Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace - Joan Mellen

[Peter Lemkin]

If Darby was still alive, I have no doubt the publisher, upon advice from its legal staff, would refuse to publish the accusation that Darby's credentials had expired, without a named source and/or an authenticated copy of the contents of the IAI Darby file. As it happens, Darby can't defend himself, nor can the publisher be sued for libel to Darby's reputation... yet.

However, the fact that the IAI (or some unscrupulous employee of that institution) may have permitted unauthorized disclosure of information; or, failed to correct a factual misrepresentation of the contents of it's files, might lead to some sort of legal action.

All I can say is that Joan told me in an email that she had some information and documents she has not yet told about in any lectures [nor to me] that would be in her book - and I'd assume, knowing Joan Mellen, documented and footnoted. (That doesn't ipso facto mean it is proof positive.) In my conversations with her, I didn't get the feeling she had any ill will toward Darby; although I hear you and Dawn seem to feel otherwise. I think one really has to wait for the book to make a thumbs up or down on this matter. More likely, many will take away a mixed reaction. The book was supposed to be out long ago, but has been delayed as books sometimes are for reasons the publishers only 'know'. Most of the book is about LBJ and what an SOB and criminal he was. As I understand it, the fingerprint and Wallace matter is only a chapter....but don't quote me on that. Again, whatever others think of Joan, I think she has decency - if someone can prove her logic wrong with arguments and/or documents, she'd revise things in a second edition. Most of her JFK books have come out in second editions, revised. I realize she has interpreted this matter differently than others. One thing I can tell you is she realized that supporting a match of the fingerprint would sell more books - but she just couldn't bring herself to that conclusion; and as we know she challenges it. I personally am sorry if this hurts the Darby family and Mr. Darby's name/image. From what I've been told in emails, it will not be portrayed as anything intentionally or knowingly done wrong by Darby, FWIW. Joan has not told me all the details, and all I've posted before on this subject. {perhaps we should link the two threads} I hope the book will be out very soon. Her conclusions will have to stand the approval or wrath of the research community and others documentation. Lastly, while Darby himself obviously can't challenge this, surely his family and friends can if they wish - in the court of public thinking, if not in a court of law. I personally would welcome a 'rebuttal' article in some journal, should someone wish to do that after reading her book. She has, to my knowledge, only given two public talks on this subject - AARB [briefly] and the talk in the UK [in more detail]. I'm friends with Dawn [who knew Darby and takes great exception to what Joan has proposed as the interpretation] and with Joan. I, myself, will wait to see what she writes. As mentioned above, I already can see some cracks in the logic she is setting out - but will have to wait to read the details and documentation to make a final 'call'. This is FAR from the first time people have not agreed on an interpretation of events re: the Dallas matter!