Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 111749 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #400 on: March 22, 2018, 09:38:06 PM »
Advertisement
This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

Sigh.
It doesn't indicate that at all John and you know it. It does not say "unidentified" at all. It says "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker".
You are stretching it a bit there John.

Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #400 on: March 22, 2018, 09:38:06 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #401 on: March 22, 2018, 09:46:47 PM »
John, it is not a matter of me having any evidence for that. I'm only going by what McClellan and Harrison claimed themselves. Are you saying that the two prints that Darby was given were not Wallace's? In 1998 Darby was approached by McClellan and Harrison and given two prints. One was from a 1951 fingerprint exemplar card and the other was "supposedly" a latent print from a cardboard box found on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the sniper's nest.

Why do you say "supposedly"?  I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

Quote
In Darby's March 9, 1998 affidavit Darby said they were "the left little finger". If you have a problem with that go talk to Darby.

I'm not talking about what Darby said -- I'm talking about what you said:

"the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace"

Darby's affidavit doesn't say that at all.  He says that he received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print.  It was you who declared that they duped him by giving him two left, little finger prints of Wallace.  What is your evidence for this?

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: A straight line
« Reply #402 on: March 22, 2018, 09:47:23 PM »
Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?

Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?
[/quote]


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #402 on: March 22, 2018, 09:47:23 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A straight line
« Reply #403 on: March 22, 2018, 09:51:01 PM »
Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D

A LN who thinks he's clever by questioning the evidence of the WC... Now I've seen it all.

And all because Wesley can't give a straight answer if it saved his life.....

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: A straight line
« Reply #404 on: March 22, 2018, 09:52:36 PM »
Why do you say "supposedly"?  I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

I'm not talking about what Darby said -- I'm talking about what you said:

"the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace"

Darby's affidavit doesn't say that at all.  He says that he received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print.  It was you who declared that they duped him by giving him two left, little finger prints of Wallace.  What is your evidence for this?

I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

How do I know that you just showed that there were at least 2 fingerprints that were apparently not identified by latona? Do you have any evidence of that? :D Are you saying the prints matched by Darby were not of Wallace's left little finger?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #404 on: March 22, 2018, 09:52:36 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #405 on: March 22, 2018, 09:53:49 PM »
Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D

Nice try.  You're the one invoking part of the WC report that contradicts another part of the WC report.  And just picking the one you like better.  My question is, given that it clearly states "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy" and there is a photo of a print from box B clearly marked "unidentified", why are you sure that the only unidentified print was a palmprint?  Which passage from the same document do you believe and why?

Offline Wesley Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: A straight line
« Reply #406 on: March 22, 2018, 09:56:05 PM »
A LN who thinks he's clever by questioning the evidence of the WC... Now I've seen it all.

And all because Wesley can't give a straight answer if it saved his life.....

 Now I've seen it all.

How do I know that you've seen it all. Do you have any evidence to prove that?  :o

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #406 on: March 22, 2018, 09:56:05 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A straight line
« Reply #407 on: March 22, 2018, 09:59:00 PM »
Now I've seen it all.

How do I know that you've seen it all. Do you have any evidence to prove that?  :o

10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Take off