Dawn Meredith

Re Jim D's comment:

"BTW, Estes was the guy who also propagated the whole James Melvin Liggett as body alterationist in the JFK case, and that moron Nigel Turner then bought into it and helped ruin his and our credibility by putting it on his last Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Liggett was allegedly flown out of Love Field to Washington with, get this, not the actual JFK body, but a lookalike. I won't go any further with this, because only Nigel Turner could believe it. But, in his grand tradition, Estes said that Liggett was also a serial murderer who killed six people to cover up his story. A and E got sued over this Liggett crap and wisely settled before trial."

I do not know of Estes involvement in the Liggett matter but it was J Harrison who brought this information to Nigel Turner.

Richard just sent me this article:

I also urge all interested students to read this excellent article by Garrick Alder. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster68/lob68-mac-wallace.pdf

I heard some of this last night and was extremely disappointed. I consider Haslam's book extremely important to the world at large. But to hear him saying all the things LHO allegedly did in NO knowing that it was all based on what JVB has told him was very discouraging. I wonder when he will see through her propaganda. Perhaps never as she is his "witness". Just one more trip down the rabbit hole.

Dawn

Jim,

As I said, the copies we see here MUST be worse than what Darby saw. Because we see an area in the latent print that is completely black from which Darby was nonetheless able to match patterns. The obvious reason for this discrepancy is that our copy is worse than his. (Either that or he had serious cognitive problems, something I don't believe for a microsecond.)

Also, as I said, even our copy of Wallace's exemplar (intentional) print is good enough to easily find several unique patterns.

On the other hand, our copy of the latent print is an entirely different story. It is clearly awful. But it is also clearly not what Darby saw.

Now, if it turns out that Darby used a bad copy of the latent print, and that this later examiner, Robert Garrett, had the original from the archives, then I'll concede that Garrett may have found something new. Problem is, there is no way for me to know if what Garrett saw hasn't been tampered with.

But one thing is for sure, and that is that the exemplar print of Wallace's, from the Navy, that Garrett used, MUST have the same patterns that we can easily make out on the copy of Wallace's exemplar print we have here. And therefore MUST have the 14 points of matching patterns Darby found. With this in mind, it seems to me that any significant differences Garrett saw were actually on the latent print lifted from the TSBD, not on the Navy provided prints.

I will wait for the book for final judgement. But as of now I strongly believe that Darby was right. Because I've been studying the case and now I know Darby had a good reputation. To me he is like a mini Jim Garrison who stood up against those who tried to discredit him. My guess is that Garrett is no different than the numerous others who have taken the side of going along with the official story, for whatever reason, perhaps to preserve his reputation. Either that or he was given a copy of the lifted print that has been tampered with.

Sorry to disagree, but that is what my gut tells me. I just don't believe that Darby could have been so wrong. And it is easy for me to believe that his opponents would react the way other WC apologists have when faced with evidence suggesting a conspiracy of government cover-up... things they just cannot accept.

Thank you Sandy. In Oct 03 I held a joint birthday party here for Nathan and myself and Richard brought an excellent print of the known Wallace prints from the Kinsner murder. Nathan had attempted to "show" me the match on many occasions prior to this but I am not adept in this area. However on that day the match just jumped off the pages. Once you see the matches you see them all over. Thank you for defending Nathan here. If you ever met him you would know that such a defense is not only justified but imperative. When J first gave him this job it was presented in Nathan's mind as a possible family matter of Jay's. He had no clue who he was matching. And after he learned he stood by it til his death. Unlike the second certified print examiner located by J. He too made a match but when he learned who it was he and his wife flipped out. And refused to be involved. Of course the story Joan now spins is that he backed off because the prints were copies. easy to lie about the dead.

Just to be clear I do believe Wallace killed many for LBJ but I do not believe JFK was one of them. His print was on the 6th floor for other more dubious reasons, in my mind.

From the review: "In a 1998 press conference, researcher John Fraser Harrison would announce the unidentified print from the National Archive was that of Mac Wallace.

Wow. Where do I even begin to address the number of errors in this statement. First of all Jay Harrison never spoke at ANY press conference. Or anywhere else, he was a deep cover researcher and that is why you will find almost nothing on him if you do a search. Walt Brown spoke. And Nathan Darby was not named by Walt. Another researcher who had worked closely with J for several years -Richard Bartholomew- was at this press conference and he inadvertently heard Walt name Darby, as this is what one would expect if you are announcing that a certified latent print examiner has made such a match. So RB emailed John Kelin this information. Two days later at a luncheon with Jay and Walt that was attended by my husband and myself, both J and Walt were beyond angry at RB for naming Nathan. (This never made sense to me or Richard or Nathan). J and and RB would never speak again - Upon Jay's death 5/25/-5 all his research was left to Walt, where it remained unseen until Joan utilized these materials to defame both J and Nathan.

To what end one has to wonder?

What agenda is really occurring here? I have my own opinions but they will remain unwritten.

Dawn

After looking into the Mac Wallace fingerprint issue, I find myself in utter disbelief at Joan Mellen's claim. She said:

“The fingerprints used initially to identify Wallace were smeared and taken at the time of the Kinser murder. Photocopies of these prints were used when these conclusions were drawn”, explained Mellen. Prints unavailable to researcher J. Harrison were recently released by the Navy and the author obtained them. “The prints from the Navy in 1939 were clear as a bell”, she continued." [emphases mine]

Well, tell me what you think... anybody. Here is the print used the first time, as examined by Nathan Darby (thanks for that info, Jim):

If you're thinking that the fingerprint on the right is the "smeared" fingerprint Mellen is referring to, think again. That is the print lifted from the TSBD. The so-called "smeared" fingerprint is the one on the LEFT!

What the h*ll is Joan Mellen talking about?? Right now my blood is boiling.

Okay, trying to calm down here.... Maybe by "smeared," Mellen is talking about those tiny areas at the top where the ink does bleed a little between the lines. Maybe hers was an honest description that sounds worse than it should to people like me. (She has a good reputation, doesn't she?) Okay, that is what I'll assume. But If so, I am still a bit surprised. Because what apparently didn't occur to her is the fact that a clearer version of those tiny smudges would have no bearing on the examination anyway, given that the same area on the lifted fingerprint has virtually nothing to compare to!

I can't wait till the "clear as a bell" fingerprints from the Navy are released. Because the one for the finger in question needs to match the (left) one above, and yet at the same time be different! And the only way for that to happen is if -- in one of the little white spaces where there is no print -- itsy bitsy lines are visible on the Navy print that contradict the lifted fingerprint. That should be fun to see.

Anyway, I smell a rat here. And a gullible author.

P.S. I'm assuming that the print from only one finger was lifted. Also, I'm assuming I'm not making a stupid mistake. An assumption that sometimes comes back to bite me in the butt.

OMG now my blood is boiling again. Jay Harrison was one of the most astute researchers I have ever known and he had excellent 1st generation Wallace prints. This is simply another lie and now a smear of my dear friend J. Joan had told me that this book was going to honor Jay and his work and to that end I did all I could to contribute, including legal work for her. And to add insult to injury I have been told that the person who did the Press Conference on the prints and who appeared on The Men who Killed Kennedy along with Nathan, discussing his work and his expertise and certification has since stated that "we knew that then", meaning we- (he and J????) knew Nathan was no longer certified.

It's just so easy to lie about the dead. This person by the way never even had a single conversation, let alone meeting with Nathan Darby. This was told to me by Darby himself.

Jim:

I have a copy of Joan's book and shall be reviewing it after I get some priority writing assignments completed.

I will look forward to it Doug.

I'm with you on this Roger. It was most likely inserted clandestinely so that it would be found and reported later on, just as has happened. It is a form of character assassination post mortem against Darby.

Exactly. Joan and I are speaking again but I do a slow burn when I see references to her character assassination of one of the finest men I have ever been privileged to call a dear friend. As I have posted elsewhere, after I first saw this lie about Nathan Darby not keeping up his certification I double checked with his son. (Nathan had lived, with his Pastor son and daughter in law just a block from me, in an awesome coincidence.). Pastor Darby assured me that his dad HAD kept up his certification. Anyone on here read the book? Does she even bother to mention that Nathan's home was entered- bypassing the security system- in August 03 and all that was taken was the box he kept under his bed containing all his materials related to his work on this case. So IF he was wrong why the theft and who would do it? I like and respect Joan and a lot of her work but she has been taken in before, for example that guy Angelo Murgado in her Garrison book. And her own blindness and hatred of Bobby all but ruined that book for me with her constant cry that Bobby has sent Walter Sheridan to sabotage Garrison. I suppose all biases inform opinion, but to my thinking someone with the level of knowledge she has about the CIA should exercise better discernment in these matters.

That she would discount Clint Peoples is also very troubling for me.

Dawn

I love him. I used to read him in a mag called Prevailing Winds. I have seen many of his online lectures. He is up there with PDS. A major treasure. I saw this and reposted it on fb. Thanks for posting it here Doug. My tech skills are sorely lacking so I don't know how to post youtube vids on forums.

Dawn

Heavens no, I had not even thought of that....OK, we are doomed...on the other hand it might get to Putin and he might offer her sanctuary, her being at risk and all...

Ya she's at such risk she is having conferences all over the place. Who is financing her and why? I heard from a close friend that she and Kris have had some sort of falling out.

Ok so let's follow this "logic". Paul is killed and replaced by "Faul"/ Billy Shears. Extensive plastic surgery is done to hide the deed. Somehow, miraculously, this guy can learn to sing, play and WRITE just like Paul. So, to keep the secret "safe" they leave hints all over the songs and album covers.

Yup Fetzer has outdone himself on this one

I watched this and posted it on my page on fb on Friday. Great interview. Sean really knows his history including hidden history.

Dawn

Didn't this all start out as a hoax?

And did not the perps then admit it?

I got totally into this at the time and it was my belief-then and now- that John and the boys were just having a bit of fun. Of course there were "clues" and of course it was a hoax. Fetzer and his minion probably believe the earth is flat too.

Hi, Dawn:

I agree. I'd ask if I could go with you, but I can't speak Spanish (I'm pretty handy at catching ocean crabs (lol).

It's difficult for me to find a reason to be passionate about this Presidential election. I constantly ask myself, 'What would Moses do?' I keep getting the same answer: 'He would have slung the tablets at the people below long before he descended to the bottom of the mountain' (lol).

Best to you always, Dawn

I'm probably your website's #1, most faithful silent lurker.

Brad Milch

Brad: I can't speak Spanish either -no affinity for any language- but my husband does well. We have been going to CR every winter since 2009. We got a timeshare there and continue to love our short winter break. Alas...

I was a Bernie supporter in the election, somewhat cautiously given that he also voted for the Iraq war. Every election cycle it worsens. I fear for our grandchildren, if there is still a planet left when they are fully grown.

You lurk at DPF? Have you joined? (Sorry if I don't remember, my terrible insomnia kicked in about 3:30 this am so my brain is spinning. )

Dawn

Don't misinterpret me, Cliff. I'm not impressed with either candidate. I'm halfway expecting the CIA will enter their man into the race as a 3rd party. That should prove interesting.

Brad Milch

Brad: Killary IS "their CIA man". We are totally screwed regardless who wins. (If we could afford to retire we'd move to our beloved Costa Rica)

Dawn

Can't the CIA afford to give a syndicated show to anyone they want anymore? Or do some simply not pass the audition? (Beatles joke within, if you stretch your memory.)

PS: If you're a Beatles fan steeped in the Paul is Dead myth since 1968, then this short film (link below) will be a lot of fun for you. Features better fake-Beatles songs than do more expensive and "accurate" Beatles bio-pics:

The roof top impromptu concert was their last.

It's amazing how many ignorant posters he has buying into this bullcrap, on facebook. Comparing teeth of Paul and "Faul", along with other facial features. Has he lost it or has he always been a disinfo agent? Anyone who knows anything about music knows that most Beatles songs do not follow the typical 1-4-5 or 1-6-4-5 pattern of most pop songs, with more complex series of chord changes. I quickly learned that when I first began learning to play Beatles music. Aside from that Paul has a unique style that could not ever be copied by some "fake Paul". I saw him live in 93 and more recently here in Austin and the man is pure magic! Sang and played for three hours without a break and literally brought the house down. ( I was in tears the entire concert).

I listened a bit to the "interview" of the "Son" of the so called "real Paul" and it was beyond fake. Poor Fetz is up to his old tricks: Conning anyone who does not have a clue.

Dawn

Then she has respected researchers like Linda Minor singing her praises on facebook. With all her "fans" then chiming in. When one person-Pete Johnson- dared be critical he was called a xxxxx. So this is the sad face of JFK assassination conferences now.

As for Fetzer he has gone off the rails totally, especially with his Paul is dead garbage. No one died at Sandy Hook and Paul McCartney is a fake who just happens to play, sing and write great stuff like the original, who died in a car crash in 1966. You just can't make this stuff up. Well actually Baker and the Fetz do just that.

I was thinking about John Judge last night. And COPA. How did it come to this? Conferences brought to you by a woman almost no one believes. Downright surreal.

I'm honored to have been asked to appear on Thursday night, 23 June 2016, as a guest on the late-night talk show "Coast to Coast AM," with host George Noory, to discuss my recently released book Watergate: The Hoax. It will be a two-hour interview beginning at 10 p.m. Pacific time. In the Eastern time zone, that's 1 a.m. on Friday, 24 June.

Here is a link to a page announcing the show at the Chalet Reports site:

http://www.chaletbooks.com/chaletreports/?p=665

I hope you'll tune in.

Ashton

Just listened to one of the interviews. (KFNX) Very interesting. Great job AG.

FWIW: Judy posted someplace on facebook that she had invited me to to speak at a conference. That was certainly news to me. She just makes it up as she goes along. Right now she has one of my closest female researcher friends snowed. (We just spent an hour on the phone and 1/3 of that was devoted to JVB). I too was in her camp very long ago and I will not post my reasons why but when I began to question certain things she became very defensive. I cut ties long ago and consider her a very sad nutcase.

I will be most interested in what you are working on Doug. Especially as it pertains to our "friend" Mac Wallace. I call him "the man who died twice. "

I wonder too I Joan will include any of the information regarding the legal work I did for her in her book. It was an eye opener of sorts for me.

I have the Lyle Sardie video, a gift many years ago from Jay Harrison. He was one freaken piece of work.

I shall be one of the speakers on a panel on Sunday that includes a discussion about Malcolm Wallace.

Who else will be on this panel? I'd sure like to see my dear friend Nathan Darby's name cleared.

What do you mean by "cleared"? I don't think anyone disputes that he was an actual fingerprint analyst, once upon a time. In fact, if it's any help, I recently came across his name in the Dallas FBI files received by Weisberg in the late 70's.

Pat: I have not been on this forum in sometime and am just seeing this. Joan Mellen is saying that he was not a Certified Print examiner when he gave his affidavit in 1998. Basically that he perjured himself which I know not to be true. To double check after she made this allegation I asked his son who verified that Nathan had kept up his certification. I hear her book is soon coming out. (No further comment from me on that front).

BTW, where is the pic of Cruz eating breakfast with Oswald?

What is Trump talking about?

Is Roger Stone now going to go to Judy Baker and she will now say, "Oh yes, I saw them eating breakfast. Let me look for that picture."

Then, a week from now it will show up on Wayne Madsen's web site?

I love it. Exactly Jim.

I shall be one of the speakers on a panel on Sunday that includes a discussion about Malcolm Wallace.

Who else will be on this panel? I'd sure like to see my dear friend Nathan Darby's name cleared.

Jim: Phil Melanson was not at UMass . I forget the name of the University, but it was in the southern part of MA. We were good friends in the 80's and wrote snail mail to each other for years. The day it because the official site for the RFK records I attended the press conference. Marion MA maybe? Been too long. I could rummage through files and find some of his letters, some were on the U. letterhead.

Dawn

We were both right- sort of- it was UMass Dartmouth. (But I have a memory of it being called something else in the 80's)

Ok the U was called " Southeastern Massachusetts University". And he lived in Marion MA. (That is why I remembered that name). A great guy gone at only 62 in 2006. Anyone here read his MKL book? It is GREAT!!

Dawn