Jump to content
The Education Forum

Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

According to the book review, Joan Mellen obtained a very clear copy of Mac Wallace's fingerprints from the Navy, and these were turned over to certified print examiner Robert Garrett, who declared the unknown print from the sniper's nest not to be Wallace's.

This surprises me. Because, as I understood it, the examiner who examined the print in 1998 felt certain the the print was Wallace's. He had found numerous matching features, many more than required for a positive match.

I don't know the name of this first examiner. Is there any word on his possibly challenging Robert Garrett's findings? Did the Navy give Mellen authentic fingerprints? (Sorry... I had to ask.)

Or is this the final word on the subject? If it's the final word (which I'm suspecting it is), then this is disappointing news. Not because I believe LBJ was behind the plot. But because I had hypothesized that tte CIA might have been using the print to keep LBJ in line.

Of course I'd rather the record be corrected than believe in something that's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil Nelson wrote on Facebook today:

"An exhumation would later lead to the conclusion that the death was not a suicide. , , Estes would name Mac Wallace as the wanton murderer employed by the Johnson regime. The carnage attributed to Wallace resulted in creating an urban myth of great import, based solely on the testimony of Billie Sol Estes. “Estes was an admitted xxxx”, explained Mellen. “There is no evidence that Wallace was responsible”, she added."

Evidently, Ms. Mellen hasn't heard of Texas Ranger Clint Peoples and the 1984 trial that proved to a grand jury that Marshall's death was NOT a suicide (22 years after that exhumation, THAT's how much 'later' it was) and that the men behind his death were named Johnson, Carter and Wallace). She needs to read Chapter 1 of "LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus" which explains all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Nathan Darby found way more than was required to confirm a match of the fingerprint. I believe some shenanigans occured, with "someone" also trying to discredit him after the fact by inserting some less than flattering things into his record. That looks like somebody didn't like his findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug:

Proving that Marshall's death was not a suicide, that does not ipso facto prove that somehow LBJ was behind it, as much as Philip Nelson would like us to think such was the case.

Nelson is the kind of author who is praised by people like Fetzer, who said his first book was comparable to Jim Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable, which is one of the most absurd comments I have heard of late in appraisals of Kennedy assassination books. Nelson was wrong about LBJ ducking down prior to the shots, as shown by Groden in Absolute Proof and it appears he was wrong about this fingerprint match also. We shall see when Mellen's book becomes available to all for review.

As for Estes, the original articles exposing his scams, which won a Pulitzer for their author, did not contain any information or evidence that LBJ was involved with them, or that Johnson protected him. That was all assumed by that rightwing nut Haley in his quickie book, A Texan Looks at Lyndon, which the Birchers got out on the trail in order to hurt LBJ and help Goldwater in 1964. And, to my knowledge, its in that book that Wallace first surfaced as a serial killer for LBJ.

Estes apparently adapted this scenario for the 1984 grand jury hearings into Marshall's death. That proceeding ended up ruling that the Marshall case was a homicide, but the parties named by Estes were all deceased, therefore there could be no legal proceedings about their roles. Estes' plot reportedly included Cliff Carter, Wallace and LBJ. He actually wrote once that LBJ ordered the deaths of seven people who could spill the beans on Estes' relationship with him. Obvious question, duh: why not just kill Estes?

He also once wrote that Carter told him that he planned the mechanics of the assassination and that Wallace fired from the GK. Barr McClellan changed this to the sixth floor. Apparently to accommodate the fingerprint, which is now rendered dubious. But Estes also wrote that he had Carter saying this stuff on tape! Oh really? And you kept it secret all these decades during all those legal proceedings? Even while you were in jail?

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 talked to two people at a Lancer Conference who interviewed Estes for a couple of hours. They said it was utterly bizarre, and they came away shaking their heads in disbelief. Which jibes with what Estes told the judge at his second trial and conviction, "I have a problem. I live in a dream world."

Yep, and that is where those tapes are.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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):

fingerprints.gif

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.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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):

fingerprints.gif

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.

Sandy,

There is no such thing as a gullible JFK assassination author or researcher.

(lol)

--Tommy

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy, you are basing what you said on a review of the book. Not really fair.

Secondly, how could anyone compare prints with something as poor quality as either one of those? The one on the right is pretty bad, but the one on the left is not only poor in the area you mention, but it also looks smeared near the center. Which is where some of the comparisons come from.

If that was the quality I had to work with, if I had been Darby I would have turned the assignment down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy, you are basing what you said on a review of the book. Not really fair.

But I quoted Joan Mellen. What I wrote is based on what she said.

Secondly, how could anyone compare prints with something as poor quality as either one of those? The one on the right is pretty bad, but the one on the left is not only poor in the area you mention, but it also looks smeared near the center. Which is where some of the comparisons come from.

Truth is, what we see is far worse than what Darby saw. How do I know that? Because he points to patterns in the right image which we see as solid black.

But even as bad as what we have is, the print on the left is very usable. Some of the lines have tiny skips (white segments) in them. Those can be drawn in. I'll bet a skilled examiner just ignores skips like those.

If that was the quality I had to work with, if I had been Darby I would have turned the assignment down.

Well, he found 14 matches. I can see most of them myself in the left print. (Take a look yourself. You need to be able to zoom in. The ones I can see are where a line splits up into two. This, I know, is one of the features they look for.) I can make out a couple in the right image. I'm sure that if we could see the images Darby saw, we'd be able to see all of the matches in the left image and probably most or all in the right. You don't have to have a complete print to identify matching prints. Just a minimum number of matching features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy:

From that review, it says Darby used photocopies. Maybe that is all he could have used, but from what I see in those illustrations, they were not very good.

Further, Mellen is quoted for about four sentences. I am sure in her book that she devotes an entire section to this subject. And she addresses the issue in much more detail.

My question concerns the point that today, they have computer programs for this. Why did she not use that? I guess I can ask her.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...