A straight line

[John Iacoletti]

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?

Yes, Wesley.  See the photos posted earlier from CE 660 and WR 566.  Are you going to explain why "unidentified" doesn't actually mean "unidentified"?

Are you saying the prints matched by Darby were not of Wallace's left little finger?

No, I'm asking for your evidence that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Do you have any?

[John Iacoletti]

Now I've seen it all.

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

Wesley the troll has just devolved into behaving like a sputtering lunatic.

[Wesley Johnson]

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?

 And just picking the one you like better.


How do you know that I'm just picking the one I like better? Do you have proof of that? What is your evidence? 
Now, are you claiming that the two prints Darby matched are not of Wallace's left little finger? What is your evidence for that?

[Wesley Johnson]

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

 Take off

Do you have any evidence to prove a take off? 

[Wesley Johnson]

Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

And you have just proved John that when you people don't get the response you want, you devolve into making insults. Well done John.

[John Iacoletti]

Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

And you have just proved John that when you people don't get the response you want, you devolve into making insults. Well done John.

And you've proven that when your claims are subjected to any scrutiny, you are reduced to parroting the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" over and over again.

Ok, you've devolved into behaving like a sputtering lunatic.  Is that better?

[John Iacoletti]

How do you know that I'm just picking the one I like better? Do you have proof of that? What is your evidence? 
Now, are you claiming that the two prints Darby matched are not of Wallace's left little finger? What is your evidence for that?

Cute.  It's obvious that all you've got is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy in every aspect to this case.

[Tim Nickerson]

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

At the time of Latona's testimony there was more than one print that had not been positively identified. By mid September of 1964 , there was only one print that had not been positively identified. It may be that photograph #20 was of that never identified palm print.