27-03-2015, 03:24 PM
Peter what ever documentation she has on Nathan was faked after the fact. Period. You would have to have known Nathan to know how honest and sincere he was. Joan will undoubtedly leave out the entire fact of the Darby home being broken into the summer of 2003, bypassing the alarm system and the only thing removed was the box he had under his bed with all of his work on this case. NOTHING else was touched. He called me very afraid and asked if I thought his life was in danger. We discussed it several times. I did find a way to calm him which I will not EVER repeat except to very close real life friends. So who did this and why? And was this entity connected to tampering with his file? (I say yes).
So Joan picks and chooses that which supports what I believe were her pre-formed conclusions. Does she mention Henry Marshall's suspicions of Wallace? And the view that Wallace murdered him? Does she mention TX Ranger Clint Peoples? Or are they both liars too, like she said of Billie Sol. And Billie Sol did not "allegedly" own the copyright of the Peagues manuscript. BSE told me this himself in a long phone conversation we had in reply to a sad letter I had to write him about the death (murder?) of a mutual friend, who was writing a book about all of this. And got too close to the fire. In my opinion Joan lives in her ivory tower in NJ where she is unaware of how things get done here in TX.
Secondly, J never believed Wallace died in 1971. The death certificate- which Joan got from Walt Brown- had enough anomalies to make even Joan mighty suspicious. So she contacted me and asked me to "be ( her) lawyer", that she would pay me for my time investigating a probate matter. I did so and was never paid. THAT turned up more questions and serious "co-incidences". Mac Wallace's brother had the probate case re-opened in 1984-within a month of the Grand Jury re-opening its investigation into the death of Henry Marshall, and changing it from suicide to homicide. No one at the court could explain this odd occurrence and I did not reveal anything about who Wallace was, everyone I spoke with said they had never seen anything like it. I thought it was damn suspicious, given that there was nothing in the estate either in 71 or 84 and the timing in 84 just jumped out at me. But Joan chocked it up to coincidence. In a case where EVERY "coincidence" is meaningful.
I have no plan to read her book. And the Darby family does not need a court case to know Nathan was a decent and utterly honest man.
I have had a theory about all of this for a very long time...but I am not putting it in print. It does not concern Joan, only indirectly.
Dawn
So Joan picks and chooses that which supports what I believe were her pre-formed conclusions. Does she mention Henry Marshall's suspicions of Wallace? And the view that Wallace murdered him? Does she mention TX Ranger Clint Peoples? Or are they both liars too, like she said of Billie Sol. And Billie Sol did not "allegedly" own the copyright of the Peagues manuscript. BSE told me this himself in a long phone conversation we had in reply to a sad letter I had to write him about the death (murder?) of a mutual friend, who was writing a book about all of this. And got too close to the fire. In my opinion Joan lives in her ivory tower in NJ where she is unaware of how things get done here in TX.
Secondly, J never believed Wallace died in 1971. The death certificate- which Joan got from Walt Brown- had enough anomalies to make even Joan mighty suspicious. So she contacted me and asked me to "be ( her) lawyer", that she would pay me for my time investigating a probate matter. I did so and was never paid. THAT turned up more questions and serious "co-incidences". Mac Wallace's brother had the probate case re-opened in 1984-within a month of the Grand Jury re-opening its investigation into the death of Henry Marshall, and changing it from suicide to homicide. No one at the court could explain this odd occurrence and I did not reveal anything about who Wallace was, everyone I spoke with said they had never seen anything like it. I thought it was damn suspicious, given that there was nothing in the estate either in 71 or 84 and the timing in 84 just jumped out at me. But Joan chocked it up to coincidence. In a case where EVERY "coincidence" is meaningful.
I have no plan to read her book. And the Darby family does not need a court case to know Nathan was a decent and utterly honest man.
I have had a theory about all of this for a very long time...but I am not putting it in print. It does not concern Joan, only indirectly.
Dawn