Reply #144: This directly refutes your claim of the so-called "Wallace fingerprint"

[SDuderstadt]

As you can see from the excerpt of the Warren Commission Report provided below, the unidentified print was NOT a fingerprint but, instead, a PALM PRINT (which I have established before). You keep accusing me of "not being up to the debate" while you run and hide from the evidence I present that destroys your claim. I think you just can't bring yourself to admit that you've been duped by Barr McClellan, so you resort to cheesy misdirection and polemics. I keep providing evidence and you simply won't address it. Why is that?

From Chapter 6 of the Warren Commission Report (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm#p5)

"Accomplices at the Scene of the Assassination
The arrangement of boxes at the window from which the shots were fired was studied to determine whether Oswald required any assistance in moving the cartons to the window. Cartons had been stacked on the floor, a few feet behind the window, thus shielding Oswald from the view of anyone on the sixth floor who did not attempt to go behind them. (See Commission Exhibit No. 723.) Most of those cartons had been moved there by other employees to clear an area for laying a new flooring on the west end of the sixth floor. Superintendent Roy Truly testified that the floor-laying crew moved a long row of books parallel to the windows on the south side and had "quite a lot of cartons" in the southeast corner of the building. He said that there was not any particular pattern that the men used in putting them there. "They were just piled up there more or less at that time." According to Truly, "several cartons" which had been in the extreme southeast corner had been placed on top of the ones that had been piled in front of the southeast corner window.
The arrangement of the three boxes in the window and the one on which the assassin may have sat has been described previously. Two of these four boxes, weighing approximately 55 pounds each, had been moved by the floor-laying crew from the west side of the floor to the area near the southwest corner. The carton on which the assassin may have sat might not even have been moved by the assassin at all. A photograph of the scene depicts this carton on the floor alongside other similar cartons. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301.) Oswald's right palmprint on this carton may have been placed there as he was sitting on the carton rather than while carrying it. In any event both of these 55-pound cartons could have been carried by one man. The remaining two cartons contained light block-like reading aids called "Rolling Readers" weighing only about 8 pounds each. Although they had been moved approximately 40 feet from their normal locations at the southeast corner window, it would appear that one man could have done this in a matter of seconds.

In considering the possibility of accomplices at the window, the Commission evaluated the significance of the presence of fingerprints other than Oswald's on the four cartons found in and near the window. Three of Oswald's prints were developed on two of the cartons. In addition a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons. Moreover, prints were developed which were considered as not identifiable, i.e., the quality of the print was too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes.

As has been explained in chapter IV, the Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled these cartons left prints which could be identified. This was considered of some probative value in determining whether Oswald moved the cartons to the window. All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 personsan FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department who had handled the cartons during the course of the investigation. One identifiable palmprint was not identified."


Read the last sentence a couple of times and let it sink in. See? "One identifiable PALMPRINT was not identified". That's palmprint, NOT fingerprint. Please tell us how Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint could be compared to a palmprint. You can't. Your whole goofy claim falls apart right there. And all because you were too lazy to do the necessary research to see that McClellan got it wrong. I'm not sure which of you is the sloppier researcher.