Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 4, 2022 20:26:06 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i.imgur.com/qCgiYF4.jpeg
[Note: This article was written way back in 2012 by me so some of the links are no longer functioning. I will do my best to replace them IF possible, but if not please check it out for yourself. Never just take my word or anyone else's without checking it out for yourself. Thanks.]
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. As we have seen in this series over and over again they presented evidence that did NOT support this claim at all, and in fact, their evidence showed it was NOT LHO and instead that it was a conspiracy.
Another piece of evidence that points to someone other than LHO will be examined in this post.
************************************************
As we saw previously in a recent post in this series there were a number of fingerprints and several palm prints found that could NOT be matched to LHO or anyone that worked at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), so who did they belong to then? The TSBD was a place of work and should NOT have been a place were strangers were coming into the building and leaving prints on the same floor the WC would claim JFK was assassinated from. As we saw in regards to the boxes alone, there were seven fingerprints and two palm prints that could not be tied to LHO or anyone at the TSBD. Perhaps a few belonged to the person or persons who handled the boxes on their way to the TSBD, but to claim ALL of them were is beyond the realm of possibility or the ability to support.
One fingerprint that was found on the window that allegedly contained the Sniper’s Nest (SN) LHO supposedly used was identified many years after the fact and it was NOT LHO’s fingerprint. This has been a point of contention for many years among researchers that believe in a conspiracy (i.e the MAJORITY) that LHO could have been at that window and left NO prints on anything but supposedly two boxes. There were none on the floor; the window sill; the pipe near the window; the majority of the boxes; the rifle (save for the alleged palm print that has NO chain of custody and is highly questionable); the shell cartridges and the alleged clip. How can that be when LHO was NOT wearing gloves?
The fingerprint found was matched to Malcolm “Mac” Wallace by certified fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby in 1998. Darby was a highly trained and certified Latent Print Examiner who had testified in many court cases. He was asked to make this comparison without being told who he was comparing the fingerprint to. He was simply given a fingerprint card and asked to see if the fingerprint found on one of the boxes in the window (designated “Box A” by the WC) was the same as the fingerprint on the card. Darby made a 14-point match between the fingerprint found in the alleged SN window and Malcolm Wallace. The WC wrote the following about this topic in their Report (WCR).
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295b.gif
One of the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald, and one of the palmprints on Box A was identified as he left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. All the remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R.L. Studebaker, a Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped the carton from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but ONE of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker’s. One palmprint on Box B was unidentified.(WCR, p. 566) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0295b.htm
Quote off
We see from this description that “Box B” had an unidentified fingerprint and one unidentified palm print too, but the print of Wallace actually came from “Box A” so why did the WCR say all the prints on Box A belonged to LHO or Studebaker or Lucy? Wasn’t this rather misleading?
A side comment needs to be made here as well regarding the sloppy way this evidence was handled by Detective Studebaker as he seemed to leave his prints ALL over all these boxes. Ditto Forest Lucy. I realize they could identify their prints from others, but what EVIDENCE were they damaging by putting their prints on the boxes? If their prints covered the prints of someone else then we will never know who that someone was. Just a thought here, but perhaps that was the GOAL of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the FBI in this matter.
Commission Exhibit (CE) 641 (Box A): www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159b.jpg
Before we go on we need to examine the qualifications of Nathan Darby. I will quote from the affidavit he signed regarding his match of Malcolm Wallace’s print.
Quote on
The following sworn affidavit was given by fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby this past spring.
Those following recent developments in the JFK case will recall that Darby, who holds certification by the Internal Association for Identification, concluded that previously unidentified fingerprints taken from cartons on the sixth 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.
*******************************************************************************************
9 March 1998
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Affidavit
County of Travis
My name is A. Nathan Darby. I am a resident of Austin, Texas, and I am fully competent to make this affidavit.
I have been active in law enforcement for many years, starting with the Texas Department of public Safety as a State Trooper in 1938. I then served with the Austin, Texas Police Department from October 1940, and including my military service, I was with the Austin Police Department until my retirement in August 1979. During that period of service, I rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. I am presently an expert in fingerprint identification, and I hold the designation of Certified Latent Fingerprint Examiner (#78-468), which is issued by the Internal Association for Identification, pursuant to the attached Exhibit DAN #1.
Since 1949, I have testified in numerous cases in the State and Federal Courts about fingerprint identification. This testimony included the preparation of latent charts as exhibits. There was never a mistrial or appeal based on my testimony. Attached is Exhibit DAN#2. This exhibit shows the opinions of two District Judges, Travis County, Texas regarding my testimony experience. (Nathan Darby Affidavit dated March 12, 1998.)
whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Quote off
This is a partial overview and if you are interested in the other parts of his experience just click the link. He would go on to tell us what he was asked to do and what the results of his test were.
Quote on
Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print from [Texas researcher]. After careful and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent Print is Exhibit DAN #4.
In addition to exhibit DAN#3 and exhibit DAN#4, [researcher] gave me a photocopy of a standard form fingerprint card. This is exhibit DAN#5. Exhibit DAN#5 is from an unknown source and has fingerprints of an unknown person to me. The space#10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the same inked print as DAN#3. Space #10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the space used for the left little finger. There are other indications that the print in space #10 on Exhibit DAN#5 is the left little finger.
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.
/s/ A. Nathan Darby (Ibid)
Quote off
The example of his comparison can be seen in this well-known article stemming from a 1998 article on Acorn entitled JFK Breakthrough?, Text by John Kelin; photograph Copyright © 1998 by Mike Blackwell.
whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Since Malcolm Wallace was convicted of murder in 1951 his fingerprints were a matter of public record, and thus, easy to obtain for this examination. Nathan Darby would make a fourteen point match between the print found on Box A in the alleged SN and the fingerprint card given to him that was of Malcolm Wallace’s little finger. In the U.S. the minimum a print must have in terms of matching point is four based on the thinking that anything below that is subject to an error rate exceeding zero. Here is what the Arizona Law Review wrote about this topic in their White Paper—Why Fingerprints Fail.
Quote on
Even in the United States, where the number of points required to declare a match is left to individual labs (and in some cases, individual examiners), four points are considered an absolute minimum to make an identification. This reflects a judgment that with three or fewer points for comparison, the error rate exceeds zero. 147 But if the error rate with four—or any number –of points is zero, surely the error rate with one fewer point must be infinitesimally small. 148 (Arizona Law Review, Fingerprints And The Daubert Standard For Admission of Scientific Evidence: Why Fingerprints Fail And A Proposed Remedy, by Nathan Benedict).
147. See supra note 138, outlining the fingerprint community’s standard of not declaring probable or likely matches, thus implying that the refusal to declare a match (or non-match) indicates in the examiner’s mind a nonzero error rate.
148. The piecemeal function employed by fingerprint examiners—in which zero to X points of similarity results in a finding of no match, but any number greater than X is declared a match—is not only unscientific, but logically counterintuitive. By way of analogy, imagine flipping a coin a certain number of times to determine whether it is fair or “loaded.” No rational person would say that after, for example, twelve straight “heads,” he could make no determination one way or another whether the coin was loaded, but that after the thirteenth straight head, he could say with absolute confidence that it was.
www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-3/46arizlrev519.pdf
Quote off
We can see the fourteen point match is way past the minimum of four required in the U.S. and it surpasses the amount of points the WC would claim regarding print identification of LHO on various objects. Here is the nine point match on the alleged bag LHO made and used on the morning of November 22, 1963, to bring his alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to work in.
CE 634: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0157b.htm
Here is the same fifteen point listing for the palm print allegedly found on the alleged bag.
CE 636: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
Here is the twelve point match of the alleged palm print found on the M-C by the DPD.
CE 640: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159b.htm
Next we see a thirteen point match for a palm print on a box and a ten point match for a fingerprint on a box.
CE 646 & 647: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0161a.htm
Here is an eleven point match for a palm print found on the bottom of a box.
CE 652: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0163a.htm
By now you should get the point (no pun intended) so if you are going to argue that the fourteen point match found by Darby for the Malcolm Wallace print is NOT enough you need to realize that the FBI and WC only presented one thing with that many points or more for LHO. Furthermore, the standard for many countries is a 12-16 point minimum to be allowed into evidence in a court of law and if we applied that to the LHO prints all but three (the alleged palm print on the M-C, the alleged palm print on the alleged bag, and the one print on a box) would be EXCLUDED.
Quote on
Fourth, there is not a general consensus that fingerprint examiners can reliably make identifications of the basis of only nine matching characteristics. Many countries require that there be at least 12-16 points of comparison before fingerprint evidence is deemed sufficiently reliable so as to warrant its admission to a criminal trial. (United States of America vs. Byron Mitchell, page 2)
www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/for_chance_news/ChanceNews12.05/defense.pdf (Doesn't work)
wasatchdefenselawyers.com/fingerprint-evidence-used-in-criminal-trials/ (See this.)
Quote off
Here is what FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona said about what was found on Box A in terms of prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to check your notes on that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many there were?
Mr. LATONA. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, a total of 13?
Mr. LATONA. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Thirteen identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?
Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
So if we are to believe the WC’s version of events of the thirteen prints found two belonged to LHO and the rest belonged to Studebaker and Lucy! What kind of police work is this when you leave your prints all over the evidence? As I said before, this could destroy other prints that may have led somewhere, but luckily one print did survive and led to Malcolm Wallace who just happened to be Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s (LBJ) enforcer. He was convicted of killing John Kinser and then suspected of murdering Henry Marshall (among others according to Mr. Billy Sol Estes) so this is very telling as this would place him in the TSBD around the time of JFK’s visit. What reason would Malcolm Wallace have for being inside the TSBD?
The WC would say the other prints were caused either by the opening of the box or by “people carrying the box around” during Latona’s testimony, but in the WCR they wrote that these other prints belonged to Studebaker and Lucy!
Mr. EISENBERG. There were a total of 13 identifiable prints on the box, did you say?
Mr. LATONA. That is right. Those are not Oswald's prints.
Representative BOGGS. Those may have been other people opening the box?
Mr. DULLES. The box was carried around probably.
Mr. LATONA. Yes.
What gives here and why did Eisenberg cut off this question by Allen Dulles?
Mr. DULLES. When it was first put there and moved.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put your finger on that box, Mr. Latona, in the way that the finger was placed?
Since we are discussing “Box A” which was supposedly the top box in the alleged SN, the very one LHO supposedly leaned on to steady his rifle, why was Eisenberg so anxious to make sure Latona did NOT answer this question? Could it be the answer led us away from the official conclusion once again?
I was reading things on the Internet recently and found this perspective by John Simkin which was interesting to me.
Quote on
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.
educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4966
Quote off
I would have to agree that using Malcolm Wallace, who could be tied to LBJ so easily, would on the surface be foolish, but when you think about the COMPLETE CONTROL LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) had over this investigation and evidence it isn’t that foolish really. Perhaps Wallace’s print was put there to silence LBJ with possible blackmail, but let’s face it, LBJ had a ton of reasons NOT to expose this conspiracy IF he was NOT part of it (which I doubt at least due to his efforts at covering up the truth). He was likely facing jail time for his various scandals (Bobby Baker, Billie Sol Estes, TFX fighter issue, etc…) or at least the end of his political career so he had plenty of reason to go along with the killing of JFK IMO, thus, blackmailing was not needed. Finally, the fact it took until 1998 to show this print belonged to Wallace shows the power of the cover-up to me and voids the idea of having to blackmail LBJ into going along with it.
Perhaps Wallace was a spotter or was there to coordinate the various shooters, who knows for sure, but the point is there is NO logical reason for Wallace’s print to have been in the alleged SN area of the TSBD since he did NOT work there.
Things are never simple in this case and if we go to Lieutenant (Lt.) Carl Day of the crime scene search section of the identification bureau of the DPD we see he said he did NOT find any prints on CE 641 (Box A) as claimed.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 641, Exhibit 653, and Exhibit 654, and ask you to state if you know what these are. I will start with 641 first.
Mr. DAY. 641 is a box found in front of the window, Texas School Book Depository. Apparently the gun had rested across this. This is the top box now of two that were sitting in the window.
Mr. McCLOY. At the sixth floor window from which the shots are alleged to have been fired?
Mr. DAY. Where the gun was fired from.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything, any other identification, that you found on it? Did you dust this for prints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any?
Mr. DAY. Not with the powder.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any in any way?
Mr. DAY. No; I didn't find any.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know if anyone else found any?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't.
IF he found NO prints on CE 641 how in the world did the WC claim a fingerprint of LHO and a palm print of LHO were found on it (Latona said 13 prints were on it altogether)? When did these prints get added to the box then? Day was not even sure if he initialed the boxes as evidence on the 22nd of November or not!
Mr. BELIN. When did you put your initials on the boxes, 653 and 641, if you know?
Mr. DAY. I am not certain whether it was the 22d or 25th when we collected the boxes.
Again, what kind of chain of custody is this? How do you think this would play out in the legal world (i.e. courtroom)? Finally, IF LHO moved the boxes into place, used the boxes to prop his rifle on and leaned on them as claimed, why did Box A have DUST ON IT?
Mr. BELIN. On all of these boxes, 641 and 653, and now handing you 654, was there dust on 654 also?
Mr. DAY. All boxes had dust on them when I collected them.
The same thing can be said for Malcolm Wallace using them too, so perhaps his print was planted as Mr. Simkin said. How do boxes get moved, leaned on and used and still have dust all over them?
Perhaps more has been added to this story because of Wallace’s violent past and his unusual death as he too was victim to a “one car accident” a la Lee Bowers. According to Barr McClellan the decision to kill Wallace came from his constant requests for more money due to his participation in the JFK assassination.
Quote on
McClellan later claimed that the killing of Kennedy was paid for by oil millionaires such as Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. McClellan claims that Clark got $2 million for this work. The death of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. According to McClellan this resulted in a saving of over $100 million to the American oil industry. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent.
Wallace went to work for Harry Lewis and L & G Oil. In 1970 he returned to Dallas and began pressing Edward Clark for more money for his part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. According to Barr McClellan it was then decided to kill Wallace. "He had to be eliminated. After driving to see his daughter in Troup, Texas, he went by L & G's offices in Longview, Texas. There his exhaust was rigged for part of it to flow into his car. " On 7th January, 1971, Malcolm Wallace was killed while driving into Pittsburg, Texas. He appeared to have fallen asleep and after leaving the road crashed his car. Wallace died of massive head injuries.
spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
Quote off
Whether this is true or not it is rare to see people die in a one car accident without some reason for it. At the time of his death Malcolm Wallace was just 49-years-old so while it is not impossible he could have fallen asleep on his own it would seem more likely he may have received some help in this area. If he was 69 or older perhaps it would be believable, but at 49 he still should have been very acutely aware of his condition before getting into a car to drive some distance if he was not up to it.
Once again, whether you believe the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint or not, there is evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that casts serious doubts on the WC’s conclusion, thus, they are sunk again.
P.S. This is a good site to visit as it has both the affidavit and the Acorn article on it in one place.
www.whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Quote on
SOME OBVIOUS FBI ERRORS: The initial problems with the FBI review was that they violated their key written standard of backing certified experts. The FBI also violated the important related standard of reviewing any match with the right granted to the certified expert to explain his conclusions to another certified expert. Although repeatedly made available to the FBI, they acted without talking to Mr. Darby.
Quote off
i.imgur.com/qCgiYF4.jpeg
[Note: This article was written way back in 2012 by me so some of the links are no longer functioning. I will do my best to replace them IF possible, but if not please check it out for yourself. Never just take my word or anyone else's without checking it out for yourself. Thanks.]
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. As we have seen in this series over and over again they presented evidence that did NOT support this claim at all, and in fact, their evidence showed it was NOT LHO and instead that it was a conspiracy.
Another piece of evidence that points to someone other than LHO will be examined in this post.
************************************************
As we saw previously in a recent post in this series there were a number of fingerprints and several palm prints found that could NOT be matched to LHO or anyone that worked at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), so who did they belong to then? The TSBD was a place of work and should NOT have been a place were strangers were coming into the building and leaving prints on the same floor the WC would claim JFK was assassinated from. As we saw in regards to the boxes alone, there were seven fingerprints and two palm prints that could not be tied to LHO or anyone at the TSBD. Perhaps a few belonged to the person or persons who handled the boxes on their way to the TSBD, but to claim ALL of them were is beyond the realm of possibility or the ability to support.
One fingerprint that was found on the window that allegedly contained the Sniper’s Nest (SN) LHO supposedly used was identified many years after the fact and it was NOT LHO’s fingerprint. This has been a point of contention for many years among researchers that believe in a conspiracy (i.e the MAJORITY) that LHO could have been at that window and left NO prints on anything but supposedly two boxes. There were none on the floor; the window sill; the pipe near the window; the majority of the boxes; the rifle (save for the alleged palm print that has NO chain of custody and is highly questionable); the shell cartridges and the alleged clip. How can that be when LHO was NOT wearing gloves?
The fingerprint found was matched to Malcolm “Mac” Wallace by certified fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby in 1998. Darby was a highly trained and certified Latent Print Examiner who had testified in many court cases. He was asked to make this comparison without being told who he was comparing the fingerprint to. He was simply given a fingerprint card and asked to see if the fingerprint found on one of the boxes in the window (designated “Box A” by the WC) was the same as the fingerprint on the card. Darby made a 14-point match between the fingerprint found in the alleged SN window and Malcolm Wallace. The WC wrote the following about this topic in their Report (WCR).
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295b.gif
One of the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald, and one of the palmprints on Box A was identified as he left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. All the remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R.L. Studebaker, a Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped the carton from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but ONE of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker’s. One palmprint on Box B was unidentified.(WCR, p. 566) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0295b.htm
Quote off
We see from this description that “Box B” had an unidentified fingerprint and one unidentified palm print too, but the print of Wallace actually came from “Box A” so why did the WCR say all the prints on Box A belonged to LHO or Studebaker or Lucy? Wasn’t this rather misleading?
A side comment needs to be made here as well regarding the sloppy way this evidence was handled by Detective Studebaker as he seemed to leave his prints ALL over all these boxes. Ditto Forest Lucy. I realize they could identify their prints from others, but what EVIDENCE were they damaging by putting their prints on the boxes? If their prints covered the prints of someone else then we will never know who that someone was. Just a thought here, but perhaps that was the GOAL of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) and the FBI in this matter.
Commission Exhibit (CE) 641 (Box A): www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159b.jpg
Before we go on we need to examine the qualifications of Nathan Darby. I will quote from the affidavit he signed regarding his match of Malcolm Wallace’s print.
Quote on
The following sworn affidavit was given by fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby this past spring.
Those following recent developments in the JFK case will recall that Darby, who holds certification by the Internal Association for Identification, concluded that previously unidentified fingerprints taken from cartons on the sixth 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.
*******************************************************************************************
9 March 1998
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Affidavit
County of Travis
My name is A. Nathan Darby. I am a resident of Austin, Texas, and I am fully competent to make this affidavit.
I have been active in law enforcement for many years, starting with the Texas Department of public Safety as a State Trooper in 1938. I then served with the Austin, Texas Police Department from October 1940, and including my military service, I was with the Austin Police Department until my retirement in August 1979. During that period of service, I rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. I am presently an expert in fingerprint identification, and I hold the designation of Certified Latent Fingerprint Examiner (#78-468), which is issued by the Internal Association for Identification, pursuant to the attached Exhibit DAN #1.
Since 1949, I have testified in numerous cases in the State and Federal Courts about fingerprint identification. This testimony included the preparation of latent charts as exhibits. There was never a mistrial or appeal based on my testimony. Attached is Exhibit DAN#2. This exhibit shows the opinions of two District Judges, Travis County, Texas regarding my testimony experience. (Nathan Darby Affidavit dated March 12, 1998.)
whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Quote off
This is a partial overview and if you are interested in the other parts of his experience just click the link. He would go on to tell us what he was asked to do and what the results of his test were.
Quote on
Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print from [Texas researcher]. After careful and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent Print is Exhibit DAN #4.
In addition to exhibit DAN#3 and exhibit DAN#4, [researcher] gave me a photocopy of a standard form fingerprint card. This is exhibit DAN#5. Exhibit DAN#5 is from an unknown source and has fingerprints of an unknown person to me. The space#10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the same inked print as DAN#3. Space #10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the space used for the left little finger. There are other indications that the print in space #10 on Exhibit DAN#5 is the left little finger.
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.
/s/ A. Nathan Darby (Ibid)
Quote off
The example of his comparison can be seen in this well-known article stemming from a 1998 article on Acorn entitled JFK Breakthrough?, Text by John Kelin; photograph Copyright © 1998 by Mike Blackwell.
whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Since Malcolm Wallace was convicted of murder in 1951 his fingerprints were a matter of public record, and thus, easy to obtain for this examination. Nathan Darby would make a fourteen point match between the print found on Box A in the alleged SN and the fingerprint card given to him that was of Malcolm Wallace’s little finger. In the U.S. the minimum a print must have in terms of matching point is four based on the thinking that anything below that is subject to an error rate exceeding zero. Here is what the Arizona Law Review wrote about this topic in their White Paper—Why Fingerprints Fail.
Quote on
Even in the United States, where the number of points required to declare a match is left to individual labs (and in some cases, individual examiners), four points are considered an absolute minimum to make an identification. This reflects a judgment that with three or fewer points for comparison, the error rate exceeds zero. 147 But if the error rate with four—or any number –of points is zero, surely the error rate with one fewer point must be infinitesimally small. 148 (Arizona Law Review, Fingerprints And The Daubert Standard For Admission of Scientific Evidence: Why Fingerprints Fail And A Proposed Remedy, by Nathan Benedict).
147. See supra note 138, outlining the fingerprint community’s standard of not declaring probable or likely matches, thus implying that the refusal to declare a match (or non-match) indicates in the examiner’s mind a nonzero error rate.
148. The piecemeal function employed by fingerprint examiners—in which zero to X points of similarity results in a finding of no match, but any number greater than X is declared a match—is not only unscientific, but logically counterintuitive. By way of analogy, imagine flipping a coin a certain number of times to determine whether it is fair or “loaded.” No rational person would say that after, for example, twelve straight “heads,” he could make no determination one way or another whether the coin was loaded, but that after the thirteenth straight head, he could say with absolute confidence that it was.
www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-3/46arizlrev519.pdf
Quote off
We can see the fourteen point match is way past the minimum of four required in the U.S. and it surpasses the amount of points the WC would claim regarding print identification of LHO on various objects. Here is the nine point match on the alleged bag LHO made and used on the morning of November 22, 1963, to bring his alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to work in.
CE 634: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0157b.htm
Here is the same fifteen point listing for the palm print allegedly found on the alleged bag.
CE 636: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
Here is the twelve point match of the alleged palm print found on the M-C by the DPD.
CE 640: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159b.htm
Next we see a thirteen point match for a palm print on a box and a ten point match for a fingerprint on a box.
CE 646 & 647: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0161a.htm
Here is an eleven point match for a palm print found on the bottom of a box.
CE 652: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0163a.htm
By now you should get the point (no pun intended) so if you are going to argue that the fourteen point match found by Darby for the Malcolm Wallace print is NOT enough you need to realize that the FBI and WC only presented one thing with that many points or more for LHO. Furthermore, the standard for many countries is a 12-16 point minimum to be allowed into evidence in a court of law and if we applied that to the LHO prints all but three (the alleged palm print on the M-C, the alleged palm print on the alleged bag, and the one print on a box) would be EXCLUDED.
Quote on
Fourth, there is not a general consensus that fingerprint examiners can reliably make identifications of the basis of only nine matching characteristics. Many countries require that there be at least 12-16 points of comparison before fingerprint evidence is deemed sufficiently reliable so as to warrant its admission to a criminal trial. (United States of America vs. Byron Mitchell, page 2)
www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/for_chance_news/ChanceNews12.05/defense.pdf (Doesn't work)
wasatchdefenselawyers.com/fingerprint-evidence-used-in-criminal-trials/ (See this.)
Quote off
Here is what FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona said about what was found on Box A in terms of prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to check your notes on that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many there were?
Mr. LATONA. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, a total of 13?
Mr. LATONA. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Thirteen identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?
Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
So if we are to believe the WC’s version of events of the thirteen prints found two belonged to LHO and the rest belonged to Studebaker and Lucy! What kind of police work is this when you leave your prints all over the evidence? As I said before, this could destroy other prints that may have led somewhere, but luckily one print did survive and led to Malcolm Wallace who just happened to be Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s (LBJ) enforcer. He was convicted of killing John Kinser and then suspected of murdering Henry Marshall (among others according to Mr. Billy Sol Estes) so this is very telling as this would place him in the TSBD around the time of JFK’s visit. What reason would Malcolm Wallace have for being inside the TSBD?
The WC would say the other prints were caused either by the opening of the box or by “people carrying the box around” during Latona’s testimony, but in the WCR they wrote that these other prints belonged to Studebaker and Lucy!
Mr. EISENBERG. There were a total of 13 identifiable prints on the box, did you say?
Mr. LATONA. That is right. Those are not Oswald's prints.
Representative BOGGS. Those may have been other people opening the box?
Mr. DULLES. The box was carried around probably.
Mr. LATONA. Yes.
What gives here and why did Eisenberg cut off this question by Allen Dulles?
Mr. DULLES. When it was first put there and moved.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put your finger on that box, Mr. Latona, in the way that the finger was placed?
Since we are discussing “Box A” which was supposedly the top box in the alleged SN, the very one LHO supposedly leaned on to steady his rifle, why was Eisenberg so anxious to make sure Latona did NOT answer this question? Could it be the answer led us away from the official conclusion once again?
I was reading things on the Internet recently and found this perspective by John Simkin which was interesting to me.
Quote on
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.
educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4966
Quote off
I would have to agree that using Malcolm Wallace, who could be tied to LBJ so easily, would on the surface be foolish, but when you think about the COMPLETE CONTROL LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) had over this investigation and evidence it isn’t that foolish really. Perhaps Wallace’s print was put there to silence LBJ with possible blackmail, but let’s face it, LBJ had a ton of reasons NOT to expose this conspiracy IF he was NOT part of it (which I doubt at least due to his efforts at covering up the truth). He was likely facing jail time for his various scandals (Bobby Baker, Billie Sol Estes, TFX fighter issue, etc…) or at least the end of his political career so he had plenty of reason to go along with the killing of JFK IMO, thus, blackmailing was not needed. Finally, the fact it took until 1998 to show this print belonged to Wallace shows the power of the cover-up to me and voids the idea of having to blackmail LBJ into going along with it.
Perhaps Wallace was a spotter or was there to coordinate the various shooters, who knows for sure, but the point is there is NO logical reason for Wallace’s print to have been in the alleged SN area of the TSBD since he did NOT work there.
Things are never simple in this case and if we go to Lieutenant (Lt.) Carl Day of the crime scene search section of the identification bureau of the DPD we see he said he did NOT find any prints on CE 641 (Box A) as claimed.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 641, Exhibit 653, and Exhibit 654, and ask you to state if you know what these are. I will start with 641 first.
Mr. DAY. 641 is a box found in front of the window, Texas School Book Depository. Apparently the gun had rested across this. This is the top box now of two that were sitting in the window.
Mr. McCLOY. At the sixth floor window from which the shots are alleged to have been fired?
Mr. DAY. Where the gun was fired from.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything, any other identification, that you found on it? Did you dust this for prints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any?
Mr. DAY. Not with the powder.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any in any way?
Mr. DAY. No; I didn't find any.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know if anyone else found any?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't.
IF he found NO prints on CE 641 how in the world did the WC claim a fingerprint of LHO and a palm print of LHO were found on it (Latona said 13 prints were on it altogether)? When did these prints get added to the box then? Day was not even sure if he initialed the boxes as evidence on the 22nd of November or not!
Mr. BELIN. When did you put your initials on the boxes, 653 and 641, if you know?
Mr. DAY. I am not certain whether it was the 22d or 25th when we collected the boxes.
Again, what kind of chain of custody is this? How do you think this would play out in the legal world (i.e. courtroom)? Finally, IF LHO moved the boxes into place, used the boxes to prop his rifle on and leaned on them as claimed, why did Box A have DUST ON IT?
Mr. BELIN. On all of these boxes, 641 and 653, and now handing you 654, was there dust on 654 also?
Mr. DAY. All boxes had dust on them when I collected them.
The same thing can be said for Malcolm Wallace using them too, so perhaps his print was planted as Mr. Simkin said. How do boxes get moved, leaned on and used and still have dust all over them?
Perhaps more has been added to this story because of Wallace’s violent past and his unusual death as he too was victim to a “one car accident” a la Lee Bowers. According to Barr McClellan the decision to kill Wallace came from his constant requests for more money due to his participation in the JFK assassination.
Quote on
McClellan later claimed that the killing of Kennedy was paid for by oil millionaires such as Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. McClellan claims that Clark got $2 million for this work. The death of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. According to McClellan this resulted in a saving of over $100 million to the American oil industry. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent.
Wallace went to work for Harry Lewis and L & G Oil. In 1970 he returned to Dallas and began pressing Edward Clark for more money for his part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. According to Barr McClellan it was then decided to kill Wallace. "He had to be eliminated. After driving to see his daughter in Troup, Texas, he went by L & G's offices in Longview, Texas. There his exhaust was rigged for part of it to flow into his car. " On 7th January, 1971, Malcolm Wallace was killed while driving into Pittsburg, Texas. He appeared to have fallen asleep and after leaving the road crashed his car. Wallace died of massive head injuries.
spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
Quote off
Whether this is true or not it is rare to see people die in a one car accident without some reason for it. At the time of his death Malcolm Wallace was just 49-years-old so while it is not impossible he could have fallen asleep on his own it would seem more likely he may have received some help in this area. If he was 69 or older perhaps it would be believable, but at 49 he still should have been very acutely aware of his condition before getting into a car to drive some distance if he was not up to it.
Once again, whether you believe the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint or not, there is evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that casts serious doubts on the WC’s conclusion, thus, they are sunk again.
P.S. This is a good site to visit as it has both the affidavit and the Acorn article on it in one place.
www.whokilledjfk.net/malcolm_wallace.htm
Quote on
SOME OBVIOUS FBI ERRORS: The initial problems with the FBI review was that they violated their key written standard of backing certified experts. The FBI also violated the important related standard of reviewing any match with the right granted to the certified expert to explain his conclusions to another certified expert. Although repeatedly made available to the FBI, they acted without talking to Mr. Darby.
Quote off