Dallas Police Crime Lab

[Charles Collins]

Now who’s being desperate?

Also in CE3145:

"Lt. Day stated he made a written report on January 8, 1964, to Mr. G. L. Lumpkin. Deputy of Police, Service Division of the Dallas Police Department. This report is set forth as requested of Lt. Day, and a copy of such report was furnished for transmittal to the President's Commission investigating the assassination pf President Kennedy. Lt. Day stated he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print from the underside of the rifle, which palm print was found when he examined the rifle on November 22, 1963, rather than to make a written signed statement."

You are trying to make what the document actually said into something that is obviously untrue. When did "he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally" become "he refused to sign a statement"?

[John Iacoletti]

Savage writes that not only Rusty, but Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown also saw and compared the palm print that weekend. And it was front page news on 11/24/63.

Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.

And how did Livingston, Barnes, Williams, and Brown see something that Day didn’t tell anybody about?

The key words are: "that he had made the tentative identification." Nothing in that statement precludes Day telling Drain about a palm print on the rifle (and Livingston overhearing the conversation).

So we’re to believe that Day tentatively identified the only print evidence they had that connected Oswald to the rifle on the 22nd and didn’t bother to mention that detail to the “distracted” Drain (distracted by what, a heart attack?) or to anybody else, but that somehow 4 other guys in the office came to the same conclusion without Day telling them?

And then somehow when the rifle was in transit, it lost any evidence that it had been processed with fingerprint powder, as well as losing the traces of print that Day claimed were still there.

Seems legit.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks John, yes the FBI had to have been satisfied with that evidence which indicates that the palm print came from the rifle.

All we know is that Hoover was satisfied. You know, the guy whose stated objective was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin?

[John Mytton]

All we know is that Hoover was satisfied. You know, they guy whose stated objective was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin?

Wrong again, Hoover was satisfied because he had the evidence of the two prints showing a perfect match. Hahaha!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Wrong, the Day print is being directly compared to the FBI print, check it yourself, you lose. But i am happy that you thought its the same print. 

Sorry, is this supposed to prove that Day’s lift “had to have come from the rifle“?

How do we even know your smudge with arrows came from the rifle?

I said let’s see the analysis, not another one of your contrived morphs. Or did Hoover do this himself?

[John Iacoletti]

You are trying to make what the document actually said into something that is obviously untrue. When did "he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally" become "he refused to sign a statement"?

“rather than to make a written signed statement.”

[John Iacoletti]

Wrong again, Hoover was satisfied because he had the evidence of the two prints showing a perfect match. Hahaha!

“Perfect match”. That’s another LOL.