Joan Mellen Speech at AARC Conference

[Drew Phipps]

Well then maybe his current theories about Darby are influenced by his anger towards Barr, who after all partly based a best seller on Darby's work (and J and Walt?).

[Peter Lemkin]

From a message some months back from JM......"his certification had lapsed 14 years earlier, and he wrote a letter himself saying that he did not plan to apply for re-certification" I can't vouch for this, just reporting. Even if this was so, a match is or isn't a match - and certification shouldn't weigh in. JM claims it was not a match, and that computer matching now proves that. Again, I can't comment if this is so. She doesn't believe that Darby did anything other than his best attempt on a match. I'm wondering if a parallel intelligence operation wasn't run on this matter. It was closely followed by intelligence, from what I can gather and they may have created much of this 'mess'.

[Dawn Meredith]

From a message some months back from JM......"his certification had lapsed 14 years earlier, and he wrote a letter himself saying that he did not plan to apply for re-certification" I can't vouch for this, just reporting. Even if this was so, a match is or isn't a match - and certification shouldn't weigh in. JM claims it was not a match, and that computer matching now proves that. Again, I can't comment if this is so. She doesn't believe that Darby did anything other than his best attempt on a match. I'm wondering if a parallel intelligence operation wasn't run on this matter. It was closely followed by intelligence, from what I can gather and they may have created much of this 'mess'.

I'd LOVE to see such a letter.

I agree re a "parallel op", That does make sense.

[Peter Lemkin]

From a message some months back from JM......"his certification had lapsed 14 years earlier, and he wrote a letter himself saying that he did not plan to apply for re-certification" I can't vouch for this, just reporting. Even if this was so, a match is or isn't a match - and certification shouldn't weigh in. JM claims it was not a match, and that computer matching now proves that. Again, I can't comment if this is so. She doesn't believe that Darby did anything other than his best attempt on a match. I'm wondering if a parallel intelligence operation wasn't run on this matter. It was closely followed by intelligence, from what I can gather and they may have created much of this 'mess'.

I'd LOVE to see such a letter.

I agree re a "parallel op", That does make sense.

I'm just telling what I was told. I have no further information and haven't seen the letter - nor had it further explained. It does seem strange, however, for someone to write that they don't plan to apply for re-certification. There are many aspects of this whole 'matter' that really make me think the hidden hand of intelligence was following this and making some strange things happen, seem to happen, and to make divisions in the JFK community that otherwise likely wouldn't have been......I think we'll all know much more when her book comes out with references on all this. I know the book will also, according to JM, have some new 'house of horror stories' about Johnson.

[Peter Lemkin]

Joan sent me a reply to my email, saying that the publisher had her MS for the book which will include her materials on Darby et al. [along, I think, with much new on Johnson]. She didn't know the publication date, but said it should be soon.

[Dawn Meredith]

From a message some months back from JM......"his certification had lapsed 14 years earlier, and he wrote a letter himself saying that he did not plan to apply for re-certification" I can't vouch for this, just reporting. Even if this was so, a match is or isn't a match - and certification shouldn't weigh in. JM claims it was not a match, and that computer matching now proves that. Again, I can't comment if this is so. She doesn't believe that Darby did anything other than his best attempt on a match. I'm wondering if a parallel intelligence operation wasn't run on this matter. It was closely followed by intelligence, from what I can gather and they may have created much of this 'mess'.

I'd LOVE to see such a letter.

I agree re a "parallel op", That does make sense.

This story just gets nuttier.

No one writes such letters. If one decides to let his or her license or certification lapse one just does that. This so -called letter is making this all the more suspicious. Of course I doubt JM has a copy of this letter. I'd like to see the sig. I know Nathan's sig.

Dawn

[Drew Phipps]

In contrast to the relatively rigorous process of getting certified in the first place (involving written exams, matching and a live mock trial simulation), which Darby did in 1978, the renewal process (required every 5 years) simply involves matching 5 sets of unknown latents with 5 known fingerprint sets within 30 days. From IAI website:

"Recertification

• You will be required to recertify upon expiry of your certification after five years. During that time, you are required to accumulate a minimum of 80 continuing Education/Professional Development credits. (Details here)
  
• You will receive notice from the Latent Print Certification Board Secretary 6 months prior to your expiration date outlining next steps.
  
• You will then receive a package containing a comparison test, designed to test your continued competency. This will consist of five latent prints and five inked cards. The latent prints will all be identifiable to the inked cards provided. All latent prints must be correctly identified to pass this test and you will have 30 days to complete it.
  
• Sign the form to say you completed the test without assistance and return the test to the Latent Print Certification Board Secretary for marking.
  
• If successful, you will receive a letter from the LPCB secretary and your new recertification card.
  
• If you fail the recertification test, or if you fail to respond to your recertification request prior to the expiration date, your certification will be suspended, pending you completing and submitting a new application."
  

Darby was certified in 1978, so his follow-up exams would have been required in 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998. If his certification lapsed in 1998-14=1984, that would imply that he failed to respond to (or just failed) a 1983 test. Too bad the IAI didn't respond to my earlier request, but perhaps with a more specific request...

[Peter Lemkin]

To me, the stranger [est?] element is W. Brown saying something along the lines of 'always knowing' [that Darby's certification had lapsed]. Apparently, J did not know this or believe this; and why hold a big public roll out of the information and the name if one 'always knew' there was something about one's expert that could cause some embarrassment. Why would Darby, knowing he had a high-profile match to do [or had just done] not re-certify, if his certification had lapsed? Its all a bit odd and I can offer no new or more information. The proof or the pudding will be in JM's new book - title unknown; exact focus unknown. I believe the only other thing I remember from old emails is that someone had a computer match done and it failed to match.....who did it, when, and what prints were presented, I do not know. Again, rather than just a disagreement between persons involved in the JFK Assassination, there seems to be some 'op' hidden in here somewhere - where is not clear, at this point. The 'no show' of a major person at the 'roll out' is also very strange....as are a few substantial additional details I've been asked to keep confidential. I think there is one last tidbit I can put out here and then will remain silent mostly until her book comes out or new information surfaces in my email box. This from JM some months back..."Darby wrote in his affidavit that he was certified by the INTERNATIONAL certifying organization (false), but what you wrote is the name of a TEXAS organization. So perhaps not being re-certified by the International one, he signed up with a Texas one. What difference does it really make, since the prints did not match."......[size=12][/SIZE]Darby "was grandfathered into the certification program in 1978, meaning that he was a awarded a certification based on his training and experience but did not have to pass a test. This practice is no longer allowed. [size=12][/SIZE]DARBY'S CERTIFICATION EXPIRED IN 1984. The letter in his file is one that he, Darby, wrote [size=12][/SIZE]to the certification board stating that he was not going to recertify. He was not a certified [size=12][/SIZE]examiner in 1998 and had not been one for 14 years. Certifications are only good for 5 years.You must have [size=12][/SIZE]continued work experience and education credits to continue to recertify after that and take and [size=12][/SIZE]pass a recertification exam. [size=12][/SIZE]Hoffmeister was also grandfathered into the certification program in 1978. He let his certification lapse on 10/30/1996 and did not recertify."...

I hope the full [or a fuller] story about this will be possible to piece together after JM's book comes out. She is keeping her information fairly close at this point - I don't know why, as she hints that this is not the focus of the book, nor highly significant in the greater picture the book's information paints. To all involved....peace!

[Drew Phipps]

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

[Peter Lemkin]

Understand I have no position on all this...certainly no enmity toward Darby, at all. It is strange that both Darby and Hoffmeister made positive matches with the prints given them blind [as is the correct way to do a match]. Before they made the match had NO idea of who's prints they were matching nor the importance of the case. Hoffmeister apparently 'backed out' and claimed he wanted to withdraw his match when he found out the nature of the matter at hand. Darby had a close encounter with the 'unspeakable' afterwards.

Joan claims [I have zero additional information on this] that she had someone [or knew someone who] use[d] computer matching techniques to do the match, and they failed to make a positive match. I can't evaluate this - none of us can even begin to, until her book comes out. However, I find it a bit odd that two competent and expert fingerprint experts would find a match, even a close match - then we get the reverse conclusion. There are many factors to consider which we don't know most of the details of.....that could have effected the outcomes. Obviously, much of this story has not fully been told...and all the 'answers' may not rest in Joan's book...which may raise as many new questions. We'll see. This follows a common pattern in JFK matters and consensus is not easy to come by quickly....

I assume from what Joan M. said the book may be out by the end of the year or very early part of next. Me, I'm waiting for the new dirt on LBJ!