The Palmprint

[Jack Nessan]

"Reading through this post it became apparent there is no information at all in this post. Lt. Day did not state there were two sets of prints on the barrel and there was powder present on the rifle."

  Really Jack??
So now I have to hold your hand and guide you through a basic English lesson?
The lengths you Nutters will go to, to misrepresent the evidence, is amazing.

Firstly, the plural of "scenario" is not "scenari". It is "scenarios"
Secondly, let's have a look at your childish attempt to subvert Day's testimony:

"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."

"The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints" - This is a reference to the MC being sent to the FBI.
"Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there," - the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle. Day stated that he felt the part of the print that was left on the underside of the barrel of the rifle was the FBI's "best bet" of getting an identification. He is insistent that this partial print "still remained" on the rifle when he handed the rifle over to Drain.
"and, too, there was another print," - this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. This is a definitive statement. There is no 'maybe', 'perhaps' or 'possibly'. Day is stating unequivocally that there were two sets of prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. There can be no doubt of that.
"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." - here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!
Unlike the blatant falsehood you are trying to peddle, Day DOES NOT use the word "possibly" in relation to whether or not there was a second print on the rifle. He is absolutely certain there was a second print. He uses the word "possibly" when he is describing the position of this second print on the barrel of the rifle.

Your childish attempt to twist the meaning of Day's testimony represents the depths you Nutters are willing to go.
It is just another sad example of a Nutter in denial.
The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI. Elsewhere he has stated there was also fingerprint powder on the rifle where he had tried to lift the palmprint, and that it was still on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain.
A few hours later, when the rifle reached Latona, both sets of prints and the fingerprint powder had disappeared from the underside of the barrel of the rifle. It was as if nobody had even looked at this area of the rifle.
Where did all this evidence go?
As far as Nutters are concerned, they have "no idea" and think that's a good enough answer.
It is not.
Even members of the Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint.
There is something incredibly suspicious going on here but Nutters can just turn a blind eye.

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

"But you just stated the powder was missing. Now you quoted Stombaugh stating the powder was all over the gun. Is it missing or not? You currently are representing both scenari"


Yet again, I have to hold your hand and guide you through the basics of this case 
It's getting really boring.

Part of the barrel of the rifle of the MC is covered by a wooden foregrip when it is assembled.
Do you understand that?
The area where Day said he discovered two sets of prints was on the part of the barrel that was covered by the foregrip.
Day had to disassemble the rifle so he could access this part of the underside of the barrel of the rifle.
It was on this part of the rifle that Day said he saw two sets of prints.
Day would like us to believe that he covered this area of the barrel of the rifle with black fingerprint powder and tried to lift a palmprint off the surface.
Obviously, the rifle had to be disassembled for him to do this.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

Now, let's go back to when the rifle was first discovered on the 6th floor.
Tom Alyea filmed Day covering the rifle with fingerprint dust, using his little brush to brush away lots of the fibre evidence.
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:

"...I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints."


Stombaugh notes that "fingerprint powder was all over the gun".
So your stupid idea, that all this powder had simply disappeared, can be put to one side.
Now...here's the bit where you really have to focus.
Stombaugh never disassembled the rifle!!
So he didn't examine the area where Day claimed to have lifted the print from.
The person who disassembled the rifle was a firearms expert brought in by Latona, as part of a team that examined the alleged murder weapon of the President.
Although the rifle was covered with latent fingerprint powder, when Latona examined the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip, he discovered there was no fingerprint powder there. There were no prints there. The underside of the rifle barrel was clean.
The rest of the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder except for the area where Day lied about having lifted a palmprint.
It was clean.
It had either been wiped clean or it had never been examined in the first place.

Do you understand now, Jack?
Do you now understand how fingerprint powder can be both missing and all over the rifle at the same time.
Do you now understand that both scenari are possible?
Even though there was fingerprint powder all over the rifle there was none on the underside of the barrel that had been covered by the foregrip.
There were no prints, even though Day claimed there were two sets of prints there.
It is obvious that Day lied about processing this part of the rifle.
And that is why your heroes, the Warren Commision, questioned the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.

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

"Hoover’s letter authenticating the palmprint completely answers the question and leaves no doubt what so ever."

I only ask the following question because I'm interested to see what lunacy you come up with next.
How, exactly, does Hoover's unofficial letter tell us what happened to the two sets of prints and fingerprint powder that disappeared from the underside of the rifle between Day and Latona?

You have already admitted that you have "no idea" what happened.
If the answer is in Hoover's unofficial letter, as you insist it is, then how come you have "no idea"?

Now, I already know the answers to these questions but I'm interested to see how you try to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”

This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?

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

Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?


LT Day---"and, too, there was another print," 

DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.


Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!

Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?

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

DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”

Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”
 

 

[Dan O'meara]

DM--- “the print on the gun is the palmprint Day alleged to have taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When he lifted the print he actually destroyed the integrity of it. Some came off on the tape, some remained on the rifle.”

This is personal progress for you. You admit Lt Day lifted a palm print off the underside of the barrel before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. The very palm print authenticated in the letter from Hoover that referenced the analysis by the FBI Lab. It is back to what point are you trying to make?

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

Seriously, not just two prints, but you are still postulating there were two prints on the underside of the barrel?


LT Day---"and, too, there was another print," 

DM---- this is a reference to another print that was on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.


Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

DM---- here Day does use the word "possibly", but it is in relation to the location of the print on the underside of the barrel!

Huh? But 0now you believe Day does not really know where the other print is at, he is just guessing as to location, except it is magically located on the underside of the barrel because that is where you need it to be to make this odd claim? Maybe the real question to be answered concerns your knowledge of the construction of the carcano rifle, specifically, the trigger guard/magazine housing and its relation to the stock, receiver, and barrel?

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

DM--“The bottom line is this - Day testified that there were two prints on the underside of the barrel of the rifle when he handed it over to the FBI”

Again, no Lt Day did not state there was two prints on the barrel. The only one saying that is Dan O’meara. The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Day “....and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.”

The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Some of the things you post are so stupid its difficult to know if you're serious.
When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?

[Jack Nessan]

The “trigger housing” is not the barrel of the gun.

Some of the things you post are so stupid its difficult to know if you're serious.
When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?

“When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?”

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not. 

If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.

The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber. 

When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing. 

 

Lt Day ...”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"

Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.

 
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.

[Charles Collins]

For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:

[Jack Nessan]

For what it is worth, Here is an image of a Carcano disassembled:

Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.

[Charles Collins]

Dan won't be able to handle the fact it is not oriented correctly. On Numrich Gun Parts is a better schematic that shows the proper orientation, but I doubt he is interested.

I looked at that website. It appears that they are selling that schematic (pdf download) for $1.50 in case anyone is interested. Personally, I don’t need it (to understand how the parts fit together).

[Dan O'meara]

“When Day states the second print was "under the wood part up near the trigger housing", what do you think he means?
What do you think "under the wood part" means?
What do you think "up near the trigger housing" means?”

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Maybe if you would examine a carcano rifle you would not post something like this. The WC members understood what LT Day was talking about. Maybe you are the only one who does not. 

If only there was a medium where you could get a schematic breakdown of the parts of a carcano rifle. I bet it would show the trigger housing as being located on the rear of the receiver. The magazine housing would probably be in front of it still under the receiver, specifically right under the chamber. I bet then it would show the barrel in front of the magazine housing. If you really need help, this explanation should help you understand. Remember he stated “up by” the Trigger Housing. Not the barrel, the trigger housing.

The trigger housing is nowhere near the barrel. The magazine housing is between the trigger housing and the barrel. The trigger housing is situated below the bolt of the rifle behind the chamber. 

When a print was on the barrel, Lt Day identified the print as being on the barrel, so he certainly knew how to reference a print as being located on the barrel as ccompared to the trigger housing or magazine housing. 

 

Lt Day ...”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"

Lt Day---"I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." 

Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.

 
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.

I think what he means is the print was up by the trigger housing, just like he said, and not anywhere near the barrel like the other print.

Like all Nutters, you would rather post utter nonsense than admit you're wrong.
A few posts ago you were insisting Day never mentioned two sets of prints. After giving you an English lesson you now accept he did state there were two sets of prints but now you want to argue about where on the rifle this second print was! You really are a joke.
Time for yet another English lesson.
When Day states that this second print was "near" the trigger housing he is saying that IT IS NOT ON THE TRIGGER HOUSING!!
Do you understand this very simple point?
There is another point you have tried to ignore.
Day stated this second print was "under the wood". This means that the second print was UNDER THE WOOD.
There is only one place Day can be referring to and that is on the barrel of the rifle, this is the metal part "under the wood".
When he states that the print was NEAR the trigger housing, he is simply referring to which end of the barrel the print was located - not the end near the muzzle, the end near the trigger housing.

If you disagree with this then state exactly where on the rifle this second print is. If it's not on the trigger housing then where is it?
[not even you are stupid enough to try and argue the second print is on the trigger housing.]

Not that it means anything.
Like all Nutters, you have no idea how the two sets of prints and all the black fingerprint powder could have disappeared from the barrel of the rifle by the time it reached Latona.
The answer is simple - there was never any prints or powder on the barrel of the rifle, or the barrel was wiped completely clean.
Day stated that he told Fritz, Curry and Drain about the palmprint. There is absolutely no evidence of this but plenty of evidence that he never told any of them about the print.
Day lied about not having enough time to identify the print.
The FBI did not receive the palmprint until the 29th - a full week after the assassination.
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in Day's account of the palmprint that all disappear when it is realised he is lying.

Just to make something clear - I'm not disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald (there would be no point framing him with someone else's rifle). I'm pointing out that some aspects of the investigation were clearly corrupt. There can be no doubt about this.