Malcolm Wallace fingerprint identified at the snipers nest JFK Assassination

9 March 1998

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Affidavit

County of Travis

1.    My name is A. Nathan Darby. I am a resident of Austin , Texas ,
and I am fully competent to make this affidavit.

2.    I have been active in law enforcement for many years, starting
with the Texas Department of public Safety as a State Trooper in 1938.
I then served with the Austin , Texas Police Department from October
1940, and including my military service, I was with the Austin Police
Department until my retirement in August 1979. During that period of
service, I rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. I am presently an
expert in fingerprint identification, and I hold the designation of
Certified Latent Fingerprint Examiner (#78-468), which is issued by
the Internal Association for Identification, pursuant to the attached
Exhibit DAN #1.

3.    I first became interested in fingerprint work in 1942. My direct
work in fingerprint identification began soon after, during my
military service. I joined the U.S. Army in October 1943 and graduated
from Officer Candidate School as a lieutenant in February 1945. I was
immediately put in charge of preparing a fingerprint identification
system for the Philippine Commonwealth. For my work of setting up
their Central Fingerprint Bureau, I was awarded the Philippine
Military Merit Medal, the Philippine Commonwealth's highest non-combat
award for foreign military personnel. The United States Army also
awarded me the Army Commendation Medal. This achievement was further
recognized in the 1946 textbook, Lectures in Fingerprints by Fred C.
Luchico, then Chief of the Identification Division with the Department
of Justice, where he states that I "provided a modern, current, and
complete fingerprint file for the Philippine Commonwealth." By 1946 I
had risen to the rank of Captain. When my tour of Duty was completed
in the Philippines , I returned to the Austin Police Department in
November 1946.

4.    On 1 January 1948 I was promoted to sergeant and assigned to the
Identification Section of the Austin Police Department. On 7 July 1953
I was promoted to lieutenant. In 1956, I was made supervisor of the
four employees of Identification and Criminal Records Section of the
Austin Police Department. At this time I handled the classification of
176,000 cards and expanded the section to fourteen employees, training
and supervising all personnel. In 1970, I worked on advanced record-
keeping with the Kodak Miracode system and developed the fingerprint
and photograph coding method for the system. During this time I also
served on the board of directors of the Texas Division of the
International Association for Identification. I hold an Advanced
Certificate in Law Enforcement and an Instructor Certificate from the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. I have been a member of the Texas
Division of the International Association for Identification since
November, 1946.

5.    Since 1949, I have testified in numerous cases in the State and
Federal Courts about fingerprint identification. This testimony
included the preparation of latent charts as exhibits. There was never
a mistrial or appeal based on my testimony. Attached is Exhibit DAN#2.
This exhibit shows the opinions of two District Judges, Travis
County , Texas regarding my testimony experience.

6.    Fingerprints are an important part of law enforcement because no
two prints are alike. Although no person has been able to calculate
the likelihood of a mismatch with statistical certainty, the courts
accept the admissibility of evidence from fingerprints. Human
fingerprints are from unique ridges, which are useful for gripping and
holding. An inked fingerprint is the reproduction of the ridges of the
finger. An inked fingerprint is provided by putting black ink on the
finger and then placing the finger on a suitable contrasting
background surface, such as white paper. A latent fingerprint is the
production of ridges when the finger has been placed on a surface. The
ridges of the finger leave a residue, body fluids, and chemicals on
the surface touched. The latent prints are recovered and compared to
the inked prints.

For an expert to identify a latent print with an inked print, matching
formations must be found on both prints. The ridge lines between the
matched formation are then counted. This ridge count must be the same
count for both the latent and the ink print. There is no fixed
documented limit on how many matching points must be made. The
identifying marks on the Ink print and the latent print are then
marked and numbered. A conclusion and identification is then made
based on the location of the characters on the prints, their
formation, and the ridge count between them.

7.    Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a
photocopy of a latent print from [ Texas researcher]. After careful
and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent
print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics
marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent
Print is Exhibit DAN #4.

8.    In addition to exhibit DAN#3 and exhibit DAN#4, [researcher]
gave me a photocopy of a standard form fingerprint card. This is
exhibit DAN#5. Exhibit DAN#5 is from an unknown source and has
fingerprints of an unknown person to me. The space#10 on exhibit DAN#5
is the same inked print as DAN#3. Space #10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the
space used for the left little finger. There are other indications
that the print in space #10 on Exhibit DAN#5 is the left little
finger.

9.    Based on my comparison, I conclude that the unknown person to me
who produced the inked fingerprint Exhibit DAN#3 produced the latent
print Exhibit DAN#4, and produced the print in space #10 on exhibit
DAN #5.

/s/ A. Nathan Darby

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of March, 1998.

/s/ [not easily read]

Notary Public for Texas