RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Richard Smith]

Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.

Cases have been thrown out of court for a whole lot less than that. It's at best investigatory mishandling of evidence.

Can you cite us to these cases which have been thrown out for something less than a delay of a couple of days in reporting the evidence during the initial stages of the investigation?  Particularly when you have cited no formal procedure for doing so that was violated by Day.  Confusing this for your subjective opinion of how an investigation should be conducted with no actual knowledge of how the DPD processed evidence in 1963.

[Martin Weidmann]

Can you cite us to these cases which have been thrown out for something less than a delay of a couple of days in reporting the evidence during the initial stages of the investigation?  Particularly when you have cited no formal procedure for doing so that was violated by Day.  Confusing this for your subjective opinion of how an investigation should be conducted with no actual knowledge of how the DPD processed evidence in 1963.

Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC?

[David Von Pein]

Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC?

Via this January 2014 discussion....


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's also explained in CE3145. Didn't you even bother to read it?

Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that January '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.

But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in September of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.

Is that about the size of it, Garry?

[Martin Weidmann]

Via this January 2014 discussion....


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's also explained in CE3145. Didn't you even bother to read it?

Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that January '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.

But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in September of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.

Is that about the size of it, Garry?

I have read that and it's just about the most pathetic excuse imaginable; He "preferred to let the written record speak for itself".

The mere fact that the WC asked him to explain the palmprint matter in an affidavit (under oath) as late as September 1964 should tell you one thing; they were not convinced by Day's story. In other words; it's pretty clear they questioned the veracity of his previous statements.

Obviously, by that date and being under time pressure, they hardly had any other option but to "accept" Day's version of events as not doing so would cause doubt about Oswald being the shooter and they couldn't have that, but if you step back and think about it rationally, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

This was the biggest murder case of the decade and here's the chief forensic officer of the DPD completely messing up a piece of potentially crucial evidence, by holding back the print, not sharing it with the FBI for several days and not even bothering to compare the print with those of Oswald's, thus displaying a total lack of interest in the matter. And then there people like DVP and "Richard Smith" who see no problem at all... Go figure!

What possible reason could Day have had for his refusal to produce an affidavit? Why would he prefer to stand by his statements in an internal report?

[John Iacoletti]

A written report to a supervisor is not made under oath under penalty of perjury.

[Alan Ford]

A written report to a supervisor is not made under oath under penalty of perjury.

He nervous....................

[Charles Collins]

A written report to a supervisor is not made under oath under penalty of perjury.

Who even requested an affidavit? Where is that request? FBI agents are not authorized to take affidavits, so why would they send Drain for that?

[Martin Weidmann]

Who even requested an affidavit? Where is that request? FBI agents are not authorized to take affidavits, so why would they send Drain for that?

Hardly relevant questions.

On September 1, 1964 the WC requested "certain investigation into the circumstances under which Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department processed the assassination rifle for latent fingerprints and palm prints........"

Day, however, refused to cooperate, by stating that he preferred to let the written (internal DPD) report speak for itself and "would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print <...> rather than to make a written signed statement".

Statements like that are normally made in a affidavit in front of a notary, but even if he wasn't asked to sign an affidavit, why would Day decline to make "a written signed statement"?