Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Richard, I wanted to extend a warm welcome... great to see you here. Also wanted to thank you for the super work on the unidentified TSBD fingerprint monograph you did, it needs to get more visiblity in the research community.
Thanks, Larry. I don't recall writing a monograph on the Wallace print. I wrote several e-mail replies to Mark Collum and Glen Sample defending Darby's ID against their so-called experts' critiques. Are those what you are referring to?

Collum-Sample refused to publish most of them at the time. They were very biased against the print identification. Don't know if they ever posted my replies since changing their minds about the authenticity of the print. Do you have digital copies you could post here? My digital copies are long-gone, I'm afraid. I vaguely recall cc'ing them to you, Jay, and Barr.

Richard, the paper I had in mind was:

“Conflicts in Official Accounts of Cardboard Carton Prints”, a work I haverecommended. It uses as sources the WC Report (p. 566), Commission Exhibit 3131 pp 17-18 and WC Hearings Vol. XXVI, P. 809 plus testimony of Sebastian F. Latona, FBI Fingerprint section.

-- I can't put my hands on a copy right now and don't recall the date, I think this is something you did even before the Wallace print came up and was a study of the obfuscation in the FBI's own work which pretty much covers up the issue that there were unidentified finger and palm prints. I referred to your work in an unpublished paper that I did in regard to a scenario for Wallace and Factor being in the TSBD.

It seems odd that two people who wrote a book about Wallace being on the sixth floor would be "very biased" against a print ID that would show he was there. They must put a lot of faith in these experts who say it is not Wallace's print, at the expense of their own theory. I suppose that shows admirable respect for science, letting the chips fall where they may, assuming these experts came up with good science and Darby didn't. But if it's good science, I wonder why the FBI doesn't wish to confirm it, by documenting that it's not a match.

Has the JFK case ever actually driven a researcher crazy? It seems to have the potential.

It was very odd at the time. If I recall correctly Sample used a couple of cops from southern California and unlike Darby who made the match "blind" these cops were aware the controversey around these prints. To my knowledge Sample and Collum have never named these cops but they were NOT experts like Nathan Darby. At time time- to me -it seemed like some sort of competition between the California writers and the Tx. people. Sample even went so far as to say "there is no Nathan Darby listed in Austin TX.". So I pulled out the phone book and discoverend that not only was Nathan listed, he lived a block from me. SO of course I called him and we sruck up a fast friendship from that day on (1998). After Glen came here and let Nathan patiently show him the match, Sample totally backed off saying there was no match. I have talked to Glen a few times over the years but he is no longer active in this case from what I can tell.
Ron, I concur with Dawn. If I can find and post my e-mails to Sample and Collum when all of this was happening, you will see the utter absurdity of their so-called experts' so-called critiques of Darby's match. I am no expert, but I had no trouble destroying their arguments, which never came close to even a basic understanding of fingerprint science. Then when Sample/Collum kept their two original police identifyers anonymous, it flew in the face of all legality and protocol in fingerprint science. None of their subsequent named critics - paraded on their website to debunk Darby - came anywhere near Darby's experience and credentials. Whenever there is a disagreement among identifyers, the legal standard for a match defers to the identifyer with the greater certification, experience and credientials in the field. On top of that the named critics' arguments were as bad or worse than the arguments of the first two. None of the named critics would officially stand by their findings. Had they done so, they would have risked losing their certification as identifyers - that's how biased and ridiculous their arguments were.

As for going crazy, I don't know about other researchers, but I've found that the way to keep one's sanity is to do your own thinking. I studied fingerprint basics on my own and saw the match for myself. I never had to trust any "experts" - including Darby.

Ron, there is no "if" about it. It's a match. What the FBI, and most researchers, do not yet know is that other Mac Wallace fingerprints were matched to other unidentified latent carton prints. Wallace handled those boxes. Judge the FBI based on that truth.
As the first researcher put in charge of troubleshooting the Wallace fingerprint evidence by Barr McClellan, I was privy to all it as early as September, 1997. My sole source for the DPS certified print card, National Archives copies of the unidentified latents, and identifyers' charts was Jay Harrison. Without refering to my notes to refresh my memory, I recall that three unidentified latent carton prints were each matched to a total of three inked Wallace fingerprints (left little and ring fingers, and right index finger). Darby was not the first to make any of those matches. There were two or three other identifyers before him, albeit less experienced. Upon learning about the context of the matches, all but Darby were too fearful to be named as the identifyers. By the time of the 1998 press conference, Walt Brown had misguided Bar and Jay into withholding all but one match, and even Darby's name, for the purpose of playing a wacky kind of cat-and-mouse game with Sample, Collum, and other researchers, thus sabotaging the event. All along, I strongly advocated full, immediate disclosure of all of the evidence in conjunction with turning it over to the proper legal authorities. Unfortuntely, all of Jay's original research and evidence ended up under the total control of Walt Brown. Why Brown continues to sit on it baffles me. Nonetheless, other researchers can replicate Jay's research by obtaining a certified print card, National Archives copies of the latents, and certified print examiners to do a blind study of them. Logically, if one unidentified latent belonged to Wallace, so would others - perhaps all of them. It is simply a matter of completing the crime lab work that, to date, only Jay Harrison has done.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay Harrison did the work that was done. He contacted me after Mr. Darby made the match that has been made public--to wit, one finger, and one finger only. I can assure you that had there been more than one, that would have been made public - and the person who would have insisted on that would have been Jay - he'd have been DANCING if there had been more than one match. I've spoken to Nathan Darby on a number of occasions and he always spoke of "the print" (singular). There was no second or third or anything more. I wish there had been.

As for others identifying the print prior to that, I cannot say it didn't happen, but I can say with certainty that Jay Harrison NEVER made any mention of it. At the time of A. Nathan Darby's identification, a second examiner (Hoffmeister, I believe, was his name) was given a check in the amount of $500 to see what he could find; it was a blind comparison -- one latent, from the archives, against a redacted card which revealed no data about the i.d. of the individual involved. The examiner made virtually the identical match as did Darby, initially, and signed off on his findings in virtually the same way Darby had. (Darby went on to find additional points as time passed). Hoffmeister, if I have his name correct, then was told that he was the second person to identify a Mac Wallace latent as having been present at the sniper's window, Box A, Print #29, in the TSBD. [Again, one print.]

The second examiner, according to the late Jay Harrison, then got cold feet, hemmed and hawed, and withdrew his identification of the print in question. "I thought it was, but..." kind of thing. I HAVE THE $500 CHECK, FROM JAY HARRISON'S FILES, STILL INTACT, MADE OUT TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND SIGNED BY BARR MCCLELLAN. I ALSO HAVE HOFFMEISTER'S SIGNED (early) IDENTIFICATION OF THE (one) LATENT.

At the time of the press conference, held on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend, 1998, Jay Harrison gave me absolutely strict instructions NOT to reveal the identity of A. Nathan Darby. This came about, I learned over time, because if Hoffmeister got cold feet about such an i.d., and Darby had in the meantime heard from friends that he should stay away, Jay Harrison was concerned lest the 83 year old Darby be put at risk. I should note that Jay Harrison, for all his years of dedicated research, did not want to venture out into the public eye, and slept with a loaded gun nearby. At the time of the press conference, I raised no objection to the anonymity, but when pressed as to "who made the I.D.?" I knew it was a serious issue. Jay Harrison, present in the back of the room (at the Conspiracy Museum in Dallas) shook his head adamantly to say "No." (Don't "out" Nathan Darby). I took a lot of heat for the way it worked out, and so be it. I certainly would not want any harm to come to Mr. Darby and it is my understanding that his home has since been burglarized, and his "JFK stuff" was taken.

As far as "Walt Brown had misguided Bar and Jay into withholding all but one match, and even Darby's name, for the purpose of playing a wacky kind of cat-and-mouse game with Sample, Collum, and other researchers, thus sabotaging the event", that is absolute and total garbage, and if Richard Bartholomew had a dime to his name, which he does not, I'd sue his butt into oblivion because there is not one true fact in that statement. I reported Jay Harrison's findings. I in no way "misguided" anyone, and it was Barr (not Bar) who misguided us, as he was to hold a same day, similar press conference in DC, but did not. At Jay's insistence, I DID withhold Darby's name. It had nothing to do with Sample or Collum, as I have never met either gentleman nor have I ever had any contact with them. Jay Harrison did, and, unreported by Bartholomew, Sample and Collum refused to accept the validity of the latent, even though it would have vastly enhanced the thesis put forth in their book, The Men on the Sixth Floor. As far as "other researchers," we were making this information known so research could GO FORWARD. Jay Harrison prepared a 154 page briefing book on every aspect of this event, and had copies sent, certified mail (at great expense for someone living on Social Security) to the House, Senate, Justice Dept, FBI, Secret Service, Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, ARRB, and he hand-delivered a copy to the Dallas police, who took an immediate interest but could do nothing, as it was the only piece of JFK evidence IN Dallas.

The unwillingness of Jay to have Darby identified certainly did not lend credibility TO what happened, but Jay made the call, and I understood why he made it--with regret. Within 48 hours, Richard Bartholomew contacted a very fine researcher named John Kelin, in Colorado, and revealed Nathan Darby's identity, and it became immediately known on the Internet. I was present, in Jay Harrison's home, when he telephoned Bartholomew and raised holy hell for putting Darby, in Jay's eyes, at risk. Had Richard Bartholomew had the courage to come and knock on Jay's door and ask Jay or me, since he knew we were there, about the issue, Jay most likely would have shot Bartholomew before he would have put A. Nathan Darby, in his 80s, at risk.

Following that, and it's almost 8 years now, there was no contact between the two parties, Bartholomew and Jay Harrison and at no time did Richard Bartholomew ever make any attempt to contact me. I asked Jay on a number of occasions what was with Richard, and all Jay told me was that he did not answer the doorbell, the phone was disconnected, and Bartholomew made himself repeatedly obnoxious enough that he could not hold down a job. I have no way of knowing if any of those allegations are true, or if they are outreaches of Jay's anger towards Bartholomew for revealing Darby's name.

I arrived in Texas last year on May 19, drove to Jay's home, and then drove almost 70 miles to a Veterans Administration Hospital to "take me home to die" (Jay's last request). Jay still had the strength on the 19th, using a walker, to go through his home and point out items that he wanted me to ship to my home to maintain "his archives" in one piece.

I did as he asked and shipped roughly ONE TON of files and bound materials to NJ, and put the vast majority of it in a rented storage locker, simply because (like Mr. Darby), I didn't want my home becoming a target for some fire-bomber.

Jay weakened over the next few days and died in the early hours, approximately 1:45 a.m., on Wednesday, May 25. I know from first-hand experience that Richard Bartholomew was not there. I would add that when people get the chance to view the materials in the Jay Harrison Archive, which I someday hope to be able to scan and put on cd's, they will realize that nobody has ever equalled the meticulous research he did. Mary Ferrell was lionized for having a data base that involved over 8,000 names. Jay's was over 26,000, and it includes masses of "Vital Records" data--birth certificates, death certificates--blue originals, not xerox copies--that simply boggle the mind.

Richard Bartholomew is nothing but gutless to make these accusations as they are wholly untrue. He's even more gutless as he's made them when the person who could best verify everything I've taken valuable time to note in here, is now deceased. I don't know and don't want to know his motives for such a libel, but that is exactly what it is: a libel on my reputation, and a blotch on countless years of my own work. The reality is that between the six books I've written, the CD-Rom Index I created, and 42 issues of the JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, I have published almost seven THOUSAND pages of JFK material, all of which has passed the scrutiny of my peers, Bartholomew excepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having lived in the middle of this dispute for all of the years it went on and being close to all the parties involved, it makes me both sad and physically ill to suddenly see it played out on here on the forum. I spent many years attempting to mediate, and it reached a point, rather quickly I must say, where I can say that poor Nathan Darby did not know if HE ever asked to keep his name private. He did tell me- MANY times- that it did seem indeed pointless for him to say a match had been made but for the print expert to be kept a secret.

No, Richard and Jay did not ever "make up" from this dispute.

VERY sadly, such is the state of the "critical community". Or at least this is what I have seen in now 35 some years. Egos and infighting. No wonder the case never gets solved. The government is surely thrilled. It makes their task all the easier.

In 2003, Dawn gave me a chance to reply directly to J. Harrison's false claims. Here is that reply:

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:14:42 -0800 (PST)

From: "Richard Bartholomew" <bartholoviews@yahoo.com>

Subject: Richard Bartholomew reply to John Frazer Harrison

To: "Dawn Meredith" [e-mail address redacted 03/08/06 – RB]

Dawn, here’s my reply to Jay’s rant.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: J Harrison

> To: dawn meredith

> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:49 PM

> Subject: Re: Just a tidbit of subjectal education

> (ie B M & P)

>

>

> RB on the day of the press conference in Dallas

> Texas BROKE Nathan's PERSONAL request for anonymity.

> At the time Nathan was adamant about that exposure.

>

> RB had never met him and was NOT in direct contact

> with Nathan or anyone else in that chain of

> investigation.

What is this, an Abbott & Costello bit? How could I

have been personally requested by someone I did not

know personally? And, wasn’t Jay in that chain of

investigation?

> He did do a graphic chart depiction of CONFLICTS on

> ALL the prints that were on ALL the BOXES in the 6th

> floor. And was paid for doing so by Barr. That was

> done on 27 Feb 1998 and revised on May 26, 1998 and

> was a page in Barr's presentation to the ARRB. I

> coordinated his GRAPHIC ability to Barr for that

> documentation.

I was paid by Barr in Dec. 1997 for editing and

fact-checking his first draft. I did the chart on my

own as part of my study of how the WC handled the

print evidence. Jay asked me if he could use it in the

presentation, but only if I took out all references to

the matches to Wallace’s other fingers. Jay

“coordinated” nothing. I got a second check from Barr

early in 1998 for the digital work Mike and I did for

Nathan to make his charts.

> AFTER divulging Nathan's full name to the press in

> Dallas (after the formal announcement that shielded

> it) he had E-Mail Correspondences with Barr, Walt

> and I regarding our INEPTNESS in properly reporting

> this presentation of BOTH my 157 page open homicide

> report to the DPD AND Barr' s 24 page "Petition

> Submitting New Evidence and Suggesting Further

> Investigation" to the ARRB.

I gave Nathan’s name to John Kelin only. The “press in

Dallas” apparently never wanted the name, since they

never reported it, even after John Kelin posted it on

his website. The “press in Dallas” had exactly what it

wanted: a reason to call the print match another

crazy, unsupported conspiracy nut theory (see the Fort

Worth Star Telegram story by Bill Teeter, dated May

30, 1998).

My post-press conference e-mail to Barr was to tell

him the truth about what happened – that Walt and Jay

unilaterally, and secretly, tried to sabotage the most

historic press conference since Garrison’s. They

failed by ineptly giving the Dallas press two of

Nathan’s full signatures, his signed initials, and his

printed initials, on page 10 of Barr’s ARRB petition.

Any journalist could have used that to find Nathan’s

listing in the Austin phone book. It was my job to

point out such mistakes. I would have, had I been

privy to Walt’s and Jay’s secret decision to keep

Nathan’s name from the press. Also remember that

Sample and Collom already had Wallace’s prints and WC

latent 29 because of an inept leak from Jay sometime

prior to April, 1998.

I was the one who, in our meeting with Barr in Houston

in Dec. 1997, insisted that they turn their evidence

over to the proper authorities or risk looking like

profiteers, more interested in book sales than in

justice. The idea of doing a press conference came as

a surprise to me, when I got a group memo from Barr

about it in early April. I thought it was a good way

to force the DPD to deal honestly with the evidence.

You can’t cover up something if everybody knows about

it. The press conference was then hastily put together

after Jay learned that Sample and Collom had the print

and were saying it was no match.

> Walt, in the conference, stated that it would be up

> to the DPD to release the name of the examiner IF

> THEY cared to do so. Nathan DID NOT WANT TO BE

> CONTACTED by buffs or press at all hours of the day

> or night.

>

> I personally RESPECT peoples confidentiality.

What a bunch of bull. Of course DPD would not release

Nathan’s name. They were the ones who STARTED the

cover-up. Nathan’s match exposed their incompetence

(at least) and their roll as conspirators (at most).

Was Nathan ever harassed by buffs or press at all

hours of the day or night? No. The only nuts harassing

Nathan were Jay and Walt. Was it their plan to wait

until Nathan was deceased before publishing his

affidavit? If not, Jay’s so-called “respect” for

confidentiality is disingenuous nonsense. Were they

going to keep Nathan’s name from the public only until

it was time to sell it in a book? Was that was going

to be the big sales incentive? If so, I hope Nathan is

getting a big royalty. Also, if I wanted to violate

Jay’s confidentiality, I could have done it any time

in the last five years – and still can. He may have

the Rambler, but he has apparently forgotten all about

the valuable, highly secret, item of his he entrusted

to me.

> For 5 years RB has been in the background and hasn't

> communicated with those people that wanted to

> communicate with him. (Walter Graff for example).

This would come as a big surprise to Walter Graf.

We’ve never heen out of touch. Ask him yourself:

[e-mail address redacted 03/08/06 – RB]

Jay, on the other hand, doesn’t even know how to spell

Walter’s last name.

> My whole life has been dedicated to this event and I

> have NO respect for anyone that violates my

> confidentiality.

>

> I would NEVER have subjected you a similar set of

> circumstances that you did to me yesterday and then

> told me about today! Now if you had told me about it

> before hand I would not have gone and I would have

> said to you that when you introduce them to each

> other tell Nathan that "This is the man that exposed

> your name to the world in the press conference in

> Dallas".

>

> The circumstances that happened are FAR from

> friendship.

Interesting that Jay doesn’t think he had a life

before the assassination. Also, note that he can keep

all the secrets he wants from you. But if you keep

just one from him, it’s blasphemy.

Richard

I agree that more studies should be done. But there is a big problem is trying to get the known prints from DPS. When Collum and Sample obtained it they did so without a case to which to attach it . Now no one can get it. I know because Nathan Darby tried several times to get another copy directly from Austin's Dept of Public Safety. He was unsuccessful. I discussed it with a DA a bit south of here, to see if there was any way this DA could assist me in obtaining this and his question was the same "what is the case?". Once he realized it was not one of our cases he said he could not assist.

What we need is a prosecutor who can obain this evidence for THIS case.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
"....Jay Harrison did the work that was done...." ..... ..... Bartholomew excepted. ...".

Thanks Walt: Jay told me about the same thing a few months before he died. I too, have a lot of his files for safe keeping and will hold his trust. Jay was my friend. Together we worked many issues concerning my family and background. We first met in Dallas at the "It' l'do" club in ythe late fifties when he was a reserve police doing UC work concerning the Dallas Clan. Anyway he was a friend and he did confide his fears and concerns to me many times in his closing days. You will find bits and pieces of my background in his files as well as classified CIA documentation of the sixties. I do hope you will do something positive with Jay's work. Tosh

Edited by William Plumlee
Link to post
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.
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.)

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 anyone including Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?

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 :ph34r:, 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 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

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.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why isn't the Wallace print and anything else in the Kinser murder file accessible as a public record? What kind of law excludes it?

My brother used to write for true crime magazines. He could walk into any police department or sheriff's office in Florida (the only state he tried to cover) and look at the file of any solved murder case, get the crime scene photos, etc. I assume that any citizen can do the same, these are not secret files or cases under investigation, they are solved cases and you can read all about them, see photos etc., in True Detective and similar mags, thanks to citizens who go in and research the files and write it up.

Is it different in Texas?

I have hi res files on a CD-ROM scanned from a second generation photocopy of the certified copy of the DPS print card that J obtained. Mike Blackwell did the scanning and CD-burning in January 1998. These could not be used as evidence, however. Nor could the photocopy of the certified print card. Only the signed and stamped DPS certified print card would maintain the chain of evidence. J simply wrote to DPS and convinced them that the card could be made public for various legal reasons. It took two years of correspondence for him to convince them. That process could start again by anyone else, and probably use J's precedent to expedite obtaining another certified card. There is an even faster, simpler way, however: Walt Brown has J's certified print card. It should be made available for examination without delay.
Ron, in September, 1997, J revealed the Wallace print evidence to me for the first time. As I recall, at first he approached the Kinser case the same way your brother did. He showed me the letters from his 2-year correspondence with Texas DPS. Initially, he was told that the print card would have been routinely purged from the crime files. J somehow made them look anyway. His contact at DPS wrote that he was surpirsed that the card was still on file. But there followed a series of legal reasons for not releasing it to J. I don't remember all of them, but I think one was that only family could have access. J got legal help and argued against every excuse for two years. Finally, DPS exhausted their defenses and was forced to release the document.

There is no need to rely solely on my memory about this, or start from scratch to get the print evidence. I assume J's correspondence with the DPS is in the same place as the certified print card he pried from their reluctant hands - in the collection of Walt Brown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing a rebuttal to the Bartholomew tirade, to be published in my JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly; it will include photocopies of the affidavits of two certified latent print examiners, both of whom stated there was only one match (there could only have been one, since there was only one unidentified latent, so where RB got his "six matches" is a matter best dealt with in therapy). I also have the original check written by Barr McClellan to pay the CLPE, but was returned because after the CLPE made the 15 point match, agreeing with Nathan Darby's match, he was told it was Mac Wallace, and he bailed out, returning the $500 check, uncashed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: I am quite unhappy to see posted publicly a PRIVATE email from J to me written in a moment of anger, that we both recovered from in a matter of 2 days. I foolishly shared this email with Richard back in 2003!!! Little did I ever dream it would show up in a public forum. Let this be a lesson learned for me: Some People hold onto email forever and it can turn up when one may least expect it. Unlike JOhn I do not think this is a good thread. When the J to me email was posted the first time by Richard I addressed it privately with Richard. He simply had no right to post it in my opinion. But I suspect I lost my right to object when I shared it with him.

Regarding the number of prints and who has what information, I think this has been made clear on these threads. I concur with Walt, that there was not ever any other prints or experts (except Hoffmeister) that J used. If so he never once mentioned this to me and I was in contact with him from when we first met in 97 until his death last May. Perhaps Richard learned of other prints, and examiners somewhere else...I really do not have an explanation. I just doube that J would tell Richard about additional information but not share this with Walt or even me. He was in touch with Walt DAILY on this case, until his death.

That the anger between Richard and J has transcended J's death is something I can do nothing about.

I simply do not wish to be an instrument for anyone's anger. Or accusations.

thank you

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 years later...
Does anyone know if there has been any progress on linking Mac Wallace to the TSBD fingerprint?

John,

One would hope that further work was done.

I would also hope that is would be a bit more academic than the ridiculous paper written titled "The gun that didn't smoke". I am currently working on a dissection of that paper, and it has to be one of the single most illogical writings that I have ever read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know if there has been any progress on linking Mac Wallace to the TSBD fingerprint?

Why can't anyone simply have other independent forensic fingerprint experts compare the prints?

In addition, does anyone have any sources for the information that Mac Wallace worked at LTV and Lockheed?

Thanks,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...