Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor

[Steve M. Galbraith]

 OK thanks Steve That seems pretty ridiculous on his part I am not sure how he would explain Tague being hit from a bullet from the front

It is ridiculous. It doesn't explain the back entrance wound on Connally either.

Why would anyone go through such a convoluted plot? Shoot JFK from the Grassy Knoll and then go through all of these alterations - the films, steal the body, alter the wounds - to make it appear he was shot from behind?

All of this done BEFORE they could know that other films wouldn't expose their conspiracy?

And how about letting the doctors at Parkland examine JFK? Wouldn't the conspirators need to control them? To prevent them from exposing their act? Apparently the conspirators planned all of this but forgot to control what those doctors would see?

[Matt Grantham]

It is ridiculous. It doesn't explain the back entrance wound on Connally either.

And how about letting the doctors at Parkland examine JFK? Wouldn't the conspirators need to control them? To prevent them from exposing their act? Apparently the conspirators planned all of this but forgot to control what those doctors would see?

 This is an area of speculation of course, but I would think they believed if they controlled the autopsy, and  the media, that would be enough to either override the doctors opinions, or to keep that information out of the mainstream reporting Also it is possible that they fully expected to kill him with shots from behind , but when that failed it was a last resort to have the final shot from the front

[Larry Trotter]

I guess a partial palm print would not be good enough to convict someone as well

It would be somewhat questionable, especially coming from a box in a warehouse, that had been stored elsewhere, and shipped place to place, and handled by numerous persons. Just not very evidentiary valuable for me. As for the fingerprint, how was it known from which finger? In any event, I recall watching a video re:Mr Darby's analysis, and I recall some questions that I would have to answer for myself before even concluding a possible match.

[Royell Storing]

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.

            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.

[Royell Storing]

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.

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

[Denis Pointing]

            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.

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]

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.

 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