Joan Mellen Speech at AARC Conference

[Dawn Meredith]

If true, it might explain why Barr McClellan didn't show up for the press conference.

Barr was supposed to have a press conference in DC. He no showed for that as well. There were to be two press conferences that day, Dallas and DC.

Dawn

[Tom Bowden]

I am waiting for Jm's book to see not only the fingerprint discussion but also other discussions about Mac Wallace. The english version of Kill JFK will be issued no later than July 15. In the book, we discuss when Billie Sol Estes learned of Wallace's involvement in the assassination. It did not occur until his second time in prison contrary to what has been written in other books. After our first book came out, I was in continuous contact with BSE and after his death with his daughter, Pam, and his brother. BSE was more forthcoming especially in late night phone calls to me after the book was published. Calls that I recorded. The brother in particular shed more light as he finally felt free to talk. We are not relying on the fingerprint to prove that Wallace was part of the assassination team. Any one who believes the BSE story in its entirety has been mislead. Regrettable, our first French book added to his legend as it was written more to tell the story from his viewpoint.

[Drew Phipps]

Fingerprint technology has advanced quite a bit since 1998. The introduction of AFIS (computerized assisted search for matching fingerprints) has improved the ease of finding similar print types (thumb-whorl-left, pinky-bridge-right, etc) for comparison, though "GIGO" is still an issue. Also digital storage of fingerprint images (not to mention higher definition printers) have made a difference. What looked like a match back in the day, might not be good enough for today.

Fingerprint ID is still as much an art form as a science, however. There isn't a computer that can match two prints (yet) despite what Hollywood shows us, primarily because unidentified latents are nearly always either partials, or distorted, or smudged. The Eyeball Mark 1 is still the best tool, and experienced experts (like Darby) using "blind comparisons" are still the most reliable way of finding matches. Also, even today, equally qualified fingerprint experts might reach differing conclusions with the same information.

Edit: As I recall, not long ago, a doctor/lawyer(?) in Seattle was announced by the FBI as a fingerprint match for a terrorist bombing in Spain. The Spanish police disagreed. Eventually he was exonerated.

[Peter Lemkin]

If true, it might explain why Barr McClellan didn't show up for the press conference.

Barr was supposed to have a press conference in DC. He no showed for that as well. There were to be two press conferences that day, Dallas and DC.

Dawn

In all of these years has he not said why to someone?!

[Magda Hassan]

Fingerprint technology has advanced quite a bit since 1998....What looked like a match back in the day, might not be good enough for today.

Fingerprint ID is still as much an art form as a science....

::fortuneteller::::facepalm:: I hate to think how many have ended up in jail on this. Maybe death row even.

Edit: As I recall, not long ago, a doctor/lawyer(?) in Seattle was announced by the FBI as a fingerprint match for a terrorist bombing in Spain. The Spanish police disagreed. Eventually he was exonerated.

If that was the train bombing there was much opportunistic manoeuvring to make it fit ETA who didn't do it.

[Dawn Meredith]

If true, it might explain why Barr McClellan didn't show up for the press conference.

Barr was supposed to have a press conference in DC. He no showed for that as well. There were to be two press conferences that day, Dallas and DC.

Dawn

No, he did not. And he was here for two days during the 40th. His son got married in Austin on 11/22, so for the next two days he, his wife, Nathan and several others hung out here. We all watched him and Nathan on The Guilty Men, which I had taped when it ran on 11/21. (The Men who killed Kennedy). I don't think I even remembered to ask him.

[Dawn Meredith]

Peter: I don't have time to go through this thread again but I recall you posting that you got an email ?? from Joan stating that Walt said- (via email? or phone to Joan) "Ya we knew that" . Meaning he and J "Knew" that Nathan was not certified when he gave his affidavit. Well earlier on facebook someone posted the clip from the Guilty Men (TMWKK) and this was in 2003 Walt Brown talking about Nathan refers to him as A CERTIFIED print expert. So which is it? I know you are not on fb and I don't think Walt is either. But I just wanted to bring this to your attention. And to anyone else's who cares.

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter: I don't have time to go through this thread again but I recall you posting that you got an email ?? from Joan stating that Walt said- (via email? or phone to Joan) "Ya we knew that" . Meaning he and J "Knew" that Nathan was not certified when he gave his affidavit. Well earlier on facebook someone posted the clip from the Guilty Men (TMWKK) and this was in 2003 Walt Brown talking about Nathan refers to him as A CERTIFIED print expert. So which is it? I know you are not on fb and I don't think Walt is either. But I just wanted to bring this to your attention. And to anyone else's who cares.

Dawn

Interesting. You are right, I don't go on facebook. I also have zero contact with Walt after he suddenly changed his mind that I could get and view some of J's files to he'd never even consider it....all magically without my doing anything in between. As to what Walt was supposed to have said, according to JM, you have it about how I remember it...although I don't know exactly when this was asked and told. Perhaps it is a contradiction - and perhaps it will become more clear when the book is out. Remember, however, that this matter [Darby et al. and the prints] is only a chapter or a few in the book. The exact nature of the rest of the book I'm not aware of fully other than it seems to be focused on things connected to LBJ. It does seem to me that this may be a matter of semantics....that Darby in his prime might have been certified in various organizations, and later only in one or less than earlier due to lapsed certification - hardly a crime or even a great misdeed. Joan seemed to imply that he stated incorrectly in some affidavit as to which organization he was then currently certified in...but I don't know the details and even if true is [to me] much less important than if the prints match or not. Again, I have no proof, but this seems like it could be an innocent mistake or misunderstanding. I also wonder if there was some parallel operation at the time to discredit some persons or some information - just a hunch. There is no doubt that Darby was at one time certified in more than one organization. It seems [according to JM], that at least one of his certifications had not been renewed by the time he did this match. I'm more interested to know if the prints matched and if there was any foul play in this matter. Whether it was the intent or not, it has put a strain on some relationships which is regrettable. The information and the truth, in the end, are the important parts.

[Dawn Meredith]

I was hoping you would email Joan for clarification as to Walt's view on the "we knew that" comment. If Walt actually SAID that, this is no innocent mistake. How can a lie be innocent? Accusing someone of perjury is NOT some "mistake".
And I'd not be surprised if Walt has lied as the very first time I met him, Sunday May 31, 1998, two days after the press conf in Dallas, on JFK's birthday, he told me two huge lies. We were all at a Sunday brunch up in north Austin. J and a few other researchers met on Sunday's for a long brunch and Erick and I often attended. Jay wanted me to meet Walt so he called and asked that we attend this one. (We did not go to the Press conf). During the usual chit chat of "how did you get into this case?" I told Walt that I had been involved my whole life but not actively so until I was part of The AIB. (.The "unofficial" token female). Walt responded that he had spoken on the same stage with Carl Oglesby at the huge three day Politics of Conspiracy Conference At Boston U in 1975- the first ever national conference of this sort. I KNEW that was not true as I was at the conference. Then he went on to say that Carl Oglesby was "one od (his) best friends". Since Carl had been one of my best friends since 1973 I came home and called Carl. I simply asked him what his opinion of Brown was. His reply stunned me: "Who is Walt Brown?". Lies are never innocent. When I am lied to by someone I question all that person says at a later time. So that is why I am asking you if Walt said "We knew this" to Joan. You posted it. So she must have sent you an email saying this. I know this seems like a minor point to you but the "we" Walt is referring to was one of my best friends from the day we met til he passed. Walt claimed him as a best friend as well, Jay Harrison.
I have zero interest in the book. It will just anger me.

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

I was hoping you would email Joan for clarification as to Walt's view on the "we knew that" comment. If Walt actually SAID that, this is no innocent mistake. How can a lie be innocent? Accusing someone of perjury is NOT some "mistake".
And I'd not be surprised if Walt has lied as the very first time I met him, Sunday May 31, 1998, two days after the press conf in Dallas, on JFK's birthday, he told me two huge lies. We were all at a Sunday brunch up in north Austin. J and a few other researchers met on Sunday's for a long brunch and Erick and I often attended. Jay wanted me to meet Walt so he called and asked that we attend this one. (We did not go to the Press conf). During the usual chit chat of "how did you get into this case?" I told Walt that I had been involved my whole life but not actively so until I was part of The AIB. (.The "unofficial" token female). Walt responded that he had spoken on the same stage with Carl Oglesby at the huge three day Politics of Conspiracy Conference At Boston U in 1975- the first ever national conference of this sort. I KNEW that was not true as I was at the conference. Then he went on to say that Carl Oglesby was "one od (his) best friends". Since Carl had been one of my best friends since 1973 I came home and called Carl. I simply asked him what his opinion of Brown was. His reply stunned me: "Who is Walt Brown?". Lies are never innocent. When I am lied to by someone I question all that person says at a later time. So that is why I am asking you if Walt said "We knew this" to Joan. You posted it. So she must have sent you an email saying this. I know this seems like a minor point to you but the "we" Walt is referring to was one of my best friends from the day we met til he passed. Walt claimed him as a best friend as well, Jay Harrison.
I have zero interest in the book. It will just anger me.

Dawn

I can assure you that, yes, JM emailed me that recently [during the research on the book and subject] she asked Walt during extended conversations on this matter, and he told her 'he knew all along' [that in some way Darby was not certified]. More, I can't attest to [such as the veracity of this - or parse out not certified under which organization, etc.]. I'll look for the email, which I'm sure I saved, and try to get the exact wording, if I think it can be shared here publicly.....