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.
