JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Larry Trotter on May 04, 2018, 08:54:21 PM ---Not that I am an expert, but I viewed a film about Mr Darby's "conclusion", and I must say, if I were on a jury, I just don't believe I could "rely" on said finding that it, just one finger, was solid as an indication that Mr Wallace had been on the TSBD 6th floor on 11/22/'63. And, said finding was, I believe over 20 years after the death of MalcolmWallace.But, to each their own, and so it goes.
--- End quote ---
Are YOU Now wanting to run away from your opinion above?
Denis Pointing:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on May 06, 2018, 04:18:28 PM ---
Since when is "just one finger" print not enough to place someone inside a crime scene? You also need to consider that computers/national data bases were not around back then to process/cross reference the print = the 20+ year time gap. Today, DNA from 1 drop of blood is used as evidence resulting in slam dunk convictions. The same goes for "just one finger" print.
--- End quote ---
Royell, it's not as simple as that. To positively link a fingerprint to a suspect you need a certain number of identical marks (14 rings a bell but that may be wrong) Darby claims to have identified, (whatever) the number of identical marks needed for a positive ID, but other fingerprint experts disagree with him. If there were more fingerprints available for comparison then the experts could reach a consensus but there isn't. Larry's correct, a court would never convict a suspect on just one controversial fingerprint, a defence lawyer would just pull it apart. The 'Wallace' print is certainly tantalising but like so much in this case 100% certainty is out of reach.
Matt Grantham:
--- Quote from: Denis Pointing on May 07, 2018, 12:06:21 AM ---Royell, it's not as simple as that. To positively link a fingerprint to a suspect you need a certain number of identical marks (14 rings a bell but that may be wrong) Darby claims to have identified, whatever the number of identical marks are needed for a positive ID, but other fingerprint experts disagree with him. If there were more fingerprints available for comparison then the experts could reach a consensus but there isn't. Larry's correct, a court would never convict a suspect on just one controversial fingerprint, a defence lawyer would just pull it apart, unless a number of independent fingerprint experts agreed. The 'Wallace' print is certainly tantalising but like so much in this case 100% certainty is out of reach.
--- End quote ---
The following link seems to say you need to have ten points of comparison for a conviction from a single print
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/can-a-case-be-won-based-on-a-single-partial-fingerprint-with-no-witness-or-other-evidence-1572730.html
Denis Pointing:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on May 07, 2018, 12:13:53 AM --- The following link seems to say you need to have ten points of comparison for a conviction from a single print
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/can-a-case-be-won-based-on-a-single-partial-fingerprint-with-no-witness-or-other-evidence-1572730.html
--- End quote ---
OK, I already admitted I wasn't sure of the number. But to convict on just one print other fingerprint experts would need to agree. Fact is, other print experts disagree on the 'Wallace' fingerprint. I just read the link you supplied, it actually backs up what I posted. Did you read it properly?
John Mytton:
Not Wallace.
http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/Erroneous-Match.htm
JohnM
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version