Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor

[Denis Pointing]

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

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

[Denis Pointing]

I thought a palm print was in question

No, the title of this thread is; Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor. Not; Malcolm Wallace's palmprint from carton on 6th floor.

[Royell Storing]

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.

           Your requiring the clearance of a  "100% Certainty" Bar also might explain why OJ walked away. With the passage of time comes a degree of uncertainty regarding any matter. Whether it be inside a court of law or inside a mind = remembrance. This goes with the territory and has to be duly accepted. To the question of whether 1 single fingerprint can convict someone, as Dick Martin used to say, "You bet your sweet bippy". 

[Denis Pointing]

           Your requiring the clearance of a  "100% Certainty" Bar also might explain why OJ walked away. With the passage of time comes a degree of uncertainty regarding any matter. Whether it be inside a court of law or inside a mind = remembrance. This goes with the territory and has to be duly accepted. To the question of whether 1 single fingerprint can convict someone, as Dick Martin used to say, "You bet your sweet bippy".

Royell, instead of rambling on about O.J. Simpson, the passage of time, inside a mind = remembrance, blah blah, just post something, anything that shows I'm wrong.

[Larry Trotter]

          Are YOU Now wanting to run away from your opinion above?

Out of respect for this forum, I intend to remain polite. That said, from what do I "Now want to run away from"? I was discussing a "specific finger print" that to me lacks evidentiary value, for a "specific accusation", and referenced a previous post to indicate a basis for a conclusion.

Your post sir, indicates a desire to start an argument, well beyond a simple disagreement. However, our discussion is now complete.

[Mike Orr]

Of course if you tie in Darby's identification "blindly" of a small fingerprint of Malcolm Wallace then you would be bringing Lyndon Baines Johnson into the mix of the JFK Assassination as Wallace was a hitman who tookl out problems that LBJ needed to have "taken out". Wallace was supposed to have been working in California at the time of the assassination , so that was a hell of a shot, as was the shot that Lee Harvey Oswald made from the break room inside the TSBD . The War Machine took off " Big Time " after JFK was murdered in Dallas and it hasn't even started to slow down. War=Money ! It's a very sad state of affairs !