Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 14, 2022 19:35:26 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/62570dd4ff.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
One of the pieces of evidence the Warren Commission (WC) defenders claim shows Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) is the palm print that was allegedly found on the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) that was accused of firing the three shots that performed the assassination. Nothing can be further from the truth. We will discuss this piece of evidence in a number of other posts, but let's start with some comments and statements from the FBI and the WC.
Please keep in mind too that even IF they could show the palm print was found on the M-C it proves nothing since Commission Exhibit (CE) 139 was NEVER linked to LHO in anyway. Also, it was never shown LHO was using CE-139 on November 22, 1963, from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as claimed. In addition to these major issues there is NO chain of custody for the palm print as Lt. Carl Day, who allegedly found it on the rifle, could NOT show it was ever on the rifle. The FBI would also say they saw NO indication of a lift or processing of the rifle ever being done when they received the rifle in the early hours of November 23, 1963. They would NOT get the print UNTIL November 29, 1963!
To add insult to injury for the WC and its devoted defenders -- the rifle was NEVER even tested to see if it was fired that day! Once again you will see a supposed piece of evidence that shows LHO's guilt is really a worthless piece of evidence and this was the ONLY piece of evidence that could link LHO to CE-139 at all!
*********************************************
Lieutenant Carl Day claimed to have found the print shortly before giving it to the FBI, but he failed to mention this to anyone or document this discovery in any manner. He would even say this to the WC:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
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.
So we see from this comment the first thing he did with the two prints he found on the side of the gun was to PHOTOGRAPH them! This is the normal thing to do first, but with the alleged palm print he NEVER photographed it before doing the alleged lift. Why? He would say he thought the print was still on the rifle, but when Sebastian Latona of the FBI received it and looked at it he said he saw NO palm print left! Look at what Day did with the alleged palm print.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
In the case of the alleged palm print Day was doing things backwards! After he allegedly lifted it he then was going to use photography to try and show it better! This is NOT standard procedure though. You are supposed to photograph things as YOU FIND them and then work with them. Here is what Latona said about the supposed lift Day did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
What he is saying is the alleged lift was so COMPLETE it left NO traces of being done or any traces of the print it was used to lift. As far as Latona knew there were ONLY the unidentifiable prints on the trigger guard. Again, this shows NO chain of custody existed for this alleged palm print as Latona did NOT get it UNTIL November 29 1963!
Day would again show he was NOT saying the same thing as the FBI with this statement.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
How could Day still "see the traces of the print" when the FBI could NOT? Can any WC defender explain this to me? He again shows how he treated the other prints in the correct manner with this comment.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
I am NOT saying it is wrong to do a lift, but it is wrong to do a lift BEFORE you photograph the print on the rifle as sometimes the print can be completely removed and then you can't show you took it from the rifle! He did NOT do this here, but he told the WC that "it was customary practice to photograph fingerprints in mosts instances prior to to lifting them." And yet, in this HIGH PROFILE case he opted NOT to supposedly. Why?
Early on November 23, 1963, the rifle was turned over to the FBI laboratory to be examined for prints. In a report made that day and signed by J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) the following could be found:
Quote on
NO latent prints of VALUE were developed on Oswald's revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle (and this is highly unlikely too) or the inner parts of the rifle.
Quote off
So we see the FBI had developed NO prints of value to show LHO handled or used the revolver or the rifle, and yet, they KEPT CLAIMING HE DID!
Where did this palm print come from? Some researchers have suggested that they took the print from a card they had as LHO had been printed THREE times while in custody. Others think the FBI went to the funeral home where LHO's body laid and pressed the rifle to his cold hand. This may sound ridiculous to some, but consider the following statements.
A local newspaper printed the following:
Quote on
An FBI team, with camera and crime lab kit, spent a long time in the morgue.
Quote off
Why would they do this? Does the FBI have anything to do with autopsies? In 1978, FBI Agent Richard Harrison confirmed for Gary Mack that he had driven another FBI agent and the alleged LHO rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said he understood the other agent intended to put LHO's palm print on the rifle for "comparison reasons." What could these be for since LHO had been printed three times already? Paul Groody worked at the funeral home and said the following to Jim Marrs:
Quote on
I had a heck of a time getting the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands.
Quote off
It was NOT until Monday that DA Henry Wade said: "Let's see...his fingerprints were found on the gun. Have I said that?" NO, you haven't. Why did it take UNTIL Monday for him to say this UNLESS it was because they did NOT secure a print until after he was dead?
Let's look back to Day's testimony to see what he had MINUS the alleged palm print.
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. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
So we see why the statement by Wade was NOT made before LHO was shot dead, huh? Because they had NO identifiable prints to link LHO to the rifle. But, as we see from above, they could have easily gotten this "evidence" once LHO was dead.
Here is what Day said about the palm print in terms of when it was turned over to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----
Mr. BELIN. You are referring now----
Mr. DAY. On November 22.
Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637? [Palm print]
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Actually as Latona said they did NOT get the palm print UNTIL November 29, 1963! Also, the "ridges" they were talking about were worthless as they could NOT be identified as belonging to LHO. You'll notice he again claims the "print on the gun", i.e. the palm print, was their "best bet", but how can this be when Latona and the FBI said NO print was ever seen on the rifle where he claimed it was? And yet, he said under oath "it still remained there." Someone is NOT telling the truth here.
Back to the "ridges."
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
I have news for the WC and all its defenders, IN ALL SCIENCES it is or it is NOT, the use of "inconclusive" carries NO weight when you have the BURDEN OF PROOF against you like all prosecutors have. Remember this line by Day, "...actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. Stop the games with using things like "it still doesn't mean it is was NOT his!" Even the palm print he ONLY says it "appeared to be his right palm....but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself...". Gee, I wonder why? Was it that he did NOT have it to work with on November 22, 1963? The evidence we do have shows this is the correct conclusion.
The truth did NOT deter Wade any more than it deterred the WC (or is present day defenders) as he said this to reporters:
Quote on
If I had to single out any one thing, it would be the fingerprints on the rifle...
Quote on
As we saw from Day's and the FBI's testimony and statements there were NO prints of LHO found on the rifle! So what in the world is he talking about? At best, and it is highly doubtful based on the evidence, the authorities fond a partial palm print and that is it. Why is he, and the current defenders, always saying "PRINTS" were found? They are lying. It is that simple.
Lt. Day would tell researcher Henry Hurt that he specifically pointed out this print (the palm print) to FBI Drain when he gave him the rifle, but Drain denied this. According to Hurt, Drain told him:
Quote on
I just don't believe there ever was a print...All I can figure is that it was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off of Oswald's [arrest] card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.
Quote off
Or of course you could just send some agents over to the funeral home and get LHO's print that way! Even the WC would find this part of the evidence hard to believe. An internal FBI memo that was made public in 1978 disclosed that on August 28, 1964:
Quote on
[Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee] Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason this matter needs to be resolved.
Quote off
Commission fingerprint experts admitted: "...it was NOT possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift." When the FBI attempted to have Lt. Day certify a statement regarding his lifting of the palm print he DECLINED to sign it. I wonder why if it happened the way he said? Despite its claims above the WC NEVER did resolve this matter and so we are left with the evidence that show it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY any palm print was found on the rifle as Lt. Day claimed. Furthermore, even if it was, and it wasn't based on the evidence, so what? That only means LHO touched the rifle at some point. Since the WC never could show LHO fired a rifle on November 22, 1963, or that CE-139 was fired on November 22, 1963, this is all moot really.
Portions of this can be found in Jim Marrs' book: Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, pp. 443-445.
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/62570dd4ff.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
One of the pieces of evidence the Warren Commission (WC) defenders claim shows Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) is the palm print that was allegedly found on the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) that was accused of firing the three shots that performed the assassination. Nothing can be further from the truth. We will discuss this piece of evidence in a number of other posts, but let's start with some comments and statements from the FBI and the WC.
Please keep in mind too that even IF they could show the palm print was found on the M-C it proves nothing since Commission Exhibit (CE) 139 was NEVER linked to LHO in anyway. Also, it was never shown LHO was using CE-139 on November 22, 1963, from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) as claimed. In addition to these major issues there is NO chain of custody for the palm print as Lt. Carl Day, who allegedly found it on the rifle, could NOT show it was ever on the rifle. The FBI would also say they saw NO indication of a lift or processing of the rifle ever being done when they received the rifle in the early hours of November 23, 1963. They would NOT get the print UNTIL November 29, 1963!
To add insult to injury for the WC and its devoted defenders -- the rifle was NEVER even tested to see if it was fired that day! Once again you will see a supposed piece of evidence that shows LHO's guilt is really a worthless piece of evidence and this was the ONLY piece of evidence that could link LHO to CE-139 at all!
*********************************************
Lieutenant Carl Day claimed to have found the print shortly before giving it to the FBI, but he failed to mention this to anyone or document this discovery in any manner. He would even say this to the WC:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
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.
So we see from this comment the first thing he did with the two prints he found on the side of the gun was to PHOTOGRAPH them! This is the normal thing to do first, but with the alleged palm print he NEVER photographed it before doing the alleged lift. Why? He would say he thought the print was still on the rifle, but when Sebastian Latona of the FBI received it and looked at it he said he saw NO palm print left! Look at what Day did with the alleged palm print.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
In the case of the alleged palm print Day was doing things backwards! After he allegedly lifted it he then was going to use photography to try and show it better! This is NOT standard procedure though. You are supposed to photograph things as YOU FIND them and then work with them. Here is what Latona said about the supposed lift Day did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
What he is saying is the alleged lift was so COMPLETE it left NO traces of being done or any traces of the print it was used to lift. As far as Latona knew there were ONLY the unidentifiable prints on the trigger guard. Again, this shows NO chain of custody existed for this alleged palm print as Latona did NOT get it UNTIL November 29 1963!
Day would again show he was NOT saying the same thing as the FBI with this statement.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
How could Day still "see the traces of the print" when the FBI could NOT? Can any WC defender explain this to me? He again shows how he treated the other prints in the correct manner with this comment.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
I am NOT saying it is wrong to do a lift, but it is wrong to do a lift BEFORE you photograph the print on the rifle as sometimes the print can be completely removed and then you can't show you took it from the rifle! He did NOT do this here, but he told the WC that "it was customary practice to photograph fingerprints in mosts instances prior to to lifting them." And yet, in this HIGH PROFILE case he opted NOT to supposedly. Why?
Early on November 23, 1963, the rifle was turned over to the FBI laboratory to be examined for prints. In a report made that day and signed by J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) the following could be found:
Quote on
NO latent prints of VALUE were developed on Oswald's revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle (and this is highly unlikely too) or the inner parts of the rifle.
Quote off
So we see the FBI had developed NO prints of value to show LHO handled or used the revolver or the rifle, and yet, they KEPT CLAIMING HE DID!
Where did this palm print come from? Some researchers have suggested that they took the print from a card they had as LHO had been printed THREE times while in custody. Others think the FBI went to the funeral home where LHO's body laid and pressed the rifle to his cold hand. This may sound ridiculous to some, but consider the following statements.
A local newspaper printed the following:
Quote on
An FBI team, with camera and crime lab kit, spent a long time in the morgue.
Quote off
Why would they do this? Does the FBI have anything to do with autopsies? In 1978, FBI Agent Richard Harrison confirmed for Gary Mack that he had driven another FBI agent and the alleged LHO rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said he understood the other agent intended to put LHO's palm print on the rifle for "comparison reasons." What could these be for since LHO had been printed three times already? Paul Groody worked at the funeral home and said the following to Jim Marrs:
Quote on
I had a heck of a time getting the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands.
Quote off
It was NOT until Monday that DA Henry Wade said: "Let's see...his fingerprints were found on the gun. Have I said that?" NO, you haven't. Why did it take UNTIL Monday for him to say this UNLESS it was because they did NOT secure a print until after he was dead?
Let's look back to Day's testimony to see what he had MINUS the alleged palm print.
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. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
So we see why the statement by Wade was NOT made before LHO was shot dead, huh? Because they had NO identifiable prints to link LHO to the rifle. But, as we see from above, they could have easily gotten this "evidence" once LHO was dead.
Here is what Day said about the palm print in terms of when it was turned over to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----
Mr. BELIN. You are referring now----
Mr. DAY. On November 22.
Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637? [Palm print]
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. 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.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Actually as Latona said they did NOT get the palm print UNTIL November 29, 1963! Also, the "ridges" they were talking about were worthless as they could NOT be identified as belonging to LHO. You'll notice he again claims the "print on the gun", i.e. the palm print, was their "best bet", but how can this be when Latona and the FBI said NO print was ever seen on the rifle where he claimed it was? And yet, he said under oath "it still remained there." Someone is NOT telling the truth here.
Back to the "ridges."
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
I have news for the WC and all its defenders, IN ALL SCIENCES it is or it is NOT, the use of "inconclusive" carries NO weight when you have the BURDEN OF PROOF against you like all prosecutors have. Remember this line by Day, "...actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. Stop the games with using things like "it still doesn't mean it is was NOT his!" Even the palm print he ONLY says it "appeared to be his right palm....but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself...". Gee, I wonder why? Was it that he did NOT have it to work with on November 22, 1963? The evidence we do have shows this is the correct conclusion.
The truth did NOT deter Wade any more than it deterred the WC (or is present day defenders) as he said this to reporters:
Quote on
If I had to single out any one thing, it would be the fingerprints on the rifle...
Quote on
As we saw from Day's and the FBI's testimony and statements there were NO prints of LHO found on the rifle! So what in the world is he talking about? At best, and it is highly doubtful based on the evidence, the authorities fond a partial palm print and that is it. Why is he, and the current defenders, always saying "PRINTS" were found? They are lying. It is that simple.
Lt. Day would tell researcher Henry Hurt that he specifically pointed out this print (the palm print) to FBI Drain when he gave him the rifle, but Drain denied this. According to Hurt, Drain told him:
Quote on
I just don't believe there ever was a print...All I can figure is that it was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off of Oswald's [arrest] card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.
Quote off
Or of course you could just send some agents over to the funeral home and get LHO's print that way! Even the WC would find this part of the evidence hard to believe. An internal FBI memo that was made public in 1978 disclosed that on August 28, 1964:
Quote on
[Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee] Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason this matter needs to be resolved.
Quote off
Commission fingerprint experts admitted: "...it was NOT possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift." When the FBI attempted to have Lt. Day certify a statement regarding his lifting of the palm print he DECLINED to sign it. I wonder why if it happened the way he said? Despite its claims above the WC NEVER did resolve this matter and so we are left with the evidence that show it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY any palm print was found on the rifle as Lt. Day claimed. Furthermore, even if it was, and it wasn't based on the evidence, so what? That only means LHO touched the rifle at some point. Since the WC never could show LHO fired a rifle on November 22, 1963, or that CE-139 was fired on November 22, 1963, this is all moot really.
Portions of this can be found in Jim Marrs' book: Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, pp. 443-445.