That Nasty Palmprint

[Gil Jesus]

 

by Gil Jesus ( 2024 )

The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.

 

LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. 

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ. 

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints. 

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.
 

HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT ON A DARK SURFACE USING BLACK FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a  white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.

 

THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

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 that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During  the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?

 

11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before. 

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/curry-if-we-can-put-his-prints-on-the-rifle.mp4

This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.

 

LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ? 

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22. 

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )

 

LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ). 

He admitted  that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.
 

WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This excerpt is taken from a video at @Vince Palamara's Youtube Channel:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/palmprint-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.

 

THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was being prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/groody.mp4

Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

The post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was explained in testimony by the FBI's Latona.

Described as the "second submission" of fingerprints, he told the Commission that the post-mortem fingerprinting was done "in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald had been killed." ( 4 H 7 )

An examination of this card, ( CE 630 ) although marked "deceased", indicates that Oswald "refused to sign" the card.

But he didn't refuse to sign it, he was dead.

It's imporatnt to note that, according to the description of exhibit 630 listed by the Commission, this series of fingerprints were taken by the Dallas Police.

Whatever excuse was used to gain access to the corpse, such access also gave authorities the opportunity to place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle.

Can the human body leave fingerprints on an object after the subject is dead ?

A study described in a 2017 USA Today article, usable biometric data has been obtained from corpses dead for up to four days in warm weather and as long as 50 days in wintertime.

Biometric data can include fingerprints, facial scans, voice recognition, iris scans, palm prints, and hand geometry.

Under those circumstances, the possibility of a planted palmprint certainly exists.

 

THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was finally sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.

Although the fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.

The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )

 

THERE'S ALWAYS AN INDICATION THAT A LIFT HAS BEEN PERFORMED

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/lifting-a-fingerprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off in the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed"  means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary. 

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.

 

CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.
In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint. 

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was a rather heated subject matter for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report. 

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.
 

A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd. 

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, the palmprint was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse".  It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.
 

 

Edited May 11 by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

by Gil Jesus ( 2024 )

The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.

 

LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. 

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ. 

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints. 

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.
 

HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT ON A DARK SURFACE USING BLACK FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a  white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.

 

THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

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 that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During  the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?

 

11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before. 

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/curry-if-we-can-put-his-prints-on-the-rifle.mp4

This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.

 

LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ? 

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22. 

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )

 

LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ). 

He admitted  that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.
 

WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This except is taken from a video at @Vince Palamara's Youtube Channel:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/palmprint-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.

 

THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/groody.mp4

The purpose for this post-mortem fingerprinting has never been offically explained. Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ? 

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.
 

THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was finally sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.

Although the fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.

The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )

 

THERE'S ALWAYS AN INDICATION THAT A LIFT HAS BEEN PERFORMED

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/lifting-a-fingerprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off in the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed"  means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary. 

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.

 

CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.
In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint. 

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was a rather heated subject matter for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report. 

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.
 

A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd. 

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, the palmprint was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse".  It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.
 

 

Excellent presentation by Gil Jesus. The official LHO palm print tale is very dubious, to put it mildly. 

Lt. Day's testimony regarded the putative Walker bullet is also very squirrelly. Also, there are no photographs of the putative Walker bullet in DPD records.

I suspect the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet, but could not do much about it or the LHO palm-print.

To earnestly explore either the palm-print or the Walker bullet might lead to the conclusion that evidence tampering had taken place---obviously, that was a road that could not be taken. 

[Tom Gram]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Excellent presentation by Gil Jesus. The official LHO palm print tale is very dubious, to put it mildly. 

Lt. Day's testimony regarded the putative Walker bullet is also very squirrelly. Also, there are no photographs of the putative Walker bullet in DPD records.

I suspect the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet, but could not do much about it or the LHO palm-print.

To earnestly explore either the palm-print or the Walker bullet might lead to the conclusion that evidence tampering had taken place---obviously, that was a road that could not be taken. 

Agreed. The palm print is easily one of the most suspicious items of evidence in this case. 

Also I don’t think there’s even any question the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet. The 5/20/64 memo from Rankin to Hoover says pretty much exactly that: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9997#relPageId=373

The last guy to officially handle the bullet for the DPD was J.C. Day. If he was capable of fudging a palm print to nail Oswald, what else was he capable of? 

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Agreed. The palm print is easily one of the most suspicious items of evidence in this case. 

Also I don’t think there’s even any question the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet. The 5/20/64 memo from Rankin to Hoover says pretty much exactly that: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9997#relPageId=373

The last guy to officially handle the bullet for the DPD was J.C. Day. If he was capable of fudging a palm print to nail Oswald, what else was he capable of? 

You make a good point Tom. Lt. Day was also one of two officers who allegedly "found" the paper "gunsack".

As you know, that piece of evidence, like the jacket found under the Oldsmobile, the Tippit shells and the palmprint, was never photographed as found.

They photographed the three shells on the sixth floor and the rifle as found. Why not those pieces of evidence ?

[Gil Jesus]

On 5/4/2024 at 8:18 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Excellent presentation by Gil Jesus. The official LHO palm print tale is very dubious, to put it mildly. 

Lt. Day's testimony regarded the putative Walker bullet is also very squirrelly. Also, there are no photographs of the putative Walker bullet in DPD records.

I suspect the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet, but could not do much about it or the LHO palm-print.

To earnestly explore either the palm-print or the Walker bullet might lead to the conclusion that evidence tampering had taken place---obviously, that was a road that could not be taken. 

Thank you Ben.

It's important for folks to know that the reason why there was conflict in the evidence between the DPD and the FBI in the first 48 hours. It was because the FBI was not "on board" with a coverup. It wasn't until they took over the case and received the evidence a second time, ( Nov. 27th ) that they became involved in a coverup to hide the fact that the DPD had arrested the wrong man for the crime.

PS: FWIW, Lt. Day also handled the Walker bullet.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96433#relPageId=11

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Agreed. The palm print is easily one of the most suspicious items of evidence in this case. 

Also I don’t think there’s even any question the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet. The 5/20/64 memo from Rankin to Hoover says pretty much exactly that: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9997#relPageId=373

The last guy to officially handle the bullet for the DPD was J.C. Day. If he was capable of fudging a palm print to nail Oswald, what else was he capable of? 

TG-

Thanks for the memo on the Walker bullet. 

Yes, even the WC wondered how two DPD detectives and two patrolmen could all sign affidavits they had found a steel-jacketed bullet at the Walker home on April 10, and two of them having inscribed the bullet...but when the FBI unveils their Walker bullet, it is the most obviously copper-jacketed bullet in the annals of police science. 

The DPD may have been enhancing the evidence, which is distinct from proving LHO's guilt or innocence. 

The WC, in their lawyer's language, was more or less suggesting the palm print and Walker bullet were bogus. 

However, like all government investigations, there was no counsel for the defense. Unless you have that adversarial process, you are getting a narrative, not a balanced investigation. 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Gil Jesus said:

Thank you Ben.

It's important for folks to know that the reason why there was conflict in the evidence between the DPD and the FBI in the first 48 hours. It was because the FBI was not "on board" with a coverup. It wasn't until they took over the case and received the evidence a second time, ( Nov. 27th ) that they became involved in a coverup to hide the fact that the DPD had arrested the wrong man for the crime.

PS: FWIW, Lt. Day also handled the Walker bullet.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96433#relPageId=11

Right, Gil Jesus. 

[Gil Jesus]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

However, like all government investigations, there was no counsel for the defense. Unless you have that adversarial process, you are getting a narrative, not a balanced investigation. 

Absolutely. This was never a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. Everything that pointed to his guilt was presented as fact, anything that pointed to his innocence was ignored or suppressed. A Commission outline dated January 11, 1964 determined that Oswald was the assassin before the Commission heard its first witness.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

On 5/4/2024 at 5:55 AM, Gil Jesus said:

 

by Gil Jesus ( 2024 )

The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.

 

LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle. 

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ. 

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints. 

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.
 

HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT ON A DARK SURFACE USING BLACK FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a  white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.

 

THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

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 that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During  the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?

 

11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before. 

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/curry-if-we-can-put-his-prints-on-the-rifle.mp4

This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.

 

LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ? 

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22. 

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )

 

LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ). 

He admitted  that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.
 

WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This excerpt is taken from a video at @Vince Palamara's Youtube Channel:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/palmprint-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.

 

THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was being prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/groody.mp4

The purpose for this post-mortem fingerprinting has never been offically explained. Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ? 

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

A study published Dec. 22, 2016 in IEEE Xplore and described in a 2017 USA Today article, usable biometric data has been obtained from corpses dead for up to four days in warm weather and as long as 50 days in wintertime. Biometric data can include fingerprints, facial scans, voice recognition, iris scans, palm prints, and hand geometry.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.
 

THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was finally sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.

Although the fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.

The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )

 

THERE'S ALWAYS AN INDICATION THAT A LIFT HAS BEEN PERFORMED

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/lifting-a-fingerprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off in the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed"  means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary. 

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.

 

CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.
In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint. 

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was a rather heated subject matter for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report. 

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.
 

A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd. 

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, the palmprint was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse".  It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.
 

 

Thanks, Gil, for keeping this issue alive. 

I devote a chapter of my website (essentially a short book) to this issue and related issues. 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e-un-smoking-the-gun

My conclusions differ a bit from yours, but the ultimate conclusion is the same: the print was not discovered on 11-22. 

Some curious bits that led me in other directions;

1. There was a print on the trigger guard that WAS photographed in situ AND taped off by Lt. Day before handing it off to the FBI that the FBI DID study and fail to conclude was Oswald's. Thus, the proper procedures were followed by Day on a print the FBI refused to ID as Oswald, but were not followed on the print they eventually claimed was Oswald's.

2. Although this print was supposedly too smudged to make an ID as Oswald's, high quality versions of DPD photos would later be released by the City of Dallas that prove there were multiple prints on the trigger guard, and that the largest and clearest of these should have been readily identifiable as Oswald's, should it have been Oswald's.

3. The FBI has never released its own photos of these prints, presumably because they would show just what is shown in the DPD photos--that at least one of these prints is readily identifiable. 

4. In 1993, PBS hired HSCA fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalice to study these prints and he claimed the central print was indeed Oswald's. But they asked an FBI expert if he would agree with this and he said no. 

5. Scalice died a few years later without ever publishing any materials noting the matches of this print with Oswald's arrest prints--which would have been SOP if he'd actually found they'd matched.

6. Instead, he spent the last few years of his life working for right-wing operatives and pushing that Vince Foster's suicide note had been forged. (This raises doubts about the legitimacy of the "match" he described for PBS, at least for me.)

7. More pertinent to your article, Henry Wade's description of a palm print on 11-24 would appear to be a reference to this print--not the print subsequently sent the FBI. And, sure enough, FBI memos from 11-22 make reference to this print as a palm print, and photos of this print subsequently sent the FBI described it as a palm print. 

So I don't believe a print was planted on the rifle on the 24th, because the print described by Wade was not the print found on the barrel, but the print found on the trigger guard.

8. As far as the barrel lift, well, John Hunt was able to scan this lift, and share this with members of this forum, chiefly myself. And there's strong reason to doubt this print was actually a match with Oswald's print. 

From chapter 4e:

 

[George Govus]

Day-um. Dare I say, case closed?