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 remained on the rifle.
It 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.
Finally, 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.
The evidence doesn’t add up
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. I believe that it was lifted sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.
And I believe that the 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 metal 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 to be examined by FBIHQ.
Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by FBI Agent Sebastian 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, 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.
No prints
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 )
This was exactly where Lt. Day said he made the lift. What the FBI was saying was that on 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.
Dusting a dark surface with black powder
We were 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, 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 for Lt. Day lifting 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 ).”
There no witnesses to Lt. Day’s discovery and lifting of the palmprint. He apparently told two different stories about identifying it, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.
Lt. Day tells two different stories
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 )
After discussing the accuracy of palmprints, Lt. Day is asked :
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 )
While Oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press. Neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )
If Day was unable to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn’t he send the lifted print off to the FBI 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 laments that Oswald’s prints have not been found on 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.
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.
And 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.
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.
Whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel 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. Can you imagine that ? The Agent who transferred the evidence from Dallas to Washington, not once but TWICE and he was never called to give testimony. How could any investigator not have questions for this witness ?
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 ever existed.
Agent Latona testified that, “The only prints we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints.” ( ibid. )
Not only did Lt. Day not tell anybody about the palmprint, he treated it differently than he did the partial fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Lt. Day took no photograph of the palmprint as found
While Lt. Day photographed the partial fingerprints on the trigger guard, he failed to do the same with the palmprint.
He 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 Agent 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.
The evidence indicates that Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle on 11/22. The first revelation of the palmprint came during a press conference by DA Henry Wade on the evening of Sunday 11/24, after Oswald was dead.
D.A. Wade reveals the palmprint for the first time
The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade’s Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This is an excerpt from a video on Vince Palamara’s Youtube page. I’ve added some transcript to it:
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, he said nothing about it.
Wade’s announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the and found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.
So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24, 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.
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, the “lifted palmprint” was 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.
The fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63. But 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 )
The Commission’s “palmprint problem”
The Commission had a problem with the conflict between the what the Dallas Police said and what the FBI said. During his testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Commission staff member Wesley Liebeler admitted that the palmprint issue was a “rather heated subject matter” for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )
The Commission couldn’t very well call one side or the other a liar, so it decided that both sides were telling the truth. The Commission concluded that Day’s lift was so perfect, that Latona was unable to find any trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor “any indication that a lift had been performed.” ( Report, pg. 123 )
But the Commission’s explanation for the conflict between what the Dallas Police claimed and what the FBI never saw was not possible.
Refuting the Commission’s conclusion
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 loose powder surrounding it.
This video shows what happens to the surrounding loose powder when you lift a fingerprint from a non-porous surface.
The tape pulls all of the powder off of the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny. When you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done. There is always 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.
This demonstration indicates that the explanation provided by the Warren Commission was not the truth.
The HSCA defers to the Commission
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.
Other entities weren’t so gracious.
Conclusion
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 prior to 11/24 and the FBI never saw it on 11/23 because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd.
On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, the palmprint’s existence was made public. Later that night, it 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.