The Men Who Killed Kennedy

[Paul Baker]

I'm watching the sixth instalment of the documentary series 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. Does this series carry any real weight amongst conspiracy theorists?

It is self-deprecating, as far as I can tell. I'd be very interested to know whether anybody thinks it adds to the debate.

[Kathleen Collins]

Yes, I believe TMWKK adds a lot to the discussion. Especially "The Guilty

Men," which the History Channel never repeated because of fears of a law

suit. It's an eerie episode. You can see it on youtube.

Kathy C

[Michael Walton]

I remember seeing this series when it was first broadcast on the History Channel. Now that I'm older and I hope a little bit wiser, I've come to believe this series is one of the most, if not the most, counter-mainstream series about the case that you'll ever have an opportunity to see. With of course numerous flaws in between.

The Connally interview in the very first episode is conspiracy gold in my book. No matter how many people out there who still want to believe or push the official story on the public, watching JBC describe what happened should completely silence those folks. The man was mere feet away from the President when he heard the first shot, turned, started to turn again, and then took his shot. If that isn't enough to demolish the SBT I don't know what is. And watching the Zapruder film confirms everything he said.

Also in EP 1 (I'm not doing all of the EPs here as anyone can watch them on YTV), but I find it almost humorous how Jim Leavelle describes the car that was supposed to take Oswald away was "...not quite where it was supposed to be." OK, fine, then why didn't you just stop and wait and tell the others to put the car where it was supposed to be? It was your job to protect the prisoner.

Then, my all-time favorite of that sordid event was old Will Fritz, breaking the security ring (he was supposed to be in front of Oswald protecting him from people like Ruby) and casually walking ahead, making sure he's looking at anything except what's about to happen:

Oswald Getting Shot with Fritz Looking at a Piece of Cheese in the Corner

But back to the series, the part that kind of ruined it for me was the "French connection" aspect of the shooting. The producers at that point were reaching way, way out there.

[Roger DeLaria]

I liked the series as well. I think there's a lot of important information to be taken away from it, especially "The Guilty Men", one of the most telling episodes.

[Greg Burnham]

Although I am admittedly biased, (since I participated in The Guilty Men episode in which I and some of my research were featured) I too believe that the series contributed a lot to help the public's understanding of the case. There were many more pluses than minuses. I found Nigel Turner to be not only gracious, but thorough. He displayed a considerable amount of courage in producing the series as a whole, but especially, The Guilty Men episode.

Was it perfect? No. Did it achieve what we were hoping to accomplish over all? Yes. It got people exposed to a lot of evidence of which they would not have been aware had the series not been produced. It got people asking the right questions and thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting the impossible LN narrative.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I would agree with Greg. I think it fulfilled a very useful function in getting people to question the official story. It did attempt to link many facets of the Assassination, and there were a number of witnesses and experts regarding a number of aspects of the JFK assassination I had not seen before. My criticism would be that it didn't meet a conspiracy theory or conspiracy witness it didn't like, and obviously all of these theories couldn't co exist with each other. I think it was made to raise doubts about the official version and give a number of conspiracy theories (credible and less credible with passing time) equal footing.

I personally didn't go for the Corsican mob theory and over time I've come to disregard, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver and later Madeleine Duncan Brown and the Murchison meeting to name a few I can remember. I thought of close eyewitness testimony that was omitted that I was always liked the testimony of S.M. Holland and wondered why he wasn't included, even though he had probably passed by the time of the Documentary.

[Joe Bauer]

I just watched episode 6 of this series.

I know several esteemed researchers have stated less than complimentary views of Nigel Turner and TMWKK and pointed out many flaws but to me most of it is very compelling to watch.

I don't know how many serious critical essays have been written about the series and specific parts but I wonder what the most JFK credentialed critics have to say about the interview of Lt. Colonel Dan Marvin?

Marvin's statements in this interview (if true ) were mind blowing and incredibly ominous indictments.

Does anyone here in the forum wish to comment on Lt.Colonel Marvin and if they find he and his story less than credible, please explain why they believe this?

Has Lt. Colonel Dan Marvin been researched in any significant way.

His comments about our government using the Mafia for domestic hits ( again if true ) just sickens me. That we would join hands with that monstrous criminal group in any way.

Anyone who has ever read even the most basic Mafia history knows the dynamic of working with organized crime. Once you ask them and they do you a favor...they own you.

It truly is getting in bed with the devil.

Also, I believe TMWKK story of Murchison family maid May Newman. Her tale of the Murchison family celebrating JFK's death for one week " like the champagne and cavier flowed " while she was the only one grieving ( she paused and seemed sad recollecting this ) just rang true to me and showed how truly ruthless and morally corrupted that oil wealth clan was.

I also believe that because several of the possible theories presented by Turner seemed quite illogical, and there was so much enlightening information presented that had never been exposed before...that the entire series ( in total ) is a great addition to the JFK research effort imo.

Turner's LBJ expose seems so much more informative and closer to the truth about him and his true level of corruption than anything we could ever see back here in our own country. It's like we are so afraid to confront and admit the sordid murderous truth about LBJ to the point of simply pretending it doesn't exist.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Don't get me started on Nigel Turner.

Especially that last series of his with the likes of Judy Baker and William Ligett.

Better no series about JFK than Turner's.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Joe, I thought it was a very powerful story too when I first saw it. However, one question I would have asked regards what was presumably the written roster of people who attended that assassinations meeting, of which there was a list of about, I don't know 15 people was it? While it is understandable Marvin would not be able to find David Vanek 30 years later. There was an extensive list of people who could have been contacted to verify the alleged Dealey Plaza mock up and what amounted to be a recognition of a textbook case of how they killed the President and successfully put the blame on a patsy.That was my first thought on a lead that was never pursued in the excerpt.

Daniel Marvin has posted here years ago,(died in 2012) and you can access him by merely searching his name. If you then pick "William Bruce Pitzer" you can see both Daniel Marvin and also Dennis David's responses to Allen Eaglesham, who apparently at one point was collaborating with Marvin and later repudiated him. While I haven't read all the material on this, Eaglesham disputes both Marvin and David that Pitzer was left handed, and accuses Marvin of asking Pitzer's wife, who responded he was right handed and omitting this information, and also makes a case regarding Marvin's inconsistent account as to the number of people Marvin said were in attendance. (which again I thought was documented by that list that was shown in that excerpt of TMWKK.) Both inconsistencies don't on the surface seem to merit his calling Marvin a "xxxx". But in the thread entitled "Daniel Marvin" Eaglesham forwards his belief that the death was in fact a suicide, by citing testimony from 2 forensic experts including Cyril Wecht, that the wounds were consistent with suicide while Wecht issues a disclaimer that suicides could be faked. If you run through those threads and find more more salient points in Eaglesham's arguments, I'd curious if you'd share them. I hope this helps.

[Sandy Larsen]

I would agree with Greg. I think it fulfilled a very useful function in getting people to question the official story. It did attempt to link many facets of the Assassination, and there were a number of witnesses and experts regarding a number of aspects of the JFK assassination I had not seen before. My criticism would be that it didn't meet a conspiracy theory or conspiracy witness it didn't like, and obviously all of these theories couldn't co exist with each other. I think it was made to raise doubts about the official version and give a number of conspiracy theories (credible and less credible with passing time) equal footing.

I personally didn't go for the Corsican mob theory and over time I've come to disregard, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver and later Madeleine Duncan Brown and the Murchison meeting to name a few I can remember. I thought of close eyewitness testimony that was omitted that I was always liked the testimony of S.M. Holland and wondered why he wasn't included, even though he had probably passed by the time of the Documentary.

If you don't mind, Kirk, can you tell me briefly why you don't believe the stories of Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, and Beverly Oliver? I don't have an opinion on any of them. (I just barely read about them on Spartacus Educational) I'd just like to know what to look out for.

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

There was no closed circuit video recording of the Kennedy autopsy, which is usually one of the reasons given for killing Pitzer.

As for the whole Murchison family death party, this has become like an evolutionary slide into silliness. It started decades ago with Penn Jones. It was then morphed into dimensions that went way beyond what Penn did with it. In versions by people like Madeleine Brown and Harry Livingstone, it later included Hoover and McCloy, and some versions have Nixon there also. This is ridiculous, and Seamus Coogan showed why in an essay he did on Alex Jones for CTKA.

And one of the guys Turner had on to present the case against LBJ was Barr McClellan who wrote one of the very worst books ever on the case. But people like Turner and Jones gave him a great publicity send off and, unfortunately, Blood, Money and Power sold well.

The last installment of the series was so bad, I couldn't watch the whole thing, what with Liggett, McClellan and Baker.

BTW, does no one notice that in the first installment, Turner said the assassins were sponsored by the French Corsican mob, with info given by Christian David through Steve Rivele. Somehow this was later completely switched by McClellan to a Texas hit.

It would have been nice if Nigel has explained why. Or were there two sets of assassins in Dealey Plaza. And they didn't bump into each other?

Edited September 4, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

Joe:

There was no closed circuit video recording of the Kennedy autopsy, which is usually one of the reasons given for killing Pitzer.

Jim, do you believe that Jerrol Custer and Dennis David l.i.e.d about the 16 mm film and B&W photos of the autopsy that Pitzer allegedly had?

[James DiEugenio]

Well, they sure got the left vs right hand stuff screwed up didn't they?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homrecon.html

[Sandy Larsen]

Joe:

There was no closed circuit video recording of the Kennedy autopsy, which is usually one of the reasons given for killing Pitzer.

Jim, do you believe that Jerrol Custer and Dennis David l.i.e.d about the 16 mm film and B&W photos of the autopsy that Pitzer allegedly had?

Well, they sure got the left vs right hand stuff screwed up didn't they?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homrecon.html

I'll take that as a yes.

However, the link has only Dennis David saying that Pitzer was left handed. Jerrol Custer isn't mentioned at all.

Do you know if Custer also claimed Pitzer was left-handed?

[Kirk Gallaway]

c

I would agree with Greg. I think it fulfilled a very useful function in getting people to question the official story. It did attempt to link many facets of the Assassination, and there were a number of witnesses and experts regarding a number of aspects of the JFK assassination I had not seen before. My criticism would be that it didn't meet a conspiracy theory or conspiracy witness it didn't like, and obviously all of these theories couldn't co exist with each other. I think it was made to raise doubts about the official version and give a number of conspiracy theories (credible and less credible with passing time) equal footing.

I personally didn't go for the Corsican mob theory and over time I've come to disregard, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver and later Madeleine Duncan Brown and the Murchison meeting to name a few I can remember. I thought of close eyewitness testimony that was omitted that I was always liked the testimony of S.M. Holland and wondered why he wasn't included, even though he had probably passed by the time of the Documentary.

If you don't mind, Kirk, can you tell me briefly why you don't believe the stories of Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, and Beverly Oliver? I don't have an opinion on any of them. (I just barely read about them on Spartacus Educational) I'd just like to know what to look out for.

Sandy, My memory may not serve me 100% accurately, as it's been 15 years since I saw TMWKK in it's entirety. In all these cases, we have people who didn't really surface with their testimony for almost 20 years. That to me, is a red flag. Ed Hoffman's veracity was called into question by his Father, who I believe I heard was at the scene as well, though I may be mistaken. He claims to have reported what he saw at the time but no one would pay him any attention. But he could have insisted on going on record but he didn't persist.

Gordon Arnold claims are incredible, he who was told earlier by a man who showed his Secret Service credentials to get away from the fence area and then heard a shot pass right by his ear? So what did he do with the information.? He told no one at the time what he saw because he said he left the next day to be stationed in Alaska. What excuse is that? Then they show him that computer image of a photo where he is standing right alongside, (was it badge man and his accomplice?) and ask him if that could have been him, and he said it was. First off I don't believe the photo. I thought it was ironic that despite Gary Mack' reversal over time, he propagated one of the flimsier pieces of evidence in TMWKK with his Badge Man photo. But that's just my opinion.

Beverly Oliver also surfaced many years later. Her excuse was that she saw other witnesses meet their death, which was the best excuse of any of the 3. I think I remember the camera model she claims to have had taken away didn't exist at that time. But she did prove to have worked for the rival club to Jack Ruby's Carousel club, though she was quite young. She came out many years later as Babushka lady after probably reading that no one had ever found Babushka Lady. JMO

In all 3 of them, to me intuitively there's something very fishy. But that's just me. I tend to be very skeptical of witnesses and authors who provide new revelations after all these years. Like Roger Stone, who claims as an intern (Stone was 21 when Nixon resigned.) he was confided in by Nixon that Nixon positively believed LBJ had Kennedy killed, when there has been no other record of Nixon divulging such information to his aides, cabinet members or personal friends. Any other background information to fill in the dots he just steals from Barr Mc Clellan and Madeline Duncan Brown. But I also tend to be skeptical of more recent revelations such as RFK's desire to launch an investigation into his brother's death once he becomes President. I just felt I would have heard something else about that over all these years. It may be true, believe whatever you will.