WOW!!...Thank you Mr Organ....I never expected a LNer to accomodate me and debate this point. ( while providing photos also )
I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).
Yes,..... But let me point out that the bayonet slot in the photo you posted appears to be wider than the bayonet groove on my carcanos....I own several carcanos and none of them have a groove like the groove on the carcano in the photo. The grooves on my carcanos is not as wide and the sides are more parallel.
If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?
No.... The photo of CE 637 doesn't show that portion of the rifles stock ( foregrip) The right hand side of the photo (CE 637 ) shows only about 3/4 of an inch of back end of the bayonet groove.
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.
Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.
Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.
Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.
HUH?.... Three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock is three inches .....Period! It matters not if the metal barrel is fitted into the stock.
Day said that he spotted a print on THE SIDE of the barrel ( The metal barrel) that disappeared beneath the wooden stock about three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock. ( Turns out his guess was pretty good.....The area circled is about 3 & 1 / 2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock.)
However....He said when he disassembled the rifle he saw the old print on the BOTTOM of the metal barrel and that's what he lifted.
!) A man's palm print couldn't have wrapped half way around that 5 /8 inch metal barrel
2) Day said the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel ...he did not say that the print extended halfway around the barrel....
The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.
3) there is nothing on the metal barrel that would have created the two parallel lines.
I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.
The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.
It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.
I believe that Detective Day was incorporating his lift from the TSBD into the tale they invented, and he was recalling what he thought was a palm print on the wooden stock when he saw it while checking the rifle for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled it from beneath the pallet. He said the print was about three inches back from the forward end ( muzzle end) of the WOODEN stock. If he had found a print on the metal barrel he logically would have used the muzzle or the bayonet lug as a reference point.
I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
