Richard Bartholomew

Hi, Richard. Mr. Caddy actually responded in the separate thread I created for the questions. That exchange is here: Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA After that, you might find of some interest my last three-part series of messages in response to Alfred Baldwin in this thread: Alfred Baldwin For background, you also might enjoy There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate and its foundational articles (linked therein). And after that, I believe you'll see how the article, The "Pentagon Papers" was a CIA op, fits into all the foregoing. I've come to the opinion that the solution to the Jello problem is to place it on a level horizontal surface, then drop the wall on it. No nails required. Thanks for the references, Ashton. I spotted those yesterday, and I will read them. I have often wanted to agree with the "imaginary friend" view of DT. What I have to get past, though, is that much of the DT info could have been obtained only from NSA-type data mining. Did Woodward have that kind of access directly, instead of through a guy like his friend Inman, an Admiral with Naval-Intel/Signal-Corp access? Your certainty tells me there is good evidence for Woodward's direct, prior knowledge, and/or slam-dunk evidence excluding Inman. Can you direct me to that specific information?

I see that questioning these JFK/Watergate players hasn't changed. Outside a courtroom, it's still like nailing Jello to a wall. Even after all of the Mark Felt hype of the past year, I continue to strongly suspect that Admiral Bobby Ray Inman is Deep Throat.

Selected pages from Barr McClellan's manuscript of October 22, 1997, and documentation of my contribution to that research.

The plan became operational on April 24, 1963 when LBJ gave a radio interview at KRLD in Dallas and stated a "go" code about shooting the captain of the ship of state. Several researchers keep hitting on this as a date when major players started moving. But the 1962 elections were crucial in placing Connally and Earle Cabel in important positions. Don't know about Harvey, but Angleton was very familiar with Rome from his past experience there.

Ron, in September, 1997, J revealed the Wallace print evidence to me for the first time. As I recall, at first he approached the Kinser case the same way your brother did. He showed me the letters from his 2-year correspondence with Texas DPS. Initially, he was told that the print card would have been routinely purged from the crime files. J somehow made them look anyway. His contact at DPS wrote that he was surpirsed that the card was still on file. But there followed a series of legal reasons for not releasing it to J. I don't remember all of them, but I think one was that only family could have access. J got legal help and argued against every excuse for two years. Finally, DPS exhausted their defenses and was forced to release the document. There is no need to rely solely on my memory about this, or start from scratch to get the print evidence. I assume J's correspondence with the DPS is in the same place as the certified print card he pried from their reluctant hands -- in the collection of Walt Brown.

Ron, in September, 1997, J revealed the Wallace print evidence to me for the first time. As I recall, at first he approached the Kinser case the same way your brother did. He showed me the letters from his 2-year correspondence with Texas DPS. Initially, he was told that the print card would have been routinely purged from the crime files. J somehow made them look anyway. His contact at DPS wrote that he was surpirsed that the card was still on file. But there followed a series of legal reasons for not releasing it to J. I don't remember all of them, but I think one was that only family could have access. J got legal help and argued against every excuse for two years. Finally, DPS exhausted their defenses and was forced to release the document. There is no need to rely solely on my memory about this, or start from scratch to get the print evidence. I assume J's correspondence with the DPS is in the same place as the certified print card he pried from their reluctant hands -- in the collection of Walt Brown.

Stan, a conspiracy by definition has multiple motives. That is why motive is never pursued in a conspiracy investigation. I discussed focusing on motive as a disinformation technique in my paper: "The Gun That Didn't Smoke". If we deal with the real conspiracy evidence in the assassination, Shanet's "pretexts" from "medical surveillance" has a sophisticated meaning: Kennedy's doctor was assigned to one of the farthest vehicles from the limousine in the motorcade, the VIP bus. He was therefore kept from attending his patient at Parkland Hospital. There was a conspiratorial reason for that. Admiral George Burkley had the medical knowledge and cortisone crucial to saving Kennedy - a trauma patient with an adrenal deficiency. To those who knew about Kennedy's need for cortisone in the event of trauma, it was never necessary to mortally wound him. Any trauma would have killed him. In other words, any major "non-fatal" wound would have killed him, as long as Burkley could be prevented from administering first-aid. The conspirators blew his head open, yes. But because of their "medial surveillance", they did not have to take the chance of requiring a "kill shot." All they had to do was inflict any traumatic wound, and keep the emergency room in the dark about the proper medical history and treatment.

I have hi res files on a CD-ROM scanned from a second generation photocopy of the certified copy of the DPS print card that J obtained. Mike Blackwell did the scanning and CD-burning in January 1998. These could not be used as evidence, however. Nor could the photocopy of the certified print card. Only the signed and stamped DPS certified print card would maintain the chain of evidence. J simply wrote to DPS and convinced them that the card could be made public for various legal reasons. It took two years of correspondence for him to convince them. That process could start again by anyone else, and probably use J's precedent to expedite obtaining another certified card. There is an even faster, simpler way, however: Walt Brown has J's certified print card. It should be made available for examination without delay. Richard

This thread seems to have died in a hurry. Anybody still tracking it? I hope the 2084 who read it last month weren't interested only in A) getting an adrenalin high from 'new' information, and/or being spectators to an ugly fight between Walt Brown and me.

MY ONLINE BIBLIOGRAPHY (as of 3/21/06 - for updates, use link in signature below) Fair Play Issue 17 - Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...mblr_frwrd.html Fair Play Issue 17 - What's the Deal with 13-Inch Heads? (An article by Jack White, with a related item by Richard Bartholomew appended to it.): http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...e/13_heads.html Fair Play Issue 19 - The Gun That Didn't Smoke: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/gtds.html Assassination Research Journal - Volume 1, Issue 2 - The Gun That Didn't Smoke: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html Fair Play Issue 19 - Letter-to-the-editor: Don't trust the Z-Film: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i.../rb_letter.html Fair Play Issue 22 - Book Review of James Fetzer's Assassination Science: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...sue/fetzer.html Fair Play Issue 24 - Dial "P" for Perjury: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...sue/dial_p.html JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly - Dial "P" for Perjury: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/perjur~1.htm Fair Play Issue 25 - Oswald's Closest Friend: A Review of Bruce Adamson's DeMohrenschildt study: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_..._Issue/bca.html JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 1, October 1996, pp. 22-25 - Z-FILM: RED FRAME, WHITE LIGHT: http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/zfilm/zfilm.htm Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints: http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm

Although belated, I want to take this opportunity to thank Robert Howard for starting this thread, and John Simkin for inviting me to participate. Thank you, Robert and John. It is an honor. I am committed to giving honest, constructive, and productive comments and responses to everyone who posts here in that same spirit. Thanks too, to all of you who posted such nice welcome messages. Richard Bartholomew

You're welcome! When Jay told me to remove the references to the other matches before adding my monograph to the press packet, I protested. Only Print 29, Box A exceeded 12 points, and that was Jay's rationale for suppressing them publicly. I reluctantly went along. (When I met Darby in Oct. 2003, he showed me his updated chart, which was up to 34 points.) Richard

Larry, I posted the correction. But after 8 years away from being immersed in the subject, my proofreading was faulty. The current web posting now matches my original, faded hardcopy exactly. On first review, I had thought the fingerprint "New Totals" number for Box B was a mistake because 8+3=11, not 10. Also, my analysis in my last reply to you was incomplete. Here is the definitive explanation on how the WC did and did not account for the Wallace print matches: Print 29, Box A (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 9 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 8 for Studebaker and 1 for Oswald. Print 29 was hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC accounted for it as an identifiable print, there would be a "1" in the "Unidentified" column, instead of a "0". So, Print 29, Box A, is now accounted for as a 10th identifiable print, as well as a 10th identified print. Print 20, Box B (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left thumb) was also not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, 2 for Lucy. However, the WC seems to have made a mistake in that attempt to hide Print 20. Print 20 was labelled "unidentified," a catagory in the WC lists of identifiable latents. The WC further accounted for it as an unidentified, identifiable print by mentioning it in the Report, on page 566. So, Print 20, Box B, was accounted for as an 8th identifiable print, as well and now as an 8th identified print. Print 22, Box B (a single number for two latents matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger and left ring finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, and 2 for Lucy, plus the obscured unidentifed Print 20. As with Print 29, Box A, latent prints 22 were hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC fully accounted for them as identifiable prints, there would be a "2" "3" in the "Unidentified" column (or "3" with the inclusion of Print 20, Box , instead of a "0" "1". So, Prints 22, Box B, are now accounted for as 9th and 10th identifiable prints, as well as 9th and 10th identified prints. Finally, please note that this correction applies also to the fingerprint subtotal, which is now 24, and the grand total, which is now 32. Thanks, Larry, for your expert peer review, and help with this proofreading. As to your comment about Nathan, I don't remember whether or not Nathan made or verified the matches on latent nos. 20 and 22. I don't think so. I could be wrong about that, however. I'm still reviewing my files for the answer. As for Barr's apparent lack of knowledge, I have no explanation. It could be that the other three matches may have been below the standard of 12 points. I have a vague memory that this was the case. I can tell you that it was not a problem for Jay or myself me. There was and is no universal standard. The FBI's handbook on fingerprint science, which Barr gave to me for study at our Dec. 1997 meeting, even stated that Bureau examiners are so highly trusted that a 3-point match by them was acceptable to the FBI. Richard

RE: "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints" http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm Larry, you're close -- and you made me aware of two typos. Two latents, #29, Box A, and #20, Box B were the only Wallace prints officially accounted for by the WC/FBI as "identifiable." So, the number in the "New Totals" column, "Box A" row, should be "9" instead of "10". I'll make the correction. "Box B" row gets a little tricky. The WC itemized lists of identifiable Box B prints should have accounted for 8, not 7. The neglected print was numbered (20) and labelled ("unidentified"). As I noted in comment D, the print in the "Unidentified" column, "Box B" row, is print 20. Jay's print examiners matched #20 to the inked print for Wallace's left thumb. It is one of the three in the "Wallace" column. The other two Wallace prints were numbered as one print (see below). So, the Box B "New Totals" should read "10" instead of "11". I'll make that correction too. As far as I have been able to determine, there were at least four ways by which the WC/FBI investigators hid Wallace's, and/or other, identifiable prints: 1) Judging identifiable latents as not identifiable, thus excluding them from their accounting method. 2) Labeling multiple latents under one number, or not numbering them at all. Print #22, Box B is actually two prints, matched by Jay's examiners to Wallaces left little finger, and left ring finger. Keep in mind that print #29 was also matched to Wallace's left little finger. 3) Labeling a latent as having "indistinct characteristics" -- which is a non-designation that means neither identifiable nor unidentifiable. This appears to have been a tricky way to distract attention from an identifiable print, and allow for impunity should a subsequent examination catch the "error." (This trick was used on Print #29, Box A -- matched to Wallace's left little finger.) 4) Reporting numbers that differed from both their official itemized lists, and from testimony that was itself numerically inconsistent. (See comments B1 through B4.)

I signed this petition several years ago. My # is 126. I'm a little amused that Dan Marvin is #127 but I'm dissapointed to see that since then it's only increased to #171. That's maybe an average of 1 signature a month. At this rate, we'll probably have enough signatures when? 400 years from now? Richard - Do you still have title to the vehicle? Was it ever examined? My experience with most vehicles is that if let to sit for a long period they become inoperable. What was it's condition when you last saw it? - Chris (edited to add comment to Richard -CN) Chris - All the more reason to motivate folks to go sign the petition. The first important use of the power will be to collect and protect crucial evidence that is in grave danger of disappearing. I never had the title. When we bought it we put it in the name of one of the buyers, Ronan Lynch, who was a foreign student at UT from Ireland. He graduated and returned to Ireland. We never changed the title after that, mainly, because Texas records list only the current and previous two oners owners. One more name would have eliminated the name C.B. Smith George Gordon Wing. I hope no one else has gotten a title. We were lucky enough that George Wing had owned the car as long as he did, preserving those names his and C.B. Smith's names in the record for some 28 years. The condition was and is inoperable. But highly repairable. I hope no one does any cosmetic changes to it, however. We videotaped the initial search we did on the car. I have everything that was removed from it. However, a more indepth search of hidden spaces needs to take place. All the more reason to get this out of private hands. Richard

In reading this thread it seems that some "insiders" know a good deal more than some of the rest of us. There is reference in this thread to an article by Richard Bartholmew on the "Mac Wallace" print(s). Could Mr. Bartholmew please post this article (or a link)? I am sure it would help the rest of us get up to speed on the status of this controversy. Larry Hancock was referring to my monograph, "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints". Larry has the version ordered abridged by J. Harrison to hide the existence of matches to other Wallace fingers. The abridged version was part of the press packet at the failed Mac Wallace press conference. I have now posted the original, unabridged version, which has never been seen until now except by the late J. Harrison, and the late Mike Blackwell. Here is the link: http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm Richard

What's the current status of the rambler? I've been curious about this since your last update in Fair Play. After some friends of mine and I purchaced the D713191 D713121 Rambler from George Wing's widow in 1992, it spent five years in the driveway of one of my friends on Robinson Avenue in Austin, TX. After the mysterious Reg Reynolds incident (see 1996 Update), the City of Austin tagged it in violation of city ordinance for inoperable vehicles. I then allowed J. Harrison to move it to his friend's place of business, Del Valle Import Inc. 3506 Darby St Austin, TX. It spent about five years there. I learned in 2003, that Jay, without telling me, had moved it to a location unknown to me. I have always kept its current location out of the public realm, and I hope those who know its whereabouts do the same for its protection. Bill Kelly and the JFK Grand Jury Team are trying to get it under the protection of a grand jury as evidence. I urge all who read this to sign the JFK Grand Jury Petition online at http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html. Richard

In 2003, Dawn gave me a chance to reply directly to J. Harrison's false claims. Here is that reply: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:14:42 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Bartholomew" <bartholoviews@yahoo.com> Subject: Richard Bartholomew reply to John Frazer Harrison To: "Dawn Meredith" [e-mail address redacted 03/08/06 – RB] Dawn, here’s my reply to Jay’s rant. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: J Harrison > To: dawn meredith > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: Just a tidbit of subjectal education > (ie B M & P) > > > RB on the day of the press conference in Dallas > Texas BROKE Nathan's PERSONAL request for anonymity. > At the time Nathan was adamant about that exposure. > > RB had never met him and was NOT in direct contact > with Nathan or anyone else in that chain of > investigation. What is this, an Abbott & Costello bit? How could I have been personally requested by someone I did not know personally? And, wasn’t Jay in that chain of investigation? > He did do a graphic chart depiction of CONFLICTS on > ALL the prints that were on ALL the BOXES in the 6th > floor. And was paid for doing so by Barr. That was > done on 27 Feb 1998 and revised on May 26, 1998 and > was a page in Barr's presentation to the ARRB. I > coordinated his GRAPHIC ability to Barr for that > documentation. I was paid by Barr in Dec. 1997 for editing and fact-checking his first draft. I did the chart on my own as part of my study of how the WC handled the print evidence. Jay asked me if he could use it in the presentation, but only if I took out all references to the matches to Wallace’s other fingers. Jay “coordinated” nothing. I got a second check from Barr early in 1998 for the digital work Mike and I did for Nathan to make his charts. > AFTER divulging Nathan's full name to the press in > Dallas (after the formal announcement that shielded > it) he had E-Mail Correspondences with Barr, Walt > and I regarding our INEPTNESS in properly reporting > this presentation of BOTH my 157 page open homicide > report to the DPD AND Barr' s 24 page "Petition > Submitting New Evidence and Suggesting Further > Investigation" to the ARRB. I gave Nathan’s name to John Kelin only. The “press in Dallas” apparently never wanted the name, since they never reported it, even after John Kelin posted it on his website. The “press in Dallas” had exactly what it wanted: a reason to call the print match another crazy, unsupported conspiracy nut theory (see the Fort Worth Star Telegram story by Bill Teeter, dated May 30, 1998). My post-press conference e-mail to Barr was to tell him the truth about what happened – that Walt and Jay unilaterally, and secretly, tried to sabotage the most historic press conference since Garrison’s. They failed by ineptly giving the Dallas press two of Nathan’s full signatures, his signed initials, and his printed initials, on page 10 of Barr’s ARRB petition. Any journalist could have used that to find Nathan’s listing in the Austin phone book. It was my job to point out such mistakes. I would have, had I been privy to Walt’s and Jay’s secret decision to keep Nathan’s name from the press. Also remember that Sample and Collom already had Wallace’s prints and WC latent 29 because of an inept leak from Jay sometime prior to April, 1998. I was the one who, in our meeting with Barr in Houston in Dec. 1997, insisted that they turn their evidence over to the proper authorities or risk looking like profiteers, more interested in book sales than in justice. The idea of doing a press conference came as a surprise to me, when I got a group memo from Barr about it in early April. I thought it was a good way to force the DPD to deal honestly with the evidence. You can’t cover up something if everybody knows about it. The press conference was then hastily put together after Jay learned that Sample and Collom had the print and were saying it was no match. > Walt, in the conference, stated that it would be up > to the DPD to release the name of the examiner IF > THEY cared to do so. Nathan DID NOT WANT TO BE > CONTACTED by buffs or press at all hours of the day > or night. > > I personally RESPECT peoples confidentiality. What a bunch of bull. Of course DPD would not release Nathan’s name. They were the ones who STARTED the cover-up. Nathan’s match exposed their incompetence (at least) and their roll as conspirators (at most). Was Nathan ever harassed by buffs or press at all hours of the day or night? No. The only nuts harassing Nathan were Jay and Walt. Was it their plan to wait until Nathan was deceased before publishing his affidavit? If not, Jay’s so-called “respect” for confidentiality is disingenuous nonsense. Were they going to keep Nathan’s name from the public only until it was time to sell it in a book? Was that was going to be the big sales incentive? If so, I hope Nathan is getting a big royalty. Also, if I wanted to violate Jay’s confidentiality, I could have done it any time in the last five years – and still can. He may have the Rambler, but he has apparently forgotten all about the valuable, highly secret, item of his he entrusted to me. > For 5 years RB has been in the background and hasn't > communicated with those people that wanted to > communicate with him. (Walter Graff for example). This would come as a big surprise to Walter Graf. We’ve never heen out of touch. Ask him yourself: [e-mail address redacted 03/08/06 – RB] Jay, on the other hand, doesn’t even know how to spell Walter’s last name. > My whole life has been dedicated to this event and I > have NO respect for anyone that violates my > confidentiality. > > I would NEVER have subjected you a similar set of > circumstances that you did to me yesterday and then > told me about today! Now if you had told me about it > before hand I would not have gone and I would have > said to you that when you introduce them to each > other tell Nathan that "This is the man that exposed > your name to the world in the press conference in > Dallas". > > The circumstances that happened are FAR from > friendship. Interesting that Jay doesn’t think he had a life before the assassination. Also, note that he can keep all the secrets he wants from you. But if you keep just one from him, it’s blasphemy. Richard

Ron, there is no "if" about it. It's a match. What the FBI, and most researchers, do not yet know is that other Mac Wallace fingerprints were matched to other unidentified latent carton prints. Wallace handled those boxes. Judge the FBI based on that truth. Richard Can you elaborate on your statement (and your source)? I thought it was just one print on one box. Thanks Nick As the first researcher put in charge of troubleshooting the Wallace fingerprint evidence by Barr McClellan, I was privy to all it as early as September, 1997. My sole source for the DPS certified print card, National Archives copies of the unidentified latents, and identifyers' charts was Jay Harrison. Without refering to my notes to refresh my memory, I recall that three unidentified latent carton prints were each matched to a total of three inked Wallace fingerprints (left little and ring fingers, and right index finger). Darby was not the first to make any of those matches. There were two or three other identifyers before him, albeit less experienced. Upon learning about the context of the matches, all but Darby were too fearful to be named as the identifyers. By the time of the 1998 press conference, Walt Brown had misguided Bar and Jay into withholding all but one match, and even Darby's name, for the purpose of playing a wacky kind of cat-and-mouse game with Sample, Collum, and other researchers, thus sabotaging the event. All along, I strongly advocated full, immediate disclosure of all of the evidence in conjunction with turning it over to the proper legal authorities. Unfortuntely, all of Jay's original research and evidence ended up under the total control of Walt Brown. Why Brown continues to sit on it baffles me. Nonetheless, other researchers can replicate Jay's research by obtaining a certified print card, National Archives copies of the latents, and certified print examiners to do a blind study of them. Logically, if one unidentified latent belonged to Wallace, so would others - perhaps all of them. It is simply a matter of completing the crime lab work that, to date, only Jay Harrison has done. Richard

Ron, there is no "if" about it. It's a match. What the FBI, and most researchers, do not yet know is that other Mac Wallace fingerprints were matched to other unidentified latent carton prints. Wallace handled those boxes. Judge the FBI based on that truth. Richard

It seems odd that two people who wrote a book about Wallace being on the sixth floor would be "very biased" against a print ID that would show he was there. They must put a lot of faith in these experts who say it is not Wallace's print, at the expense of their own theory. I suppose that shows admirable respect for science, letting the chips fall where they may, assuming these experts came up with good science and Darby didn't. But if it's good science, I wonder why the FBI doesn't wish to confirm it, by documenting that it's not a match. It was very odd at the time. If I recall correctly Sample used a couple of cops from southern California and unlike Darby who made the match "blind" these cops were aware the controversey around these prints. To my knowledge Sample and Collum have never named these cops but they were NOT experts like Nathan Darby. At time time- to me -it seemed like some sort of competition between the California writers and the Tx. people. Sample even went so far as to say "there is no Nathan Darby listed in Austin TX.". So I pulled out the phone book and discoverend that not only was Nathan listed, he lived a block from me. SO of course I called him and we sruck up a fast friendship from that day on (1998). After Glen came here and let Nathan patiently show him the match, Sample totally backed off saying there was no match. I have talked to Glen a few times over the years but he is no longer active in this case from what I can tell. Dawn Has the JFK case ever actually driven a researcher crazy? It seems to have the potential. Ron, I concur with Dawn. If I can find and post my e-mails to Sample and Collum when all of this was happening, you will see the utter absurdity of their so-called experts' so-called critiques of Darby's match. I am no expert, but I had no trouble destroying their arguments, which never came close to even a basic understanding of fingerprint science. Then when Sample/Collum kept their two original police identifyers anonymous, it flew in the face of all legality and protocol in fingerprint science. None of their subsequent named critics - paraded on their website to debunk Darby - came anywhere near Darby's experience and credentials. Whenever there is a disagreement among identifyers, the legal standard for a match defers to the identifyer with the greater certification, experience and credientials in the field. On top of that the named critics' arguments were as bad or worse than the arguments of the first two. None of the named critics would officially stand by their findings. Had they done so, they would have risked losing their certification as identifyers - that's how biased and ridiculous their arguments were. As for going crazy, I don't know about other researchers, but I've found that the way to keep one's sanity is to do your own thinking. I studied fingerprint basics on my own and saw the match for myself. I never had to trust any "experts" - including Darby. Richard

Thanks, Larry. I think I still have that one backed up somewhere. I'll look for a digital copy and post it here. I did it as a research tool for understanding the FBI's failure to identify all of the carton prints. The fingerprint investigation was my assigned study area in Barr's "Texas Group." That document was included in the press package at the May 30, 1998 press conference at the Conspiracy Museum in Dallas. Richard

Thanks, Larry. I don't recall writing a monograph on the Wallace print. I wrote several e-mail replies to Mark Collum and Glen Sample defending Darby's ID against their so-called experts' critiques. Are those what you are referring to? Collum-Sample refused to publish most of them at the time. They were very biased against the print identification. Don't know if they ever posted my replies since changing their minds about the authenticity of the print. Do you have digital copies you could post here? My digital copies are long-gone, I'm afraid. I vaguely recall cc'ing them to you, Jay, and Barr. Nice work on the Rambler comment. Could you quote it here and cite the source? Richard

Colonel Burris' wife, Barbara J. Burris, is the daughter of Governor Jester. I suspect that the troop ship "Barbara J.", used in the Bay of Pigs invasion, was named for her. Richard

James, I wrote about this Rambler in the railroad parking lot as seen in a frame of the Bell film in my 1996 Update (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rmblr96.fp.html). It is one of several nearly identical Ramblers photographed near the TSBD at the time of the shooting. A decoy operation is the likely explanation. Richard