A straight line

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 336695 times)

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: A straight line
« Reply #357 on: March 21, 2018, 10:02:28 PM »
My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything.

I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum...

You seem to be truly confused.

"One palmprint on Box B was unidentified." "only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

What Martin? "I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum..."
 

That's all you have to say? You are always asking me to cite something that most on here are already aware of. You disappoint me Martin. And here I was thinking we could be friends.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: A straight line
« Reply #358 on: March 21, 2018, 10:08:23 PM »
"One palmprint on Box B was unidentified." "only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

What Martin? "I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum..."
 


That's all you have to say? You are always asking me to cite something that most on here are already aware of. You disappoint me Martin. And here I was thinking we could be friends.

And here I was thinking we could be friends.

You came here to make friends?

You become more Myttonesque by the day.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: A straight line
« Reply #359 on: March 21, 2018, 10:21:04 PM »
Are you saying that you don't believe McClellan and Harrison gave Darby two finger prints to analyze?

Sigh......

I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

Quote
"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.



« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 10:44:02 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: A straight line
« Reply #360 on: March 21, 2018, 10:41:14 PM »
There was also a fingerprint on Box A (print 29) that was labeled "insufficient characteristics", which sounds like unidentified to me.


« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 10:43:09 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: A straight line
« Reply #361 on: March 22, 2018, 02:57:56 AM »
Sigh......

I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.





////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The cartons.--Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent palm-prints on Box A, 118 seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints on Box B, 119
.................................
All but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker's. 123 One palmprint on Box B was unidentified. 124

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The part that I bolded is not accurate. Whoever wrote that messed up. Following the footnote(123) used  will lead you to CE-3131, which comes from Warren Commission Document 1507. The latter is easier to read.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11902#relPageId=19&tab=page

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: A straight line
« Reply #362 on: March 22, 2018, 02:59:09 AM »
There was also a fingerprint on Box A (print 29) that was labeled "insufficient characteristics", which sounds like unidentified to me.




"insufficient characteristics" means that it was worthless. It was not identifiable.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: A straight line
« Reply #363 on: March 22, 2018, 04:02:07 PM »
The part that I bolded is not accurate. Whoever wrote that messed up. Following the footnote(123) used  will lead you to CE-3131, which comes from Warren Commission Document 1507. The latter is easier to read.

There are conflicting accounts about exactly how many identifiable prints there were.

- Latona testified that 20 identifiable finger prints and 8 palmprints were developed on these cartons.

- WR page 249 says a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons   
   
- CE 3131 says there were 19 identifiable latent fingerprints and six identifiable latent palm prints on the four cardboard cartons

Sounds like one of Latona's 20 identifiable finger prints turned into 19.  Would that be print #20, marked "unidentifed"?