for fingerprints or palm prints and had been successful in raising a partial latent print. He stated at this time, however, he had not had time to photograph or lift this print.

Day appears to have told Pinkston on the 23rd that he hadn't had time to lift the print but in his WC testimony he states he had lifted the print  on the evening of the 22nd.

[Dan O'meara]

A bullet fell from Connally's stretcher as he was being moved onto the operating table and was picked up by a nurse who showed it to Henry Wade who told her to give it to a police officer. She gave it to Bob Nolan who put it on Fritz's desk. By the time it reached the FBI lab it had miraculously changed into four small fragments taken from Connally's wrist.

Tomlinson found a "hunting slug" with a pointed tip which he gave to O. P. Wright who gave it to SA Johnsen. He gave it to his chief, Rowley, and by the time it reached the FBI lab it had miraculously changed into CE399.

Any bullet found on JFK's stretcher just disappeared.

And so it goes.

Every piece of ballistic evidence, other than the tiniest bullet fragments, were compromised in some way.
Fritz was seen picking up the three hulls on the sixth floor before they were processed by the Crime Lab.
He then pocketed the ejected round without it being processed [regardless of what Day said]
The two fragments found on the back seat were discovered, not as part of an official crime scene search, but handed to Orin Bartlett by two unnamed Secret Service agents.
As already pointed out - the pointed "hunting slug" found by Tomlinson morphed into CE399 and the bullet that came off Connally's stretcher in the operating room morphed into four small fragments taken from his wrist.