RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Andrew Mason]

    You're forgetting the 2 bullet fragments Landis said he saw, picked up, and put back between the bench seat and back rest. What happened to those 2 bullet fragments? Were these 2 bullet fragments garnered by the cleanup crew that used that bucket that was photo'd on the ground beside the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital?

You are putting a lot of weight on the 60 year old recollections of an 88 year old man who, as far as we know, never documented finding any bullet fragments or a bullet in the car during those 60 years.  I am not suggesting that he is deliberately lying but minds can play tricks after such a long time.  His two statements in CE1024 are still the best evidence was to what he found in the car. In any event, if Landis did find two large bullet fragments and a whole bullet, there is no reason to believe that they are not the fragments found in the car: CE567 and CE569 and CE399 found on a stretcher.

[Royell Storing]

You are putting a lot of weight on the 60 year old recollections of an 88 year old man who, as far as we know, never documented finding any bullet fragments or a bullet in the car during those 60 years.  I am not suggesting that he is deliberately lying but minds can play tricks after such a long time.  His two statements in CE1024 are still the best evidence was to what he found in the car. In any event, if Landis did find two large bullet fragments and a whole bullet, there is no reason to believe that they are not the fragments found in the car: CE567 and CE569 and CE399 found on a stretcher.

     No problem. So show Landis the fragments you mention and ask him if those are/could be the ones he handled on 11/22/63. A lot of the past and current confusion can easily be cleared up IF the JFK Assassination Research Community will get off its' duff and STOP putting ALL their effort into merely selling books. Clint Hill needs to be questioned regarding the ongoing Landis controversy. Did Clint Hill ever see Landis standing inside the back seat area of the JFK Limo after it arrived at Parkland Hospital as Landis claims? This is Not a tough question for Hill to answer. 

[Charles Collins]

Yeah, I don’t believe him. I think it’s a CYA. He not only told Drain about the print, but he showed it to him? The ”Drain was distracted” excuse doesn’t work if he showed it to him. Drain understood that he was collecting evidence related to Oswald. Why would he not take this print that Day supposedly tentatively had already identified? And then completely forget the conversation ever happened.

It’s mishandling because he didn’t follow the standard procedure of photographing the print or documenting anything.

I can see how you could make that interpretation, but then the question becomes “why didn’t Day cover that area with cellophane?” Remember, he claimed there were still traces of ridges there. It can’t be because they were protected by the stock, because the whole reason he removed the stock (so he claimed) was because he saw a print extending out from where the stock was.

Inconsistencies matter. They are an indication that somebody isn’t being truthful. It’s why interrogators ask the same questions over and over again and compare responses.

all the evidence collected which related to Oswald. Its makes absolutely no sense that he would take everything else that had prints on it and leave behind a print supposedly lifted from the rifle that night. No sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense that this wasn’t included with the other evidence sent back to the FBI again on 11/26.

That’s because you’re doing your usual “nothing to see here” routine and ignoring all the things there are to see here.

Yeah, I don’t believe him. I think it’s a CYA. He not only told Drain about the print, but he showed it to him? The ”Drain was distracted” excuse doesn’t work if he showed it to him. Drain understood that he was collecting evidence related to Oswald. Why would he not take this print that Day supposedly tentatively had already identified? And then completely forget the conversation ever happened.

Day gave him the rifle as instructed. He said he told Drain verbally about the trace of a print under the foregrip. Day did not say that he told Drain about the lift that he made of the palm print on the rifle, so why do you think Drain knew anything about the lift? People forget some details of things other people say all the time. Especially when they have a lot of other things on their minds at the time.


It’s mishandling because he didn’t follow the standard procedure of photographing the print or documenting anything.

No, Day said he was in the process of setting up the photographing effort when he was told to stop and turn the rifle over to the FBI. Day apparently did document the lift by writing the description, date, and his initials on the card. What supposed other documentation are you talking about?



I can see how you could make that interpretation, but then the question becomes “why didn’t Day cover that area with cellophane?” Remember, he claimed there were still traces of ridges there. It can’t be because they were protected by the stock, because the whole reason he removed the stock (so he claimed) was because he saw a print extending out from where the stock was.

Day said he didn’t cover it with cellophane because the wooden foregrip protected it. I don’t know exactly how much of the print extended out (or even if it did). I think it is possible that he said he could see the edge of the print when the foregrip was still on it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it extended out such that it was unprotected. Often there is a small gap between the wood and the barrel that he could have seen the edge of the print through. I will agree that Day should have provided a written note or something like that to indicate there was a print underneath the foregrip. Relying on Drain to relay his verbal message was not the best way to handle it.


Inconsistencies matter. They are an indication that somebody isn’t being truthful. It’s why interrogators ask the same questions over and over again and compare responses.

Inconsistencies are not necessarily an indication of being untruthful. Yes, investigators often ask same or similar questions repeatedly to one suspect trying to trip him up to try to determine if they are telling the truth. However, in this instance we are dealing with more than one person. And we are dealing with human memories which are fallible. And the evidence indicates that Day did lift the print from where he said he did on the rifle.



all the evidence collected which related to Oswald. Its makes absolutely no sense that he would take everything else that had prints on it and leave behind a print supposedly lifted from the rifle that night. No sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense that this wasn’t included with the other evidence sent back to the FBI again on 11/26.

There was over 400 items collected that related to Oswald. Are you suggesting that Drain took all of that evidence to Washington, waited there for it to be processed, and brought it back to Dallas on 11/24/63? And that the lift of the palm print was the only thing that Drain didn’t take with him on 11/22/63? Drain was apparently not aware of the lift of the palm print on 11/22/63. Day states that the lift of the palm print was included with the other evidence sent to the FBI on 11/26. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?


That’s because you’re doing your usual “nothing to see here” routine and ignoring all the things there are to see here.

Actually I am trying to understand what it is that you are suggesting happened. Otherwise, I would have exited this conversation a long time ago.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, I don’t believe him. I think it’s a CYA. He not only told Drain about the print, but he showed it to him? The ”Drain was distracted” excuse doesn’t work if he showed it to him. Drain understood that he was collecting evidence related to Oswald. Why would he not take this print that Day supposedly tentatively had already identified? And then completely forget the conversation ever happened.

Day gave him the rifle as instructed. He said he told Drain verbally about the trace of a print under the foregrip. Day did not say that he told Drain about the lift that he made of the palm print on the rifle, so why do you think Drain knew anything about the lift? People forget some details of things other people say all the time. Especially when they have a lot of other things on their minds at the time.


It’s mishandling because he didn’t follow the standard procedure of photographing the print or documenting anything.

No, Day said he was in the process of setting up the photographing effort when he was told to stop and turn the rifle over to the FBI. Day apparently did document the lift by writing the description, date, and his initials on the card. What supposed other documentation are you talking about?



I can see how you could make that interpretation, but then the question becomes “why didn’t Day cover that area with cellophane?” Remember, he claimed there were still traces of ridges there. It can’t be because they were protected by the stock, because the whole reason he removed the stock (so he claimed) was because he saw a print extending out from where the stock was.

Day said he didn’t cover it with cellophane because the wooden foregrip protected it. I don’t know exactly how much of the print extended out (or even if it did). I think it is possible that he said he could see the edge of the print when the foregrip was still on it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it extended out such that it was unprotected. Often there is a small gap between the wood and the barrel that he could have seen the edge of the print through. I will agree that Day should have provided a written note or something like that to indicate there was a print underneath the foregrip. Relying on Drain to relay his verbal message was not the best way to handle it.


Inconsistencies matter. They are an indication that somebody isn’t being truthful. It’s why interrogators ask the same questions over and over again and compare responses.

Inconsistencies are not necessarily an indication of being untruthful. Yes, investigators often ask same or similar questions repeatedly to one suspect trying to trip him up to try to determine if they are telling the truth. However, in this instance we are dealing with more than one person. And we are dealing with human memories which are fallible. And the evidence indicates that Day did lift the print from where he said he did on the rifle.



all the evidence collected which related to Oswald. Its makes absolutely no sense that he would take everything else that had prints on it and leave behind a print supposedly lifted from the rifle that night. No sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense that this wasn’t included with the other evidence sent back to the FBI again on 11/26.

There was over 400 items collected that related to Oswald. Are you suggesting that Drain took all of that evidence to Washington, waited there for it to be processed, and brought it back to Dallas on 11/24/63? And that the lift of the palm print was the only thing that Drain didn’t take with him on 11/22/63? Drain was apparently not aware of the lift of the palm print on 11/22/63. Day states that the lift of the palm print was included with the other evidence sent to the FBI on 11/26. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?


That’s because you’re doing your usual “nothing to see here” routine and ignoring all the things there are to see here.

Actually I am trying to understand what it is that you are suggesting happened. Otherwise, I would have exited this conversation a long time ago.

Let's see if we can cut this conversation short....

Evidence needs to be authenticated and have a proper chain of custody to be credible.

How, in your mind, can the palmprint on the index card be authenticated other than by "cop said so"?

[John Iacoletti]

Day gave him the rifle as instructed. He said he told Drain verbally about the trace of a print under the foregrip.

That's even less believable.  He told Drain about the "trace of a print under the foregrip" that didn't turn out to even be there, but didn't bother to mention that he already lifted it?  Was he trying to sabotage the FBI's efforts?

No, Day said he was in the process of setting up the photographing effort when he was told to stop and turn the rifle over to the FBI.

So now you're saying that he didn't get around to trying to photograph it until after he had already lifted it?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of doing the photograph in the first place?  Why the different procedure than what he followed for the trigger guard?

Day apparently did document the lift by writing the description, date, and his initials on the card. What supposed other documentation are you talking about?

Didn't tell Drain.  Didn't tell anybody else.  Didn't submit the evidence via a CSSS.  Didn't secure the evidence.  Didn't write any kind of report indicating that he had made this lift and what he did with it.  The first documented evidence of its existence is after Oswald is dead.

Day said he didn’t cover it with cellophane because the wooden foregrip protected it.

"Lt. DAY stated he saw no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when fully assembled and that it was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints."

I will agree that Day should have provided a written note or something like that to indicate there was a print underneath the foregrip.

On this we agree. Especially since there is no evidence that there was actually a print underneath the foregrip when it got to Latona.

Relying on Drain to relay his verbal message was not the best way to handle it.

And there's no evidence that such a verbal message actually transpired.  Day didn't start claiming he told Drain anything until years later in response to criticism about it.

Inconsistencies are not necessarily an indication of being untruthful.

Agreed.  Otherwise, I would just be calling Day a liar rather than just saying that his story is unbelievable and makes no sense on multiple levels.

Yes, investigators often ask same or similar questions repeatedly to one suspect trying to trip him up to try to determine if they are telling the truth. However, in this instance we are dealing with more than one person. And we are dealing with human memories which are fallible. And the evidence indicates that Day did lift the print from where he said he did on the rifle.

All this "evidence" is, is replacing "Day said so" with "Hoover said so".  It's still an unverifiable, unconfirmable claim.

There was over 400 items collected that related to Oswald. Are you suggesting that Drain took all of that evidence to Washington, waited there for it to be processed, and brought it back to Dallas on 11/24/63? And that the lift of the palm print was the only thing that Drain didn’t take with him on 11/22/63?

What I'm saying is that if Drain had really been told about the lift, or even the print, it would have been number one on his list to bring back to the FBI.  He wouldn't have just ignored it.  This is the only piece of evidence that could be physically connected back to Oswald.  Drain wouldn't have just forgotten about it.  It just conveniently turned up when there was nothing else that could be used.

Drain was apparently not aware of the lift of the palm print on 11/22/63. Day states that the lift of the palm print was included with the other evidence sent to the FBI on 11/26. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?

Yes.  Latona said that he got the other materials to be examined (boxes and so forth) on November 27th, and the index card lift on the 29th.

Actually I am trying to understand what it is that you are suggesting happened. Otherwise, I would have exited this conversation a long time ago.

I'm suggesting that the partial palmprint lift known as CE 637 cannot be authenticated as having been lifted from the CE 139 rifle on 11/22/63 as claimed by Carl Day, and that there are too many inconsistencies and discrepancies to accept that as true beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that even the Warren Commission had the same reservations until they (for some unfathomable reason) were sufficiently reassured by an equally unauthenticatable claim by Hoover in a letter not given under oath or with enough detail to assess it adequately.

[Royell Storing]

"Get off its' duff".

What's stopping the JFKA Conspiracy Theorists--many of whom somehow are allowed to own rifles (and Carcanos in particular)--from testing whether a palm-print placed on a rifle barrel and allowed to dry for an appropriate amount of time so that a lift could then be made using the same method as Lt. Day. Then see how visible the remaining print is after a few hours. See if the rifle barrel has to be tilted in a certain light to see the print, or if it can be easily overlooked if one didn't know where to look.

It's been 60 years. They don't trust authorities, so-called "LNers" or experts like the Haags to do it.

     This lack of action outta so called "Researchers" is due to No $$ being attached to it. These guys are all about making a buck off of the JFK Assassination. If there is no financial benefit attached, they ain't touching it. This is exactly why Landis needs to IMMEDIATELY be pressed on the different issues involving his recent claims. Landis is gonna have to do a book tour to some degree. It is imperative that his public availability be jumped on. 

[Charles Collins]

That's even less believable.  He told Drain about the "trace of a print under the foregrip" that didn't turn out to even be there, but didn't bother to mention that he already lifted it?  Was he trying to sabotage the FBI's efforts?

So now you're saying that he didn't get around to trying to photograph it until after he had already lifted it?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of doing the photograph in the first place?  Why the different procedure than what he followed for the trigger guard?

Didn't tell Drain.  Didn't tell anybody else.  Didn't submit the evidence via a CSSS.  Didn't secure the evidence.  Didn't write any kind of report indicating that he had made this lift and what he did with it.  The first documented evidence of its existence is after Oswald is dead.

"Lt. DAY stated he saw no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when fully assembled and that it was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints."

On this we agree. Especially since there is no evidence that there was actually a print underneath the foregrip when it got to Latona.

And there's no evidence that such a verbal message actually transpired.  Day didn't start claiming he told Drain anything until years later in response to criticism about it.

Agreed.  Otherwise, I would just be calling Day a liar rather than just saying that his story is unbelievable and makes no sense on multiple levels.

All this "evidence" is, is replacing "Day said so" with "Hoover said so".  It's still an unverifiable, unconfirmable claim.

What I'm saying is that if Drain had really been told about the lift, or even the print, it would have been number one on his list to bring back to the FBI.  He wouldn't have just ignored it.  This is the only piece of evidence that could be physically connected back to Oswald.  Drain wouldn't have just forgotten about it.  It just conveniently turned up when there was nothing else that could be used.

Yes.  Latona said that he got the other materials to be examined (boxes and so forth) on November 27th, and the index card lift on the 29th.

I'm suggesting that the partial palmprint lift known as CE 637 cannot be authenticated as having been lifted from the CE 139 rifle on 11/22/63 as claimed by Carl Day, and that there are too many inconsistencies and discrepancies to accept that as true beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that even the Warren Commission had the same reservations until they (for some unfathomable reason) were sufficiently reassured by an equally unauthenticatable claim by Hoover in a letter not given under oath or with enough detail to assess it adequately.

That's even less believable.  He told Drain about the "trace of a print under the foregrip" that didn't turn out to even be there, but didn't bother to mention that he already lifted it?  Was he trying to sabotage the FBI's efforts?

Day was following his orders. Day said he told his superiors (Curry and Fritz) about the lift before the time that Drain took the rifle. If Curry and Fritz had wanted to tell the FBI about the lift, it was up to them to do it. Remember, the DPD had jurisdiction (not the FBI). The DPD leadership had decided to let the FBI temporarily take the evidence that the FBI had requested. The DPD was not even required to do that.



So now you're saying that he didn't get around to trying to photograph it until after he had already lifted it?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of doing the photograph in the first place?  Why the different procedure than what he followed for the trigger guard?

I believe that Day stated that he had no other reason than an urgent request to process the gun ASAP. I believe he said that Captain Fritz ordered him to resume processing the rifle after Day had already been stopped earlier. Another snip from "No More Silence", page 237:  "Captain Fritz came back a little later and had run across the chief of police. He told me to go ahead and start again on what I had been doing with the gun, which I did. Before I got the picture made, another message came in: 'Drop everything! Don't do anything else!'" I don't believe that there was a requirement to photograph prints first, or even to photograph them at all.


Didn't tell Drain.  Didn't tell anybody else.  Didn't submit the evidence via a CSSS.  Didn't secure the evidence.  Didn't write any kind of report indicating that he had made this lift and what he did with it.  The first documented evidence of its existence is after Oswald is dead.

Day said he told Curry and Fritz about the palm print lift before the rifle was taken by Drain. Is the palm print the only item not "submitted via a CSSS? Is there a CSSS that he submitted for the partial prints on the trigger guard for example? Why do you assume a CSSS is required to be submitted at the same time the rifle was being processed? What do you think that a CSSS's purpose is? To whom is this CSSS supposed to be submitted to? Day stated he secured the card in his office, that doesn't necessarily mean that other employees that worked in that office couldn't access it. What kind of report do you think Day should have written? Written to whom? Written when? Why are you assuming a report was required of Day while he was processing the rifle? He did write a report to his superiors when it was requested of him. First documentation of the palm print by whom, the FBI? (Remember that the FBI didn't have jurisdiction on 11/22/63.)


"Lt. DAY stated he saw no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when fully assembled and that it was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints."

Isn't that essentially what I just said? Why are you repeating it?


On this we agree. Especially since there is no evidence that there was actually a print underneath the foregrip when it got to Latona.

Snip from "No More Silence", pages238-239:

I don't know why they didn't find any prints on the gun at all. I don't know why they didn't locate that piece of print that I thought was still there. ... But anyway, they didn't find any prints, or didn't find that one or were unable to do anything with what I thought was on there. It may have been that there wasn't enough there, but I thought I could still see it.

I have already indicated a few possibilities that I think are possible earlier in this thread. We will most likely never have a definitive answer that will satisfy everyone as to why Latona didn't find a print. The evidence that it was there includes the actual lift of the palm print, Day's testimony about that lift, and the irregularities the FBI found on the rifle that match the corresponding marks on the lift of the palm print that Day made. You can complain about the evidence all you wish, but it exists.


And there's no evidence that such a verbal message actually transpired.  Day didn't start claiming he told Drain anything until years later in response to criticism about it.

I could be mistaken, but I think I remember that Drain's report of September 1964 indicated that Day made the claim when Drain talked to him.



All this "evidence" is, is replacing "Day said so" with "Hoover said so".  It's still an unverifiable, unconfirmable claim.

The physical evidence, a copy of which is a part of Hoover's letter, is conclusive.


What I'm saying is that if Drain had really been told about the lift, or even the print, it would have been number one on his list to bring back to the FBI.  He wouldn't have just ignored it.  This is the only piece of evidence that could be physically connected back to Oswald.  Drain wouldn't have just forgotten about it.  It just conveniently turned up when there was nothing else that could be used.

Day said he told Drain about the print on the rifle. Day didn't say he told Drain about the lift.


Yes.  Latona said that he got the other materials to be examined (boxes and so forth) on November 27th, and the index card lift on the 29th.

Day said he sent it on the 26th. Do you not think that a possible explanation for the difference is that it simply took Latona a few days to process some of the other 400+ items before he even knew that the palm print lift was included?


I'm suggesting that the partial palmprint lift known as CE 637 cannot be authenticated as having been lifted from the CE 139 rifle on 11/22/63 as claimed by Carl Day, and that there are too many inconsistencies and discrepancies to accept that as true beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that even the Warren Commission had the same reservations until they (for some unfathomable reason) were sufficiently reassured by an equally unauthenticatable claim by Hoover in a letter not given under oath or with enough detail to assess it adequately.

So, essentially you just don't like the evidence. What else is new?