Mac Wallace fingerprint?

[Ron Bulman]

Sandy, thanks for setting me and I think maybe a few other people straight.  I wasn't intentionally trying to impinge Darby myself, I only know what I've read.  You have obviously researched the matter in depth and I respect that, not that my opinion matters much.  Believe it or not I already had the thought that just because Darby had not renewed his certification did not mean he had forgotten everything he knew about fingerprint analysis.  I gathered that Garrett had ultimately received a better copy and concluded from it that it was not Wallace.  Garrett seemed to have good credentials.  I'm ignorant of the finer points of the field.  I didn't know our prints change over time though it makes sense when you think about it.  I look at my senior picture, I look in the mirror, my face has aged.   One thing that still amazes about the print is it's being found.   I recently (re) read that Roy Truly refused to let the FBI fingerprint anyone but the floor laying crew (how could he refuse such?).   Out of the hundreds if not thousands of prints on the boxes just in the "snipers nest" this one smudged partial print turns up that years later turns out to be from the man Billy Sol Estes claims was LBJ's personal hitman in the 1950's.  But it couldn't be compared to any of those of the employee's.  Something's a little fishy in this whole scenario.  Most of what I've read on Wallace other than on line comes from two books some, including me, deride, in some respects at least.  I should re read them both for fresher perspective.  The first was Livingstone's The Radical Right and the Murder of JFK, yes I hear the Boo's and I've read the author was an asshole, even if we shouldn't speak ill of the dead.  But the book is deep and it has relevant information.  The second is LBJ  Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson.  I bought it with trepidation in the first place.  But, it too contains pertinent information to understanding the bigger picture if you sift it finely.  It did Not convince me LBJ had anything to do with the set up or execution of the assassination other than Maybe facilitating communications among operatives through the use of his name, known by him or not.  Or that Mac Wallace was anywhere close to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  Of course, LBJ Was involved in the cover up.        

Edited January 27, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just viewed the U.S.S. Liberty video.

Dear God !

Were the Liberty victims ( including families of the deceased ) ever offered or given any reparations?

 

We should probably start a separate thread on the Liberty.  The video is excellent, more expansive and compliments the chapter in the book.  But the first time I read the chapter in the book I wanted to throw it and other things at the wall.  NO.  My dad served Our Country, I would have, maybe foolishly according to some, served if called.  His brother died 40 years later with shrapnel still in his body.  A president does Not say "I don't care if the ship sinks".  Twenty Six intelligence personnel died in the torpedo blast, after the sailors on deck in the earlier attacks.

"An officer named Lloyd Painter, arrived on deck in time to observe one of the torpedo boats machine gunning a life raft to ribbons.  A torpedo boat seized another of the life rafts and carried it off as a trophy.  Soon this raft would reside in the Hall of Heroes a the Israeli naval museum in Tel Aviv.  In the display, the raft was accompanied by a photograph of the captain of the boat that had fired the torpedo that hit the Liberty successfully."   

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Sandy, thanks for setting me and I think maybe a few other people straight.  I wasn't intentionally trying to impinge Darby myself, I only know what I've read.  You have obviously researched the matter in depth and I respect that, not that my opinion matters much.  Believe it or not I already had the thought that just because Darby had not renewed his certification did not mean he had forgotten everything he knew about fingerprint analysis.  I gathered that Garrett had ultimately received a better copy and concluded from it that it was not Wallace.  Garrett seemed to have good credentials.  I'm ignorant of the finer points of the field.  I didn't know our prints change over time though it makes sense when you think about it.  I look at my senior picture, I look in the mirror, my face has aged.   One thing that still amazes about the print is it's being found.   I recently (re) read that Roy Truly refused to let the FBI fingerprint anyone but the floor laying crew (how could he refuse such?).   Out of the hundreds if not thousands of prints on the boxes just in the "snipers nest" this one smudged partial print turns up that years later turns out to be from the man Billy Sol Estes claims was LBJ's personal hitman in the 1950's.  But it couldn't be compared to any of those of the employee's.  Something's a little fishy in this whole scenario.  Most of what I've read on Wallace other than on line comes from two books some, including me, deride, in some respects at least.  I should re read them both for fresher perspective.  The first was Livingstone's The Radical Right and the Murder of JFK, yes I hear the Boo's and I've read the author was an asshole, even if we shouldn't speak ill of the dead.  But the book is deep and it has relevant information.  The second is LBJ Mastermind of JFK's Assassination.  I bought it with trepidation in the first place.  But, it too contains pertinent information to understanding the bigger picture if you sift it finely.  It did Not convince me LBJ had anything to do with the set up or execution of the assassination other than Maybe facilitating communications among operatives through the use of his name, known by him or not.  Or that Mac Wallace was anywhere close to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  Of course, LBJ Was involved in the cover up.        

 

Ron,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

What I wrote wasn't meant to be directed at you. I was speaking to the folks who try to discredit Nathan Darby. I don't believe there is any call for that. Just because his finding is suggestive of LBJ being involved in the assassination -- something that irritates certain researchers -- that is no excuse for trying to impugn his competence. Now that we have two competing fingerprint examinations, we should be able to freely discuss the merits and failings of each.

Since I currently have no presentation to offer, I cannot expect anybody to believe what I am saying about fingerprints changing with time. All I ask is for people to understand that, just because Joan Mellen has found an expert whose opinion favors her position, does not automatically mean that he is right and Nathan Darby is wrong. Eventually I will give a presentation that I think will be useful to people who are interested but who don't want to expend the time necessary to draw conclusions.

In the meantime, I offer here two opposing papers, one being anti-Darby and the other pro-Darby:

A Criticism of Darby's Analysis by Kasey Wertheim
A Defense of Darby's Analysis by Garrick Alder

The "Criticism" is short and pretty easy reading. The "Defense" is long and comprehensive, and it responds directly to the "Criticism." I recommend reading both for those who want a guide as to what to believe. I intend my presentation to be easier reading, with more images that are "worth a thousand words" each. But, for those who can't wait, I recommend reading these two documents.

 

[Cory Santos]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cory,

Nathan Darby was an expert. He said yes.

Surely you know that experts can disagree.

 

Sandy,

experts disagree, but...

This issue really seems so simple because they are applying an objective test to determine if the fingerprint is legitimate and then is the person's.

To this date, people still disagree however with Mr. Darby's methods.

No, I am talking about getting the two or three most highly regarded fingerprint experts in the U.S.  People who have testified in federal cases.  Have them review the information and then scientifically, give an opinion about it.

Explaining step by step how they came to their conclusions so that their work can be peer reveiwed.

Remember, what qualifies as an expert in court is different than what say the Enquirer accepts.

If he was such an expert, why is there still a debate. 

This debate can easily be solved however.

[Cory Santos]

Let me just add, fingerprint back in the 1990's was not really an exact science.

Criminal defense attorneys have had them kicked out regularly based on improper methodology.

One person stating back then he found a match does therefore not make it so nor does one expert stating twas not.

Surely you are aware of this as well.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Sandy,

experts disagree, but...

This issue really seems so simple because they are applying an objective test to determine if the fingerprint is legitimate and then is the person's.

Cory,

Fingerprint examining is more of an art than an objective process.

"In the U.S., the courts deliberately eliminated a threshold standard of agreement, so that the determination can remain a subjective matter, taking into account the examiner’s training and experience, and both the quantity and quality of comparable details."  (Source)

Furthermore, the result of a fingerprint examination will depend a great deal on how conservative the examiner is. A highly conservative examiner will declare a mismatch if there is a single discrepancy found. More liberal examiners recognize that discrepancies are to be expected under certain circumstances and will allow a few to pass. Naturally a prosecutor would prefer to rely on a liberal print examiner, whereas a defense attorney would prefer a conservative one.

 

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

To this date, people still disagree however with Mr. Darby's methods.

Like who?

 

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

No, I am talking about getting the two or three most highly regarded fingerprint experts in the U.S.  People who have testified in federal cases.  Have them review the information and then scientifically, give an opinion about it.

Explaining step by step how they came to their conclusions so that their work can be peer reveiwed.

Remember, what qualifies as an expert in court is different than what say the Enquirer accepts.

If [Nathan Darby] was such an expert, why is there still a debate. 

Oh... I don't know... maybe because his finding tends to implicate one U.S. president in the assassination of another?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Let me just add, fingerprint back in the 1990's was not really an exact science.

And fingerprint examination still isn't an exact science. Far from it.

 

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Criminal defense attorneys have had them kicked out regularly based on improper methodology.

As I said, the defense naturally favors the use of a conservative print examiner. (One who doesn't allow for any discrepancies.) For the simple reason that they reduce conviction rates.

 

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

One person stating back then he found a match does therefore not make it so nor does one expert stating twas not.

Surely you are aware of this as well.

Yes, I'm aware that fingerprint examination isn't a perfect science. Not back then, not now.

 

[Ron Bulman]

A thought maybe worth note.  As I mentioned earlier I've read Truly refused to let the FBI fingerprint any TSBD employee's (again, how could he do such?).  Yet they did fingerprint One employee, Oswald.  But they didn't find any of his print's on the boxes he supposedly moved to construct the sniper's nest?  But they did find one smudged partial print of a man LBJ had distanced himself from for years previously.  It's not just fishy, something's rotten in Denmark and Dallas, worse smelling than limburger cheese. 

[Paz Marverde]

Bumping this