Mac Wallace fingerprint?

[Alan Kent]

In 1998, A. Nathan Darby executed an affadavit in which he confirmed a match between a latent fingerprint found on one of the cardboard boxes that comprised the TSBD "sniper's nest" and the inked print of Malcolm Wallace. Subsequently, Darby's match has been criticized by some people who have the requisite qualifications to critique his work, and by many who don't. A few observations on the debate that has surrounded the fingerprint issue follow, based on a wading through the mire of opinions over the years (with the significant caveat that I am certainly not professionally qualified in this field!!)

1.) Darby originally identified 14 matching points between the inked and latent prints that were given to him. While there is some debate on the amount of matching points necessary to make a definitive judgement on a match (The FBI suggests 8, some other countries require as many as 16, U.S. courts normally will accept 10-12, etc.), a 14 point match, testified to in court by a Certified Latent Print Examiner with proper experience and credentials, will generally clinch a case.

2.) Subsequently, criticism of Darby's match by fingerprint experts focused on dissimilarities between the latent and inked prints. Darby addressed these points directly, noting that Wallace had sustained an injury ("a laceration" ) which, upon healing, created a non-corresponding area near the "delta" in the latent. Other criticism amounted to ignoring the pressure distortion created by hoisting heavy boxes. Little or no substantive criticism was made of Darby's matching points.

3.) Darby's match was a BLIND match. Another Texas-based fingerprint expert, E.H. Hoffmeister, when presented with the two prints that had been given to Darby, concluded that they were made by the same person. When he was told that the Kennedy assassination was involved, he backed off the identification. The experts who concluded that the match was in error all knew the consequences of a positive match. In a perfect world this would not be important. In this world, unfortunately, even forensic judgements made by experienced scientists can be colored by many factors. The only two BLIND (i.e. scientifically proper) submissions of the latent print from the book carton and the inked Wallace print resulted in a match.

4.) The prints, and Darby's analysis, were submitted to the FBI for evaluation. After 18 months had passed, the Bureau released a simple statement that the print match was in error. No analysis accompanied the statement, and no further comment has been made by the FBI on this issue. I think that this verdict, backed by nothing but the (arguably dubious) history of FBI criminal science, is essentially worthless.

5.) Following the hubbub over the print match, Darby went back to the prints and spent a great deal of time (far more time than would normally be spent in a typical investigation), and eventually arrived at a 34 point match.

6.) Criticism has been levelled because Darby used photocopies rather than originals for his print comparison. Darby's professional critics used photocopies as well, though, and the copies that they used were, in a couple of cases, inferior to the copies Darby worked with. In this case, the point is probably moot. It might be relevant if we were dealing with a very few match points, some of which were being called into question. That's not the case here.

7.) If this print match did not have the importance that it obviously does, I seriously doubt that it would be at all controversial. Darby's 55 years of experience in his field, and his sterling record in court testimony over the years would easily carry the day. 34 matching points? Barring some extraordinary revelation, I think that Walt Brown's description of this print match as "a slam dunk" is probably correct.

It has been suggested that Mac Wallace's presence on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 might well represent an attempt to blackmail Lyndon Johnson into silence and support. Estes claims he heard from Cliff Carter that Wallace was a shooter. These questions about the use of Wallace in the assassination can and should be discussed. In future years, I doubt that Wallace's presence that day in SOME role or other will be seriously challenged.

When a CLPE with over a half century of experience makes a blind match, confirms it in an affadavit, stakes his reputation on it, offers to testify to it in court, deals with the objections of doubters, and states that, if he had to make a dying declaration on the matter, it would be "It's him!", I tend to believe that it WAS in fact 'him."

[John Simkin]

Alan, a very clear account of the Mac Wallace fingerprint evidence. Is Nathan Darby the only fingerprint expert to conclude that this is a clear match? It would definitely help if other experts in this field came to the same conclusion.

My problem with this fingerprint evidence is that it suggests that Mac Wallace was one of the gunmen involved in the assassination. This evidence has been used to suggest that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. It has been pointed out that on 22nd October, 1951, Wallace shot dead John Kinser, the owner of a golf course in Austin. Wallace and Kinser were both having an affair with LBJ's sister, Josefa Johnson. According to Barr McClellan, Kinser was blackmailing LBJ. McClellan claims that the killing was organized by Ed Clark on behalf of LBJ. Billie Sol Estes has also claimed that LBJ was involved in the death of Kinser.

At his trial in February, 1952, Wallace was found guilty of murder. Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. The judge overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was freed. Someone very powerful was obviously helping Wallace. It is indeed possible that LBJ was the person who put pressure on the judge to release Wallace. According to McClellan, LBJ arranged for Wallace to obtain a job with the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation. This became part of Ling-Tempco-Vought ( LTV), a conglomerate funded by Clark's clients in the oil industry.

My problem with this is that if LBJ wanted to organize the assassination of JFK, the last person he would have recruited would have been Mac Wallace. Here was a convicted killer who already had close links with LBJ. Therefore, I believe that the Wallace fingerprint might have been planted at the scene in order to blackmail LBJ into covering up the assassination.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

[Thomas Graves]

I think that if Wallace had been in the "sniper's nest" as a shooter or helper, more than just one of his fingerprints would have been found.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Ecker]

I agree that the Wallace fingerprint was probably planted, but not to blackmail LBJ into a cover-up. I think LBJ was in on the assassination plot. The Wallace print, planted by LBJ's co-conspirators, was just insurance to be sure that he never blackmailed or doublecrossed them. As president, controlling the cover-up, LBJ could be in a position to sacrifice others if some sort of limited hang-out proved necessary. The Wallace print assured that if LBJ doublecrossed anyone, he could go down with them.

[Dawn Meredith]

I agree that the Wallace fingerprint was probably planted, but not to blackmail LBJ into a cover-up. I think LBJ was in on the assassination plot. The Wallace print, planted by LBJ's co-conspirators, was just insurance to be sure that he never blackmailed or doublecrossed them. As president, controlling the cover-up, LBJ could be in a position to sacrifice others if some sort of limited hang-out proved necessary. The Wallace print assured that if LBJ doublecrossed anyone, he could go down with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote

Very interesting take on this Ron. This view would solve for me several "problems".

1. It preserves the integrity of Nathan Darby, whose honestly I can personally vouch for as he has been a dear friend since 1998.

2. It also perserves the integrity of the man who brought all of these people together: J Harrison found both Nathan Darby and Harold Hoffmeister, the second print examiner who agreed with the match. J was also the person who obtained the latent and Wallaces' known prints from the Kinsner conviction. Before J's death (5/25/05) he often recounted the story that "no one can get these prints now due to the fact that Glen Sample's cops in California obtained them in violation of policy". I suspect that LBJ's people have a hand in this potential obstruction of justice as well. That's IF Wallace was on the 6th floor.

Re John's point that LBJ would never use a convicted killer to kill someone else...it would appear that LBJ did use Mac Wallace many times and he was the man to whom to turn when a "clean up" was necessary. Like Henry Marshall for example.

But was Wallace on the 6th floor? A very good question.

Both Barr McClennan and Glenn Sample are convinced of this, as was J Harrison before his death.

Sample's book "The Men on the Sixth Floor" and McClellans's book "Bllod MOney and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK" make compelling cases for this, but both works suffer from problems.

Barr is working on obtaining further documentation for his position. Last time we spoke he told me he is writing a new book. I am assuming that he must have new information....but he's not sharing what it is at the moment.

Dawn

[Nic Martin]

I don't think it's wise to completely rule out the idea of Wallace being there, but maybe not as a shooter. It's entirely possible he was in the 6th floor for other reasons. Reporting to a shooter located elsewhere that the motorcade was waiting, giving a green light, etc. It's more likely that it was a plant, yes, but in the spirit of keeping our minds open..

The idea, though, of him being a shooter, when most CTs try their best to prove that the Sixth Floor was a bad angle for shooting no matter who was behind the gun - is a bit silly.

[Alan Kent]

Alan, a very clear account of the Mac Wallace fingerprint evidence. Is Nathan Darby the only fingerprint expert to conclude that this is a clear match? It would definitely help if other experts in this field came to the same conclusion.

My problem with this fingerprint evidence is that it suggests that Mac Wallace was one of the gunmen involved in the assassination. This evidence has been used to suggest that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. It has been pointed out that on 22nd October, 1951, Wallace shot dead John Kinser, the owner of a golf course in Austin.  Wallace and Kinser were both having an affair with LBJ's sister, Josefa Johnson. According to Barr McClellan, Kinser was blackmailing LBJ. McClellan claims that the killing was organized by Ed Clark on behalf of LBJ. Billie Sol Estes has also claimed that LBJ was involved in the death of Kinser. 

At his trial in February, 1952, Wallace was found guilty of murder. Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. The judge overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was freed. Someone very powerful was obviously helping Wallace. It is indeed possible that LBJ was the person who put pressure on the judge to release Wallace. According to McClellan, LBJ arranged for Wallace to obtain a job with the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation. This became part of Ling-Tempco-Vought ( LTV), a conglomerate funded by Clark's clients in the oil industry.

My problem with this is that if LBJ wanted to organize the assassination of JFK, the last person he would have recruited would have been Mac Wallace. Here was a convicted killer who already had close links with LBJ. Therefore, I believe that the Wallace fingerprint might have been planted at the scene in order to blackmail LBJ into covering up the assassination.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, too, doubt that Johnson would have personally selected Wallace. If Johnson was aware that the assassination was being organized, he probably would have wanted to distance himself as far as possible from the planning details.

The "plant" theory is not unreasonable. The follow-up question here (to be put to someone with the forensic chops to comment on it...) is: Do we have the tools to detect a fake latent, and how would an expert go about examining that issue?

If Wallace was there, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was to shoot at the President. I can conceive of many other logistical tasks which would have been vital in such an operation.

Also, I think it well to note that Wallace's presence up there does not speak to the probability of Loy Factor (or "Ruth Ann") being there. That's a whole other evidentiary kettle of fish...

Whether Wallace was physically present, or whether his print was planted, I think we are still looking at evidence of involvement by the Texas-based power structure that LBJ helped create, and which nurtured him as he benefitted them.

Speaking of which, I would like to know a LOT more about the life and associations of D.H.Byrd than we currently do. There is a very large, as yet unavailable, collection of materials on parts of Byrd's life lying around in the basement of the Special Collections section of the University of Dallas. It is probably largely about his aviation career, but it is certainly intriguing.

[Greg Wagner]

Based on what I’ve read of Darby’s work and its criticisms, I believe it’s Wallace’s print.

I also think it’s clearly a plant.

As others have stated, it is simply not rational that if LBJ had pre-knowledge of the assassination that he would have someone who could so easily be connected to him, like Wallace, anywhere near the event.

And if Johnson did not have pre-knowledge of the assassination, why would the parties wishing to gain leverage against LBJ haul Wallace up there in person and arrange to leave exactly one fingerprint (good point, Thomas) as evidence? That would make no sense, especially when this could be accomplished without his presence or knowledge.

The only way this print means anything is as a tool to gain some type of leverage over Johnson – whether he had pre-knowledge or not, someone felt that leverage was necessary. One of the ways this leverage could have been implemented is in ensuring that LBJ would order all the evidence into the custody of the FBI. This headed off any chance of a real murder investigation and paved the way for Hoover to control the “official” investigation and its outcome. “You know, Lyndon, they found Mac Wallace’s print up there in the sniper’s nest. If I were you I’d bring every scrap of evidence up to Washington where we can conduct an official investigation and sort this out. Otherwise, you know, you never know where this thing could lead.”

Edited July 22, 2010 by Greg Wagner

[Frankie Vegas]

If the print is genuine, and Darby seemed credible to me, it makes absolutely no sense.

The idea of LBJ using someone like Wallace, who could be connected to him, is nutty.

What is even nuttier is that Wallace, knowing that, would not use gloves so that something like this could not happen.

Goddamn Bingo. I reckon you should have asked Seamus to have put that in the Jones study. He deals to Johnson and Brown. Wasnt there the story of the two sets of researchers disagreeing over the evidence? Jim I think there could be some cred to John S's idea of the Wallace print being planted. Thats always intrigued me. Is that a possibility or stretch?

Edited July 23, 2010 by Frankie Fortune

[Guest Tom Scully]

The problem with a theory that the Wallace print was "planted" is that if it was, and even if it wasn't, several things had to happen and then be explained without arousing suspicion, for a scenario like the one described to be successful, and importantly, timely.

If the Wallace print was transferred onto the box surface at the TSBD, in addition to applying the print, a method had to be developed to ensure that the print was discovered and that it would be transferred onto the box surface clearly enough to be spotted and lifted clearly by the crime scene investigators. More likely the lifted print evidence was swapped later with the Wallace print. Was a closeup photo taken of the dusted print image on the box surface,at the scene?

The "evidence" of the Wallace print, if it was intended to be "discovered" shortly after the assassination and used as theorized in earlier posts here....as "leverage" to intimidate and control LBJ and the investigation of the assassination, was a challenge to explain because it was a "cold hit." In 1963, as the article excerpt below describes, it was a challenge to find a match for such a print at all, let alone accomplishing it without suspicion, shortly after the assassination.

Typically, a local suspect of an investigation would be fingerprinted and one or two of his ten fingerprints would be compared to the partial print found at the crime scene. What would have been the catalyst for assassination investigators to have quickly compared the partial print lifted from the box at the TSBD to the ten prints on Wallace's fingerprint card located in his criminal file? Where would that criminal file be located, then?

The point here is that there was no national repository of 43 million sets of fingerprints, equipped with fast computer matching technology, similar to the facility the FBI operates since 1995 in West Virginia. In 1963 fingerprint records were in file cabinets on index cards, and print comparisons to partial prints from crime scene evidence were done manually, beginning with figuring out which of ten fingerprints on the record file card might be

a likely to the partial, evidence print.

If you read the linked New Yorker article, you will see that in an important recent case, police in the UK seem to have misidentified the digit a print was lifted of at a murder scene. The mistake made one of their own officers suspect in the crime, but the mistake was denied as a defense against embarrassment and accusations of incompetence.

So not only did the plan to plant Wallace's print have to be hatched and executed, a set of routine, plausible events and explanations had to be planned and executed for early matching of the "cold hit" that was the Wallace fingerprint match, with the information delivered along with a non-suspicious explanation of how, with the limited means available to make such a match, it was accomplished at all, and so quickly. Even if someone as high up in the chain as Hoover was in on the plan to do this early on, obtaining a timely match would have involved enough people in the Dallas PD and in the FBI to have aroused suspicion as to how it was quickly and routinely accomplished.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-uaG5ne6AGUJ:www.hks.harvard.edu/dnabook/Simon%2520Cole%2520II.doc+fingerprint+matching+1960+cold+hit&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[DOC]

Fingerprint Identification and the Criminal Justice System

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML

by SA COLE

...Despite the FBI’s enthusiasm for universal fingerprinting, it is unlikely that the FBI, or anyone else, really had the technical capability to actually handle a universal fingerprint database in the post-war period, even had there been the political will to create one. In fact, fingerprint databases were far from the omniscient surveillance systems early identification pioneers had hoped they would become. The panoptic power of fingerprint databases was limited by several factors: First, the Henry and Vucetich systems had multiplied into a profusion of different systems. Each nation – and, in some countries, each jurisdiction – had modified the Henry or Vucetich system slightly to accord with local preferences. Thus, fingerprint classifications were not compatible across national and jurisdictional boundaries. An effort to search for a matching fingerprint record outside the local jurisdiction, therefore, required copying the fingerprint card and sending a separate copy to each neighboring agency. Efforts to develop universal telegraph codes for fingerprint patterns or to utilize facsimile technology to send fingerprint images to neighboring agencies foundered mainly on lack of cooperation between stubbornly local law enforcement agencies. Second, ten-print filing systems were of limited utility for searching latent prints since cards were filed according to the aggregate patterns on all ten fingers. A manual search of a fingerprint database for a single latent print would, therefore, require multiple searches based on educated guesses about what finger the latent derived from and the pattern types on the absent nine digits. Numerous single-print filing systems devised to remedy this problem proved cumbersome and complicated. The problem of manually searching latent prints was exacerbated by the rapidly increasing size of fingerprint databases. The larger a fingerprint file grew, the more daunting the process of conducting a manual search. Thus, for most of this century fingerprint databases were useful primarily for determining whether a suspect had a criminal record locally. Inquiry could also be made to the FLI, but the response time was slow: usually a matter of weeks. Latent print analysis was useful primarily when a suspect or a set of suspects had been selected by other means and their prints could be compared to the latent. Cracking of crimes solely through latent fingerprint evidence was rare indeed.

Only with the advent of computerized fingerprint identification has routine searching of unidentified latent prints and instantaneous national searching become realistic. Data-processing technology was used to sort fingerprint cards as early as the 1940s, and research into computer imaging of fingerprints began in the 1960s. During the 1970s the FBI developed an automated search and retrieval system. It was not until the mid-1980s, however, that Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) were mature enough for local law enforcement agencies to begin investing in them. Instead of using ink, AFIS record prints using an optical scanner and store them as digital images. Technicians can enter an unidentified latent print into the system and the AFIS will search its files and produce a list of candidate matches. A trained examiner then compares the latent with the candidates and determines whether any of them warrants a conclusion of identity. AFIS are good at winnowing a large database into a small number of likely candidates, but relatively poor at choosing the matching print: the “true” match is often not ranked first.

Optical scanning, digital storage, and computerized search and retrieval now give fingerprinting the potential to at last live up to its popular image: in which crime-scene technicians can routinely solve crimes lacking suspects by searching latent prints against a large database. These matches, called “cold hits” provided anecdotal justification for the procurement of AFIS. Thus, the investigative application of fingerprint technology is just now beginning to catch up to the archival application. This development has already prompted calls to further extend the scope of fingerprint databases....

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/05/27/020527fa_FACT

Do Fingerprints Lie?

The gold standard of forensic evidence is now being challenged.

by Michael Specter May 27, 2002

Comments in reaction to this article and larger type version of article.:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/689438/posts

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Tom,

Youve raised a couple good points. My thought is that IF you accept the fact that the print in question is that of Mac Wallace, then a plant is a significantly more logical conclusion than the alternative that Wallace was actually up there.

Your idea that the Wallace print was placed into evidence as opposed to actually being lifted off a box at the scene makes sense to me. That would certainly be easier and it would be the only way to guarantee that the print got into evidence.

You may be correct in your assessment of the difficulty in 1963 of the print in question leading to a quick or certain match. However, I would suggest that if the purpose of the plant was leverage (and what other motive could there be?), then maybe that didnt matter so much. They were simply attempting to coerce LBJ by illustrating that they had a way to tie him to the assassination if he didnt play ball. There would be no need for this print evidence to hold up at a trial.

If someone convinces LBJ that the print exists as part of the evidence taken from the snipers nest, that ensures LBJ has a personal stake in protecting the actual perpetrators (who are presumably the same individuals that planted the print).

Of course, the fact that the print in question exists is the only undisputed fact. You can make the argument that its fact that this is Wallaces print, based on Darbys assessment it simply comes down to which expert you believe. If one does not accept these two items as facts, then thats a debate that Im willing to leave to the fingerprint savants.

However, if one accepts as fact that the print exists and that the expert evaluation of this print conclusively identifies it as Mac Wallaces, then it must be explained. And while the explanation is essentially supposition at this point, planting the print by placing it into the snipers nest evidence as leverage over Johnson to protect the perpetrators is the most logical explanation.

If there are members who agree that the print in question exists and that it is Mac Wallaces but would suggest a different explanation, Id enjoy reading it. Or if my supposition just doesnt make sense, fire away and poke holes in it.

Cheers,

Greg

Edited July 23, 2010 by Greg Wagner

[John Dolva]

win p4

[Duke Lane]

Hi Tom,

You've raised a couple good points. My thought is that IF you accept the fact that the print in question is that of Mac Wallace, then a plant is a significantly more logical conclusion than the alternative – that Wallace was actually up there.

I've had "issues" with the Mac Wallace scenario for a long time, not so much based on the facts - which are somewhat obscure - but on the lack of them. When Alan Kent noted that a second expert had identified the/a print with one purporting to be Wallace's, it seems that we start to move into realms of possibility.

Note: merely "possibility," and the "realm" of it, not necessarily an actual possibility. Being a skeptic is a lot like being a juror, don't you think?

Your idea that the Wallace print was "placed" into evidence as opposed to actually being lifted off a box at the scene makes sense to me. That would certainly be easier and it would be the only way to guarantee that the print got into evidence.

Well, that would certainly seem to be the thing that needs to be established first and foremost, doesn't it? If it's not actual evidence, then the question of whether one copy of Wallace's fingerprint is the same as another copy of Wallace's fingerprint is entirely moot.

According to "actual evidence," a number of prints were lifted from boxes in the TSBD. The boxes are identified, and the prints and assessments of each were published, tho' I can't recall exactly where nor specifically what they said. Of them, a small number belonged to Oswald, and a much larger number were only later identified as belonging to DPD and/or FBI investigators, by name.

What seems to be lacking - or at least something I've never heard of existing - is any kind of a basis point, such as a print card with those of each of the identified persons. Ultimately, we have to take that evidence, and even the assessment of it, as bona fide since there is no way to know that someone didn't "drop" (say) my third-finger print onto your print card in order to show that "your" print was one in evidence (it's not like any of us could say "that's not Duke's fingerprint, I know what they look like!" - yeah, right! - or even that we're qualified to tell the difference between my actual print and your actual print).

So here what we would need is something used by the FBI labs to test the various fingerprints that were found, such as, for example, the actual prints that were lifted from the boxes, and transmiitted to the lab(s) for identification.

If the print that Darby and Hoffmeister examined is not among those, this thread is moot because one cannot and should not simply "accept" things as "evidence" if they are not provably so.

... Of course, the fact that the print in question exists is the only undisputed fact. You can make the argument that it's fact that this is Wallace's print, based on Darby's assessment – it simply comes down to which expert you believe. If one does not accept these two items as facts, then that's a debate that I'm willing to leave to the fingerprint savants.

However, if one accepts as fact that the print exists and that the expert evaluation of this print conclusively identifies it as Mac Wallace's, then it must be explained. And while the explanation is essentially supposition at this point, planting the print by placing it into the "sniper's nest" evidence as leverage over Johnson to protect the perpetrators is the most logical explanation.

If the print was not obtained from the fingerprint evidence from the "sniper's nest," then before one can go "supposing" anything else, its actual origin needs to be determined.

What is the supposed life story of this artifact, start to finish?

[William Kelly]

The bottom line is that fingerprint evidence is sold, hard evidence of a single person at a crime scene.

The boxes in question contained many fingerprints, some of them belonged to Oswald, others to the floor laying crew who also worked at TSBD, and some belonged to cops and crime scene investigators, the latter having violated some basic rules of crime scene investigion techniques.

The TSBD super Truly, would not allow the FBI to fingerprint any other employees besides the floor laying crew.

In the official scenario of the crime, the Sixth Floor Sniper Lee Harvey Oswald immediately leaves the Sniper's Lair, hides the rifle, and descends the stairs to the second floor where he encounters Baker and Truly at 12:31.30.

Meanwhile, back on at the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest, Mrs. Mooneyham, a court clerk across the street, looks to the Sixth floor and through the open window sees the trouser legs of a man at 12:34-5. (Gary Mack discounts this report saying that she mistook the sixth floor window for the fifth floor, but there shouldn't have been anyone in the fifth floor corner window either, since the three black guys had moved to the West End of the fifth floor and began descending down by this time). I believe she saw either the sniper in the window or a spotter who stayed behind to tidy up the crime scene, which wasn't to be officially discovered for another half hour. Whoever this person was, it is probably his fingerprints on the boxes, and he knew that he had all the time in the world to get out of there. How did he know that?

Outside, Dillard and Powell take their photos of the Sixth Floor widnows, and Brennan, when shown the Dillard photo, confirms that the boxes in the photo do NOT represent the way they were position when he saw the Sixth Floor Sniper shooting the third shot.

The HSCA photo analysis team, that had said the backyard photos were not faked, also confirms that their analysis of the Dillard-Powell photos taken twenty seconds apart indicate the boxes in the window were re-arranged between the twenty seconds those photos were taken.

So the fingerprints on the boxes at the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest window are significant and should have and still can be checked to see who they belong to, whether it be Oswald, the floor crew, other TSBD employees, the cops or Wallace.

And chances are, if it is a Wallace print, it was a plant, though it had to be planted by someone with access to the crime scene, before the cops apparently intentionally contaminated it.

Bill Kelly

Edited July 24, 2010 by William Kelly

[Duke Lane]

The bottom line is that fingerprint evidence is sold, hard evidence of a single person at a crime scene.

... So the fingerprints on the boxes at the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest window are significant and should have and still can be checked to see who they belong to, whether it be Oswald, the floor crew, other TSBD employees, the cops or Wallace.

And chances are, if it is a Wallace print, it was a plant, though it had to be planted by someone with access to the crime scene, before the cops apparently intentionally contaminated it.

Well, see? There's my point: the ubiquitous word "if."

We have two prints, both apparently from the same person. This has no significance whatsoever if, for example, one was obtained from an arrest card and the other from, say, the entry to his home or car, or a bar glass he drank from.

You could get two of my fingerprints from such sources, and claim that one was among evidence collected at a crime scene. That does not mean that it was collected there, so what's the proof that the Wallace print NOT in question was "among evidence?" I'm talking "chain of possession" here: who found it, among what evidence, where and when? (Recall that there is - or was - a bogus "arrest record" among Marguerite Oswald's papers that detailed an altercation between Oswald and Ruby; one cannot argue that it is or must be a "unique" occurrence!)

Then, presuming that it was found, say, among documents at College Park, and upon request for a copy, NARA was able to reproduce another one just like it from the originals (i.e., that someone didn't stick it into a folder to be "discovered" by some unsuspecting other person, but a demonstrably false document of which there is no other copy), what was its context? Is it discernible? Was it from an "open" investigation on claims by or on behalf of Wallace - i.e., as a "known subject" - or from one in which he was an "unsub," that is, a print left unbehind that remained unidentified?

If the latter, can that print then be tied back to those lifted from the TSBD boxes? If there were 18 prints found, 18 samples of those 18 prints, and 17 of them identified as "one of the above," is the Wallace "comparison" print - the original that was unidentified, not the one that was certainly made by him - among those 18? Is there a "paper trail" of all of the prints found by DPD, given to the FBI lab, and eventually deposited at NARA, and can it be proven? Is the sure Wallace print similar to - even to the untrained eye - the 18th unidentified print?

If we are still, at this point, speculating that "if" it was planted, then apparently its bona fides have not been fully established. If they have been, who can document this?