Jump to content

Richard Bartolomew: Rambler Station Wagon


Recommended Posts

He may have the Rambler

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

Edited by Richard Bartholomew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I urge all who read this to sign the JFK Grand Jury Petition online at http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html.

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)

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fingerprint evidence is far to important to allow to wither on a vine.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I urge all who read this to sign the JFK Grand Jury Petition online at http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html.

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

Edited by Richard Bartholomew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I urge all who read this to sign the JFK Grand Jury Petition online at http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html.

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 no

(edited to add comment to Richard -CN)

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for signing the petition, which will be presented to Federal District Courts in North Texas in November, New Orleans and D.C. at times yet to be determined.

We will also contact those who have signed and keep them informed of the progress of the grand jury project. We want knowledgeable people who want to help make something significant happen, and be part of it.

Our purpose is not to obtain thousands of signatures but merely hundreds, some of whom will be known and recognized by those who we hope to influence in conveining the jury to receive the evidence.

We will be in Dallas COPA in November with Susan Brenner, the deal of the U of Dayton law school and grand jury specialist and Dean Webb, former HSCA attorney and current assistant federal prosecutor who wants to apply the Pinkerton doctrine to the JFK assassination.

Although the Dallas part will be important, we believe that the New Orleans and D.C. aspects of the case have more chances of success, and are holding back on revealing our tactics and timing in order to avoid expected counter-measures.

Whether or not the prosecutors accept our petition and convein a grand jury to review the evidence, we will have a JFK Grand Jury because we are planning, after submitting the real peititions, on conducting a JFK Mock Grand Jury that will be filmed and taped to educate people about the real evidence in the case and how grand juries work in our system of justice. I will be starting a JFK Grand Jury Seminar here at the forum to explain more about our work and procedures and to seek more input from researchers concerning the evidence to be presented.

Many thanks for the patience of those who have signed on,

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is

that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints

attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI

count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

-- thanks, Larry

The fingerprint evidence is far to important to allow to wither on a vine.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[We will be in Dallas COPA in November with Susan Brenner, the deal of the U of Dayton law school and grand jury specialist and Dean Webb, former HSCA attorney and current assistant federal prosecutor who wants to apply the Pinkerton doctrine to the JFK assassination.

Although the Dallas part will be important, we believe that the New Orleans and D.C. aspects of the case have more chances of success, and are holding back on revealing our tactics and timing in order to avoid expected counter-measures.

Whether or not the prosecutors accept our petition and convein a grand jury to review the evidence, we will have a JFK Grand Jury because we are planning, after submitting the real peititions, on conducting a JFK Mock Grand Jury that will be filmed and taped to educate people about the real evidence in the case and how grand juries work in our system of justice. I will be starting a JFK Grand Jury Seminar here at the forum to explain more about our work and procedures and to seek more input from researchers concerning the evidence to be presented.

Many thanks for the patience of those who have signed on,

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Bill,

Sounds like some real progress is being made here. Will look forward to your seminar.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is

that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints

attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI

count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

-- thanks, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard, that's most helpful. And as usual the cover-up comes across as

very consistent, no need to really alter anything, just make it disappear by

"managing" the information in the reports. Leave something out here, renumber

something there......just a little careful editing...

I guess the only thing that surprises me is that Darby doesn't seem to have intimated

to anycone includeing Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?

-- Larry

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.)

Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is

that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints

attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI

count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

-- thanks, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 B), 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

Thanks Richard, that's most helpful. And as usual the cover-up comes across as

very consistent, no need to really alter anything, just make it disappear by

"managing" the information in the reports. Leave something out here, renumber

something there......just a little careful editing...

I guess the only thing that surprises me is that Darby doesn't seem to have intimated

to anycone includeing Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?

-- Larry

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.)

Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is

that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints

attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI

count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

-- thanks, Larry

Edited by Richard Bartholomew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, thanks for the detailed clarification...I'm definitely printing this off and saving it with

your sheet on the prints!!

You bring up a good point on the number of matches, perhaps someone decided that would be an

issue - but I too have read of cases taken to court with fewer than the twelve points. And given

the higher point match on the primary print it makes the others much more likely IMHO.

Very important information, thanks again! Larry

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

Thanks Richard, that's most helpful. And as usual the cover-up comes across as

very consistent, no need to really alter anything, just make it disappear by

"managing" the information in the reports. Leave something out here, renumber

something there......just a little careful editing...

I guess the only thing that surprises me is that Darby doesn't seem to have intimated

to anycone includeing Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?

-- Larry

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.)

Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is

that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints

attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI

count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

-- thanks, Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask the reason for the change in format? (Or is it just my computer gone mad?)

I just tried to read Larry's post here and can't, as it is not "showing up" (even tho his name is listed as the last poster on this thread .) It's also more cumbersome to read this way when you have to keep going down to next post to click on, rather than just read one after another.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask the reason for the change in format? (Or is it just my computer gone mad?)

I just tried to read Larry's post here and can't, as it is not "showing up" (even tho his name is listed as the last poster on this thread .) It's also more cumbersome to read this way when you have to keep going down to next post to click on, rather than just read one after another.

Dawn

It looks the same at this end. Maybe you have changed the settings of your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Richard, thanks for the detailed clarification...I'm definitely printing this off and saving it with

your sheet on the prints!!

You bring up a good point on the number of matches, perhaps someone decided that would be an

issue - but I too have read of cases taken to court with fewer than the twelve points. And given

the higher point match on the primary print it makes the others much more likely IMHO.

Very important information, thanks again! Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Richard Bartholomew
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...