Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ

[Thomas Graves]

Just a question:

What exactly is the significance of "proving" that Mac Wallace either was there or was not there, aside from gaining some real satisfaction if he is shown to have been there?

Where exactly does this get anyone?

Presence of a Mac Wallace print gives a clue as to what role Vice President Johnson played.

The presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint tells me that Johnson might have been blackmailed into cooperating with the assassination. It seems that blackmail was a popular method for the CIA at the time. For example, James Angleton had a photo of J. Edgar Hoover homosexually involved with a man.

have to respectfully question this, Sandy. Even hard proof that Wallace was there would not, in and of itself, connect LBJ to the assassination. Wallace surely had other "pals," and if he was there a closer connection to why and at whose motivation would be needed, to me.

Wallace's presence, if so, only tells me, in a procedural sense, that Wallace was there.

First Glen, let me say that even if it is Wallace's fingerprint, I don't believe Wallace was actually there. If anything, I'd say the fingerprint was secretly inserted into the FBI files. For blackmail purposes.

Let me ask you.... isn't it true that by 1963 there were rumors in Texas that Mac Wallace was doing dirty work for Johnson? If so, wouldn't the presence of his fingerprints in the snipers nest lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved? Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal? Which could have been leaked to the public at any time, if necessary. (i.e. if Johnson didn't do the CIA's bidding.)

As a matter of fact, Life Magazine was ready to publish two articles saying as much. Here is what former Life Magazine employee James Wagenvoord's wrote on his blog about them:

A story that would have forced Johnson off the Democrats 1964 presidential election ticket had been slated to publish in the first December issue of the magazine [Life]. For weeks the Kennedy Justice Department had been a rich source of confidential information concerning money allegedly funneled to Johnson from lobbyists and contractors during his years as Senate Majority Leader, through his senior aide, Bobby Baker. Tension between the President and the Vice President had been widely reported since the early days of the administration. Exposure would mean that Johnson would have effectively taken himself off the ticket and likely out of politics sparing President Kennedy the controversy that might arise if he announced that simply wanted a different Vice-President. Two articles, the first a general bad guy picture essay detailed the opening of Baker’s Carousel Hotel on Maryland’s eastern shore and showed Baker in a glaringly negative light. My boss headed the reporting team and the material, kept under wraps for weeks, now being readied to be shredded, would if published tie Lyndon Johnson directly to illegal compromises and graft.

It didn’t matter anymore. Now the story was the violent death of a President. And a smooth transition.

(Source)

Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

[Glenn Nall]

"Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?"

Just sayin'.

right.

[Sandy Larsen]

"...lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved?"

no question about it. All I'm saying is that there's a big difference in 'wondering if' and 'finding a connection to' ...

"Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal?"

right. yet another reason to suspect Johnson. but there's no connection.

There didn't need to be a connection, other than one perceived by Americans. Who would then demand Johnson's head on a platter.

[Sandy Larsen]

Presence of a Mac Wallace print gives a clue as to what role Vice President Johnson played.

The presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint tells me that Johnson might have been blackmailed into cooperating with the assassination. It seems that blackmail was a popular method for the CIA at the time. For example, James Angleton had a photo of J. Edgar Hoover homosexually involved with a man.

have to respectfully question this, Sandy. Even hard proof that Wallace was there would not, in and of itself, connect LBJ to the assassination. Wallace surely had other "pals," and if he was there a closer connection to why and at whose motivation would be needed, to me.

Wallace's presence, if so, only tells me, in a procedural sense, that Wallace was there.

First Glen, let me say that even if it is Wallace's fingerprint, I don't believe Wallace was actually there. If anything, I'd say the fingerprint was secretly inserted into the FBI files. For blackmail purposes.

Let me ask you.... isn't it true that by 1963 there were rumors in Texas that Mac Wallace was doing dirty work for Johnson? If so, wouldn't the presence of his fingerprints in the snipers nest lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved? Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal? Which could have been leaked to the public at any time, if necessary. (i.e. if Johnson didn't do the CIA's bidding.)

As a matter of fact, Life Magazine was ready to publish two articles saying as much. Here is what former Life Magazine employee James Wagenvoord's wrote on his blog about them:

A story that would have forced Johnson off the Democrats 1964 presidential election ticket had been slated to publish in the first December issue of the magazine [Life]. For weeks the Kennedy Justice Department had been a rich source of confidential information concerning money allegedly funneled to Johnson from lobbyists and contractors during his years as Senate Majority Leader, through his senior aide, Bobby Baker. Tension between the President and the Vice President had been widely reported since the early days of the administration. Exposure would mean that Johnson would have effectively taken himself off the ticket and likely out of politics sparing President Kennedy the controversy that might arise if he announced that simply wanted a different Vice-President. Two articles, the first a general bad guy picture essay detailed the opening of Baker’s Carousel Hotel on Maryland’s eastern shore and showed Baker in a glaringly negative light. My boss headed the reporting team and the material, kept under wraps for weeks, now being readied to be shredded, would if published tie Lyndon Johnson directly to illegal compromises and graft.

It didn’t matter anymore. Now the story was the violent death of a President. And a smooth transition.

(Source)

Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Well, either the print was planted or Wallace was there. Whichever you or I pick, the fact remains there was only one finger involved.

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.)

[Glenn Nall]

"...lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved?"

no question about it. All I'm saying is that there's a big difference in 'wondering if' and 'finding a connection to' ...

"Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal?"

right. yet another reason to suspect Johnson. but there's no connection.

There didn't need to be a connection, other than one perceived by Americans. Who would then demand Johnson's head on a platter.

I hear ya. I'm just speaking to stricter terms than that.

[Sandy Larsen]

"Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?"

Just sayin'.

right.

I repeat:

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.)

[Glenn Nall]

"Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?"

Just sayin'.

right.

I repeat:

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.)

My own thought, please forgive me:

yep.

a) the CIA would not have just left one little pinkie print. compare that to the "evidence" that LHO bought the rifle.

not necessarily that it's the only fingerprint that Mac left - if he was there - only that it's the only one they found. there was certainly not a training film of CSI going on on the 6th floor at the time.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Dawn Meredith]

No words.

Now it's down to name calling.

J Harrison was a deep cover researcher. No he did not post on forums, (but sure read them). He was not out for fame and fortune.

I am done here.

Interesting that you bring up RCD. He left this place.

Best of luck trashing dead people.

[Sandy Larsen]

Let me make this point... a case for using the Mac Wallace fingerprint for blackmail purposes:

The goal of blackmail is to NOT have to use the incriminating evidence. So whether it's the pinkie finger or all ten, it doesn't really matter.

The interesting thing about this fact is that you can take it one step further. And further. The CIA didn't have to plant a Mac Wallace print at all. All they had to do is tell Johnson that there indeed was such a print planted. Or, for that mater, just inform Johnson that something bad wiould happpen if he doesn't cooperate.

But, in practice, blackmailers do seem to favor evidence that actually exists. At least so in the movies.

(BTW, I'm not married to the blackmail idea. I just have a hard time believing Mac Wallace would have gotten involved.)

[Thomas Graves]

Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Well, either the print was planted or Wallace was there. Whichever you or I pick, the fact remains there was only one finger involved.

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.) -- Sandy Larsen

Yeah, I'm kinda leaning in that direction, Sandy.

I think I posted something to that effect eons ago on this forum.

It's an interesting situation no matter how we look at it.

-- Tommy

Edited October 4, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Well, either the print was planted or Wallace was there. Whichever you or I pick, the fact remains there was only one finger involved.

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.) -- Sandy Larsen

Yeah, I'm kinda leaning in that direction, Sandy.

I think I posted something to that effect eons ago on this forum.

It's an interesting situation no matter how we look at it.

-- Tommy

That's interesting. Do you think Mac was there on Johnson's behalf? (Hypothetically speaking, of course.) Aren't you a CIA-dun-it guy? With Mafia involvement?

[Thomas Graves]

Sandy,

I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers?

Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Well, either the print was planted or Wallace was there. Whichever you or I pick, the fact remains there was only one finger involved.

Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.) -- Sandy Larsen

Yeah, I'm kinda leaning in that direction, Sandy.

I think I posted something to that effect eons ago on this forum.

It's an interesting situation no matter how we look at it.

-- Tommy

That's interesting. Do you think Mac was there on Johnson's behalf? (Hypothetically speaking, of course.) Aren't you a CIA-dun-it guy? With Mafia involvement?

Sandy,

I'm perplexed by it, frankly, like most other honest, open-minded, and serious students of the assassination..

Another interesting twist is that maybe the CIA / FBI planted the print of just that one little pinky finger not only implicate Wallace, but also so that people like you and I would second guess ourselves on whether or not Wallace was there, whether or not the CIA / FBI had planted the print, etc.

Sorry to get so Byzantine on you.

-- Tommy

Edited October 4, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Roger DeLaria]

Maybe Johnson wanted one of his guys to be there and have an eye on the happenings, and Wallace accidently left a print. It wouldn't be the only less-than-tidy thing having to do with the operation.

[James DiEugenio]

1.) According to Robert Garrett, it was not Wallace's print there anyway.

2.) And no I am not trashing dead people.

I am just posing a question: the people who knew Jay Harrison swear by him.

But what about the people who did not know him--which is a much larger number?

How do they have any way of knowing the quality of his work or analysis?

That is an honest and relevant question.

3.) As per the details of the Kinser trial, I am almost done with the book so I will be reviewing it soon. Those details, among many others will be in that review.

Edited October 4, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

How much weight and consideration do any of you give to Carolyn Walthers claim that she saw "two" men, each with guns in an upper floor window of the TXSBD just before JFK's limo arrived?

And her description of the other man ( from waist to shoulders ) as wearing a brown suit jacket and standing right next to another kneeling man with a rifle?

Could this other man ( whether Wallace or not ) have been there to "make sure" the other shooter did as he was told?