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."
He is a complete waste of time and is only interested in what the warren commission tells him.NOTHING ELSE.
