Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace - by Joan Mellen

[Peter Lemkin]

This is what she said:

"One day the latent print examiner called me with some other information. He had contacts at the headquarters of the organization that certified examiners and they went into the file of Nathan Darby. They discovered a note in the file. Not only was Nathan Darby not certified when he swore on that affidavit that he was, but there was a note in his file stating that should he request re-certification, that certification would be denied."

Her meaning seems pretty plain to me.

Joan's meaning is fairly clear - but don't assume that this represents the true facts - nor at what point in time. Imagine [not for the first time] that those who cover-up the real truth of what happened may have inserted themselves, and tampered with what the records would seem to show now. He was obviously competently certified at one time. I've been assured he was at the time he made this identification. If his 'certification' was 'pulled' or later asked to not be re-certified, this could be a discrediting op - it doesn't mean they were found to have been involved in wrongdoing, etc. With the JFK assassination one really has to think outside the box, and from all possible angles. Again, there is more non-public information on both of the print examiners which leads me to believe that both have had parts of their lives misrepresented or there are pertinent facts not in the public domain.....more exactly I decline to say, now - but have been told by someone reliable, close to this situation, and known to me - but I don't have permission to disclose. Just question what you've heard without real proofs at different points in time - and feel free to question me until the story can be told.

Drew, personally, I find it very strange they didn't want to answer your question, but instead [purposely?] mistook/changed the issue to be one of if Mellen had ever been a member. Seems to me the topic is too hot for them to even want to handle.

[Drew Phipps]

To me the most pressing question is, was he certified on the day he did the affidavit. If he was, then Mellen is wrong to print a story that alleges anonymous sources claiming inside info that say he wasn't certified. If he wasn't, then he committed aggravated perjury (since he got paid for his work), which certainly makes him less credible. The only source that anyone should be willing to rely on is the IAI. They refused to publicly reveal information from Darby's file. I assume that means that they won't publicly affirm or deny Mellen's story either.

If Darby was still alive, he'd sue somebody.

As to whether or not there is/was some sort of covert operation to posthumously discredit Darby, I would ask, "Why?" If Darby was wrong about Wallace, his work is the single best expert "rabbit trail" that could be imagined.

[Tom Bowden]

Lets look at the facts. Nathan Darby spent a life time in the finger print field. He retired at age 65 from the Austin Police department, where he was actively working in that field. He was certified and has given his number and his qualifications along with testimony from Judges, who knew of his work. At the time of the Affidavit he was in his eighties and not actively working. Does that mean he had lost all of his knowledge? When I interviewed him for the book and for the television show, he was astute and did not show signs of dementia. Was his certification up to date? I do not know. I do not know how the certification process works in that association. If he had decided to work full time, would he have required to activate his certification? I do not know but more than likely. The question still remains did he lose his ability to perform the analysis? I do not think so and all the mental masturbation in this forum will not prove anything. Lets wait and respond to Joan's book. I certainly will and I will welcome the discussion.

[Peter Lemkin]

To me the most pressing question is, was he certified on the day he did the affidavit. If he was, then Mellen is wrong to print a story that alleges anonymous sources claiming inside info that say he wasn't certified. If he wasn't, then he committed aggravated perjury (since he got paid for his work), which certainly makes him less credible. The only source that anyone should be willing to rely on is the IAI. They refused to publicly reveal information from Darby's file. I assume that means that they won't publicly affirm or deny Mellen's story either.

If Darby was still alive, he'd sue somebody.

As to whether or not there is/was some sort of covert operation to posthumously discredit Darby, I would ask, "Why?" If Darby was wrong about Wallace, his work is the single best expert "rabbit trail" that could be imagined.

That organization works with the FBI and Law Enforcement and thus is easy prey and has a strong bias to go along with any effort to discredit or [as you have seen] just not respond to a valid request. When the full story is told, it will all be more clear. Darby did not purger himself in his sworn declaration. That said, there are reasons why persons would NOT pursue legal remedies, etc. [more so if he was correct - as a second expert also found]....don't be naive.

[Drew Phipps]

I was not speaking to his skill level, but to his credibility. He either lied, or told the truth, about his certification on the day he made the affidavit. I have already spoken to the difference between a working IAI expert (called an "active member") and a retired one (called a "participating member"), and being retired would not, without more, impugn Darby's skills in retirement.

I practice law in Travis County, Texas. Although I never used him as an expert, or faced him as an opposing expert myself, I am aware of the high regard he had around the courthouse.

[Jim DiEugenio]

If Darby should have sued someone it should have been Bugliosi.

In his book he said Darby could not tell the difference between a palmprint and a fingerprint.

Either that or Jay Harrison faked the evidence he gave him to analyze.

I actually was faked out on this until Pat Speer alerted me that Bugliosi was wrong. So I went back to the annex of McClellan's book and read up on it and yep, Pat was right. Bugliosi either was misinformed or he was pulling a fast one.

When I discovered this, I tried to call Darby but Dawn told me he was passed away.

[Richard Coleman]

I don't want to muddy the waters, but I'd like to make two comments.

1. I've said before that I think it would have been insane for the plotters to have included LBJ if for no other reason than deniability, but it would have been equally nuts not to have dropped hints that something major was up. (Don't want him collapsing with a nervous breakdown right?)

2. Didn't Sen. Yarborough say that during the cade, LBJ and his bodyguard Youngblood were intently hunched over a walkie-talkie which was turned way down so Yarborough couldn't hear what was being said or broadcast?

Not saying he was a "mastermind", but pretty suspicious. Could he have been "brought into it" very late or even the last minute?

(Oh all right, THREE comments! :

[Tom Bowden]

Unlike some people on this site, I do not believe LBJ was aware of the assassination before it happened. I do believe some of his closest advisors and friends were. It is entirely possible that the shooters were only aware of their portion of things and that others were doing things beyond their sight.

I spent way too much time with Billie Sol Estes over the last twenty years and am well aware of what he knew and did not know. First off, he was at heart a Yarborough backer but he went with the winner in LBJ late in the game. In 1964, a former FBI and Houston Policeman went public about his role in delivering 250K to Yarborough. This is documented in a local television interview. When I interviewed him in 1998, He recounted the story of keeping cash in his safe for BSE, which he delivered to political contacts for BSE including LBJ. During the fifties, he was a jewelry store owner in Pecos. I have that interview on video.

BSE did not have taped conversations in the early sixties. He began taping after he was released from prison the first time. I interviewed the engineer who installed BSE's telephone system in late 1959. It did not have taping capabilities. The person who supposed kept those early tapes, Kyle Brown kept referring to cassettes. When I pointed out to him that Cassettes were not even around at the time and it had to be reel to reel, he changed his story.

BSE learned some of the details of the JFK assassination during his second stay in federal prison at Big Springs. This was independently confirmed to me. Not trying to sell our new book…well guess I am but this will be covered in Kill JFK.

[Peter Lemkin]

If Darby should have sued someone it should have been Bugliosi.

In his book he said Darby could not tell the difference between a palmprint and a fingerprint.

Either that or Jay Harrison faked the evidence he gave him to analyze.

I actually was faked out on this until Pat Speer alerted me that Bugliosi was wrong. So I went back to the annex of McClellan's book and read up on it and yep, Pat was right. Bugliosi either was misinformed or he was pulling a fast one.

When I discovered this, I tried to call Darby but Dawn told me he was passed away.

Had Darby wanted to speak out about the matter, something significant, but not yet publicly known, prevented Darby from doing so - or coming forward publicly in any manner. Had any researcher tried to contact him, I doubt he'd have spoken at all. He was completely 'compromised' by the 'cover-up', and wouldn't have done a thing. He was not the first and not the last that was similarly 'silenced' - it doesn't take killing someone to shut them up. (Take, for example, when I tried to speak with January of Redbird years ago - he wouldn't be contacted.) Also, Jay Harrison did not intentionally fake the evidence he gave Darby (or any other expert) to analyze, as history will, in the end, prove (on both points), I firmly believe.

[Drew Phipps]

2. Didn't Sen. Yarborough say that during the cade, LBJ and his bodyguard Youngblood were intently hunched over a walkie-talkie which was turned way down so Yarborough couldn't hear what was being said or broadcast?

Yarborough did say that, and more besides. He hated LBJ, though, so take that with a grain of salt. I do find extremely interesting the nearly prescient protective reactions of LBJ's Secret Service guys.