Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ

[Douglas Caddy]

Robert Caro in his last volume on LBJ did not mention Billie Sol Estes or Mac Wallace.

His is writing his fifth installment on LBJ now.

It will be interesting to see what he writes about concerning Billie Sol and Mac Wallace and also any differences his forthcoming volume might have with the contents of Joan Mellen's recently published book.

[Glenn Nall]

James, no offense at all. I simply asked about Marshall's cause and manner of death. "Culprits aside" I said. A face-value question. I don't hang my hat on Estes, either.

[Glenn Nall]

Roy: Because JM discounts Madeleine Brown, that seems to be end of it for JM. But what about the other ten million pieces of evidence that point at LBJ? Both circumstantial and physical.

Can you please name the ten million pieces of evidence that insinuate LBJ into the plot to kill Kennedy?

I will settle for five million if you are busy.

James,

Thanks for taking it easy on me with the five million. Your intuition is correct that I am busy. My book, due around the year 2030, is behind schedule.

(conservative figures)

- 3,060,000 needless war dead in Southeast Asia

- 500,000 " " " " Indonesia (the rottenest genocide in history)

- 500,000 " " " " Congo, Mid East, Brazil (+ Caribbean, Latin American in general) a wild guesstimate

+_______1 multi-trillion debt that never was or will be paid; US from world's creditor to world's debtor

4,060,001

How did all these massive massacres happen after Kennedy? LBJ had to pay the pipers, and that's what it cost. From the Nelson Rockefeller-John McCloy-Allen Dulles-Claire Booth Luce-H L Hunt types to the mechanics pumping out Bell helicopters. They had LBJ over enough barrels to fill a distillery. They didn't have to send him a telegram that said, "Give us what we want so you can continue doing what you want, whatever the inferno that is." And they all wanted pretty much the same thing, robbing and killing the workingman for fun and profit.

Less than half of November 22 --

1 How much trouble for LBJ to sleep on AF2 from Houston to Ft. Worth, and be fresh as a daisy for a midnight rendezvous at Murchison's? Still he had some dark bags under his hooded eyes that day.

1 The argument over the seating for the parade, as beautifully excused in the CTKA article by Vazakas, Coogan, and Dragoo, linked in your comment #43. [Anything worked on by Phil Dragoo could not possibly be any more efficient, organized, colorful, clear. Talk about economy of language! And V V and S C are no slouches. It's easy to see why that article is so highly rated.] BUTTTTTTTTTTT -- what circular logic, what ad hoc ergo propter hoc! Mrs. Yarborough is not even invited to dinner at the Governor's Mansion, and Connally seats Ralph, senior U. S. Senator from Texas, at the children's table. But "the feud", RY (only Southern Senator to vote for every post WW2 civil rights bill) vs. JBC and LBJ is a false equality. When RY was p.o.ed at the Malevolent Duo, he had plenty of good reason. Vice versa, mysterious motives and ulterior motives. You bet because RY could smell a rat, and the Prince and King Rat knew it. IMHO, not only did JBC and LBJ know it was highly dangerous to be in X-100, they knew about this wild card on the loose named Lee Harvey Oswald. Who had been befriended by "fellow-traveler" Mac Wallace, who had his own set of beefs against John Con. (Both had been student union president at UT years apart, but oh how different their success rate had been after college.)

1 Look at John Con's face and demeanor that morning. That's one scared Texan. He doesn't know whether to faint, scream or load his diaper.

1 Textbook example of "excited utterance" (blurted in a scary situation before someone has time to think and couch his reaction) -- John Con screaming, "Oh no no no, THEY are going to KILL us ALLLLLLL!" Jackie was always amazed at the inordinate volume and suddenness of this.

1 Can anyone deny that LBJ owned JBC, had him on a leash? Same JBC who demanded the route and destination, used idiotic subterfuges (found out later, but excused again) to get his (LBJ's) way.

1 Nellie Connally hunkering down in the car right before they hit the Kill Zone. Nothing like LBJ but still...

1 Nellie repeatedly telling JBC, "Hush." She knew he could accidentally let the cat out of the bag. She was a piece of work herself, hard-hearted progeny of bushwhacker stock. She'd had the head of her eldest child Kathleen (an almighty Southern woman!) half blown off by a shotgun. In Florida, sort of opposite analogous to the de Mohrenschildt assassination. And teenaged Kathleen Connally's white-trash husband got away with it, in true Southern white-trash, dirt-bag fashion. So poor, multi-suffering Nellie Connally had no sympathy for anyone else. (Probably not even her husband who stole so hard for her, went to prison in the early 1980s owing an eighth of a BILLION dollars) "They" had taken her slaves, her right as a superior Southern woman. And "they" had taken her first-born daughter.

Jim D., let me tell you a secret -- they're all white trash. It may be getting somewhat better (but it's probably too late), but the American South in general, and Texas in particular, and Dallas in most particular, is the world's depository of murderous, work-allergic, back-shooting human offal.

Okay, Jim, you got me for now. This is harder than I thought. That's only 4,060,008 pieces of evidence that LBJ was Prime Mover in JFKA. A couple more so I can round it up to 4,060,010:

Johnson on AF-One. Why didn't he take his own plane that had all his stuff on it? (Answer: He wanted to keep an eye on "the enemy" who had been so good to him, though not good enough for Texas Pure D White Trash.) Last of all for now, the wink from cancerous Albert "Winky" Thomas.

This is not an exhaustive list. Far from it. A good exercise, it's making me think.

what a coincidence. Mine is expected to be published the very same year.

you have a great sense of humor. I don't know if I can stay alive until 2030 to read your book, but I'll try.

[Glenn Nall]

Can you please name the ten million pieces of evidence that insinuate LBJ into the plot to kill Kennedy

Most investigators of similarly heinous crimes put a lot of weight on "who gained the most" or "who stood to gain the most."

To me, (and this is just me), this says an awful lot about possible perpetrators, including LBJ, and not excluding Hoover, Anti-Castro elites, etc....

[James DiEugenio]

James, no offense at all. I simply asked about Marshall's cause and manner of death. "Culprits aside" I said. A face-value question. I don't hang my hat on Estes, either.

The grand jury reversed the original decision and they were right about that.

As per Cui Bono, when you go down that path the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death because he was such a shock to the system. You can go from J. Edgar Hoover, to certain Mafia figures e.g. Giancana, Trafficante and Marcello, to the Pentagon and State Department guys who wanted into Vietnam, to the CIA which did not want RFK riding their hides anymore, to David Rockefeller who wanted a globalization policy which Kennedy resisted. You could even include Israel, which wanted to build an atomic weapon, which JFK resisted.

How do you pick and choose among such suspects? Which, in those terms, would include Johnson. This is essentially the thesis of the Torbitt Document.

Except it leaves one of them out. The CIA.

Edited September 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

James, no offense at all. I simply asked about Marshall's cause and manner of death. "Culprits aside" I said. A face-value question. I don't hang my hat on Estes, either.

The grand jury reversed the original decision and they were right about that.

As per Cui Bono, when you go down that path the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death because he was such a shock to the system. You can go from J. Edgar Hoover, to certain Mafia figures e.g. Giancana, Trafficante and Marcello, to the Pentagon and State Department guys who wanted into Vietnam, to the CIA which did not want RFK riding their hides anymore, to David Rockefeller who wanted a globalization policy which Kennedy resisted. You could even include Israel, which wanted to build an atomic weapon, which JFK resisted.

How do you pick and choose among such suspects? Which, in those terms, would include Johnson. This is essentially the thesis of the Torbitt Document.

Except it leaves one of them out. The CIA.

I agree with this completely. This is in fact the point I made in a reply to Sandy's post earlier today, that these "so-and-so did it" categorical phrases are really misleading, because of this fact, that "the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death."

And as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't exclude any of these groups from complicity, either. I do think however that some of these benefitted more than others. This does take some of the wind out of my sails, though, come to think of it to your point...

It's kinda something you put in your pocket for when you can use it later, I guess. Hell, I dunno - it can help in categorizing, to some extent. That Israel would risk International Conflict for such a benefit isn't nearly as likely as Giancana and Trafficante risking 'whatever' in order to get their island back. Johnson? Has already proved he'd kill his sister to get a cold glass of sweet tea, so...

[Roger DeLaria]

James, no offense at all. I simply asked about Marshall's cause and manner of death. "Culprits aside" I said. A face-value question. I don't hang my hat on Estes, either.

The grand jury reversed the original decision and they were right about that.

As per Cui Bono, when you go down that path the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death because he was such a shock to the system. You can go from J. Edgar Hoover, to certain Mafia figures e.g. Giancana, Trafficante and Marcello, to the Pentagon and State Department guys who wanted into Vietnam, to the CIA which did not want RFK riding their hides anymore, to David Rockefeller who wanted a globalization policy which Kennedy resisted. You could even include Israel, which wanted to build an atomic weapon, which JFK resisted.

How do you pick and choose among such suspects? Which, in those terms, would include Johnson. This is essentially the thesis of the Torbitt Document.

Except it leaves one of them out. The CIA.

I agree with this completely. This is in fact the point I made in a reply to Sandy's post earlier today, that these "so-and-so did it" categorical phrases are really misleading, because of this fact, that "the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death."

And as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't exclude any of these groups from complicity, either. I do think however that some of these benefitted more than others. This does take some of the wind out of my sails, though, come to think of it to your point...

It's kinda something you put in your pocket for when you can use it later, I guess. Hell, I dunno - it can help in categorizing, to some extent. That Israel would risk International Conflict for such a benefit isn't nearly as likely as Giancana and Trafficante risking 'whatever' in order to get their island back. Johnson? Has already proved he'd kill his sister to get a cold glass of sweet tea, so...

I know it was rightly reversed back in the 80's, and I take Estes with a grain of salt. LBJ had the most to lose and certainly wasn't alone in having a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. I believe LBJ had gained the most from the assassination.

I plan on getting Mellen's book and reading it, it's far down the list behind a bunch of other things.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Roger DeLaria

[James DiEugenio]

I just read the ending of Joan's book.

Its pretty powerful stuff.

It turns out that her print expert, Robert Garrett, did use digital imaging to test the so called matches made by Darby.

He found eight separate places in which there were distinct differences between the WC box print and the Navy Wallace print Joan got. (pgs. 259-260) He also commented that the prints that were used by Darby were not high enough quality, either the Texas prints of Wallace or the WC copies of the box prints. Joan and Garrett secured better quality first generation photos. In fact, Garrett told Joan that he would not have proceeded with what Darby had.

And boy does he back up his analysis. In the appendix to the book there are at least ten photo comparisons. Some of them are blown up microphotographs. His report is extraordinarily detailed. (pgs. 272-283)

He writes that, "Its obvious that these are not prints of the same person." (p. 261)

One of the most puzzling aspects of his analysis was that neither Darby nor Hoffmeister were members in current standing of the International Association for Identification at the time they did their initial analysis back in the nineties. (ibid)

Why Jay Harrison would work with two men who were not currently certified by the IAI is weird, since Jay was a former police officer.

Edited September 27, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

All this talk about Mac Wallace, when all I've (personally) ever thought was that this alleged fingerprint was the only thing that even suggests his involvement. IOW, I haven't given him much thought.

I can only assume that there's more to Ms Mellen's exculpation of LBJ than that Wallace wasn't in the TSBD.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

There is, but that is another 300 pages worth.

Sorry, I am not a speed reader.

BTW, it doesn't even look like Wallace was in Texas that day.

And I must add, this book has the best biography of Wallace I have seen.

[Dawn Meredith]

One of the most puzzling aspects of his analysis was that neither Darby nor Hoffmeister were members in current standing of the International Association for Identification at the time they did their initial analysis back in the nineties. (ibid)

Why Jay Harrison would work with two men who were not currently certified by the IAI is weird, since Jay was a former police officer.

WOW. He wouldn't and he didn't. I can't speak about Hoffmeister but I can about Nathan. Do you also believe that Nathan also wrote a letter himself for his file stating he would not be re-certifying? ( A fb friend just messaged this lie to me).

I have to just walk away from this because it leaves me shaking with anger. As I wrote a couple of years back on DPF my dear friends J and Nathan are rolling over in their graves.

I will keep the rest of my opinions on this to myself and trusted friends. Not to be put in writing.

[Sandy Larsen]

One of the most puzzling aspects of his analysis was that neither Darby nor Hoffmeister were members in current standing of the International Association for Identification at the time they did their initial analysis back in the nineties. (ibid)

Why Jay Harrison would work with two men who were not currently certified by the IAI is weird, since Jay was a former police officer.

WOW. He wouldn't and he didn't. I can't speak about Hoffmeister but I can about Nathan. Do you also believe that Nathan also wrote a letter himself for his file stating he would not be re-certifying? ( A fb friend just messaged this lie to me).

I have to just walk away from this because it leaves me shaking with anger. As I wrote a couple of years back on DPF my dear friends J and Nathan are rolling over in their graves.

I will keep the rest of my opinions on this to myself and trusted friends. Not to be put in writing.

Dawn,

I want you to know that you are not alone on this.

I didn't reply to what Jim noted because I've already said my share and I figured it was his turn to talk. And I didn't want to argue. But I will say a couple or three things.

First, on the matter of certification. I don't know the details regarding Darby's re-certification. I have assumed that he was retired when he wrote his affidavit, and that he wrote in his affidavit that he was a certified print examiner.

One thing I know is that a print examiner will lose his certification status if he doesn't re-certify within five years. I assume Darby let his certification lapse.

If so, would that mean Darby was fibbing when he stated he was a certified print examiner? In my mind, that would be like saying a retired professor would be fibbing if he wrote that he was, say, a Professor of Law at Harvard University. Or a retired engineer saying he's a Professional Engineer, when technically speaking he had let his Professional status lapse. A person who did plumbing his whole life who still calls himself a plumber after retirement. An ex-mayor who everybody still calls Mayor. A self-described best-selling author who hasn't written a book in years or even decades.

Darby had been a certified print examiner for most his adult life. Anybody who tries to take that away from him is clearly attempting to smear his reputation. This is a tactic of WC apologists that should have no place in the CT community.

Now, regarding the fact that Joan Mellen's examiner used digital imaging, I assume by that that he used computer technology to test for a match. If so, I have something to say about that.

Computer programs that do the work of an expert are called Expert Systems. They have been around for a long time. For example, there are expert systems that are designed to do the work of a doctor... diagnosis. Let me ask, how many of you have consulted your Digital Medical Expert recently?

I'll be the first to admit that a Medical Expert System would outperform a lot of doctors. I'll also be the first to stress that they cannot do the work of better doctors. Expert systems can do no better than what a human programmer -- with input from human doctors -- programs the computer to do.

In short, the best print examiners will do a better job than computer programs designed to do the same. Computers are capable of doing awe-inspiring things. But they are no match for intelligent human beings doing intelligent things. What they are good at is doing simple things extremely fast, and that is what makes them look powerful. Computers utterly fail at doing anything creative or anything philosophical. Computers cannot think.

Darby found numerous matching points. Unless he was disillusion when he made a identification between the lifted print and Mac Wallace's, then he got it right. And yet, it can take only ONE print examiner to claim that Darby was wrong, simply because this one print examiner found ONE (or more) mismatches between the prints. The reason for this is the ongoing debate in the print examiner community as to whether mismatches trump matches.

Darby himself saw at least one mismatch, but he ignored it. Because he is in the camp that says this: "The odds of a positive identification being made with 14 matching points is so high, that it must be that mismatching points should be considered suspect." For example, due to a scar. Or due to aging skin. Or due to pressure or stretching of skin. Etc.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Glenn Nall]

"Expert systems can do no better than what a human programmer -- with input from human doctors -- programs the computer to do."

much less, if you ask me. There's a human element, in medicine and in forensic sciences, that a computer will never be able to emulate, and that is many times more crucial than laboratory officiousness.

And I'm programmer, too, and there's never been a time when I was able to create a program to think exactly my thought processes through a function, but only respond to triggers. The difference, to steal from Mark Twain, is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

[Sandy Larsen]

"Expert systems can do no better than what a human programmer -- with input from human doctors -- programs the computer to do."

much less, if you ask me. There's a human element, in medicine and in forensic sciences, that a computer will never be able to emulate, and that is many times more crucial than laboratory officiousness.

And I'm programmer, too, and there's never been a time when I was able to create a program to think exactly my thought processes through a function, but only respond to triggers. The difference, to steal from Mark Twain, is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

I think you're right Glenn. I was being cautious not to overstate my case. (BTW, I'm an electrical engineer and I specialized in computer hardware design in my undergraduate program. So I also know some about computers.)

After I wrote what I did, I tried to think of ANY successful expert system. I couldn't think of one.

So I went over to Quora to ask them. Quora's membership is dominated by highly intelligent people, professionals, and seemingly an awful lot of computer programmers. As it turns out my question had already been asked. Plus related ones.

Click on the question to see the answers:

What are some examples of commercially successful Expert System applications?

In the recent years, are there medical expert systems used in the industry?

What are the best medical expert systems?

As of now there are only two answers to these three questions. One guy mention an MRI expert system... I believe he is mistaken.

Elsewhere somebody mentioned Computer Aided Design (CAD). CAD systems are truly useful and have indeed made design work much more efficient. But I certainly wouldn't classify them as expert systems. They are useful as a tool for drawing and for simulation. But they make no decisions whatsoever.

Talk of expert systems since the 1970s has apparently amounted to little more than fluff. If the fingerprinting identification system used by Joan Mellen's print examiner is as "good" (i.e. bad) as most expert systems today, then I think he's been pulling the wool over Mellen's eyes.

Jim, is the name of the software used given in the book?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Dawn Meredith]

Sandy: When I first learned of this slanderous allegation a few years back I visited with Nathan's Pastor son (Steve) and wife, who live just down the street from me. Pastor Darby assured me that his dad had kept up his certification. I am awaiting receipt of that chapter and then I am going to re-visit the Darbys to see if they have any kind of proof of this. I do know that Nathan kept everything concerning this work in a box he kept under his bed, where the home security system was bypassed in August 03 and the thief took only that box, without disturbing anything else in the home. (I am told Joan re-counts this as told to her by me without bothering to even wonder WHY). Nathan called me very afraid that his life may have been in danger. So his cert. proof may also have been in that box. I just know that he was as honest a man as you could ever meet and that he NEVER would have committed perjury on an affidavit. He would have put "RETIRED CLPE" on said affidavit. I do not know that one has to do to re-certify. I do not know that his son would even know. But all this will come after I have the chapter and a copy for Nathan's family of this disturbing chapter.

More when I know it.

However what I do know for certain is that Nathan himself NEVER wrote a note to them declining to be recertified. We were very good friends and he visited our home often as well as often speaking with me on the phone. I was very close to all of this before it occurred, during and after. Til J Harrison died in 05 and Nathan had a stroke that summer as well, from which he never recovered.

Interesting that Joan Mellen would take the time to speak with the son of Mac Wallace but never bother to speak with the son of Nathan Darby. Sloppy investigation or a pre-conceived agenda? Pick your poison.

Dawn