Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace - Joan Mellen

[Peter Lemkin]

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

I do agree that Joan seems to have ignored some information, and not examined some logical explanations of what is to be seen from the facts on the 'ground' in this and related matters. She has drawn her conclusion and made her case - though we don't yet know all of her details of evidence or how she drew her conclusions. I already, above, in a post mentioned two big areas in which I question Joan's conclusions and I'll add the third, the Darby break-in [which I knew about, but had been asked not to mention publicly]. That really does throw water on many of her conclusions, unless she has something I don't know about. She has not confided in me the details - only the general conclusions. No matter.

The way things are done in TX is quite amazing...and that 'technique' seems to have spread to other locales over time. Your point that "every 'coincidence' has a meaning" I think is right on the mark and applies for the entire JFK matter, as well as this specific matter.

If you do have a theory as to how this all fits together, I do hope that at some point you'd let others know, publicly or privately - so that they can perhaps take and run with that in a public way.

I don't know about the details of the Wallace death certificate. Did he die earlier than it states? Later? Obviously, in a different manner.

Anyway, thanks for again publicly stating your considered point of view. You knew J and you knew Darby and others involved in this matter, and watched some of this happen in 'real time'. You, in fact, were involved in some of this. History, especially hidden history is a messy business. Add in the disinformation and cover-ups (from personal to the 'pros') and it gets even murkier.

What is important is that the truth as everyone sees it and knows it be told; the necessary research into what isn't visible on the face of things be done; and correct interpretations of what happened and motive be assigned (or best possible with all the facts).