Bogus Mac Wallace fingerprint
John McAdams
Jan Stevens,
The FBI reported in 1964 that all the fingerprints from "Box A" that
were identifiable had in fact been identified.
The one actually unidentified print was a palmprint.
Can you show that the print your group "identified" as Mac Wallace has
not already been identified -- perhaps as Studebaker's?
.John
Joe Durnavich
John McAdams writes:
>German responded as follows. German has kindly given me permission to post
>this message here.
[snip]
>>Okay, Sir, I don't know you, but I will bite on this one. You
>>have caught my interest. Is this a joke? The two fingerprints on the
>>web page you cited (http://www.njmetronet.com/jfkdpq/postpresscon.html)
>>don't look like an identification from the binary, poor quality image
>>posted there. For starters, look for yourself and count the number of
>>intervening ridges between the points marked 4 and 6. There are a
>>number of other discrepancies in this binary image depiction... such as
>>the difference in the ridge length between points 6 and 7... the number
>>of intervening ridges between point 6 and the crease below it (the
>>crease between the middle and last joints of the finger).
I also noticed that on the box print, if you count 3 ridges to the right
of the bifurcation (where a ridge line forks into two) pointed to by line
3, and 2 ridges up, you come to another bifurcation. This bifurcation is
not on the Wallace print.
It looks like this "Wallace fingerprint" business is shaping up to be
another "6-groove bullet" fiasco.
--
Joe Durnavich
jo...@mcs.net
John McAdams
I received, earlier today, a message from an e-mail correspondent who asked
a bona fide print expert to comment on the Mac Wallace fingerprint
"findings."
The correspondent wrote the following message to Ed German.
>> Dear Mr. German:
>> Recently there has been a claim that a latent fingerprint
>> developed on a cardboard box found in the Texas School Book
>> Depository in 1963 has been identified as belonging to one
>> Malcolm Wallace. Some details are at
>> http://www.njmetronet.com/jfkdpq/postpresscon.html
>> The examiner has been identified as A. Nathan Darby, reportedly
>> certified by the I.A.I. as a Latent Print Examiner. Can you
>> verify for me that a person by this name is in fact so certified?
>> -
>
German responded as follows. German has kindly given me permission to post
this message here.
>Sir:
>
>This message is my opinion, and does not purport to reflect the position
>of the US Army Crime Lab, where I am the senior ranking military Special
>Agent, and am certified by the Army as a Latent Print Examiner.
>
>It also does not purport to reflect the position of the FBI Laboratory's
>Technical Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and
>Technology, where I Chaired the Quality Assurance Committee previously
>and currently chair the Friction Ridge Automation Committee.
>
>And, it also doesn't purport to reflect the position of the
>International Association for Identification (IAI) where I currently
>chair the Fingerprint Identification Subcommittee. (I served on the
>IAI, Latent Print Certification Board which oversees the Certified
>Latent Print Examiner program for all the state and regional
>Certification Committees during 1982-87.)
>
>Okay, Sir, I don't know you, but I will bite on this one. You
>have caught my interest. Is this a joke? The two fingerprints on the
>web page you cited (http://www.njmetronet.com/jfkdpq/postpresscon.html)
>don't look like an identification from the binary, poor quality image
>posted there. For starters, look for yourself and count the number of
>intervening ridges between the points marked 4 and 6. There are a
>number of other discrepancies in this binary image depiction... such as
>the difference in the ridge length between points 6 and 7... the number
>of intervening ridges between point 6 and the crease below it (the
>crease between the middle and last joints of the finger).
>
>I will try to verify Darby's IAI, CLPE status, but it doesn't
>necessarily lend any credibility to his expertise. He could be the BEST
>fingerprint expert in the world, or he could be another one of the many
>IAI, CLPE's who was grandfathered into CLPE status and has never
>actually taken and passed the certification exam (less than 50% of those
>paying the $100 fee for the six hour test pass it).
>
>The more experience he has (especially if he has over 20 years) the
>greater the chance that he belongs to the group of IAI, CLPE's that has
>never passed the qualifying exam. Many (and this probably includes
>Darby if he is an old-timer who was certified when the CLPE program
>started in the '70's) have not actually ever been tested whatsoever
>insofar as their expertise. In the early days of CLPE application,
>"experts" were grandfathered into CLPE status and did not have to take
>the test that has since been instituted to test expertise.
>
>Some experienced examiners (like me) where grandfathered into CLPE
>status in the '70's, but have since voluntarily passed the CLPE exam.
>Many CLPE's (like me) also participate in the annual proficiency testing
>program for Latent Print Examiners administered by Collaborative Testing
>Services in accordance with guidelines of the American Society of Crime
>Laboratory Directors. Darby may participate in proficiency testing just
>like me... maybe not. The purpose of annual proficiency testing is to
>check for the development of bad habits, failing skills as an expert,
>etc. I have known very excellent CLPE's whose skills deteriorated with
>advanced age.
>
>The www link you cited erroneously states there are some 700 IAI
>members... there are probably more than ten times that, especially
>considering state, regional and international chartered IAI division
>members. My guess is that there are probably 700 to 900 CLPE's holding
>current certification (it is reissued each three years, at which time
>the CLPE must show proof they have attended fingerprint related
>conferences or training during the past three years).
>
>Sir, I am NOT saying the identification depicted on the web site
>is a "bum" identification... but it sure looks like one from the binary
>image I saw there. In January 1984, I was the Training and Applications
>Coordinator for the Illinois State Police's seven crime laboratories and
>a CLPE (tested examiner, not grandfathered) from the Quincy, Illinois
>Police Department brought me a court chart he had already testified to
>twice... once at a preliminary hearing and once at a parole revocation
>hearing. That CLPE had charted out 14 matching points (like your web
>site "matching" prints), yet he had failed to consider the obvious
>discrepancies present in the unit relationships. It was a "bum" ident
>and he was decertified by the IAI, Latent Print Certification Board
>because of it.
>
>The District Attorney, Judge and everyone in the courtroom (except the
>defendant) probably believed the CLPE's erroneous testimony (both times)
>because a neat, side-by-side chart with 14 "matching" points presented
>by a college educated CLPE with years of experience looks convincing...
>especially since experts make valid identifications on as few as 7 or 8
>matching points in some cases. Close examination of the Quincy,
>Illinois court chart actually showed no more than 3 matching points in a
>similar unit relationship when the discrepancy ridge counts and other
>factors were taken into consideration. That CLPE was very skillful at
>finding similarities between fingerprints... but was not skillful
>insofar as interpreting discrepancies in smudged or unclear ridge detail
>so as to differentiate slight distortions from unexplainable
>differences. Even one unexplainable difference normally negates an
>identification.
>
>If any CLPE makes a "bum" ident and it comes into public knowledge,
>someone will normally write the IAI, Latent Print Certification Board
>and ask that CLPE status be revoked for bringing the science of
>fingerprint identification into disrepute. I have done so twice... once
>in the Quincy, Illinois case and once involving a 30 year veteran CLPE
>with experience from LAPD and the Illinois State Police. Both were my
>friends before I filed against them. It would have been a code of
>ethics violation for me not to have filed.
>
>If you are really "into" conspiracy theories and such stuff, you may
>doubt what I say in this e-mail. I know of no way to convince you that
>I have no interest one way or the other about whether it is a valid
>identification. If you are interested in a cross-sampling of opinions
>from fingerprint experts around the world, bring clear photos of the two
>prints to the IAI Annual Educational Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas
>next month and you will have a collection of probably over 600
>fingerprint experts from around the world. I don't believe there's any
>way a conspiracy could get such a large number of international experts
>to all lie, and you could personally display the photos on a board
>during a poster session to listen to opinions from dozens of experts
>from Scotland Yard, Israel, Japan, Canada, etc. The fingerprint chart
>copies the man is holding in the image:
>http://www.njmetronet.com/jfkdpq/waltconf.JPG appear to have sufficient
>clarity to enable a definitive conclusion as to ident or non-ident.
>Info on the July IAI Conference is at
>http://www.blytheisland.com/iai/iaiconf.htm
>
>Some folks think that persons pushing strongly on conspiracy theories
>are like pro-wrestling promoters... keeping things stirred-up to make a
>profit from curiosity seekers. If the folks pushing the Malcolm Wallace
>fingerprint identification are interested in proving to the world it is
>valid, they should bring their best copies of the prints to the IAI
>Conference. If they just want to keep folks interested and don't care
>whether or not it's a bogus fingerprint identification, they should stay
>away from that conference.
>
>The bottom line is that even if it is a "bum" identification, it does
>NOT mean that Malcolm Wallace (or any other person) did not touch that
>box. With latent fingerprints WE CAN NEVER PROVE THAT SOMEONE DID NOT
>TOUCH SOMETHING... we can only identify those latent fingerprints having
>(by chance) enough continuous and clear ridge detail to effect an
>identification. There are usually a number of latent prints on evidence
>which include tiny fragments of one or two ridges and which can never be
>conclusively compared (identified or eliminated) with anyone. These
>prints are ignored as being of no evidentiary value (we don't photograph
>or otherwise preserve them)... because they cannot identify anyone and
>whether or not the exact same characteristics are present on any
>specific person's hands, does not prove that person did touch the item.
>
>I hope this long message is perhaps clearer than mud. It sounds like
>there is a lot of interesting thought being put into the JFK
>investigation still. That's great! Eventually all the truth may be
>known. All the truth is seldom known in any criminal investigation...
>and justice is the figment of twelve men and women's imagination.
>
>--Ed German
>ger...@randomc.com
>http://www.randomc.com/~german/homepro.html
>
>