Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor

[Royell Storing]

Not that I am an expert, but I viewed a film about Mr Darby's "conclusion", and I must say, if I were on a jury, I just don't believe I could "rely" on said finding that it, just one finger, was solid as an indication that Mr Wallace had been on the TSBD 6th floor on 11/22/'63. And, said finding was, I believe over 20 years after the death of MalcolmWallace.But, to each their own, and so it goes.

            Since when is "just one finger" print not enough to place someone inside a crime scene? You also need to consider that computers/national data bases were not around back then to process/cross reference the print = the 20+ year time gap. Today, DNA from 1 drop of blood is used as evidence resulting in slam dunk convictions. The same goes for "just one finger" print.

[Royell Storing]

Not that I am an expert, but I viewed a film about Mr Darby's "conclusion", and I must say, if I were on a jury, I just don't believe I could "rely" on said finding that it, just one finger, was solid as an indication that Mr Wallace had been on the TSBD 6th floor on 11/22/'63. And, said finding was, I believe over 20 years after the death of MalcolmWallace.But, to each their own, and so it goes.

          Are YOU Now wanting to run away from your opinion above?

[Denis Pointing]

            Since when is "just one finger" print not enough to place someone inside a crime scene? You also need to consider that computers/national data bases were not around back then to process/cross reference the print = the 20+ year time gap. Today, DNA from 1 drop of blood is used as evidence resulting in slam dunk convictions. The same goes for "just one finger" print.

Royell, it's not as simple as that. To positively link a fingerprint to a suspect you need a certain number of identical marks (14 rings a bell but that may be wrong) Darby claims to have identified, (whatever) the number of identical marks needed for a positive ID, but other fingerprint experts disagree with him. If there were more fingerprints available for comparison then the experts could reach a consensus but there isn't. Larry's correct, a court would never convict a suspect on just one controversial fingerprint, a defence lawyer would just pull it apart. The 'Wallace' print is certainly tantalising but like so much in this case 100% certainty is out of reach.

[Matt Grantham]

Royell, it's not as simple as that. To positively link a fingerprint to a suspect you need a certain number of identical marks (14 rings a bell but that may be wrong) Darby claims to have identified, whatever the number of identical marks are needed for a positive ID, but other fingerprint experts disagree with him. If there were more fingerprints available for comparison then the experts could reach a consensus but there isn't. Larry's correct, a court would never convict a suspect on just one controversial fingerprint, a defence lawyer would just pull it apart, unless a number of independent fingerprint experts agreed. The 'Wallace' print is certainly tantalising but like so much in this case 100% certainty is out of reach.

 The following link seems to say you need to  have ten points of comparison for a conviction from a single print
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/can-a-case-be-won-based-on-a-single-partial-fingerprint-with-no-witness-or-other-evidence-1572730.html

[Denis Pointing]

The following link seems to say you need to  have ten points of comparison for a conviction from a single print
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/can-a-case-be-won-based-on-a-single-partial-fingerprint-with-no-witness-or-other-evidence-1572730.html

OK, I already admitted I wasn't sure of the number. But to convict on just one print other fingerprint experts would need to agree. Fact is, other print experts disagree on the 'Wallace' fingerprint. I just read the link you supplied, it actually backs up what I posted. Did you read it properly?

[John Mytton]

Not Wallace.





http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/Erroneous-Match.htm



JohnM

[Denis Pointing]

I thought a palm print was in question

No, the title of this thread is; Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint from carton on 6th floor. Not; Malcolm Wallace's palmprint from carton on 6th floor.

[Royell Storing]

Royell, it's not as simple as that. To positively link a fingerprint to a suspect you need a certain number of identical marks (14 rings a bell but that may be wrong) Darby claims to have identified, (whatever) the number of identical marks needed for a positive ID, but other fingerprint experts disagree with him. If there were more fingerprints available for comparison then the experts could reach a consensus but there isn't. Larry's correct, a court would never convict a suspect on just one controversial fingerprint, a defence lawyer would just pull it apart. The 'Wallace' print is certainly tantalising but like so much in this case 100% certainty is out of reach.

           Your requiring the clearance of a  "100% Certainty" Bar also might explain why OJ walked away. With the passage of time comes a degree of uncertainty regarding any matter. Whether it be inside a court of law or inside a mind = remembrance. This goes with the territory and has to be duly accepted. To the question of whether 1 single fingerprint can convict someone, as Dick Martin used to say, "You bet your sweet bippy".