Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ

[Sandy Larsen]

At the beginning of this thread I posted the following, and asked the question I've highlighted in red:

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.

As it turns out, it wasn't a silly question after all. I have studied the prints and have determined that there are a few subtle (but crucial) differences between the fingerprint Darby was given and the one Garrett was given. That's right... somebody altered the Navy print.

I've also determined that Darby had to have been given pretty high quality photocopies. Because he could not have seen all fourteen of his matches on that copy floating around the internet.

And I now know (since I bought the book) that Garrett was given the low resolution copies of Darby's prints... the ones floating around the internet. The ones he said weren't good enough to read. Garrett has not see what Darby had.

What I did was compare the fingerprint Garrett got from the Navy to the low-resolution Darby print from off the internet. One difference was obvious and that gave me some encouragement to find the others. There were just a few that I could see. I then reverted those changes on Garrett's print back to what they were before the forger changed them.

After reverting the changes, I found as many matches as I could. So far I've found eleven of the Darby's fourteen. And I've determined that they are all likely the same matches Darby found. (It's hard to know for sure because some of Darby's arrows pointing to the matches are hard to make out. But I think I'm right, that the matches are the same as Darby's, because they were pretty easy to find. (Well, Most of them were.) And Darby surely would have found them right away.

The reason I haven't been able to find the final three matches is probably because of tiny changes made by the forger that I can't see by looking at the low-resolution internet print. Of the remaining three, I do have a lead on one and might be able to figure that one out. But I'm afraid that there's little hope for the final two. Not that it is necessary to find them. I just thought it would be nice if we could all see every match for ourselves.

So, as it turns out, the conclusions of both Darby and Garrett are correct. Garrett just had erroneous prints.

I plan on documenting what I've done when I find the time.

P.S. Garrett listed 8 mismatches in the lifted print compared to the Navy-provided print . All of those disappeared after reverting the alterations in the Navy-provided print.

P.P.S. Even after reverting the changes, I was able to find one tiny mismatch and one significant one using the reverted Navy print -- which in theory should now be the same as the print Darby had. I'm sure that Darby found the mismatches too. Too bad we can' get an explanation for the them. I know Darby gave explanations to people, but I don't know if anybody kept a record of what he said.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

You don't know what Darby was given unless you have the file from Harrison's files that Walt Brown gave Joan Mellen. Do you?

As per the Navy print, Jay could not get that print. Which is why he settled for the Texas print.

If you want to see the difference between what Garrett worked with vs what Harrison, Hoffmeister and Darby worked with, look at the photo comparison on the last page of the photo section of Joan's book.

Anyone, I mean anyone, can see the difference in that comparison. Its like night and day.

And when you add in the higher technology that Garrett had, well, I mean what else is needed to explain the difference?

Edited October 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Dawn Meredith]

Ok So the Navy just up and gave Joan Mellen the real Wallace prints. Got that.

And when J got Wallace's file from the FBI it was very blacked out. J, who had mil intel background and was a cop in Dallas.

Yet Joan asks us to believe that when she- a professor and writer of books- obtained the same file it was clean and devoid of anything suspicious.

Wow.

(I have read the fingerprint chapter which was sent to me by a good friend- one who actually worked with J on this).

As for all the background Joan sites on J, that came from his own obit that he wrote and emailed to me and Walt. I sent it to Joan.

Great work Sandy. I can see that you have done some good study of fingerprint analysis.

Dawn

ps As Pastor Steve Darby told me this past Sunday she "needs to produce" this alleged not that Nathan Darby "wrote to his file".

Edited October 6, 2016 by Dawn Meredith

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

You don't know what Darby was given unless you have the file from Harrison's files that Walt Brown gave Joan Mellen. Do you?

If I assume that what Garrett was given (ten-prints from the Navy) are true prints, or mostly true, then I can reconstruct what Darby was given. I begin with the Navy-provided print Garrett used. Then I look for differences between that and the low-resolution copy of Darby's print -- the one available on the internet. There are a few glaring differences. I change the Navy print only where the differences can be seen. And voila! the result matches Mac Wallace's print. The odds of that happening because I'm seeing something in the Darby prints that were created as a result of low-resolution copying are astronomically slim.

As per the Navy print, Jay could not get that print. Which is why he settled for the Texas print.

If you want to see the difference between what Garrett worked with vs what Harrison, Hoffmeister and Darby worked with, look at the photo comparison on the last page of the photo section of Joan's book.

You're assuming that what is printed in Joan's book (and was given to Garrett) is what Darby worked with. That's an incorrect assumption.

Garrett wasn't given the high quality photocopies that Darby had. He was given the low-resolution copy that anybody can get from off the internet. It's clear to me that Darby had a much higher-quality copy because he was able to find matching minutia that cannot be seen in the low-resolution internet copy. (Just like Garrett couldn't see them.)

If Garrett was told that what he was getting was representative of what Darby had, he was told wrong. There is no way. If Garrett believed such a thing, surely he would have concluded that Darby had only imagined several supposed matches.

Anyone, I mean anyone, can see the difference in that comparison. Its like night and day.

And when you add in the higher technology that Garrett had, well, I mean what else is needed to explain the difference?

Technology has added nothing to what an experienced print examiner can do other than increase the speed in which he/she can do it. That and the practicality of doing large database searches.... something that doesn't apply here.

[Sandy Larsen]

Great work Sandy. I can see that you have done some good study of fingerprint analysis.

Thanks Dawn.

But really, there is nothing so mysterious about fingerprint analysis that a layman can't understand it. It's like many other skills, carpentry, for example. It takes time to become a craftsman, but understanding how things are built -- using lumber, nails, and screws -- takes nothing more than observation and common sense.

If you look at the comparison of a latent print and a ten-print, and see the matches that an examiner found, you will understand right away what the examiner did. And you can do the same. Just not as well as an experienced examiner. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be planning to present to forum members my discovery of the apparent Navy print forgery. I fully expect that members will understand my presentation.

[Roger DeLaria]

Good job there, Sandy. I've always believed that Darby was correct in his identification of the print, and that some persons didn't like his results. I'm looking forward to your presentation.

[Dawn Meredith]

Good job there, Sandy. I've always believed that Darby was correct in his identification of the print, and that some persons didn't like his results. I'm looking forward to your presentation.

Me too. If I had the time I could outline so many errors in this one chapter. But to what end?

J had an agenda : truth.

Others do not share this and have their own pet theories that no amount of evidence will sway.

I DID see what Nathan had an it was excellent. And after the box was stolen I saw the equally good film that Richard Bartholomew had.

After the box was stolen I tried unsuccessfully to obtain what Nathan had been divested of but when the DA I asked what case it was connected to he told me it had to be one of his open cases. (This was a former DA in Hays county with whom I work).

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

Exactly. I wonder just when all of this happened. The "notes in his file" discrediting him. I wonder if they coincided with the break in of his home. Which did come very close in time to when he was being interviewed by Turner for The Men Who Killed Kennedy. That show aired on 11/22/03, the break in was summer of 03. Lots of questions that Joan just avoids. When she first asked for my help on this book it was pitched as a book to really show off J Harrison - let the world know what a great researcher he was. The final result is the total opposite.

[Dawn Meredith]

A minor point, but just another thing Joan gets wrong. She states that J "circulated his obit to friends". Not true. He sent it to two people: Walt and me. My copy was then forwarded to a close friend of J's and mine: Rachel Rendish. Later my email was accidently deleted when I changed computers but Rachel still had her copy which she sent back to me and I forwarded to Joan. And J never signed his name in morse code, except in THAT one email. He was just a few short months from death at this time and was still being his joking playful self. He'd often tell me he had "an ugly nurse" giving him shots. (Referring to himself).

Does Joan mention anywhere in the book that another big thing on J's plate was exposing Mary Ferrell as an agent? Every time I visited in those last months that was what he talked about.

And to refer back to a DiEugenio question: he did used to post on forums, but under an assumed title. I think it was the Dellarosa forum, but this was before I was on forums. (I read some where long ago that he posted under "Silver Glasses")

[Glenn Nall]

"...another big thing on J's plate was exposing Mary Ferrell as an agent? Every time I visited in those last months that was what he talked about."

did anything substantial ever come of this endeavor before he died? (i only ask as a matter of curiosity.)

[Dawn Meredith]

"...another big thing on J's plate was exposing Mary Ferrell as an agent? Every time I visited in those last months that was what he talked about."

did anything substantial ever come of this endeavor before he died? (i only ask as a matter of curiosity.)

Sadly no. Not that I am aware of. Walt would know more since he inherited all of J's files.

[James DiEugenio]

My review of Faustian Bargains:

http://ctka.net/2016/mellen-review/mellen-review.html

I think its good, although I think she went overboard in her portrait of LBJ. I mean what must she think of Nixon?

[Micah Mileto]

Is there stuff in the book about how generally gross LBJ was, obsessed with his private parts, the toilet, etc.?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

No, though she does mention his affairs.

As far as his character, she concentrates mostly on what a bandit the guy was. How uncaring he was about getting in bed with loutish characters as long as they could help him stay in power. And she makes a good case for that. In fact, as wrote in my review, I actually think she was a bit unremitting. LBJ was a scoundrel, but he did do some good things

She also devotes a chapter to the USS Liberty incident. She did several face to face interviews with some of the survivors.

I am not an expert on this issue. But her interpretation of the events is that this was supposed to be a false flag operation: once the Liberty was sunk, with no survivors, the USA was going to blame the attack on Egypt, and then America would attack Cairo to expand the war.

Was this what Operation Cyanide was as outlined by James Angleton on that BBC special?

Its rather mind boggling that LBJ would go along with such a crazy scheme. I know he did not like Nasser, but this was so over the top as to be appalling. Again, I am not an expert of this event so I cannot vouch for or deny her interpretation, which is why I only mentioned it in passing. I do know there are about four different conclusions about what happened--and the weakest is the official story about it all being a mistake. But its obvious she did some primary source interviews with the survivors.

Edited October 11, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Vince Palamara]

Outstanding review, Jim. It would seem the LBJ-did-it theory was dealt a mortal blow by Joan's book. LBJ didn't duck in the car, the fingerprint is NOT Wallace's, Wallace was not in or near Dallas in any case, and Estes seems like a big prevaricator. The essential underpinnings of the LBJ-did-it theory have crumbled. Other than the "who benefits" notion, there is no "there" there.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Vince Palamara