Gil Jesus
2024-05-05 09:48:42 UTC
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
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.
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.
Loading Image...
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.
Loading Image...
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.
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
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.
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.
Loading Image...
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.
Loading Image...
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.