Was it his intention to trick the 87 year old Darby when he said the print was a palm print, not a fingerprint? I just don't get that. Darby wrote a 5 page Affidavit in 1998 and attached several exhibits. He examined a latent print, not a palm print:

"A latent fingerprint is the production of the 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." (Quote from p. 3 of 10 pages, of A. Nathan Darby Affidavit 9 March 1998), reprinted within Exhibits, Pictures and Documents segment at the end of Barr McClellan's book, "Blood, Money & Power."

I have also read that Darby was threatened with having his credentials revoked as a result of his identification of Wallace's print.

I am going to try to get back to you later today with the other independent expert who reviewed blind this same latent print and had no knowledge with what case it was associated with yet still managed to identify Wallace's print.

But as has been said before, when experts disagree, you be the judge. So if you feel this has been discredited by Bugliosi that is your prerogative. Looking at the overabundance of evidence presented on this one subject by Johnson's lawyer himself, and reading what other experts have said, I do believe there is no doubt Wallace was a shooter that day. Bugliosi had no close personal connection with the chain of events as they evolved over years, but Barr McClellan did. He worked closely with Clark, Johnson's attorney for decades, so I believe those two are much more likely to have the most credible input on this matter.

Sam