JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[JayUtah]

OK, you appear to differ in stance from your fellow nonspiracists.

Not really; he pretty much stands right next to me. If you wade through my philosophical tome above, you'll see why. A common "broken" pattern of argumentation in JFK conspiracism is to create the illusion of rigor for a case in chief by solely attacking rebuttals and failing to support affirmative claims.

Darby arrived at a 14 point match, to which he was willing to swear an affidavit, thus making it both admissible and court-ready.

But that's a uselessly low standard for this purpose, at least in the United States. Merely "admissible" doesn't say anything about it being true, or even especially strong. It merely passes the gatekeeper test for being shown to a judge or jury to be evaluated. Don't mistake "admissible in court" for "strong." The two aren't the same concept.

Swearing an affidavit that, in one's professional judgment, a certain thing seems true is not proof that it is true, or even proof that the statement of belief would stand up under any level of scrutiny. In conspiracism, swearing something before a notary is the equivalent of free-energy proponents patenting their various inventions. A patent is no guarantee that the device works, just as an affidavit is no guarantee that a statement is true. But these notary mechanisms are often employed by unscrupulous proponents and authors to bolster public confidence in the statement, among those readers who don't know what the notarization means.

Putting an expert's opinion in an affidavit is a little like putting whipped cream on a lily pad. There simply is no point. Affidavits are meant to record attestations of putative fact under oath, for lay witnesses. Eyewitness testimony is a different kind of thing than expert testimony. When you say fingerprint matching is more art than science -- regardless of whether that's factually the case -- it logically follows that two qualified experts could look at the same set of fingerprints and undeceptively draw two different conclusions. Each could set his opinion down in an affidavit and neither would have perjured himself.

Now let me raise another issue. There is an historical standard of proof and a mode of arguing it, and separately a legal standard of proof and a very different mode of arguing it. One of the dubious approaches JFK conspiracy advocates take is to characterize the debate as a criminal case against Oswald, in which they act in loco curiae to exonerate him. But in doing so, they take advantage of easy "outs" and other concepts of law that lighten the defense's burden of proof. And this makes their arguments unconvincing in an historical sense, which ultimately is a more suitable standard because it more directly addresses the question, "Who, of all people, is mostly likely to have killed Kennedy?"

Be careful that your invocation of legal concepts doesn't disserve a rigorous examination of your claims.

I don't think the photocopy issue is a crucial point. It would have been better if the ID was made from an original, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't utterly condemn it.

It doesn't have to be utterly condemned to be rendered less credible than some other explanation that leaves fewer loose ends.

And again, what are the odds that the vagaries of photocopying would randomly produce 14 or 36 apparent loci that matched...

What are the odds? Do you know how to compute them? If not, then here you're just begging the question. Specifically the question you're begging is that loss of fidelity in the source materials would necessarily reduce the chance of a false-positive in one expert's judgment rather than possibly increasing it.

...a convicted murderer with ties to the assassination's chief benefactor? This is stretching your case a bit imho.

No, this is you reasoning in circles. You're looking at one tiny point of the evidentiary puzzle and formulating global hypotheses based on that tiny view. Step back and look at the hypothesis in the scope where it exists.

You're assuming Johnson wanted Kennedy out of the way, the "chief benefactor" assertion. Based on that, you assume further that Kennedy's death had to occur, as opposed simply to defeating him politically. Based on that, you assume further that Johnson would send someone with a verifiable criminal record to commit the murder. At this level you also assume the planned murder would be messy and public and attract a lot of attention from all sources, as opposed to being more sensible. Based on all that, you assume further that Wallace -- the professional killer -- would be so stupid as to leave fingerprints at the scene of the very public crime he had orchestrated.

Do you see how this really amounts to a long chain of assumption and speculation? And when you realize that your chain of assumption is only one of many possible explanations and outcomes, you understand why we don't necessarily follow you. What's required on your end is belief in a lengthy, incredible chain of events that is improbable on its face, for reasons I discussed yesterday. What's required on our end is that one fingerprint examiner, working with unsure data, made an error.

The notion of parsimony applies here. But the circularity is that you're using Wallace's character and connections from the conspiracy theory you're trying to prove as additional reasons to believe that the only physical evidence in favor of your theory must be interpreted to support it. You can't taint the fingerprint identification question with what arises from your assumptions elsewhere. That's bad science.

Clear enough, but not soundly reasoned. The fact that fingerprint verification is not an exact science does not make it unimportant from a legal point of view. In your haste to junk the Wallace ID, you are throwing out the entire field of fingerprint forensics, which I am sure you do not intend.

No, he didn't intend that. So don't push him there. Yours is a classic straw-man response, expressed as a false dilemma.

In one sense, you're simply being asked to reconcile your premises with the claims you base on them, regardless of whether the premise is true. The nature of your evidence here is a varied expert judgment applied to ambiguous data. Hence you supply the premise that ambiguity is inherent to the fingerprinting field, so that variance in the evidence can't be used as a refutation. But in doing so you omit that a rising tide raises all boats, so that ambiguity also explains why one outlying expert can reach a different conclusion. In this sense your argument is internally inconsistent.

In another sense you're being presented with middle ground. Fingerprint forensics can be rigorous enough to serve a legal purpose. But that doesn't mean all examples of its use are so rigorous. It's not the art-versus-science debate; it's simply that any expression of scientific inquiry, no matter how theoretically or procedurally rigorous, will contain some measure of ambiguity for reasons including, but not limited to, quality of the input data. It is possible to reject one outlying analysis without condemning the entire field as bogus.

"My lot"? Although a majority of US citizens believe there was a JFK conspiracy, this is a widely scattered field with many competing theories...

That's why the statistic is a meaningless appeal to the gallery. I know I sound like a broken record, but I discuss this at some length above. Also, I don't think it's the point you want to discuss at this moment.

So I think it's unfair to suggest all conspiracy theorists think or behave alike.

Yes, it would be unfair. Nevertheless there are identifiable patterns of faulty reasoning and rhetoric that seem to apply to most of the theories, if not all of them. So the fairest way I can say it is that JFK conspiracy theories are all alike in some ways, but different in other ways.

You fail to understand what I have stated repeatedly, that a non-confirmed match does not become a negated match.

No, but a non-confirmed match is less likely to be believed than a confirmed one. In terms of science the procedure is clear: the null hypothesis is that any two given fingerprint specimens are not from the same person. Hence we hold as presumption that they are not identical, which is not the same as having proved that they aren't. But in the face of failing to prove they are identical to some suitable standard, the presumption remains the rational belief.

So the fingerprint itself is one strand in a larger evidence set, and can't really be considered in isolation.

But as many have shown, as soon as you expand the scope of inquiry, the hypothesis that Wallace killed Kennedy from the depository at Lyndon Johnson's orders fails badly for easy reasons. Thus, the more parsimonious answer is that the fingerprint identification known to be ambiguous is, in fact, mistaken.

I would refer you to my original challenge. Calculate the odds of an unidentified individual with fingerprints that match a convicted murderer's prints, being present at the crime scene on the day of the assassination, with an innocent reason for being there.

Too many variables with uncomputable values. But let's decompose the problem anyway.

"[F]ingerprints that match" skips over an important calculation: the probability that the prints do, in fact, match. Calculating odds of one outcome means calculating its likelihood among all other possible outcomes, including mistaken fingerprint identification. In the case of a mistake, the alternative hypothesis is simply that someone with suitably similar fingerprints touched the box within the appropriate time window, and we end the equation right there.

"[C]onvicted murder... with an innocent reason" begs the question of all that person's intent. It absurdly presumes that an offense someone once committed must be all his business at all times hereafter. Even criminals released from prison go about other activities besides repeating the offense for which they were once imprisoned. You cannot presume that someone with a criminal record always has nefarious intent or is always employed in that capacity.

"[A]t the crime scene" has two possible motives. Being there before the crime is committed, i.e., to set it up, has one connotation. Being there afterward because it is a crime scene and therefore interesting and attractive is another connotation.

Now on to the variables you don't state, but which I believe pertain.

You have to consider the probability that Wallace was there under Johnson's orders as opposed to his own reasons. Since there's only very scant evidence (mostly claims from other problematic figures) that Wallace was ever Johnson's "crony," that claim is dubious. And you have to consider other orders besides, "Go kill Kennedy." Johnson was indeed a shrewd political schemer, and I can easily imagine him calling up Wallace and saying, "Hey Mac, git over there to the building and see what the hell is going on, and see if this is gonna make trouble for me." That would make sense, and would probably be done "under the table" even if Johnson had no direct involvement. Your assessment of the relative probabilities seems heavily biased by opinions such as Barr McClellan's -- i.e., presuming that Johnson was criminally involved.

What is the probability that Johnson -- assuming he wanted Kennedy out of the way in order to assume the Presidency himself -- would have him murdered (thus implicating himself in a first-degree felony) rather than employ a Francis Urquhardt style political trap for which Johnson was justly famous?

What is the probability, if murder were the choice, that Johnson would mandate it done in such a sloppy, public way as opposed to any number of ways that would have been available to Johnson but to few else?

What is the probability he would hire Mac Wallace -- a man who got caught and was therefore a poor murderer, to do this most important crime? Johnson would have had access to any number of professional hit men. Wallace's crime had likely been one of jealousy (he and his victim were seeing the same woman, Johnson's sister), not the elaborate, unevidenced blackmail theory. Wallace, having a criminal record, would have been much easier for the police to identify, track down, and arrest.

All these variables except the first one are conditional probabilities, the condition being the match of the fingerprint. The combinatorics of the "tree" of alternatives stemming from that fairly guarantee a small probability for your hypothesis. That's before we add the entire other branch of the tree stemming from a false positive fingerprint match.

Or, if you prefer to dwell on the second-best nature of the evidence's quality, calculate the odds of a photocopier randomly producing a match to that same unidentified individual.

This is more tractable.

"[R]andomly" is unwarranted. Photocopiers do not alter images in random ways, but in predictable ways including spatial distortion (linear and nonlinear), luminosity distortion, and preferential deposition of contaminants on optical and electrostatic surfaces.

Fingerprints are not random; they are geometrically patterned information. In most forensic contexts, data sets are not complete. In this case explicitly so. The introduction of noise into an interpretive context where pattern-matching is somewhat extrapolatory in the best case indeed has the potential to convolve two ordered systems in way to create a confident impression of non-existent patterns. The Moire effect is a rudimentary example of how that arises.

"[P]roducing a match" skips over the important subjective elements, which you have already stipulated. Noise doesn't have to "produce a match," as if this were an objectively indicated outcome. It has to produce the impression of a match in the subjective interpretation of the examiner. When this happens to only one examiner and is not confirmed, the probability does not favor your hypothesis.

 

[I Ratant]

Page 116 in the WCR covers Tague.
Pages 248 to 252 in the WCR covers many of these "additions" to the evidence chain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Not at all, although it would certainly be news to you, who does not currently understand the difference between lack of confirmation and invalidation.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

As I have now said more times than I can count, these are two different processes, so your attempted satire falls flat on its metaphorical behind due to your inadvertently-evidenced ignorance.

Yes. You do keep repeating that rather than actually addressing the point I was making,.

Also, are you really suggesting that a suspect could face trial, let alone conviction, if the only evidence against him were a fingerprint?

No. Do you know how you can tell that is not what I said?
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.
Of course, what use a fingerprint would be if it were an object d'art rather than a source of objective analysis would be interesting to find out. Please stop pretending that others are ignorant to cover for your own lack of understanding.

Really? Is that what you actually believe? Please elaborate either way. (I am giving you the opportunity to abandon this extravagantly unwise position without embarrassment to yourself, I advise you to take it with both hands).

No. It clearly is not. It is a strawman of your own creation.

St Randi describes himself as a 'debunker' does he not? I had thought the term was understood around here as referring to one who takes it upon himself to attempt to disprove "extraordinary claims".

And where exactly did I state my philosophy was that of Randi or vice versa?

OK then, rather than debunking a debunker, I have destroyed the argument of a critic. What difference does it make? His argument still isn't worth jack.

If you need to be told the difference, you still miss the point.

On the contrary, the claim emerged from blind test conditions following up on a witness statement. That claim was then confirmed by a second expert, who chickened out and tried to retract.

Blind test conditions of sources selected how?
You can of course prove the motive was "chickening out" and not "found there was grounds to claim a match after further study"?
How can a blind study follow a witness statement? As that suggests pre-selection of potential matches and ergo, no blinding.

Oh and that witness statement tallies with what other evidence?

The claim then proceeded to become the subject of a *ahem* critic's argument. That critic's argument has been shot down in flames. The claim has passed scrutiny.

No it has not. If it had passed the scrutiny of third parties it would be accepted. That I debate it means, by simple logic, it has not passed my scrutiny.
It did not pass the scrutiny of the expert who *ahem* chickened out.
It did not pass scrutiny of the FBI.
It has sever questions in place that you fail to address.
You do not get to declare if others who scrutinize it accept it or not. Stop trying. It looks childish.

Not sure what you are referring to by "thirty year old issues" and I suspect you aren't entirely clear either.

So you can't work out that a piece of evidence that stems from a thirty year old witness statement (as you confirmed above) has thirty year old issues? Really?

This is just pedantry, and irrelevant. There is a fingerprint methodology, the same as there is an identikit methodology. Both are non-scientific.

No. Because making a representation of a memory with an identikit is not the same as measuring features on a physical print for points of measurement that match other samples. Fingerprinting is no more an art than chemical analysis, DNA analysis or even measuring a speed with a speed gun. If you believe this is irrelevant then please explain exactly what use the fingerprint is and why you are basing your entire theory on something that is an unscientific art, rather than a point of objective study that confirms the presence of an individual?

If you did not understand the implications of your own post, retract it.

For the umpteenth time, not finding a match is NOT the same thing as disproving an identification.

Well done. Very nice. If you want to answer what was asked go ahead.
You keep referring to the FBI methodology to lambast a debunker. So lets look at the folks who use the FBI methodology. The FBI. They said no match. Why?

They. Are. Two. Separate. Processes.

Yes. I know. Quote a post where I said otherwise.

Please write this out 500 times until you have got it.

Wow, more condescension. Not much of a substitute for an argument.

Assume for a second I know they are two processes. Talk about the one I am asking about.

Or admit you have no answer. Either would save face.

 

[mikegriffith1]

More than that:
All three shells were found with Oswalds gun. Both recovered bullets were from his gun. A gun he used for another attempted murder. The photographs are not only genuine, signed copies were given out to at least one person who was able to produce it.

More recently we have seen stabilised footage from a home movie of the day (yep the Zapruda film was not the only one) that clearly shows Oswald in the TSBD window with his rifle, exactly how at least one witness described him.

Oswald remains the only person for whom we have any evidence of firing any bullets at JFK that day.

This is not only fiction, but badly outdated fiction. It's like you're caught in a time warp and you're stuck in 1964 or something. Every single point of supposed evidence that you cite is either riddled with problems or has been debunked.

You might start here:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, so you accept by default my debunking of the debunker? That's progress.

Pardon? It is progress to have been saying the same thing since the start of the thread? Do you even try to understand what people post here?

I have explained why I think the evidence is valid and creditable, and this has not IMHO been adequately dismissed, and I have debunked the proffered debunker. There is therefore effectively no opposition to the Wallace print ID.

Unfortunately if you want to discuss this with others you have to persuade them of the credibility, not assume it will be accepted.

If you have new concerns that I have not so far addressed, I am all ears. But I suspect we are due another spin on the merry-go-round.

All ears and no answers then. Save yourself another go around. Look at the posts that already state them.

Here's a simple one. Stop telling me that failing to match results is different from debunking results. Just tell me WHY the FBI declared no match with the methodology you hold as a standard.

That would be unwise, since I have already stated that I am more than happy to discuss possible reasons.

And yet you wont. Look. Another post where you offer no reason the FBI will find a result of No Match using the methodology you held as a standard in your own posts.

This remark was however addressed to someone else, so perhaps it's unfair to expect you to have read it, let alone metabolised it. So I reiterate that willingness now for you personally.

And yet you fail to do it. You talk a lot about willing, but show none.

I think it's a waste of everyone's time though. As I have said, a failed match is not a negation.

No. But neither is it beyond consideration.
A theory best fits all evidence. Not just the interpretation you like the most. Please stop pretending anybody is playing top trumps with experts. Please instead offer a valid reason to account for the failures to match results, other than the evidence is not solid and passed all scrutiny.

By the very definition, it has been placed under scrutiny and not always been found beyond reproach.

They are two completely discrete processes. Quite why this doesn't seem to be sinking in, I really don't understand, but I am fairly patient and understand that new concepts take time to be assimilated, especially when they conflict with an individual's long-established thought-patterns.

Yet more misrepresentation of the point.

That would be an assumption of bad faith on your part, and would tend to suggest more about your character than it proves about mine.

So it is fine for you to make assumptions when points are not addressed. But not for others to do?

You are wrong then. It is only your character, as with your consistent condescending tone, that is commented on by this.

I believe I have addressed all the concerns put to me. I may be mistaken in that, so feel free to provide as brief a précis as possible, please.

Already provided. But why should I bother? You will only pretend I am conflating two different issues and continue to fail to answer.

People keep demanding I respond to their concerns about the print. I have a set of established facts and related evidence to which I keep referring.

People want you to be able to prove the things you say are facts ARE INDEED FACTS. You fail to do so. You have shown they are facts to nobodies satisfaction than your own.

In a nonspiracist, this would probably be characterised as 'consistency'.

So, you were told the word was condescending, you said it was not meant to be, but you continue to use it despite its apparent insult?
Are you a child?

In a conspiracist it automatically gets characterised as somehow disreputable. However, I do not repine, and I am optimistic that my point will eventually percolate through to daylight.

You will find people more open to it if you got around to answering those questions.

I am not the one who keeps returning to them.

You brought them up. The point will be stop being returned to when you get two disparate points of yours to match up.

I have a solid print ID that has been confirmed and which meets the FBI's print-matching criteria.

But not by the FBI. Whose criteria once again you claim as a yard stick. Why? WHY?

I have also demolished that print ID's sole exemplary critic as an irrelevant buffoon.

If you say so. When are you going to answer your critics here?
Anything to say about the FBI failing to make a match other than it is not a negation?
Anything to say about why it was not declared a match after due study, other than a chap being a 'chicken?
Anything to say about the changes to prints when the finger is under pressure?
Care to offer a new theory you think best fits all evidence?
Still no...?

I am more than happy to move on from this point, but people keep dragging me back again and again, demanding that I satisfy 100 per cent their individual highly-personalised and frequently unreasonable demands.

Perhaps you should stop telling them it has passed their scrutiny. This is the process of scrutiny. This is the critique you asked for. Why is that a problem?

Lets not forget YOU apply the unreasonable demands. A request for a theory suddenly in your reply became a request for a theory with no loose ends. YOU made the requests unreasonable. Don't blame others.

Also, mischaracterising me as 'stamping my feet' is getting dangerously close to an ad hom. I will report you, or anyone, who crosses that line. Just friendly advice.

Feel free. If the mods agree they will punish me. But it is how you seem. You wont answer questions. You misrepresent points. You complain people wont just accept your claims. You call others buffoons. Seems a lot like foot stamping to me.

That insult has now been reported to the moderators. The rest of your paragraph is hilariously and cosmically irrelevant. Have a nice day.

So when you wrote "will report" you meant "have reported"?
I'm sorry you think your theory and 'research' withstanding scrutiny is irrelevant.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is not only fiction, but badly outdated fiction. It's like you're caught in a time warp and you're stuck in 1964 or something. Every single point of supposed evidence that you cite is either riddled with problems or has been debunked.

You might start here:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

Please see the last few hundred pages of discussion here or in the previous thread. Those arguments have been discussed.

 

[supposenot]

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I don't believe I was doing so. But OK, let's assume I totally misunderstood what you were explicitly stating, when you said: "[It will be newsworthy] that identifications once made are not invalidated or even brought into question by a failure to replicate the match by third parties."

What did you actually mean? Spell it out. Be bold. You've got me on the ropes, here.

Yes. You do keep repeating that rather than actually addressing the point I was making,

I don't think you had a point that you are willing to reiterate, to be totally honest. But let's assume you did, in a spirit of inquiry. What was it? Again, feel free to deploy capslock if it helps.

No. Do you know how you can tell that is not what I said?
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

I did not say it did. I said you appeared to be suggesting it. To be precise you used the following words: "The very thought that so many criminals need only have somebody offer a subjective opinion on key evidence in a criminal trial"

You didn't apparently finish that train of thought, but the implication is very clear: "... in order to get off scot-free".

That clearly suggests you are willing to believe that someone could possibly be convicted on the strength of a fingerprint, with no other evidence.

Of course, what use a fingerprint would be if it were an object d'art rather than a source of objective analysis would be interesting to find out.

What a bizarre and irrelevant flight of fancy.

Please stop pretending that others are ignorant to cover for your own lack of understanding.

Ok, be specific. What am I failing to understand?

You need to be specific and provide actual examples unless you want me (or any reasonable observer) to dismiss this as a rather feeble outbreak of handwaving on your part.

No. It clearly is not. It is a strawman of your own creation.

Actually as I have shown above, it is a viable and logical implication of your own unfinished chain of thought. I asked if you were really suggesting such a thing, I didn't state as a fact that you had demonstrably said it, or pluck it entire and complete out of my own imagination. You apparently don't know what a strawman is.

And where exactly did I state my philosophy was that of Randi or vice versa?

You are a conspiracy theory sceptic posting on a board hosted by the James Randi Educational Forum. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to allude to Randi's self-proclaimed status as a professional debunker as a guiding spirit of sceptical endeavour conducted therein.

And don't put words into my mouth, please, it's very dishonest.

If you need to be told the difference, you still miss the point.

I appreciate the difference upon which you are (solipsistically) insisting, and was therefore indulging your little personal whim, since I couldn't see any harm in doing so.

My original point (which you obviously cannot comprehend) is that it doesn't matter how you characterise or rebrand this so-called "expert", his argument still amounts to absolutely diddly-squat because it has been comprehensively trashed beyond repair.

Blind test conditions of sources selected how?

I'm not sure that the above constitutes a grammatical sentence, although I do not propose to waste time proving it one way or the other. I am going to address what I think you are asking, and you can tell me if I have interpreted your question correctly. If I haven't I'll try again.

You are asking how the sources (the Wallace fingerprint and the "unidentified" TSBD print) came to be compared.

That is very simple indeed, and while I understand your curiosity on the matter, it is not critical as far as I can see.

But the answer is: Collum and Sample had Loy Factor's confession, which implicated Mac Wallace. They therefore obtained copies of a known Wallace print (from his *ahem* previous criminal record as a murderer) and the TSBD prints. They then put these to a print expert without informing him of the background of the case or the source of the fingerprints he had to compare.

You can of course prove the motive was "chickening out" and not "found there was grounds to claim a match after further study"?

"Chickening out" is my own characterisation of the fact that he attempted to withdraw his ID once he had made a confirmation and was told the sources, but yes, that is correct. If you are suggesting he arrived at this conclusion "after further study", then you need to prove that (which you will not, by the way).

How can a blind study follow a witness statement? As that suggests pre-selection of potential matches and ergo, no blinding.

I think you are confusing a fingerprinter's "blind match" with a scientific "double-blind" procedure. All "blind match" means in this context is that the finger print matcher did not know who or where the prints came from. So you can relax again.

Oh and that witness statement tallies with what other evidence?

The fingerprint evidence and the Estes confession of course. How many times do we have to go through with this?

No it has not. If it had passed the scrutiny of third parties it would be accepted. That I debate it means, by simple logic, it has not passed my scrutiny.

With respect, your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant to the scrutiny question, since if we afforded any analytical weight to your opinion, we would then have to find reasons not to consider the opinion of anyone else on the planet who declared themselves relevant.

This, I would venture to suggest, could potentially prove difficult to accommodate and perhaps even damaging to the scrutiny process itself.

Unless you have some undisclosed reason for believing that your opinion bears a weight comparable to (or even approaching that of) two professional fingerprint examiners and the FBI's matching methodology.

If you have such a reason, please declare it now.

It did not pass the scrutiny of the expert who *ahem* chickened out.

Yes it did. If you are implying he withdrew on the basis of further analysis, you need to evidence that (you will not manage this).

It did not pass scrutiny of the FBI.

For the umpteenth time, a lack of confirmation does not negate the original identification.

You have been told this many times, and have even claimed to understand it (above, in this very post).

I therefore now put it to you that you are simply plucking objections out of the air with no regard for (or understanding of) how such evidence is assessed. Care to comment?

It has sever questions in place that you fail to address.

Yeah, yeah. I have faced down such hand-waving before. If you have questions that I haven't addressed, why not produce them instead of issuing dire hints?

You do not get to declare if others who scrutinize it accept it or not.

This simply demonstrates your own lack of understanding, rather than accurately reflecting my position on the matter. I am willing to assume this is due to ignorance of the matter in hand rather than malice.

Stop trying. It looks childish.

But this is verging on ad hom territory. My finger is poised to report you if you continue in this vein.

So you can't work out that a piece of evidence that stems from a thirty year old witness statement (as you confirmed above) has thirty year old issues? Really?

Oh right, I'm with you now. You're all of a sudden addressing the Billie Sol Estes confession. Is that right? Odd, I thought we were discussing the fingerprint, but there is apparently no accounting for your sudden and unannounced changes of subject.

No. Because making a representation of a memory with an identikit is not the same as measuring features on a physical print for points of measurement that match other samples.

The fact that you refer to 'measuring features' indicates that you still don't understand fingerprinting. No measurements are involved at any stage.

Fingerprinting is no more an art than chemical analysis, DNA analysis or even measuring a speed with a speed gun.

So you say. However, you are totally and utterly wrong. If you believe fingerprinting is an algorithmic process rather than a heuristic one, and an unfalsifiable one at that (which point alone completely destroys your attempt to christen it a science) then let's see your source for this claim.

If you believe this is irrelevant then please explain exactly what use the fingerprint is and why you are basing your entire theory on something that is an unscientific art, rather than a point of objective study that confirms the presence of an individual?

You are now asking me to explain to you the entire history and theory of fingerprint analysis, and to justify its use in law from scratch.

I'm going to be politer here than I should be: GO READ A BOOK.

If you did not understand the implications of your own post, retract it.

This is comedy gold.

Well done. Very nice. If you want to answer what was asked go ahead.
You keep referring to the FBI methodology to lambast a debunker. So lets look at the folks who use the FBI methodology. The FBI. They said no match. Why?

I have no idea, and nor have you, because they have failed to make their results publicly available, instead issuing a one-line comment stating no match.

I personally suspect (but cannot prove) the FBI's failure to confirm a match was probably erroneous, and I am happy to discuss why.

Yes. I know. Quote a post where I said otherwise.

You have patently done so twice within this current post.

Wow, more condescension. Not much of a substitute for an argument.

It wasn't condescension, it was exasperation. Condescension is when someone talks down to you, but you don't need to worry your pretty little head about that, do you?

See the difference?

Assume for a second I know they are two processes.

I didn't anticipate that this thread would involve role-play. Will my imagination stretch as far as you are demanding? It's a tall order on your current form.

Talk about the one I am asking about.

Or admit you have no answer. Either would save face.

Nice attempt at a forced choice, which means several minus points for your (already rock-bottom imho) credibility.

But I am actually forced to concede that I am no longer able to follow your argument (or what you claim is your argument, which notion I am kindly going along with).

So far we have established that you don't understand the difference between a non-confirmation and a positive exclusion, you think fingerprinting is a science (although where you get this idea remains mysterious), you don't understand the history of fingerprinting, and you explicitly want me to justify its use in the criminal justice system.

I say your demands and claims are self-evidently impertinent, of dubious relevance and very unreasonable in their nature, scope and character, and I therefore say: "To Hell with them."

I reiterate my advice to read a book. Or perhaps one day, someone will invent the greatest research tool in the history of the known universe, and it will be available to everyday citizens and interested parties, who might be able to use indexing terms to call up a wide range of evidence, essays, arguments, articles and pictures and then select one particular source to examine from the results displayed, and then absorb them at leisure in the privacy of their own home, thus proving an almost limitless source of education and entertainment.

Far-fetched I know, but just imagine that! It could actually happen one day!

Why, I've even thought of a name for it -- we could call it "The trouser-press."

 

[Tomtomkent]

But that's a uselessly low standard for this purpose, at least in the United States. Merely "admissible" doesn't say anything about it being true, or even especially strong. It merely passes the gatekeeper test for being shown to a judge or jury to be evaluated. Don't mistake "admissible in court" for "strong." The two aren't the same concept.

Very true. Otherwise how would a court function? No evidence could ever be questioned or scrutinised, no counterpoint made. There does seem to be a misunderstanding of several factors that this neatly sums up.

It doesn't have to be utterly condemned to be rendered less credible than some other explanation that leaves fewer loose ends.

I have never understood this binary logic. Everything falls into two states. Either the evidence is perfect or it is useless. This is not true, and infuriating when the standard of the evidence is being questioned. It is not as though anybody has said the print is absolutely a false identification because of the issues raised. The argument here has been one that the "solid evidence" is not solid, and not enough to claim a fact.
The chap says himself that failure to match a result may not be a complete negation. Yet seems to ignore any other possibility, like the identification being less certain, or the methodology called into question. Very much a case of no middle ground, ignoring the majority of possible conclusions.

No, this is you reasoning in circles. You're looking at one tiny point of the evidentiary puzzle and formulating global hypotheses based on that tiny view. Step back and look at the hypothesis in the scope where it exists.

Like I said: Another go around the merry go round.

You're assuming Johnson wanted Kennedy out of the way, the "chief benefactor" assertion. Based on that, you assume further that Kennedy's death had to occur, as opposed simply to defeating him politically. Based on that, you assume further that Johnson would send someone with a verifiable criminal record to commit the murder. At this level you also assume the planned murder would be messy and public and attract a lot of attention from all sources, as opposed to being more sensible. Based on all that, you assume further that Wallace -- the professional killer -- would be so stupid as to leave fingerprints at the scene of the very public crime he had orchestrated.

As I said before, even if we accept the first few assumptions, the rest do not follow. Assume you are LBJ. Assume you heard all the wild guesses that the Secret Service, spies, military industrial complex, or anybody else might have shot JFK. Hell, assume you just didn't know what was going on yet and if you were in the firing line. But you have a trouble shooter who you can use your authority to get on the scene to look around. Is that not a possibility? Hell, if we believe the CT, that LBJ was THAT willing to kill his enemies, even if it was a lone nut you might want it killed to save worrying about a trial.

It is a hell of a jump from Wallace was there to Wallace was the shooter. Or Wallace helped LHO. The ONLY reason it has any credence is because of witness testimony that "has issues" to say the least!

What's required on your end is belief in a lengthy, incredible chain of events that is improbable on its face, for reasons I discussed yesterday. What's required on our end is that one fingerprint examiner, working with unsure data, made an error.

Which apparently no amount of dissent will erode or remove. Even if the accuracy of a match is hampered by factors such as the quality of the photocopy or the injury that altered the comparison print, etc.

The notion of parsimony applies here. But the circularity is that you're using Wallace's character and connections from the conspiracy theory you're trying to prove as additional reasons to believe that the only physical evidence in favor of your theory must be interpreted to support it. You can't taint the fingerprint identification question with what arises from your assumptions elsewhere. That's bad science.

What about bad art?

In one sense, you're simply being asked to reconcile your premises with the claims you base on them, regardless of whether the premise is true. The nature of your evidence here is a varied expert judgment applied to ambiguous data. Hence you supply the premise that ambiguity is inherent to the fingerprinting field, so that variance in the evidence can't be used as a refutation. But in doing so you omit that a rising tide raises all boats, so that ambiguity also explains why one outlying expert can reach a different conclusion. In this sense your argument is internally inconsistent.

Exactly. In the first sense I was asking why standard does not apply to all. The print is a fact established by a blinded test. Except when it is art. Either there is a flaw the chap has not seen in his logic, or a double standard. If he actually wants critique and analysis of his claims, he should be grateful for this being pointed out and not respond in the manner displayed so far.

In another sense you're being presented with middle ground. Fingerprint forensics can be rigorous enough to serve a legal purpose. But that doesn't mean all examples of its use are so rigorous. It's not the art-versus-science debate; it's simply that any expression of scientific inquiry, no matter how theoretically or procedurally rigorous, will contain some measure of ambiguity for reasons including, but not limited to, quality of the input data. It is possible to reject one outlying analysis without condemning the entire field as bogus.

And again, in the second, as mentioned above this was plea for more of the possible outcomes and reasons for No Match results to be considered.

It is one thing to repeat over and over that No Match is not a negation of a Match, but if somebody keeps questioning my understanding it would be nice if they took a realistic view of how other conclusions can be reached, and the implications of these results on the claim it is a "solid fact".

No, but a non-confirmed match is less likely to be believed than a confirmed one. In terms of science the procedure is clear: the null hypothesis is that any two given fingerprint specimens are not from the same person. Hence we hold as presumption that they are not identical, which is not the same as having proved that they aren't. But in the face of failing to prove they are identical to some suitable standard, the presumption remains the rational belief.

Sorry. I genuinely did not make this clear. I assumed it would be understood by all parties. My thanks to you for pointing it out.

But as many have shown, as soon as you expand the scope of inquiry, the hypothesis that Wallace killed Kennedy from the depository at Lyndon Johnson's orders fails badly for easy reasons. Thus, the more parsimonious answer is that the fingerprint identification known to be ambiguous is, in fact, mistaken.

Or has another explanation.
Or is inconclusive.
Etc.

Fingerprints are not random; they are geometrically patterned information. In most forensic contexts, data sets are not complete. In this case explicitly so. The introduction of noise into an interpretive context where pattern-matching is somewhat extrapolatory in the best case indeed has the potential to convolve two ordered systems in way to create a confident impression of non-existent patterns. The Moire effect is a rudimentary example of how that arises.

"[P]roducing a match" skips over the important subjective elements, which you have already stipulated. Noise doesn't have to "produce a match," as if this were an objectively indicated outcome. It has to produce the impression of a match in the subjective interpretation of the examiner. When this happens to only one examiner and is not confirmed, the probability does not favor your hypothesis.

And probability is not "All or Nothing". A match can be a possible match, but that does not make it the most plausible outcome.

 

[supposenot]

That previous post appears (at first glance, I haven't actually read through it) to be assigning quotes to me when they are in fact from someone else.

I presume this is some species of quote-function error, because I do not immediately recognise the statements as my own, or the arguments proposed therein as being germane to my stated position (in fact, it would appear quite the opposite).

An explanation for this anomaly would be appreciated, although probably not vitally required.

And further to my above enormo-post, I am not going to reply to that particular poster again this evening, to give him a chance to sort his argument out into a coherent form, and to give me a break from having to try to make sense of what he says.

 

[I Ratant]

This is not only fiction, but badly outdated fiction. It's like you're caught in a time warp and you're stuck in 1964 or something. Every single point of supposed evidence that you cite is either riddled with problems or has been debunked.

You might start here:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm

.
Quoting Griffith, which has been previously addressed, who quotes Jack White.. Is a compounded felony!
Here's a Jack White-Robert Groden teaming on photoanal ysis of a specific event in the Zapruder film.
It was posted on JFK Lancer in 1998.
And my posts there on that subject.
Dot matrix prints.. sorry about that..

 

[JayUtah]

OK then, rather than debunking a debunker, I have destroyed the argument of a critic. What difference does it make?

None. Because while you should avoid labels as a matter of good form, the problem with your approach is not the label.

His argument still isn't worth jack.

That wouldn't mean yours is.

That critic's argument has been shot down in flames. The claim has passed scrutiny.

No.

"My hypothesis must be true because the rebuttal failed" is one of the most fundamental and oft-committed logical errors in argumentation. It also happens to be one to which JFK conspiracy theories are especially susceptible. It's a fallacy because there may be other ways in which your hypothesis could fail.

Even if you believe you have successfully deflected a rebuttal, that doesn't mean you have pre-emptively deflected all possible rebuttals. That would have to be the case were your hypothesis true: "truth" means exactly that no successful rebuttal is possible. But having deflected one, two, or even several rebuttals does not ensure truth.

There is some value in saying a case has not been successfully rebutted after some effort, but that is not the same as saying the hypothesis is true. That's why courts find someone "not guilty" rather than "innocent" -- one means the failure of a proposition; the other means the affirmation of its converse. You've written things in this forum that suggest you understand and accept this principle.

Another way your hypothesis might fail is simply that its case-in-chief fails. In legal terms, "case-in-chief" means the original, affirmative case presented in support of a proposition. At JREF this most often means the "OP" or "original post[er]," and refers in many cases to the first post in a thread, or a particular poster's first post in a thread. Regardless of what you label it, a case-in-chief may fail its burden of proof without even being rebutted. Even if a rebuttal is offered, and validly deflected, the original insufficiency is still fatal damage to the proposition.

Indulge me in an absurd analogy.

Tom: I believe a flying spaghetti monster killed Kennedy from the depository window.
Dick: If that's true, wouldn't there be tomato sauce on the sixth floor? None was found.
Tom: But the monster could have cleaned up after himself, or have been wrapped in plastic.
Dick: That's possible.
Tom: Then your rebuttal fails and I have proved who killed Kennedy.​

Here the case-in-chief is not only absurd but additionally unproven. Regardless of Dick's failed rebuttal, Tom never proved that flying spaghetti monsters exist, have the properties he ascribes to them, nor that any one specific one was present at the crime scene and performed the hypothesized tasks. All these and more are necessary for an affirmative proof.

We harp on this because many JFK conspiracy theories are structured this way, and if a critic happens to fall victim to the "trap," the proponent can then credibly shift the burden of proof. Specifically we entertain a lot of highly speculative hypotheses involving many complicated elements for which there is little if any affirmative proof.

If a hypothesis fails to meet its case-in-chief burden of proof, the proper response is simply to say it's too flimsy and too speculative to succeed. But while that's logically correct, it's rhetorically unsatisfying. The critic is compelled to give at least one intellectually satisfying reason to disbelieve the hypothesis. Once this is given, the original proponent is then validated in a demand for more rebuttals that he can attack or muddy up, or for excuses why his dismissals of prior rebuttals shouldn't stand.

But soon this exercise entirely supplants what should be repairing the case-in-chief, not from damage done by rebuttals, but by its original insufficiency. This has the effect of reversing the burden of proof: the proponent believes others have a universal responsibility to disprove him. Hence so many JFK conspiracy theories involve little more than slamming critics.

Here you already admit that your case-in-chief is unproven -- that you can't prove the "mechanics" of how you say it happened. Unfortunately that means we reject the case right there, on those grounds. The "mechanics" are not mere adjuncts. It is the bulk of your case-in-chief, and no amount of parried rebuttal compensates for your failure to establish it.

Not sure what you are referring to by "thirty year old issues"...

A pattern of conspiracy argumentation is to bring up old issues that underwent a lot of scrutiny at the time, and presenting them as new issues or unresolved issues. This sort of "fringe reset" refreshment gets rhetorical mileage for its author, but does not result in probative historical value.

The case-in-chief here failed decades ago -- the mid-1990s if I recall correctly. Resurrecting it today requires rebuilding the case-in-chief, not merely swinging away at old rebuttals.

...and I suspect you aren't entirely clear either.

This kind of guesswork is inflammatory and unproductive.

This is just pedantry, and irrelevant.

No it isn't. It's subtle, but it's important.

St Randi...
Please write this out 500 times until you have got it.

Just a heads-up -- quips like this aren't likely to keep you on the right side of moderation.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't believe I was doing so. But OK, let's assume I totally misunderstood what you were explicitly stating, when you said: "[It will be newsworthy] that identifications once made are not invalidated or even brought into question by a failure to replicate the match by third parties."

That a seed change of forensic analysis and what counts and the nature of due scrutiny in court would be of some interest to the media when claims of definite results are not altered or changed by new data. As would be the case if science were mistaken for art. Not that I conflate the two as per your misrepresentation.

And for the record. I don't care what you believe. Deal with what I wrote, not what you wish I said.

I don't think you had a point that you are willing to reiterate, to be totally honest. But let's assume you did, in a spirit of inquiry. What was it? Again, feel free to deploy capslock if it helps.

Reiterated in recent posts.

I did not say it did. I said you appeared to be suggesting it.

And yet that was not the meaning, suggested or otherwise of my post.
Feel free to apologise for strawmanning.

You didn't apparently finish that train of thought, but the implication is very clear: "... in order to get off scot-free".

I didn't say something that was not my point? Shocking!

That clearly suggests you are willing to believe that someone could possibly be convicted on the strength of a fingerprint, with no other evidence.

Nope. It doesn't. It clearly suggests I find the standards for debating and for analysing evidence important. Please stop trying to cram words my post "suggests" to you into an argument I didn't make.

Deal with what I wrote. Not what you thought I was about to write that would be easier to argue against.

What a bizarre and irrelevant flight of fancy.

Yes. Suggesting the rigorous study of evidence was "more of an art form" was bizzare. It was your flight of fancy.

Ok, be specific. What am I failing to understand?

Apparently the question of why other analysis would result in a "No Match", or indeed the concept of probability when applied to matches.

You need to be specific and provide actual examples unless you want me (or any reasonable observer) to dismiss this as a rather feeble outbreak of handwaving on your part.

Already done. And ignored by you. Again.


Actually as I have shown above, it is a viable and logical implication of your own unfinished chain of thought. I asked if you were really suggesting such a thing, I didn't state as a fact that you had demonstrably said it, or pluck it entire and complete out of my own imagination. You apparently don't know what a strawman is.

You are a conspiracy theory sceptic posting on a board hosted by the James Randi Educational Forum. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable to allude to Randi's self-proclaimed status as a professional debunker as a guiding spirit of sceptical endeavour conducted therein.

Which would be a mistake. It is rarely reasonable to tar many with a single brush when addressing an individual. Learn from the mistake. Seems I am not the only one who has notice you writing a little script you expected others to follow either. Now we know why: Because you assume we are all the same. Oh dear.

And don't put words into my mouth, please, it's very dishonest.

And what words were those? Feel free to identify me misquoting you.

I appreciate the difference upon which you are (solipsistically) insisting, and was therefore indulging your little personal whim, since I couldn't see any harm in doing so.

My original point (which you obviously cannot comprehend) is that it doesn't matter how you characterise or rebrand this so-called "expert", his argument still amounts to absolutely diddly-squat because it has been comprehensively trashed beyond repair.

----> My Point.





----> Your head.

Feel free to try again.

I'm not sure that the above constitutes a grammatical sentence, although I do not propose to waste time proving it one way or the other. I am going to address what I think you are asking, and you can tell me if I have interpreted your question correctly. If I haven't I'll try again.

You are asking how the sources (the Wallace fingerprint and the "unidentified" TSBD print) came to be compared.

That is very simple indeed, and while I understand your curiosity on the matter, it is not critical as far as I can see.

No. I asked how the process, I am already familiar with, could be described as blinded and conclusive given questions that remain unaddressed.

But the answer is: Collum and Sample had Loy Factor's confession, which implicated Mac Wallace. They therefore obtained copies of a known Wallace print (from his *ahem* previous criminal record as a murderer) and the TSBD prints.

So it was selective, not blinded.

They then put these to a print expert without informing him of the background of the case or the source of the fingerprints he had to compare.

And a bias was implicate. There was only comparison, ergo there was more likely to be a positive. The result asked for. That the guy didn't know names was not enough to blind the test.

Why is there more than one person in an ID parade?

"Chickening out" is my own characterisation of the fact that he attempted to withdraw his ID once he had made a confirmation and was told the sources, but yes, that is correct. If you are suggesting he arrived at this conclusion "after further study", then you need to prove that (which you will not, by the way).

No. I ASKED how you reached that conclusion over another possibility. It is up to you, as the direct claimant to prove your characterisation. That he chickened out beyond any other possibility.

I think you are confusing a fingerprinter's "blind match" with a scientific "double-blind" procedure.

No. I am examining the claim a test was blinded. Single blinded in scientific lingo. More to the point I am stating the test was not done blind. There was no control. The expert did not select the best match from a number of potential sources. He compared a print to a sample. Effectively no blinding.

All "blind match" means in this context is that the finger print matcher did not know who or where the prints came from. So you can relax again.

Yes. Because I have been proven that "blind" is being used to make the test sound more convincing.

The fingerprint evidence and the Estes confession of course. How many times do we have to go through with this?

So a dubious fingerprint and a "confession" that contained no information?

Oh dear.

With respect, your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant to the scrutiny question, since if we afforded any analytical weight to your opinion, we would then have to find reasons not to consider the opinion of anyone else on the planet who declared themselves relevant.

My opinion on if the "fact" passes my scrutiny is irrelevant?

Exactly when did I outsource my critical scrutiny to others?

This, I would venture to suggest, could potentially prove difficult to accommodate and perhaps even damaging to the scrutiny process itself.

That would be the scrutiny I am not allowed to place facts under?

Do you understand what I mean by due scrutiny? Is there a conflict of similar terms here?

Unless you have some undisclosed reason for believing that your opinion bears a weight comparable to (or even approaching that of) two professional fingerprint examiners and the FBI's matching methodology.

What do they have to do with my scrutiny?
Oh and why did the FBI declare no match by that methodology?

Yes it did. If you are implying he withdrew on the basis of further analysis, you need to evidence that (you will not manage this).

No. I am asking how you discounted this possibility. Care to answer yet? Or another attempt to shift burden of proof?

For the umpteenth time, a lack of confirmation does not negate the original identification.

Never said it did. I did acknowledge certain implications though. Care to explain how the FBI reached a No Match conclusion?

You have been told this many times, and have even claimed to understand it (above, in this very post).

Uh huh. Still not claiming that. Shame you wont discuss what I am asking.

I therefore now put it to you that you are simply plucking objections out of the air with no regard for (or understanding of) how such evidence is assessed. Care to comment?

Yes you are wrong. You don't understand the point of my asking "why did the FBI reach a conclusion of No Match" so you keep repeating it is not an invalidation. Something I am not claiming.

That said: Why did the FBI reach a conclusion of No Match?
Don't try to guess why I am asking. Just answer it. It has nothing to do with the idea it invalidates the match. It has everything to do with the methodology of your argument.

Yeah, yeah. I have faced down such hand-waving before. If you have questions that I haven't addressed, why not produce them instead of issuing dire hints?

Sure.
Here's one:
Why did the FBI reach a conclusion of No Match using the methodology you claim is a benchmark?

This simply demonstrates your own lack of understanding, rather than accurately reflecting my position on the matter. I am willing to assume this is due to ignorance of the matter in hand rather than malice.

Well, you keep telling me that it passed scrutiny. I am scrutinising the claim. When did you get to tell me what I do and do not accept under my own scrutiny?

I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of my post, on your part.

But this is verging on ad hom territory. My finger is poised to report you if you continue in this vein.

Go ahead if you feel the need.
By the way, an Ad Hom would be "your argument fails as you are childish". Where as I told you to stop telling others (like myself) what they do or do not consider to have passed due scrutiny because it appears childish. It does. If you consider that opinion an insult instead of advice, report it. I assumed you did not want to sound childish.

Oh right, I'm with you now. You're all of a sudden addressing the Billie Sol Estes confession. Is that right? Odd, I thought we were discussing the fingerprint, but there is apparently no accounting for your sudden and unannounced changes of subject.

I was discussing your theory. One cornerstone of which was a suspicion raised thirty years ago. Sorry if that was not clear. But I for one do not consider the context of your entire claim a change of subject.

The fact that you refer to 'measuring features' indicates that you still don't understand fingerprinting. No measurements are involved at any stage.

So one feature is not compared in width, size, shape and patterns are not compared for similarities?
Feel free to educate me,.

So you say. However, you are totally and utterly wrong. If you believe fingerprinting is an algorithmic process rather than a heuristic one, and an unfalsifiable one at that (which point alone completely destroys your attempt to christen it a science) then let's see your source for this claim.

So when was fingerprinting first recognised as an art form? You described it as such. Are you suggesting no technical or objective data is used at all?

You are now asking me to explain to you the entire history and theory of fingerprint analysis, and to justify its use in law from scratch.

Nope. I am asking what use you think the "art" is in law given specific claims made in this thread. Go back and address those, don't pretend I asked for something else.

I'm going to be politer here than I should be: GO READ A BOOK.

Or you could try answering some points.
Why did the FBI reach a conclusion of No Match?

This is comedy gold.

If you say so.

I have no idea, and nor have you, because they have failed to make their results publicly available, instead issuing a one-line comment stating no match.

Even though they used their own methodology?
Interesting....
So what does this say about your claim the identification is somehow more valid by using their methodology?

I personally suspect (but cannot prove) the FBI's failure to confirm a match was probably erroneous, and I am happy to discuss why.

Well, that would answer the question I keep asking. I can only wonder why you didn't do exactly that...

You have patently done so twice within this current post.

No. I didn't. Kind of the point, but never mind.

It wasn't condescension, it was exasperation. Condescension is when someone talks down to you, but you don't need to worry your pretty little head about that, do you?

And that is exactly how it reads. Intended or not. Why continue.

See the difference?

Yes. But then you seem to have missed a few important things in this post. Perhaps if you went back and read my posts again with out assuming I had them confused, and realising it was MY due scrutiny I was talking about (and for that matter the scrutiny of other members here) then you might actually see what I have been trying to nudge you towards.

I didn't anticipate that this thread would involve role-play. Will my imagination stretch as far as you are demanding? It's a tall order on your current form.

Getting personal again?

Nice attempt at a forced choice, which means several minus points for your credibility.

Not much of a forced choice. You can either discuss what I was asking or not. What other options did I not include?

But I am actually forced to concede that I am no longer able to follow your argument (or what you claim is your argument, which notion I am kindly going along with).

I think the mistake you make there mate is assuming I have an argument, when I am only questioning yours and trying to establish if it meets a burden of proof.

So far we have established that you don't understand the difference between a non-confirmation and a positive exclusion,

Well no. You keep repeating that, but that is not what was said. That you imply those are the only two options kind of explains why you are wrong there... A bit of a shame as you just said "false dilemma"

you think fingerprinting is a science (although where you get this idea remain mysterious),

Well no. I don't agree it is an art form (per your own claim) and I believe it follows principles of comparative data. But you can go on misunderstanding that position too.

you don't understand the history of fingerprinting, and you explicitly want me to justify its use in the criminal justice system.

Nope. I want you to explain how your specific claims that the only options are positive identification or complete negation, that it is purely subjective and artistic, fit with the present criminal system. Again, feel free to continue this misrepresentation.

I say your demands and claims are self-evidently impertinent, of dubious relevance and very unreasonable in their nature, scope and character, and I therefore say: "To Hell with them."

Yes. I have been impertinently asking you to justify your claims in a way that might be half convincing....

I reiterate my advice to read a book. Or perhaps one day, someone will invent the greatest research tool in the history of the known universe, and it will be available to everyday citizens and interested parties, who might be able to use indexing terms to call up a wide range of evidence, essays, arguments, articles and pictures and then select one particular source to examine from the results displayed, and then absorb them at leisure in the privacy of their own home, thus proving an almost limitless source of education and entertainment.

And getting personal again?

Far-fetched I know, but just imagine that! It could actually happen one day!

And condescending again. Oops.

Why, I've even thought of a name for it -- we could call it "The trouser-press."

You do realise you are working under some pretty hefty misunderstandings of the nature of the discussion right?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And further to my above enormo-post, I am not going to reply to that particular poster again this evening, to give him a chance to sort his argument out into a coherent form, and to give me a break from having to try to make sense of what he says.

Simple : I don't have an argument. I am trying to get you to consider your own claims from a different point of view.

I did not ask about the FBI "No Match" for the reason you assume.
I do not think it negates another positive ID.
I am trying to get you to think about what implication it does have.
Like for the claim something was done to the FBI methodology.
Like if absolute positive ID, or No Match are the only two options.

It's a shame that explaining what I was NOT saying took the majority of the posts due to a determination about what I MUST be thinking... sheesh.

 

[Stamuel]

I have tried to find information about Hoffmeister and what he said about the alleged Mac Wallace fingerprint. All I have been able to find are 45th hand accounts on internet forums: educationforum, jfkassassinationforum, Amazon forum. In each forum, someone tells the story that Hoffmeister confirmed a match, heard it was related to JFK, and then retracted. This story never has a citation. No further detail beyond this bare bones account is given.



Does anyone have reliable information about this subject?

 

[I Ratant]

It's as "reliable" as the Mafia figure noted as being at the Book Depository, above.

 

[supposenot]

Pardon? It is progress to have been saying the same thing since the start of the thread? Do you even try to understand what people post here?

No, it is progress -- from my point of view, if not from yours -- that you are apparently willing to accept by default (i.e., by choosing not to challenge) my destruction of the proffered expert's "debunking".

I trust that is now clear.

Unfortunately if you want to discuss this with others you have to persuade them of the credibility, not assume it will be accepted.

Feel free to look up the credentials of the two concordant print examiners I am citing. You are also free to examine the 1968 FBI position statement document entitled "Fingerprints do not lie", which set out protocols for how to verify a match (protocols which the proffered expert debunker failed to follow).

I am content to let my faith in the fingerprint evidence rest on that foundation. You may not be. That is your choice. Short of testing it in a properly constituted court of law, it remains in the same legal limbo as the case against Oswald, having never been tested and demonstrated to the satisfaction of a Jury that the case has been proven to beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you are expecting me or my adduced experts to provide proof to that standard before you will accept it, then you are gravely misunderstanding the nature of legal proof.

Please note: I say "if", since it is not entirely clear to me on what grounds you refuse to countenance this doubly blind-confirmed and undebunked evidence, when taken into context of two separate witness statements/confessions (elicited before the print ID emerged, from individuals unknown to one another, one of whom was a close colleague of the suspect he implicated), the confession of a top CIA agent implicating LBJ as the assassination's mastermind, and Richard Nixon's claim that Jack Ruby was LBJ's "clean up man".

And that's just the stuff I know about that is currently in the public domain and that I think (upon consideration) would be acceptable to a Jury. I have actually refused to engage with evidence purporting to support my case because I subjectively believe that it is not reliable (Madeline Brown and Barr McLellan).

All ears and no answers then. Save yourself another go around. Look at the posts that already state them.

I can hardly be expected to be 'all answers' when you are refusing to put questions to me, and are now demanding (in apparent seriousness) that I go looking for questions to disprove my own case.

Does the phrase "Stick a broom up my a*** and I'll sweep the floor as I go" mean anything to you?

Here's a simple one. Stop telling me that failing to match results is different from debunking results. Just tell me WHY the FBI declared no match with the methodology you hold as a standard.

As I have already said, I do not know, since they have refused to release their analysis to the public or a non-interested third party, and haven't even put their conclusion in writing (it was issued by telephone call after they had sat on the evidence for 18 months).

I personally believe (but cannot prove) that the FBI's non-match was erroneous and I am quite happy to discuss why I believe that is probably the case. But then with two expert witnesses on my side, perhaps that's only to be expected.

And yet you wont. Look. Another post where you offer no reason the FBI will find a result of No Match using the methodology you held as a standard in your own posts.

As I have already explained, a failed confirmation is not a negation, so although it would be nice if the FBI had confirmed it, it's not really that necessary. A bit disappointing, but no more than that.

And I don't actually know (and nor do you) that the FBI followed its own protocols anyway.

And yet you fail to do it. You talk a lot about willing, but show none.

I don't believe I talk a lot about "willing", to my knowledge I have used the phrase precisely once during this debate, and that was when I urged someone to demonstrate "willingness to play fairly" after they had avoided, for the third time in a row, the FBI protocol standard that disproved the debunker. So it was quite an extraordinary instance, really, as well as being unique.

I will do precisely what I think I have to do to assemble a credible case. Anything else is a luxury. And I particularly will not be motivated to perform other people's legwork unless they have demonstrated their own incompetence and I feel like making them squirm.

A theory best fits all evidence. Not just the interpretation you like the most. Please stop pretending anybody is playing top trumps with experts. Please instead offer a valid reason to account for the failures to match results, other than the evidence is not solid and passed all scrutiny.

But you are demanding that I follow a procedure laid out by you personally, ex cathedra, which is not relevant to the matching and verification procedures.

As incredible as you may find this, you could (in theory and within law) fail to obtain the agreement of one million fingerprint experts when trying to find a match, then find an expert confirmation on the 1,000,001st attempt, and claim in court, under oath, to have double-confirmed the initial print ID.

This probably seems a horrendous abuse of proof and procedure to the fingerprint-naïve. But that is, I assure you, the brass tacks of the matter.

(Although admittedly in such an extreme example as my clearly-satirical one above, a Jury of even the most hardcore mouthbreathers might begin to wonder about the alleged infallibility of print evidence).

By the very definition, it has been placed under scrutiny and not always been found beyond reproach.

That is a very different kettle of fish to failing scrutiny. Thus far, it has passed and the only attempted invalidation to date has been proved irrelevant due to being performed by a demonstrated incompetent, by standards (I will remind you) that the initial ID met and then subsequently exceeded.

Yet more misrepresentation of the point.

Unsupported assertion. Not worth addressing.

So it is fine for you to make assumptions when points are not addressed. But not for others to do?

Have I said that, or even implied it? I suspect you are committing the fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general.

You are wrong then. It is only your character, as with your consistent condescending tone, that is commented on by this.

I am sorry my tone annoys you, but I would like to point out that I am communicating in writing and any tone associated with it is in your head rather than being an objective reality.

I recognise that I am frequently sarcastic. I find irony a useful tool in illustrating flawed arguments, since it requires a 'penny drop' moment for the other party, and it also helps keep me amused while ploughing endlessly through the ever-repeating treadmill of irrelevant demands that this thread has become.

Already provided. But why should I bother? You will only pretend I am conflating two different issues and continue to fail to answer.

Did you already provide it? It's possible that I have forgotten it (it's 11.25pm Britside, and my energies are admittedly flagging). Is it important? Can it wait till morning? If not, can you at least point me to its previous appearance please?

People want you to be able to prove the things you say are facts ARE INDEED FACTS. You fail to do so. You have shown they are facts to nobodies satisfaction than your own.

As I said, you are demanding that I prove the entire case beyond a reasonable doubt, without legal process or the presence of a disinterested Jury. This simply isn't realistic of you, to put it mildly.

The only possible alternative that I can see is that you are demanding that I provide the equivalent of scientific standards of repeatable proof (better than 95 per cent or whatever it is to reject the null hypothesis) for the entire case either considered in total or as separate aspects, which demand would constitute a very grave example of category error indeed.

So, you were told the word was condescending, you said it was not meant to be, but you continue to use it despite its apparent insult?
Are you a child?

Are you capable of following your own logic? I denied that a previous statement was condescending, and I stated what it was intended to be ("exasperated"). I then slipped into condescension mode to demonstrate the difference.

You are completely up a gum tree with an exposed nether region on this little dig, because it clearly shows that you didn't follow what happened at all.

Why don't you be a good boy and go and read it again, and let us all know what you find, eh? (This is condescension).

You will find people more open to it if you got around to answering those questions.

I believe I have answered all relevant questions to the best of my ability. If you know of questions I have left unaddressed, please point me to them, or copy-paste them here so I can't overlook them again. If you don't, or are just unprepared to do so, I put it to you that you ought to shut up and quit carping on.

You brought them up. The point will be stop being returned to when you get two disparate points of yours to match up.

Like I say, I'm getting tired. What points is it again that I am required to match up? (Remember the quote facility screens out the post of mine to which you are referring, so I have quite honestly lost track of this particular strand, although I am willing to bet it's mere nitpicking and not at all important, whatever it is you're on about).

But not by the FBI. Whose criteria once again you claim as a yard stick. Why? WHY?

I have already answered this, see above. You are not making your critique more impressive by asking the same questions twice.

If you say so. When are you going to answer your critics here?
Anything to say about the FBI failing to make a match other than it is not a negation?

I have already answered this, see above. You are not prosecuting at the Old Bailey, so quit the melodrama, it's quite embarrassing.

Anything to say about why it was not declared a match after due study, other than a chap being a 'chicken?

You are mischaracterising events. In other words, you are either dishonest or ignorant. It is not my job to correct either state.

Anything to say about the changes to prints when the finger is under pressure?

I've already addressed this issue. Are you making some kind of point? Because its relevance to my argument frankly eludes me.

Care to offer a new theory you think best fits all evidence?

I'll remind you, this is legal proof we're talking. I am not required to solve the case completely, although the closer I can approach that obviously the happier I would be.

Still no...?

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness you know.

Perhaps you should stop telling them it has passed their scrutiny. This is the process of scrutiny. This is the critique you asked for. Why is that a problem?

This is such a stupid confusion of process and priority that I actually feel a bit ashamed for you. Do you seriously think that a conversation on the JREF is part of the scrutiny process that forensic evidence must undergo? That is what you are apparently saying, in so many words.

Lets not forget YOU apply the unreasonable demands. A request for a theory suddenly in your reply became a request for a theory with no loose ends. YOU made the requests unreasonable. Don't blame others.

Actually, you'll probably find I was talking to two different people making difference demands. I know that one or two did indeed assert that I was required to solve the case completely with no loose ends left over. I thought that was ridiculous and I said so (it now seems to have been dropped as a demand). So I would guess that you are (probably due to your own human fallibility) conflating two separate arguments.

Or, given that I am attempting to conduct multiple conversations with an ever-changing cast of self-appointed debunkers, it is entirely possible that I have misaddressed an objection to the wrong person.

I concede that that is possible, but I UTTERLY REJECT as deliberate mischaracterisation your misrepresentation of this as some species of dishonesty, if indeed it happened as you describe it in the first place, which I quite frankly doubt and do not expect you will attempt to prove.

Feel free. If the mods agree they will punish me. But it is how you seem. You wont answer questions. You misrepresent points. You complain people wont just accept your claims. You call others buffoons. Seems a lot like foot stamping to me.

I'm not interested in your mischievous and vexatious complaints. You haven't proven a single one of your mischaracterisations, and I am confident that you could not do so even if you tried. Feel free to prove me wrong. You'd like that after all. But don't expect to be taken seriously because of your own bluff and bluster.

So when you wrote "will report" you meant "have reported"?
I'm sorry you think your theory and 'research' withstanding scrutiny is irrelevant.

?

 

[supposenot]

Actually, I think I have gone far enough with the Wallace print ID issue.

I have two confirmed matches made by experienced examiners, one of which exists permanently as an affidavit, the other of which would be producible by calling the publicity-shy expert as a witness under oath (so on pain of perjury, he would have to repeat his finding, which is as good as Darby's affidavit in effect), and it has not been debunked by its only (supposedly serious) field-experienced public critic so far.

So if I choose to pursue this case any further in this forum, about which possible progression I am not currently decided, I am going to fan out to consider other areas of the case against LBJ. I haven't really properly scrutinised Hunt's deathbed confession, for example, I have merely accepted it on board because it comes from a high-level spook whose name repeatedly surfaces in JFK lore and implicates LBJ. That's all I really understand about it, to be quite honest. Could all be bollocks or totally unverifiable for all I know, so I suppose I really ought to find out for ethical reasons if nothing else really.

I gather that Hunt's confession involves the claim that LBJ co-conspirators included CIA agents (but presumably not the CIA considered as an entity), and that is a fascinating-sounding area for discussion and critique. Moreover, I would be coming to it more or less blind, so unlike the Wallace ID rigmarole, which is essentially a re-hash but with my own new FBI protocol standard stirred in for thickening, it would represent a completely new learning curve for me personally, which is rather appealing. And I am willing to bet that, although there would doubtless be wailing and gnashing of teeth from the multitude of Randi-ites, they would probably welcome the taste of fresh meat too.

But that can wait at least until I have slept on the matter. Sweet dreams, playmates.

 

[Garrison]

Actually, I think I have gone far enough with the Wallace print ID issue.

In other words your arguments having failed dismally you shall jump to something else and pretend otherwise.

 

[BStrong]

Actually, I think I have gone far enough with the Wallace print ID issue.

I have two confirmed matches made by experienced examiners, one of which exists permanently as an affidavit, the other of which would be producible by calling the publicity-shy expert as a witness under oath (so on pain of perjury, he would have to repeat his finding, which is as good as Darby's affidavit in effect), and it has not been debunked by its only (supposedly serious) field-experienced public critic so far.

So if I choose to pursue this case any further in this forum, about which possible progression I am not currently decided, I am going to fan out to consider other areas of the case against LBJ. I haven't really properly scrutinised Hunt's deathbed confession, for example, I have merely accepted it on board because it comes from a high-level spook whose name repeatedly surfaces in JFK lore and implicates LBJ. That's all I really understand about it, to be quite honest. Could all be bollocks or totally unverifiable for all I know, so I suppose I really ought to find out for ethical reasons if nothing else really.

I gather that Hunt's confession involves the claim that LBJ co-conspirators included CIA agents (but presumably not the CIA considered as an entity), and that is a fascinating-sounding area for discussion and critique. Moreover, I would be coming to it more or less blind, so unlike the Wallace ID rigmarole, which is essentially a re-hash but with my own new FBI protocol standard stirred in for thickening, it would represent a completely new learning curve for me personally, which is rather appealing. And I am willing to bet that, although there would doubtless be wailing and gnashing of teeth from the multitude of Randi-ites, they would probably welcome the taste of fresh meat too.

But that can wait at least until I have slept on the matter. Sweet dreams, playmates.

Don't you mean to state that you "cite" the work done by others? and affidavits are one thing, cross examination is another, and afaik none of this stuff you bring up has been vetted by anyone other than the individuals who wish to believe it.

Hunt's death-bed confession should be viewed in the same light as Santo Trafficante and Carlos Marcello's prison confession, as in -0- credibility.

http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/deathbed-confession-who-really-killed-jfk/2012/07/02

Here's a list of confessions from your side of the street - mix and match 'em collect them all!

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Confessions

You'd probably be surprised how many weirdos come out of the woodwork and confess to crimes they didn't commit, and I'm willing to bet that JFK pulled more than most.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This is not only fiction, but badly outdated fiction. It's like you're caught in a time warp and you're stuck in 1964 or something. Every single point of supposed evidence that you cite is either riddled with problems or has been debunked.

You might start here:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm

There are no "problems" sufficient to clear Oswald, though I understand why conspiracy adherents fervently wish otherwise. Lacking a clear, evidence-based narrative that provides one or more other shooters, not to mention conspiracists in numbers large or small, they instead try to cast doubt on the person who satisfactorily meets the standard.

And please, please don't let's go over supposed backyard photo fakery again. As Dorothy Parker famously said, "There is no there there."