(PART 319)


>>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<


Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.

Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
Oswald's rifle for a fairly limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
weapon over to the FBI in Washington.

Gil also knows this fact (or at least he should)....and this is a fact
he undoubtedly hates with a passion:

Lieutenant Carl Day did see the fingerprints on the rifle's trigger
guard (or trigger housing) on 11/22/63, and he thought the prints
probably were the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald, but Day didn't have
enough time to examine the prints in more depth in order to compare
them properly to Oswald's known prints.

Further, more-detailed analysis in later years concerning those
trigger-guard prints revealed that they almost certainly belonged to
Lee Oswald. (Which is another fact that kooks like Gil despise.)

Here's what J.C. Day told the Warren Commission in 1964. These are
comments that Gil, being a kook, will be forced to ignore completely;
or Gil will merely try to paint Lt. Day as one of the hundreds of
"liars" connected to the JFK murder investigation:

LT. J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my
attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the
rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also
noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz
it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would
have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. ....
I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the
housing." ....

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you do anything with the other prints or partial
prints that you said you thought you saw?"

LT. DAY -- "I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them."

DAVID BELIN -- "Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the
two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720
and 721. I will ask you to state what these are."

LT. DAY -- "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--
of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun
No. C2766."

DAVID BELIN -- "Were those prints in such condition as to be
identifiable, if you know?"

LT. DAY -- "No, sir. I could not make positive identification of these

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these
pictures or not?"

LT. DAY -- "I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all
possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were,
but I could not positively identify them."

DAVID BELIN -- "What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose
they were?"

LT. DAY -- "They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger
of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."


Footnote --- Many people think Lt. Carl Day was nothing but a rotten,
evil liar, who told all kinds of lies regarding Oswald's rifle and how he
discovered a palmprint on the underside of the gun on November 22nd.

But if Lt. Day HAD, indeed, been the rotten liar that many CTers seem
to think he was in 1964, then why on Earth didn't he EXTEND his lies a
little more with regard to the fingerprints found on the trigger
housing of the rifle?

IOW--Why would Day, if his goal was to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the
sole assassin, tell the Warren Commission this in '64?:

"I thought I knew which [fingerprints] they were, but I could
not positively identify them."

Why wouldn't Mr. Day have said this instead?:

"Yes, Mr. Belin, I can say definitely that those prints I saw on
the trigger housing of Rifle C2766 were positively the fingerprints of
Lee Harvey Oswald."

Conspiracy kooks should probably make up their minds with respect to
stuff like this regarding witness testimony -- Was Lt. Carl Day a liar?
Was he a truth-teller? Or was he only a PARTIAL liar, telling only a FEW
lies from time to time to further the "cover-up", but at other times he
decided to tell the unvarnished truth?

I'm sure Gilbert has all the answers, though. Most kooks usually
do...even though every answer they provide invariably reeks with
inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2008