RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[John Iacoletti]

evidently the lifting had been so complete

“Evidently”. LOL.

[Royell Storing]

“Evidently”. LOL.

  Yeah, and "evidently" Mr Copperfield somehow got that elephant off of the stage without anyone in the audience seeing that happen.

[Dan O'meara]

For what it is worth, I think he's actually seeing cellophane on the trigger guard.

That makes sense.
It's a pity the wooden stock didn't protect the print that Day insists was present on the barrel. In fact, it seems to have wiped the barrel completely clean. Not only did it wipe the remainder of the print off (which had withstood an attempt to remove it with cellophane), it also wiped clean the dusting Day had used to raise the print.
There are two explanations for this - there was never any print there or someone deliberately cleaned the barrel before handing it over to Drain.
I would be interested to hear a third possibility.

[Charles Collins]

That makes sense.
It's a pity the wooden stock didn't protect the print that Day insists was present on the barrel. In fact, it seems to have wiped the barrel completely clean. Not only did it wipe the remainder of the print off (which had withstood an attempt to remove it with cellophane), it also wiped clean the dusting Day had used to raise the print.
There are two explanations for this - there was never any print there or someone deliberately cleaned the barrel before handing it over to Drain.
I would be interested to hear a third possibility.

Day essentially tells us that the remaining remnant of the palm print after he lifted it, was not photographable using standard techniques. He intended to use a time-lapse technique in which he moved the light around the barrel. This means to me that the light source would need to be positioned appropriately in order to see the remnant of the print. Also, the barrel is cylindrical so to see the full extent of the print remnants, either the barrel would need to be rotated, or the light source would need to be rotated around the barrel. Under the circumstances: (1) that Drain failed to tell the lab technicians about the print remnants under the fore stock, and (2) that that position underneath the fore stock would not normally be a very likely place to find a print, (3) the lighting would have to be at an appropriate angle to see the print remnant, and (4) that the vibrations, etc involved with transporting the rifle to the FBI lab could have caused most of what little powder that still clung to the dried print when Day turned it over to simply fall off, it is no wonder to me that the FBI didn’t find a useable print.

[Martin Weidmann]

Day essentially tells us that the remaining remnant of the palm print after he lifted it, was not photographable using standard techniques. He intended to use a time-lapse technique in which he moved the light around the barrel. This means to me that the light source would need to be positioned appropriately in order to see the remnant of the print. Also, the barrel is cylindrical so to see the full extent of the print remnants, either the barrel would need to be rotated, or the light source would need to be rotated around the barrel. Under the circumstances: (1) that Drain failed to tell the lab technicians about the print remnants under the fore stock, and (2) that that position underneath the fore stock would not normally be a very likely place to find a print, (3) the lighting would have to be at an appropriate angle to see the print remnant, and (4) that the vibrations, etc involved with transporting the rifle to the FBI lab could have caused most of what little powder that still clung to the dried print when Day turned it over to simply fall off, it is no wonder to me that the FBI didn’t find a useable print.

Day essentially tells us that the remaining remnant of the palm print after he lifted it, was not photographable using standard techniques.

No he didn't tell us that at all. He claimed he had lifted the print and that he could still see traces of print on that barrel.

that the vibrations, etc involved with transporting the rifle to the FBI lab could have caused most of what little powder that still clung to the dried print when Day turned it over to simply fall off, it is no wonder to me that the FBI didn’t find a useable print.

Pure speculation.

And Latona did not say he didn't find a useable print. He said 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."

[Charles Collins]

A snip from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 236:


By turning the rifle and letting the light shine on it, I could still see that print on the barrel. To take the proper pictures, you have to set a time exposure on the camera and move the light which reflects around the barrel because you can’t twist the barrel while you’re taking pictures. I was in the process of doing that when I got word from one of my captains, which came directly from the chief’s office, not to do anything else. Right in the middle of the stream I was told not to do anything else with it! So I slipped the barrel back on the stock and put it back in the lock box.

[Martin Weidmann]

A snip from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 236:


By turning the rifle and letting the light shine on it, I could still see that print on the barrel. To take the proper pictures, you have to set a time exposure on the camera and move the light which reflects around the barrel because you can’t twist the barrel while you’re taking pictures. I was in the process of doing that when I got word from one of my captains, which came directly from the chief’s office, not to do anything else. Right in the middle of the stream I was told not to do anything else with it! So I slipped the barrel back on the stock and put it back in the lock box.

Here we go again.....

One wonders why we have testimony under oath, when we have Larry Sneed to tell us what happened.... 

[Dan O'meara]

Here we go again.....

One wonders why we have testimony under oath, when we have Larry Sneed to tell us what happened.... 

Isn't this Day doubling down on his insistence that there was an identifiable print on the barrel of the rifle before it was taken by Drain?
The remainder of this print had resisted being lifted because it was an old print and was clearly fixed in place.
However, when the rifle is examined by Latona this print is gone. There is absolutely no sign of it's presence.
There is also no sign of a speck of the powder used to raise the print.
Latona examined this rifle in meticulous detail. There was no print and no sign that an attempt had been made to lift a print.
There had been no mention made of a print being taken from the weapon that allegedly murdered the present.

The more I think about this palm print the more it becomes obvious how massively significant it is. It is possibly the most important piece of evidence in this case. There is nothing that links Oswald to the rifle like the palm print. It is central to identifying Oswald as the murderer.
By the night of the assassination Day would have irrefutable evidence that Oswald had contact with the murder weapon.
So, where was the big announcement regarding this game-changing piece of evidence?
Almost every detail of this case was gleefully passed on to the media, where are the reports?
Who else, other than Day, knew about this case-closing piece of evidence?
How could it not have crossed Day's mind not to pass on this most important piece of evidence to the FBI?
How is it conceivable that Day neglected to mention to Drain he had identified Oswald's print on the rifle?
[Remember, Day had the print off the rifle and a sample of Oswald's palm print. Identifying this print would have been the very top priority.]


Other than Day's word for it, what evidence exists, testimonial or otherwise, regarding the existence of the palm print prior to it's arrival on Latona's desk on the 29th?