Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace - Joan Mellen

[Dawn Meredith]

Not only does Joan Mellen go after Darby but she also credits Bobby Kennedy as being the main proponent of the attempts on Castro with CIA complaining about his aggressiveness. This is opposite what DiEugenio shows.



She also refers to FBI as credible despite all the tremendous conflicts of interests involved.

She clearly hates Bobby

Trusts the FBI

Hmmmmm

[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!

[Dawn Meredith]

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

[Tom Bowden]

I have not ever said that I personally believe LBJ sent Wallace up there as a shooter. I do not know how his print got on that carton. There are many explanations. I agree with Joan that Barr's book on the JFK evidence was horrible. More later.Dawn

KillJFK will answer several questions, which have been raised in this thread. I regret that the english version has been delayed by the French publisher. The English version will be published in September 2015 even if the French version is delayed further. If this happens, the title will change. I will keep you informed.
Now some notes.
1. Wallace never met Oswald until September 1963 well after the decision was made to kill Kennedy.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that LBJ was part of any discussion to use Wallace.
3. Those details, which BSE stated which are correct, did not come from Carter but from a Dallas Mob connection.
4. BSE and/or his brother was at the Marshall Murder site

In the many discussions over a period of ten years, BSE contradicted himself many times. I truly believe that BSE would rather tell a lie than the truth even if the truth sounded better. I have many hours of video tape and more importantly many hours of taped telephone conversations and within them are what I believe is the truth about Marshall. I wrote BSE's autobiography and he changed key parts before publishing to match his lies. More than likely BSE's brother was at the murder.

Pam learned several things after BSE's death about Marshall and other murders and we discussed them in depth. They would have been included in her documentary.I agree with Dawn about Nathan. He firmed believed the prints matched. Anyone who met him in person and discussed it for any length of time could not help but come to that conclusion.

[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).

[Dawn Meredith]

Peter: My theory cannot be proved in any manner, therefore I have only discussed it with 4 people: Nathan that day he called. He had NEVER been afraid up to that point, my husband Erick, and two other close friends Rachel Rendish and Richard Bartholomew. If not true it would constitute libel and therefore will remain a secret. As I said it was a way of calming Nathan that day. Now that I know his file has been tampered with I now believe that my theory is not correct and that whoever broke in and took his Wallace file is connected to the note claiming he was not certified and would not be.

I look forward to hearing more of Tom's information. especially the basis for the notion that it was the brother of BSE who was at the Henry Marshall murder cite. The drawing I saw years ago sure looked like Mac Wallace to me. Of course people thought it also looked like BSE. (From Glen Sample The Men on the 6th floor).

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter: My theory cannot be proved in any manner, therefore I have only discussed it with 4 people: Nathan that day he called. He had NEVER been afraid up to that point, my husband Erick, and two other close friends Rachel Rendish and Richard Bartholomew. If not true it would constitute libel and therefore will remain a secret. As I said it was a way of calming Nathan that day. Now that I know his file has been tampered with I now believe that my theory is not correct and that whoever broke in and took his Wallace file is connected to the note claiming he was not certified and would not be.

I look forward to hearing more of Tom's information. especially the basis for the notion that it was the brother of BSE who was at the Henry Marshall murder cite. The drawing I saw years ago sure looked like Mac Wallace to me. Of course people thought it also looked like BSE. (From Glen Sample The Men on the 6th floor).

Dawn

Libel, eh.......so someone is still alive...well, I'll leave it at that.
I do find the note in the file most strange. How often does one have a note saying something along the lines of 'do not requalify under any circumstances' unless the person had done something very wrong with their position. NO one is making that accusation of Darby...so it just doesn't make sense. I hope it is explained or quoted, if not a photo in the forthcoming book. It does seem, however, it could well be a plant after the fact....even if it is dated otherwise. How messy covert ops get; and the longer the cover-up, the worst the Gordion Knots.

[Dawn Meredith]

Yesterday I was notified by a reliable source that this book has been cancelled by the publisher. I have no further information at this time.
The person who contacted me said the publisher "decided there was no market for a book defending Mac Wallace". More when I know it.

[Drew Phipps]

That's one for the good guys, at least.