http://Amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=MxGZ0A0I4BNS13&cdMsgNo=4786&cdPage=192&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#MxGZ0A0I4BNS13
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's also explained in CE3145. Didn't you even bother to read it?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0433a.htm
Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that Jan. '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.
But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in Sept. of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.
Is that about the size of it, Garry?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
First of all, thanks for answering all the questions I asked. I appreciate it. I am fully aware of Day's explanations and find them wanting in several ways. I wanted to know if you simply accept them at face value, and you obviously do.
That you refuse to acknowledge any lying on his part is not surprising, but if he wasn't lying at all, I don't think you'd be stroking your chin at question #3.
Both the WC and FBI thought he was lying as well, and the request to have him sign an affidavit shows that. Day was not stupid. He stood by his report, which was not given under oath, and refused to confirm his report, which would have been under oath. I find that suspicious. You don't. No surprises there.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But Day's testimony in front of the Warren Commission in April of '64 was certainly "under oath". And you think Lt. Day lied in that testimony, right? So why in the world would he be hesitant to tell the same lies again in a September affidavit?
IOW, to repeat my earlier very reasonable observation:
"I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in Sept. of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again." -- DVP
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
"Lifting" a print does not mean it is moved from one place to another. Day claims the print could still be seen. The FBI claims it couldn't. Someone was not telling the truth. I'll pick Day on this one.
The "interest of time" excuse is not only weak, it makes no sense. Day didn't know the FBI was taking the evidence until after the print was lifted. He had as much time as he needed, as far as he knew.
I don't contend that Day lied about lifting the print, but I do contend he lied in just about everything after that involving this print. Would it be your contention that NO DPD employee lied about anything in this case? Just curious.
Secondly, the subtle dig at "conspiracy theorists who have made it their life's work (or their #1 hobby) to try and exonerate the double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald" is kind of odd, considering that you have made it such a mission to see that LHO remains convicted. I daresay you spend far more time in your pursuit than any of us here, or even most people who have written books.
Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that you are actually David Von Pein. Your posts here are way short of the nastiness I have previously encountered with you. Calling me "Einstein" in an ironic manner, or referring to "the great Garry Puffer" in a similar manner are kind of soft, really. I guess you could be taking something for your condition that has mellowed you out. I hope this continues. It's far better than stuff like "Your post makes me want to vomit." I appreciate the kinder, gentler DVP.
And I just want to make sure I'm understood about this: the palm print, even if real, does not incriminate LHO in the shooting on 11/22. If it does anything it actually absolves him. An old and dry print makes it more likely that the rifle was not brought in disassembled in the famous "paper bag."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have any reason to suspect anyone at the Dallas Police Department of "lying" about anything in this case.
About the closest to a lie I can think of (regarding any DPD members specifically) would possibly be associated with Patrick Dean's Warren Commission testimony. Dean could possibly have "fudged" (I'll put it that way, instead of saying the word "lied") about some of his testimony as it related to the security precautions that the Dallas Police, led by Pat Dean, supposedly took in the DPD basement just prior to Lee Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby.
But even there, I certainly can't prove that Dean told any outright "lies". But I think at least a small amout of "CYA" could have possibly been going on with respect to the testimony of some of the DPD officers and their activities in the DPD basement on November 24th, 1963. For I doubt that any DPD officer who was near that basement on 11/24//63 would have had a desire to come out and admit the following:
"Yep, Chief Justice Warren, we blew it. We let our guard down and Ruby managed to slip into the basement because all of us here at the DPD are a bunch of boobs who couldn't even guard a simple ramp or keep a door locked."
The same kind of after-the-fact CYA stuff was most certainly going on with the FBI too, regarding the destroying of the Hosty note (which involved the "CYA" activities of both James Hosty and Gordon Shanklin, at Shanklin's request).
But, in my opinion, any CYA that did occur with respect to the FBI or the DPD was not being done to hide their culpability in the murders of either John Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald. They were merely trying to shield themselves from the lifelong embarrassment and shame at having two such terrible murders occurring while they were supposed to be on guard to prevent such events from taking place.
BTW, Garry, when I was "stroking my chin" in a previous post, I was doing so in a tongue-in-cheek manner. (You apparently missed the humor that existed in my chin-stroking.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-did-jack-ruby-enter-basement.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/james-hosty.html
BEN HOLMES SAID:
If you held a gun to the head of a Warren Commission believer, he'd be forced to admit that the FBI didn't see the palmprint on the rifle. They'll admit easily enough that Lt. Day saw one.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And that is undoubtedly due to the fact that there was MUCH MORE TO SEE when Lt. Day lifted the print. There was a lot more THERE to see (and lift).
By the time Day had lifted Oswald's print off the barrel, very little in the way of a visible print remained (although, yes, Day said he thought enough of a remaining print was still present on the barrel for the FBI to find). And, yes, it is strange that Lt. Day didn't say something like this to Vince Drain (or somebody at the FBI), or at least pin a note to the rifle saying this:
"I've lifted a partial palmprint off of the barrel of this gun. You FBI guys should be able to lift some more of the print."
Lieutenant Day told the WC this:
Mr. DAY -- "The gun was being sent in to them [the FBI] for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."
-------
Interestingly, Lt. Day did, in effect, tell the FBI about the partial prints on the trigger guard of the rifle by the fact he placed some cellophane over the prints to protect them during transit. Here's what the FBI's Sebastian Latona told the Warren Commission about that:
Mr. LATONA -- "There had been placed over that area a piece of cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that there were apparently certain latent prints available visible under that area."
------
But I see nothing in the record to indicate that anything like that was done with regard to the palmprint on the barrel. But, however, it must also be understood that Lt. Day put the gun back together again after he lifted the palmprint, which would have, in effect, served as some "protection" by having the wooden stock covering the print entirely (or almost entirely).
I'll also add this testimony given by FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona:
Mr. LATONA -- "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."