The Palmprint

[Dan O'meara]

The Gospel and an indisputable fact according to Dan:

Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!

DM---”Paul Stombugh, the FBI's fibre expert, was the first person to view the rifle when Drain brought it back to Washington. Stombaugh comments how well the rifle was packaged”


The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you. 

If he did not disassemble the rifle, how would he have known it was thoroughly dusted with powder?

Maybe the only one you should be questioning is Mr. Stombaugh. He verified the rifle had been thoroughly dusted with fingerprint powder. For some reason known only to you, you seem to think Mr Stombaugh performed some half-baked examination of the rifle. Probably because you need it to be that way to continue with this ever-evolving discombobulated conspiracy rant.

We are making progress though. Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated. Maybe look at the diagram of the carcano that will help you fill in the missing information in your posts about the trigger housing.

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

Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano. If you are denying that you should stop referring to Lt Day as having lifted it.

Enough is enough.
It's one thing dealing with someone who comes across as a very unintelligent child, it's another dealing with a downright liar.
I cannot believe you have posted this lie yet again:

"Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated."

In my last two posts I have made it absolutely clear that the second print that Day mentioned WAS NOT on the trigger housing.
It is clear you are just going to repeat this meaningless lie over and over again no matter what I post.
In any debate, lying is the lowest tactic that can be used. It is the strategy of a genuine loser.

"The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you."

This is another lie.
Stombaugh DID NOT disassemble the Carcano. Do not continue with this lie.
In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.
But you don't.
So you don't.
It was only when the rifle was disassembled that the part of the barrel covered by the wood was revealed and it was Latona who examined it. He reported there were no prints on this part of the rifle and no sign that it had even been processed for prints. That is to say there was no fingerprint powder on this part of the rifle. The barrel was clean.
Where did the prints and the powder go?
They were either never there or Day wiped the barrel clean.

"Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano."

I know they did.
I was correcting another one of your lies.
You posted that the FBI authenticated the palmprint ON the Carcano.
THE PALMPRINT WAS NOT ON THE CARCANO WHEN THE FBI AUTHENTICATED IT.
This is a lie!
This is what I posted in response to your lie:

"Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it."

No doubt you will carry on with these lies but I will just refer you back to this post.

Like all Nutters, you resort to outright lies when confronted with evidence/testimony that undermines your belief system.
Like all Nutters, you are a zealot.
It is very interesting that there are no reasonable Nutters on this forum and there never has been. Every single one reverts to spouting utter nonsense or lies rather than engage in a genuine debate about the numerous troubling aspects of this case.

[Jack Nessan]

Enough is enough.
It's one thing dealing with someone who comes across as a very unintelligent child, it's another dealing with a downright liar.
I cannot believe you have posted this lie yet again:

"Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated."

In my last two posts I have made it absolutely clear that the second print that Day mentioned WAS NOT on the trigger housing.
It is clear you are just going to repeat this meaningless lie over and over again no matter what I post.
In any debate, lying is the lowest tactic that can be used. It is the strategy of a genuine loser.

"The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you."

This is another lie.
Stombaugh DID NOT disassemble the Carcano. Do not continue with this lie.
In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.
But you don't.
So you don't.
It was only when the rifle was disassembled that the part of the barrel covered by the wood was revealed and it was Latona who examined it. He reported there were no prints on this part of the rifle and no sign that it had even been processed for prints. That is to say there was no fingerprint powder on this part of the rifle. The barrel was clean.
Where did the prints and the powder go?
They were either never there or Day wiped the barrel clean.

"Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano."

I know they did.
I was correcting another one of your lies.
You posted that the FBI authenticated the palmprint ON the Carcano.
THE PALMPRINT WAS NOT ON THE CARCANO WHEN THE FBI AUTHENTICATED IT.
This is a lie!
This is what I posted in response to your lie:

"Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it."

No doubt you will carry on with these lies but I will just refer you back to this post.

Like all Nutters, you resort to outright lies when confronted with evidence/testimony that undermines your belief system.
Like all Nutters, you are a zealot.
It is very interesting that there are no reasonable Nutters on this forum and there never has been. Every single one reverts to spouting utter nonsense or lies rather than engage in a genuine debate about the numerous troubling aspects of this case.

You claim to be well read but apparently you go blind when you see something you do not like. Latona clearly states the print was on the trigger guard. Again, not the barrel like you repeatedly claimed but the trigger guard.

Mr. LATONA. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?
Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the 'top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?


Mr. LATONA. Closest to the trigger area.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Left side. [/b]
Mr. EISENBERG. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.

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

DM---”In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.”


What I know is you make things up. Here I will quote it for you, even something as simple as this is now messed up.:
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Not an “expert”, an “examiner”---- You know an assistant. Stombaugh most likely had one too.

It is not firearms expert it is firearms examiner. Why would the same examiner not be available for Mr Stombaugh? Do you think they just ship the parts and pieces around willy nilly and hope things do not get misplaced?

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

You should refer to something in an attempt to understand the testimony. I would not think your misguided posts would be a good choice.

So two or maybe three different people handled the firearm after Lt Day and before Mr Latona. Mr Stombaugh mentions all the fingerprint powder. The Firearms examiner is not questioned. From this you accuse Lt Day of fabricating evidence?
 

[Dan O'meara]

You claim to be well read but apparently you go blind when you see something you do not like. Latona clearly states the print was on the trigger guard. Again, not the barrel like you repeatedly claimed but the trigger guard.

Mr. LATONA. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?
Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the 'top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?


Mr. LATONA. Closest to the trigger area.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Left side. [/b]
Mr. EISENBERG. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.

 
Once again, you have to be taken by the hand and led through the basic aspects of this case.
Even though these things have been pointed out to you over and over and over again.
Here goes again, so listen up...
In his WC testimony, Day mentions THREE sets of prints on the rifle.

SET #1
Day dusts the rifle for prints while still on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea films it. While he is dusting he notices prints on the side of the trigger housing:
"I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints."
These are the prints that Latona is referring to in the passage you posted.
There is no dispute about these prints.

SET #2
This is the palmprint that Day alleges to lift from the underside of the barrel.
This is the magical palmprint that mysteriously disappeared.
This palmprint is the subject of this thread.

SET #3
During his WC testimony, Day is asked why he didn't hand over the lift of the palmprint he allegedly took with the rest of the evidence taken by the FBI on the night of the assassination. It was, after all, the most important piece of evidence the DPD collected that day. Day's quite pathetic excuse for not handing the lift over is that, when he took the lift he made such a bad job of it that the better part of the print remained on the rifle. He felt he didn't need to hand in the lift as he thought the "best bet" for identifying the print was still on the rifle.
As he is explaining this, out of the blue, he suddenly announces there was "another print" on the rifle. A third print:
"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. 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."
This third print was "under the wood part". This means he is NOT referring to the print on the trigger guard as those prints were not "under the wood part".
He had never mentioned this third print before this moment and it was never mentioned again.
Although it is not stated explicitly in his testimony, this third print can only have been on the barrel of the rifle as it was "under the wood part". Whereas the palmprint was towards the muzzle end of the rifle, this third print was "up near the trigger housing" (again confirming that it was not a reference to the prints that were on the trigger housing).

I really hope this has cleared things up for you Jack.
You have been so confused in your posts.
Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.

[Dan O'meara]

When examining the investigation into the assassination of JFK, it is very difficult to discern between the staggering incompetence of the investigation and outright corruption.
Day insists that when he handed the rifle over to the FBI there were at least one set of visible prints (if not two sets of prints) and black fingerprint powder on the barrel of the rifle. The rifle was packed in a crate and flown out to Washington. When it was examined, a few hours after it had left Dallas, the prints and powder had vanished from the barrel of the rifle.
This is not incompetence, this is no reasonable assumption other than corruption.

The most brazen example of corruption in this investigation is that, a few short hours after Oswald was killed Hoover, the head of the FBI, had already decided what the investigation was going to show - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
The investigation was in it's infancy but it had already been decided what the outcome was going to be!
Above all else, the Warren Commission investigation was an FBI investigation and the FBI were working towards a predetermined outcome.
How anyone can have any kind of faith in such an investigation is beyond me.

[Jack Nessan]

Once again, you have to be taken by the hand and led through the basic aspects of this case.
Even though these things have been pointed out to you over and over and over again.
Here goes again, so listen up...
In his WC testimony, Day mentions THREE sets of prints on the rifle.

SET #1
Day dusts the rifle for prints while still on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea films it. While he is dusting he notices prints on the side of the trigger housing:
"I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints."
These are the prints that Latona is referring to in the passage you posted.
There is no dispute about these prints.

SET #2
This is the palmprint that Day alleges to lift from the underside of the barrel.
This is the magical palmprint that mysteriously disappeared.
This palmprint is the subject of this thread.

SET #3
During his WC testimony, Day is asked why he didn't hand over the lift of the palmprint he allegedly took with the rest of the evidence taken by the FBI on the night of the assassination. It was, after all, the most important piece of evidence the DPD collected that day. Day's quite pathetic excuse for not handing the lift over is that, when he took the lift he made such a bad job of it that the better part of the print remained on the rifle. He felt he didn't need to hand in the lift as he thought the "best bet" for identifying the print was still on the rifle.
As he is explaining this, out of the blue, he suddenly announces there was "another print" on the rifle. A third print:
"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. 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."
This third print was "under the wood part". This means he is NOT referring to the print on the trigger guard as those prints were not "under the wood part".
He had never mentioned this third print before this moment and it was never mentioned again.
Although it is not stated explicitly in his testimony, this third print can only have been on the barrel of the rifle as it was "under the wood part". Whereas the palmprint was towards the muzzle end of the rifle, this third print was "up near the trigger housing" (again confirming that it was not a reference to the prints that were on the trigger housing).

I really hope this has cleared things up for you Jack.
You have been so confused in your posts.
Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/bs.gif

Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?

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.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's----
Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.
Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.

DM--”Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.”

Says you. No, it was one more person handling the rifle. A person not involved in the case. A person we know nothing about while you make all these claims of conspiracy. Mr. Stombaugh stated there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle. Mr Latona stated there was very little. Your “expert” handled it in between with no credentials listed. From this information, you somehow manage to blame LT Day?

[Jack Nessan]

When examining the investigation into the assassination of JFK, it is very difficult to discern between the staggering incompetence of the investigation and outright corruption.
Day insists that when he handed the rifle over to the FBI there were at least one set of visible prints (if not two sets of prints) and black fingerprint powder on the barrel of the rifle. The rifle was packed in a crate and flown out to Washington. When it was examined, a few hours after it had left Dallas, the prints and powder had vanished from the barrel of the rifle.
This is not incompetence, this is no reasonable assumption other than corruption.

The most brazen example of corruption in this investigation is that, a few short hours after Oswald was killed Hoover, the head of the FBI, had already decided what the investigation was going to show - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
The investigation was in it's infancy but it had already been decided what the outcome was going to be!
Above all else, the Warren Commission investigation was an FBI investigation and the FBI were working towards a predetermined outcome.
How anyone can have any kind of faith in such an investigation is beyond me.

In the last 11 pages you could have provided some kind of proof and have not provided anything but a clearly flawed and biased opinion. This post is just a compilation of your opinion with an added plea of please believe.

 

[Dan O'meara]

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/bs.gif

Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?

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.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's----
Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.
Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.

DM--”Oh yeah, a firearm examiner with the FBI is a weapons expert and they are often called on as expert witnesses in court cases.”

Says you. No, it was one more person handling the rifle. A person not involved in the case. A person we know nothing about while you make all these claims of conspiracy. Mr. Stombaugh stated there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle. Mr Latona stated there was very little. Your “expert” handled it in between with no credentials listed. From this information, you somehow manage to blame LT Day?

"Based on the question LT Day was asked by Mr Belin, Print 3 is a recant of print 1 and print 2. Mr Belin and Mr McCloy understood this why can’t you?"

 
Why do you bother posting this crazy nonsense?
Don't you have anything better to do?
Just for a laugh explain exactly what you mean by saying print 3 is a "recant" of print 1 and print 2.
This is what Day said:

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. 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."

When he says "the print on the gun was their best bet" he is referring to the palmprint he said was left on the barrel when he tried his botched attempt to lift it. This is the magical print that vanished.
He then says there was another print that was under the wood and near the trigger housing.
I can't wait to hear your explanation.

[Dan O'meara]

Here's another little mystery i came across while going through Day's WC testimony.
Maybe you could help me out with it Jack, you're unique outlook might come in useful.
Day is testifying about when he first discovered the magical palmprint:

"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose...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."

Now, my interpretation of this is that Day saw traces of the palmprint sticking out from under the wooden stock. When he takes the wood off he sees the palmprint on the underside of the barrel. In the pic below I've put a red arrow to point out where Day is referring to when he says the print "extended under the woodstock" and was on "the bottom side of the barrel".



What do you reckon Jack?
Is this a fair interpretation of what Day testified to?