JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on May 04, 2018, 05:30:47 AM
-
Nathan Darby , concluded that previously unidentified fingerprints taken from cartons on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 , were those of Malcolm E. "Mac" Wallace , a convicted killer with ties to Lyndon Johnson . ( see Fair Play #23 , July-August , 1998 )
Darby's identification was made "blindly" ---that is , without his knowing the identity of Wallace , or of the implications of naming him. After making the ID and learning all that was involved, however, Mr. Darby stuck to his conclusions . It was a 14 point match.
Based on my comparison , I conclude that the unknown person to me who produced the inked fingerprint Exhibit Dan #3 produced the latent print Exhibit Dan #4, and produced the print in space #10 on exhibit Dan #5.
whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
-
I believe that JoanMellen concluded that the fingerprint was not that of Malcom Wallace. I tend to agree, at least that it is not conclusive. Mr Wallace died in an automobile accident in 1971, in EastTexas.
http://jfkfacts.org/new-look-lbj-joan-mellen-debunks-mac-wallace-myth/
-
It made sense that the supposed print of Wallace's made for good way to influence LBJ
-
It made sense that the supposed print of Wallace's made for good way to influence LBJ
What is the evidence that a supposed print of Wallace influenced LBJ?
From what I've read this alleged match of the print wasn't made until 1998 when a conspiracy researcher, Walt Brown, announced the discovery. LBJ died in 1973.
-
What would make Joan Mellen an expert on fingerprints ? I believe that Nathan Darby did his work on finding a 14 point match on a print that turned out to be the small finger fingerprint of Malcolm Wallace. Darby's identification was made " blindly "---that is , without his knowing the identity of Wallace .
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster68/lob68-mac-wallacepdf
-
What is the evidence that a supposed print of Wallace influenced LBJ?
From what I've read this alleged match of the print wasn't made until 1998 when a conspiracy researcher, Walt Brown, announced the discovery. LBJ died in 1973.
I suppose the idea would have been that the print existed in the files, and that it could have been used against LBJ regardless of whether it was publicly available information at that time
-
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.
-
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.
I guess a partial palm print would not be good enough to convict someone as well
-
What would make Joan Mellen an expert on fingerprints ? I believe that Nathan Darby did his work on finding a 14 point match on a print that turned out to be the small finger fingerprint of Malcolm Wallace. Darby's identification was made " blindly "---that is , without his knowing the identity of Wallace .
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster68/lob68-mac-wallacepdf
But Mellen wasn't the one who analyzed the print. She said she obtained a clearer copy of Wallace's prints and a clearer image of the "mystery" print and showed them to a qualified expert, Robert Garrett, who concluded there was no match.
It is odd to hear conspiracy people say that JFK was shot by a person located in front of him yet also claim that Wallace, located in the sniper's nest, shot JFK. The sniper's nest was, of course, located behind JFK when he was shot.
-
But Mellen wasn't the one who analyzed the print. She said she obtained a clearer copy of Wallace's prints and a clearer image of the "mystery" print and showed them to a qualified expert, Robert Garrett, who concluded there was no match.
It is odd to hear conspiracy people say that JFK was shot by a person located in front of him yet also claim that Wallace, located in the sniper's nest, shot JFK. The sniper's nest was, of course, located behind JFK when he was shot.
I am not aware of any CT's that that think the back wound on JFK did not come from behind
-
But Mellen wasn't the one who analyzed the print. She said she obtained a clearer copy of Wallace's prints and a clearer image of the "mystery" print and showed them to a qualified expert, Robert Garrett, who concluded there was no match.
It is odd to hear conspiracy people say that JFK was shot by a person located in front of him yet also claim that Wallace, located in the sniper's nest, shot JFK. The sniper's nest was, of course, located behind JFK when he was shot.
It would be even odder if these same conspiracy freaks actually figured that little contradiction out.
-
It would be even odder if these same conspiracy freaks actually figured that little contradiction out.
You mean a contradiction that only occurred in the minds of the LN?
-
You mean a contradiction that only occurred in the minds of the LN?
You need to read the conspiracy advocates a little more closely. They believe in all kinds of inconsistencies. Such as the one above. Visit the assassination sites and spend a day or two. You'll be amazed.
A good number of conspiracists believe JFK was shot from the front and then all of the evidence was altered to show he was shot from behind. The films, the x-rays, photos....all altered.
Does that make a damned ounce of sense? What idiot would try to do something like that? In broad daylight with hundreds of people around and some with cameras?
-
I am not aware of any CT's that that think the back wound on JFK did not come from behind
Are you not aware of David Lifton and his book? And of his followers?
He says all of JFK's wounds were altered and that all of the shots that hit JFK were fired from in front of him. The back wound was not a bullet entrance wound.
Here's a online book by two conspiracy authors - pretty well known in the CT world - who endorse Lifton's theory: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/
They say that since back wound had no exit and no bullet was found that it couldn't have been a entrance wound. If so where did the bullet go? Where was the exit?
-
Are you not aware of David Lifton and his book? And of his followers?
He says all of JFK's wounds were altered.
They were all altered Are you saying Lifton does not believe a shot came from behind? What sites claim no shots came from behind?
-
They were all altered Are you saying Lifton does not believe a shot came from behind? What sites claim no shots came from behind?
Are you not aware of Lifton? And his theories? Yes, he says all of the shots came from shooters located in front of JFK. Lifton is a pretty major conspiracy author.
Go to, for example, the Deep Politics Forum and do a search for "Lifton" or "body alteration" or "two caskets."
-
Are you not aware of Lifton? And his theories? Yes, he says all of the shots came from shooters located in front of JFK. Lifton is a pretty major conspiracy author.
Go to, for example, the Deep Politics Forum and do a search for "Lifton" or "body alteration" or "two caskets."
Indeed he is a major figure Can you provide a quote or something that shows him stating all shots came from the front?
As far as the two caskets? What are we supposed to do just ignore the statements that show two caskets were seen
-
From the Mellen article...
Mellen kills the legend. She points out that the two ?experts? who said that fingerprint came from Wallace were not certified identification experts at the time of their claims.
"At the time''...what does that mean?
They weren't licensed?
You don't have a driver's license means you don't know how to drive? :-\
"Kills the legend" [sounds like Gerald Posner there]
-
We know that JFK was shot from behind in the back ( Ford says he was shot at the base of the back of his neck ) I don't know who shot JFK in the back . Lifton never said anything about JFK not being shot in the back and I didn't either . Lifton talked about the alterations of the frontal neck wound where the Tracheostomy was done at Parkland and when JFK got to Bethesda , the neck wound looked huge like it was an exit wound. The top of the head was made to look like it was all blown out . Nobody saw that at Parkland . I never said that Wallace shot JFK . We talked about Darby's ID. of the fingerprint of Wallace .
-
In his book "Best Evidence", David Lifton says that the wounds on JFK were all altered to make them appear as if the shooters were located behind him. In reality, Lifton says, all of the shooters of JFK were situated in front of him. No one, he says, fired a shot from behind JFK.
These alterations included creating "two false entry wounds" to the rear of JFK's body, one to the back of the head and another to his upper back. Both were done, again, to make it appear that JFK was shot from behind.
Additionally, the alterations also included enlarging the neck wound and the head wound on the right side of JFK's head to make them appear to be exit wounds.
Again, this is all explicitly stated in his book.
-
In his book "Best Evidence", David Lifton says that the wounds on JFK were all altered to make them appear as if the shooters were located behind him. In reality, Lifton says, all of the shooters of JFK were situated in front of him. No one, he says, fired a shot from behind JFK.
These alterations included creating "two false entry wounds" to the rear of JFK's body, one to the back of the head and another to his upper back. Both were done, again, to make it appear that JFK was shot from behind.
Additionally, the alterations also included enlarging the neck wound and the head wound on the right side of JFK's head to make them appear to be exit wounds.
Again, this is all explicitly stated in his book.
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Not Wallace.
(http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/fingerprints.jpg)
(http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/fingerprints2.jpg)
http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/Erroneous-Match.htm
JohnM
-
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, 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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
How many points of identification were found on the magic palmprint?
-
Not Wallace.
Mytton has a habit of thinking that colored blobs painted on low-res blurry images are enough to prove that he is correct.
-
How many points of identification were found on the magic palmprint?
Eleven, John:
(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/62570dd4ff.jpg)
Before you ask I have no idea if that's enough for a positive ID in a court of law, sorry.
-
Ten, John:
Before you ask I have no idea if that's enough for a positive ID, sorry.
Actually it's the partial palmprint that was allegedly lifted from the rifle that I was referring to. I don't find Oswald's prints being on boxes where he works to be significant.
-
Actually it's the partial palmprint that was allegedly lifted from the rifle that I was referring to. I don't find Oswald's prints being on boxes where he works to be significant.
You would find it significant if you knew the evidence, regarding Oswald's prints on the boxes.
-
You would find it significant if you knew the evidence, regarding Oswald's prints on the boxes.
Bill, was Oswald fulfilling orders on the sixth floor at any time during the week ending 11.22.63?
If your answer is yes, then would you expect him to have moved any boxes in fulfilling said orders?
If yes, would you expect his fingerprints to be on any of those boxes from which he had fulfilled said orders/
-
Bill, was Oswald fulfilling orders on the sixth floor at any time during the week ending 11.22.63?
If your answer is yes, then would you expect him to have moved any boxes in fulfilling said orders?
If yes, would you expect his fingerprints to be on any of those boxes from which he had fulfilled said orders/
Bill, was Oswald fulfilling orders on the sixth floor at any time during the week ending 11.22.63?
Irrelevant.
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (timeframe dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
Therefore, it certainly is "significant" that Oswald's prints were on those boxes. Saying you don't find it significant that Oswald's prints were on those boxes is to only be in denial.
-
Irrelevant.
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-fours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
"was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old" Could Oswald not have moved the box to get at an order that morning?
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
See above
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (timeframe dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
See above
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Don'tcha love these "possibly"s?
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
Rubbish. he could have handled the box elsewhere, and somebody else could have moved the box into the window.
Therefore, it certainly is "significant" that Oswald's prints were on those boxes. Saying you don't find it significant that Oswald's prints were on those boxes is to only be in denial.
If you can't show that Oswald didn't take any orders from any of the boxes that morning, then it is totally relevant. At least to anybody without an agenda.
-
"Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees."
It appears as though, from the quoted statement, that although no matches were found of "other employees", there may have been "matching prints" among "law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes."
In any event, I do wonder, as I wander, if there is a "scientific method regarding non-points that determines a non-match"?
Certainly, "scientific" along with using terms like "possible","probable", and "in the opinion of" can be a little discerning. At least to me.
It appears as though, from the quoted statement, that although no matches were found of "other employees", there may have been "matching prints" among "law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes."
Yes. There were prints found which matched law enforcement personnel known to have handled the boxes after the assassination as well as prints of an FBI clerk.
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting.
That's an assumption not supported by any evidence.
One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
That's an assumption not supported by any evidence.
The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest.
That's an assumption not supported by any evidence.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties.
Isn't that what I said?
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window,
No they don't. If the identifications were accurate, they only show that he handled one of the boxes 1-3 days before it was dusted, and the others at some indeterminate amount of time in the past.
-
One thing to keep in mind -- fingerprint/palm print analysis is subjective. It is not an exact science. Each reviewer can reach a different number of matching points.
One thing to keep in mind -- Latona, Wittmus and Mandella each examined the prints and each, independent of each other, concluded that the prints on the boxes were Oswald's.
-
See:
http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/Erroneous-Match.htm
If some CTers wanted to find an ?expert? to make a bogus fingerprint match, it would be logical to seek out the services of someone who last worked on fingerprint identification several decades before and was now 83 years old. So, it makes sense for a Walt Brown to seek out someone like Nathan Darby to make the identification.
Question
Have the CTers found someone to second this opinion? Someone who Is not so old, who currently, or at least within the previous ten years, worked mostly on making fingerprint identifications?
-
Oswald's prints were found on the "Rolling Readers" box inside the sniper's nest. Other than the two at the window, there were no other "Rolling Readers" boxes anywhere near the sniper's nest. The smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes were not among the group of larger boxes needing to moved by the employees laying the floor on the west end of the floor.
The "Rolling Readers" box sitting atop the larger box that was sitting on the floor in the sniper's nest had the prints of law enforcement personnel known to have handled the box after the assassination, an FBI clerk and Lee Oswald.
The FBI took prints from the Depository employees. No other Depository employee left prints on that box. In other words, take out the law enforcement personnel (and the FBI clerk) who handled the box after the assassination and all you have are prints left behind by Oswald.
There is no good reason for those two particular "Rolling Readers" boxes to have been moved to that window, other then to serve as a gun rest. All of the other "Rolling Readers" boxes were three aisles over.
An employee other than Oswald could have placed the two "Rolling Readers" boxes by that window but they did not leave their prints on the boxes and they would have had no reason whatsoever to place those two boxes there. Oswald, on the other hand, touched at least one of those two boxes.
This is not proof that Oswald placed the two "Rolling Readers" boxes inside the sniper's nest, but to say the prints are insignificant because Oswald worked there is to be in simple denial.
-
All this verbiage, but NO answer to my question is given. Let's try again.
How long could the prints have been left on the boxes before the assassination?
Already been addressed in this thread.
-
See:
If some CTers wanted to find an ?expert? to make a bogus fingerprint match, it would be logical to seek out the services of someone who last worked on fingerprint identification several decades before and was now 83 years old. So, it makes sense for a Walt Brown to seek out someone like Nathan Darby to make the identification.
A bit of generalization regarding age. Circumstances vary, but to say one gathers more wisdom with age is not unheard of Whether Darby in particular kept up with technology is not clear from what I see
-
Quoting a Kook who finds no significance in Oswald's prints being found on a Rolling Readers box in the sniper's nest does not advance your position one bit.
And being a kook who does find significance in it doesn't advance your position one bit.
-
And being a kook who does find significance in it doesn't advance your position one bit.
Hey. It is what it is. I'm not the one who makes you a Kook. You do it all on your own.
Believe in a conspiracy all you wish. Hell, believe in it 'til the cows come home. But only a fool would claim that it is insignificant that Oswald's prints were found on that Rolling Readers box inside the sniper's nest; I've already explained why.
-
Hey. It is what it is. I'm not the one who makes you a Kook. You do it all on your own.
Believe in a conspiracy all you wish. Hell, believe in it 'til the cows come home. But only a fool would claim that it is insignificant that Oswald's prints were found on that Rolling Readers box inside the sniper's nest; I've already explained why.
It sure would be nice if the LN brigade would ever advance their position with evidence and coherent arguments rather than arrogance and namecalling. Oh well, one can dream.
This isn't an "explanation" -- it's fallacious reasoning. You think that an Oswald print found on a box that was by a window somehow demonstrates that Oswald put the box by the window. Then you think that a box being by a window somehow demonstrates that it was put there to serve as a gun rest.