The Palmprint

[Zeon Mason]

According to Lt.Days WC testimony, it seems his opinion of the print lifted from the MC rifle was that it was NOT a fresh print recently placed on the barrel.

Therefore  even if it can be concluded that miscommunication is the cause of Lt.Day failing to record anything in an affidavit of finding the print and informing Drain about it, if the print is an OLD print then that cannot be proof that Oswald used the MC  on Nov 22/63.

[Mike Orr]

According to the Fort Worth press , an FBI camera and crime lab kit spent a long time in the morgue. " The director of Miller Funeral Home, Paul Groody , also said the FBI came out the night Oswald was killed. Groody had gotten to the funeral home with his body something in the neighborhood of 11 o'clock at night . It is a several hour procedure to prepare the remains. After this time , some place in the early morning, agents came. I say agents because I am not familiar at the moment as to whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what they were. But agents did come and when they did come they fingerprinted .  And the only reason that we knew they did is that they were carrying the satchel and equipment asked us if they might have the preparation room to themselves. And after it was over , we found ink on Lee Harvey Oswald's hands showing that they had fingerprinted him and palm printed him. We had to take that ink back off in order to prepare him for burial and eliminate that ink .

[Michael Capasse]

According to the Fort Worth press , an FBI camera and crime lab kit spent a long time in the morgue. " The director of Miller Funeral Home, Paul Groody , also said the FBI came out the night Oswald was killed. Groody had gotten to the funeral home with his body something in the neighborhood of 11 o'clock at night . It is a several hour procedure to prepare the remains. After this time , some place in the early morning, agents came. I say agents because I am not familiar at the moment as to whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what they were. But agents did come and when they did come they fingerprinted .  And the only reason that we knew they did is that they were carrying the satchel and equipment asked us if they might have the preparation room to themselves. And after it was over , we found ink on Lee Harvey Oswald's hands showing that they had fingerprinted him and palm printed him. We had to take that ink back off in order to prepare him for burial and eliminate that ink .

[Dan O'meara]

I reread your original post. Apparently your source is a CT book by Henry Hurt (who obviously had an agenda). It always amazes me that people choose to believe anything that appears to support their CT ideas without any corroborating evidence to support them.

It always amazes me that Nutters lose there ability to comprehend any evidence that shakes their belief system.
I've already presented a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the legitimacy of the palmprint was being questioned almost from the beginning. But you can't seem to see this evidence for some reason.
And, to be honest, I've not even started on the bulk of evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the night of the 22nd - and, no doubt, you won't be able to see any of that evidence either.
It is thanks to you we have the July report mentioned by Willens stating that there was no palmprint on the rifle. Of course, this is not corroborating evidence there was no palmprint on the rifle as far as you're concerned.
Just because you refuse to look, doesn't mean the corroborating evidence is not there.

Let us first examine a statement that you made in your original post:

His comment -  "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle." - was not his own opinion. It was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.

The part in bold type is false. It is a conclusion that you jumped to without anything at all to support it. Nowhere does Drain say that it was the opinion of the experts that the print was forged. All Drain said was that they told him that they didn’t find any prints. The rest of Drain’s supposed statement to Henry Hurt the CT is strictly Drain apparently talking out of his rear end. I say that because everyone has opinions just like they all have rear ends. What you and Henry Hurt neglect to say anything about is that those same experts (when asked) subsequently confirmed the palm print came from the barrel of that specific rifle. If any of the experts actually had doubts, the confirmation of where the print came from apparently resolved them. If there was any way possible that the FBI could have shed the impression that they missed seeing the palm print on the barrel of the rifle, I believe that you can rest assured that they would have tried to pin the blame on Carl Day. That is exactly what Drain supposedly suggested to Henry Hurt the CT. Sadly for Drain and you, there is no evidence to support Drain’s supposed opinion. Neither of you are experts. Neither of you have a clue as to how this was even possible to do, let alone do it well enough to completely fool the real experts.

You don't get to choose what Drain was referring to or when he was "talking out of his rear end" 

If the Willens July report turns out to be an FBI report it will more than support Drain's opinion and that this opinion came from the FBI experts Drain refers to.
And why wouldn't the FBI write such a report - they'd examined the rifle from end to end and found not a speck to indicate the barrel of the rifle had even been processed. Either it hadn't been processed or it had been wiped clean.
As far as the FBI were concerned there was no print on the barrel of the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
There was no fingerprint dust on the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
And then, out of nowhere, a palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle barrel shows up!!

And I don't need to be an expert to fake a print...Day does. And he was.
And you have zero idea how easy or difficult it would be to fake such a print either. I'm sure you're not going to show us how difficult or easy it would be to fake such a print.

They needed "to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified."
It appears it is you who needs to broaden their reading list.

Thank you for the information on the Liebeler memo. I believe that I had previously read that but must have forgotten it.

In response, I will say that the questions were legitimate and understandable, and were answered to their satisfaction. The greater certainty was achieved. It is only the CT mindset that tries to spin this into something that it is not. Again, where is the evidence that a forged palm print happened or was even possible to achieve. You don’t need to be an expert and explain all the details of how this could have supposedly been done. Just cite an example for us showing that it was even possible to do this in 1963.

Not a single issue that was raised was "answered to their satisfaction".
Not one.
When I have the time I will present an analysis of the Liebler memo demonstrating how the issues raised were cleverly side-stepped.
For now, one example will suffice - Latona reported that there wasn't even a trace that the barrel had been processed for prints, let alone an actual remaining print. Yet Day testified that there was a clear print still left on the rifle. This is a complete contradiction.
In his interview with Hurt, Day insisted that, not only was the print on the rifle but there was fingerprint dust as well. Where did the print and the dust go?
Please explain how this issue was "answered to their satisfaction".

"Do you not feel weird suggesting that no-one at the DPD thought it was very urgent that a legible palmprint had been lifted from the murder weapon and could be compared with at least three sets of palmprints taken from their prime suspect who they had in custody.
The eyes of the world were on the DPD. They were under instant and immense pressure to solve this case and you're saying they didn't think matching the print lifted from the murder weapon to prints taken from their main suspect was "terribly urgent".

Do you really believe this?


No I don’t feel weird. Understand that Day testified that he DID examine the palm print and believed that it was a match. From there it was just a formality to document the matching points on the proper documents. The DPD and DA believed the case had been solved. Otherwise they would not have been likely to charge LHO with the murder of JFK. The palm print was not the only piece of evidence pointing toward LHO’s guilt. Day also testified that he was ordered to stop. Yet you continue to suggest that there was something sinister going on simply because you think they should have proceeded according to your ideas. Do you feel weird?

So you actually believe that the DPD had a match for Oswald's print on the assassination weapon by the night of the assassination?
You believe they neglected to mention it in any of the constant stream of interviews that were being given to TV and radio?
Can you explain how this staggeringly important piece of evidence went under the radar?

In my last post I raised the issue of Day's report in which he stated that he couldn't make the identification of the palmprint because he had to give the rifle to the FBI.
Do you also believe this?

What is the issue? Even the man who is supposed to be the basis for your accusations (Vince Drain) tells us in Larry Sneed’s book “No More Silence” that he had know Day for a long time and that he thinks Day is an honest individual. What I truly believe is that you are barking up a wrong tree.

What is the issue??
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. Unless you can think of an alternative reason.

[Charles Collins]

It always amazes me that Nutters lose there ability to comprehend any evidence that shakes their belief system.
I've already presented a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the legitimacy of the palmprint was being questioned almost from the beginning. But you can't seem to see this evidence for some reason.
And, to be honest, I've not even started on the bulk of evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle when Day examined it on the night of the 22nd - and, no doubt, you won't be able to see any of that evidence either.
It is thanks to you we have the July report mentioned by Willens stating that there was no palmprint on the rifle. Of course, this is not corroborating evidence there was no palmprint on the rifle as far as you're concerned.
Just because you refuse to look, doesn't mean the corroborating evidence is not there.

You don't get to choose what Drain was referring to or when he was "talking out of his rear end" 

If the Willens July report turns out to be an FBI report it will more than support Drain's opinion and that this opinion came from the FBI experts Drain refers to.
And why wouldn't the FBI write such a report - they'd examined the rifle from end to end and found not a speck to indicate the barrel of the rifle had even been processed. Either it hadn't been processed or it had been wiped clean.
As far as the FBI were concerned there was no print on the barrel of the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
There was no fingerprint dust on the rifle after it arrived from the DPD.
And then, out of nowhere, a palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle barrel shows up!!

And I don't need to be an expert to fake a print...Day does. And he was.
And you have zero idea how easy or difficult it would be to fake such a print either. I'm sure you're not going to show us how difficult or easy it would be to fake such a print.

Not a single issue that was raised was "answered to their satisfaction".
Not one.
When I have the time I will present an analysis of the Liebler memo demonstrating how the issues raised were cleverly side-stepped.
For now, one example will suffice - Latona reported that there wasn't even a trace that the barrel had been processed for prints, let alone an actual remaining print. Yet Day testified that there was a clear print still left on the rifle. This is a complete contradiction.
In his interview with Hurt, Day insisted that, not only was the print on the rifle but there was fingerprint dust as well. Where did the print and the dust go?
Please explain how this issue was "answered to their satisfaction".

So you actually believe that the DPD had a match for Oswald's print on the assassination weapon by the night of the assassination?
You believe they neglected to mention it in any of the constant stream of interviews that were being given to TV and radio?
Can you explain how this staggeringly important piece of evidence went under the radar?

What is the issue??
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. Unless you can think of an alternative reason.

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.


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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Zeon Mason]

It’s difficult to understand why Oswald would not have used gloves while disassembling the 2 main rifle parts , barrel and wooden stock which he then supposedly made a paper  bag approx 36” in length to carry the rifle in BW Fraziers car and then into TSBD.

For some reason Oswald WAS able to not leave several other prints on the paper when he was ripping it off the roll at TSBD and folding up the paper to hide it in his jacket (or somewhere) when he went home with BW Frazier on Thursday afternoon and when he MADE the bag using tape( either in TSBD Thursday or at home Friday).

Then strangely Oswald was able to grip the top of his paper bag with just one hand pressing his hand & fingers hard enough to carry the 8lb package swinging it along just a few inches off the ground (perLinnie May Randle) yet leave no multi finger or palm print there at the top of the bag.

When Oswald was placing the package in the back seat of BW Fraziers car and when he lifted it out again , for some reason, no additional prints indicating that action were found on the bag either.

All that was found was one small partial print of one finger near the top of the bag and one palm print with some fingers in the middle  of the bag.

Then when Oswald was supposedly assembling the MC rifle in the TSBD on Friday Nov22/63, (the 7th floor most likely) he did not care to use gloves then either? Was he just unable to realize how touching the barrel with his bare hand might very well leave a print?

Then he did not  use any gloves while he was firing the rifle (allegedly) from the SE 6th floor TSBD window.

Yet SUDDENLY, just after firing the last shot Oswald DID apparently realize that he was not wearing gloves and so he began wiping off the rifle as he was running with it at double time speed (8ft/sec) so that he would not have to waste another 10 secs or more when he stopped at the boxes near the staircase ( off all places 🤔 …to hide the rifle?

This is what the official WC report wants us to believe. The problem is it seems just too incredible that a man with a fairly high IQ and ability to speak fluent Russian, could be this inept.

Therefore in the  anomaly of Lt.Day vs Drain concerning the finding of a palm print on the barrel , when taken together with all the other anomalies, it has to be more than just negligence/ miscommunication , hence why some of us remain skeptical of the WC conclusions.