Somebody PLEASE Call Gill Grissom
Once More Dr. Brown Weighs In On
His Fingerprint Evidence
William Peterson portrays head of the Las Vegas Criminalistics Bureau Gil Grissom in the CBS network's CSI: Las Vegas
On Thursday, November 19, 2004 I came across the following post by Dr. Walt Brown to John Simkin's Educational Forum [http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/] that same morning:
"Interested parties who did not want to get the typical 'Oswald did it alone and don't bother' answer took the print issue to experts at Interpol, and, I'm told, hearsay-wise, that a match was confirmed. I can't prove that, but that is what I was told. Nathan worked or worked/is working on that one print for several years, and he just turned 90."
"This post has been edited by Walt Brown: Yesterday, 02:51 AM"
After Dr. Brown's reaction to Barr McClellan's book Blood, Money & Power and his appearance on "The Guilty Men" segment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I would have thought he would wait to reply in a more scholarly fashion to the question. In my view his answer is pure doublespeak similar to that often given by anti-conspiracy advocates.
Just imagine the diatribe from pro-conspiracy proponents if the United States or Texas Attorney Generals handled the issue in similar fashion. Here is the fictitious* press conference:
"I will read a brief prepared statement and then take a few questions. A group of unnamed government officials who are tired of defending the 'Oswald acted alone theory' have turned some fingerprint evidence over to Interpol. After reviewing this evidence, I understand the Interpol people believe the prints have no relationship to or bearing upon the Kennedy assassination. As far as I am concerned the case is closed. I will take your questions."
"Mr. Attorney General, at a previous press conference held in November of 2003 you claimed that your investigation was 'a slam dunk' when it came to completely discounting this fingerprint evidence. Some researchers said your original statement was flawed. Won't your current announcement be viewed by some as vacillation on your part and an attempt at a cover up?"
"I believe now as I did then that my statements were accurate. Those supposed researchers are nothing more than disinformation specialists trying to thwart a legitimate investigation. They seek nothing more than to create confusion in the minds of those not familiar with the case."
"Mr. Attorney General, who are the government officials who provided the materials?"
"I'm sorry but everything I know about the issue came to me second or third hand so I don't know."
"Mr. Attorney General was this the same evidence that was reviewed by your expert, Mr. Darby?"
"Originally my team and I were criticized for the use of photocopies rather than photographs in our investigation. I would expect better materials were submitted to Interpol so I cannot comment at this time."
"Mr. Attorney General who at Interpol was responsible for reviewing the evidence?"
"I am not privy to that information. But I am sure the individuals, whoever they are, have the proper credentials and followed suitable protocol. I feel we can stand by their results and in the end will be vindicated."
"Mr. Attorney General does the timing of your statement along with the lack of any concrete information have anything to do with gaining publicity for the approaching anniversary of the assassination?"
"I consider that a scurrilous accusation. I believe my record shows I only present information and evidence when I am satisfied it to be accurate. Thank you."
* Dr. Brown's associate, Barr McClellan, would probably consider this an egregious use of "faction."
|Dave Perry - November 19, 2004|
Copyright © 2004 by David B. Perry All rights reserved