Lois Liggett: Challenge to Jim Di Eugenio

[Michael Clark]

15 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Yes, I am just raising the "baby with the bath water" scenario. A fair criticism of Nigel Turner is not a fair criticism of Lois Liggett. 

And, similarly, a blanket, non-critical, condemnation of the series amounts to an unfair dismissal of all the researchers and witnesses featured in the series.

[Joe Bauer]

Of course there was a lot of less than well sourced, questionable credibility and over dramatized witness testimony content in Turner's series.

And the ominous sounding background score was equally overly dramatic and even cheesy and cheap at times. 

However, the justification for including these integrity risking elements makes sense in the same vein as Oliver Stone's film "JFK."

Who's going to spend much time watching long documentaries or pay money to watch a commercial film that doesn't have these "emotion playing and grabbing" colorings?

And who is going to finance an expensive world audience production that the financiers believe won't make a profit?

Turner's series grabbed me just like Stone's JFK, even though I knew both contained speculations and stretches.

However,  I  believe they both contained enough worthy and credible testimony and information ( mixed in with the opposite ) that I had not seen or heard before and that I feel brought me closer to a better and broader awareness of at least "some" parts of the over-all truth.

Even seeing the bad stuff in TMWKK could help in refining one's ability to discriminate such things as one researches these areas more thoroughly later on. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Clark]

Also featured in Episode 7:

Connie Kritzburgh, Dallas Times Herald reporter who interviewed Dr. Malcom Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark, a couple hours after the assassination.

Dr. Crenshaw, who attended JFK at Parkland

Dr. Livingston who spoke with Dr. humes (Bethesda) on 11-22-63

Doug Weldon (previously mentioned) Professor of criminal justice and attorney.

Dr. David Mantik.

Dr. Gary Aguilar

Charles Smith.Mortician and Co-worker of John Liggett

Dr. Jim Fetzer (circa 2003)

Lois Liggett and her daughter.

 

So, I have to say that Jim D's following statement is disingenuous:

 

"The last three shows Turner produced were based on the Liggetts, Judy Baker, and Barr McClellan." (Bold acccent is mine)

Episode 8 is based on JVB. I can't speak to episode 9 right now because I have not viewed it.

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

24 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Also featured in Episode 7:

Connie Kritzburgh, Dallas Times Herald reporter who interviewed Dr. Malcom Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark, a couple hours after the assassination.

Dr. Crenshaw, who attended JFK at Parkland

Dr. Livingston who spoke with Dr. humes (Bethesda) on 11-22-63

Doug Weldon (previously mentioned) Professor of criminal justice and attorney.

Dr. David Mantik.

Dr. Gary Aguilar

Charles Smith.Mortician and Co-worker of John Liggett

Dr. Jim Fetzer (circa 2003)

Lois Liggett and her daughter.

 

So, I have to say that Jim D's following statement is disingenuous:

 

"The last three shows Turner produced were based on the Liggetts, Judy Baker, and Barr McClellan." (Bold acccent is mine)

Episode 8 is based on JVB. I can't speak to episode 9 right now because I have not viewed it.

 

From Spartacus:

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmcclellan.htm

 

In 2004 The Guilty Men was shown on the History Channel. The programme looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from McClellan's book Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham. The Johnson family immediately complained about the programme. Gerald Ford also added his concerns and the History Channel took the decision not to repeat the original broadcast.

[James DiEugenio]

I don't know why you want to get personal about this Michael, but that is your decision.

You clearly had no idea about that lawsuit against HC for the fabrications in the Liggett show.  Fine, but when I pointed it out, you still wanted to maintain that it was valuable.  Without doing any more research on it at all, except what was in the show.

Did you know what Liggett was supposed to do?  Did you know who surfaced him originally? That story is so preposterous its in Fetzer territory.  

As per The Guilty Men, it features Tatro, McClellan, and Madeleine Brown as the main talking heads.  The last two have, in my view, no credibility. And please do not make me do your homework on this.  The material is out there.  All you have to do is look.

But it also includes Walt Brown and Nathan Darby.  Its the same old Mac Wallace stuff, with Darby's fingerprint evidence which Walt backed, which has now been discredited. I mean you have to be aware of that, right?  I am convinced that McClellan was a buffoon who was trotted out there to toss a curve ball at us. And other buffoons, like Nigel Turner and  Alex Jones, munched up his BS and led us on a path to nowhere.

As per May Newman, oh please with that Murchison party.  Give me a break.  I have analyzed that at length and shown how it evolved over time--from way back with Penn Jones-- to include people who physically could not have been there.   The whole conception of it is so outlandish and ridiculous that I don't even want to talk about it.

I don't know what you guys are talking about when you say its OK to have say 30 per cent right.  Because 1.) Turner does not even have that much right, and 2.) We have to be much more accurate than that.  I am of the opinion, that we have to be up in the nineties maybe even a hundred percent right.  And we have the information now to do that. In fact, we had it back then when Turner was fouling us all up with Judy Baker and Barr McClellan/Madeleine Brown/Mac Wallace fingerprint.

 It is amazing to me how Turner did no cross checking on the information he presented.  Just stunning.  Its like he didn't care.  The more sensational the better.  Forget if its true or not.  He completely wasted an excellent opportunity. Through his own personal flaws he presented a complete failure.  If I ever saw the guy I might slug him.

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

One more point, how on earth can one compare Turner's series with the movie JFK?

 

Nigel Turner made a documentary series which lasted many, many hours and he worked on it over decades.   In other words, he was much less constricted in his approach and in his time frame.  Stone had a three hour movie in which he had to try and fit into the strictures of a feature film.  

But he was working from Garrison's memoir.  Which was based on real events.  Therefore he at least had a solid structure.  He did use dramatic license, but I would argue there is much more truth in his film about JFK and his assassination than what is in Turner's trash compactor.  And that really is bad when one thinks about all the hours Turner had and all the people he had to choose from.  And although I agree that the early series was better than anything that came after it, even there, he had to screw it up with Christian David and his alleged assassin team which then blew up on him.

 

[Michael Clark]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know why you want to get personal about this Michael, but that is your decision.

You clearly had no idea about that lawsuit against HC for the fabrications in the Liggett show.  Fine, but when I pointed it out, you still wanted to maintain that it was valuable.  Without doing any more research on it at all, except what was in the show.

Did you know what Liggett was supposed to do?  Did you know who surfaced him originally? That story is so preposterous its in Fetzer territory.  

 

Jim, I don't mean to get personal, I wanted a better reason to discount her story than the one you gave in the original thread. That was the point of the challenge. Lois is still believable to me.

Shanet, James Richards and Ryan Crow all agree with Lois' that Malcom Liggett is in the photo with Jack Ruby. Malcolm denies it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I can't find any reason to conclude that Lois Liggett's story was fabricated. I mean, certainly it could have been. But it appears that this is one of those things that is a matter of personal opinion.

I did some googling and found an old EF thread where this topic was being discussed. Somebody posted some material that was trying to tie the Liggett story in with some of the LBJ-did-it stuff -- which I personally have little confidence in. But I couldn't see that it was Lois herself making those connections.

So I find myself again seeing this as a matter of opinion.

As for the lawsuit against the History Channel, I don't see how that indicates anything other than filmmakers need to be cautious about libel issues. The only thing I learned from the lawsuit myself is that Lois's ex brother-in-law didn't want the public to believe he was associated with the killing of JFK. Understandably so. But neither the lawsuit nor the settlement mean that Lois lied about her meeting with him. It was a he-said she-said situation. The History Channel had no corroboration for her story, so they had little choice but to settle.

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

He was not in Corpus Christi and he proved it.  He was in Southern California.  That is why they settled in six figure territory.

 

Michael:  When you sayI am being disingenuous, that is getting personal.

To the best of my knowledge, Liggett was surfaced by serial xxxx Billy Sol Estes, and it was for the purpose of body alteration.

To me its a non starter.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim,  What are your sources of the 6 figure settlement?

Agreed Sandy,

Jim says to Michael,

Do you know what his story is about, I mean in detail?

I thought maybe Jim was going to deliver the Holy Grail to Michael about the whole John Liggett afair. Then Jim proceeds to copy an article about how Malcolm Liggett and the History channel came to an undisclosed settlement, which  is not necessarily evidence of anything.

But Jim is very well researched and I often agree with him. I think the best point he makes is that Billy Sol Estes is the origin of the Liggett story. I don't find BSE credible either, as he was giving testimony to save his neck. But is he really the origin of the story? Actually BSE's first book, "Billy SoleEstes, a Texas Legend" and the "Smoking Gun" episode came out within 3 weeks of each other in November 2003. Obviously the"Smoking Gun" was in production prior to BSE's book release. It's not conclusive, But in mind, that probably lends credence to Sol Estes being the first source, because I can't find earlier sources to Liggett than the newspaper articles of his murders.

 

What is important that's not disclosed is  who came up with that photo of Malcolm Liggett, his wife, and this woman Iris Campbell who mysteriously entered   Lois's   life after she had divorced Liggett and moved away to Lubbock, Texas, sitting presumably at the Carousel with Jack Ruby, with Tony Zoppi.  Malcolm Liggett denies it's his picture in the photo, but it his word against Lois and presumably their daughter as they were once family. Lois contends not only is it Malcolm Liggett but a very good picture of his wife as well in the photo. So if she's wrong about falsely identifying 2 people, I would say she's probably lying. Liggett's next wife Leona, could have verified it, if she was living. Can anybody here secure a picture of Malcolm Liggett? Were Liggett and Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol together?(P.S. I believe Michael's video version was edited as I recall Lois's account of first meeting Iris Campbell in Lubbock at her church.)

 

I share David's A's, criticism of the overall story, it is just too fantastic. Particularly later after Liggett is presumably shot down trying to escape. Lois attends JL's funeral and says it is not Liggett in the open casket, noting that JL couldn't grow the mustache she noted on face of the deceased. (What is not mentioned in that piece is is that Liggett's wife at the time of his death couldn't identify the body and had the same observation about the moustache! ), but this account is disputed by a fellow worker with Liggett at the funeral home, who acknowledges it is JL!!  Then years later, when vacationing in Las Vegas, Lois . recognizes Liggett at a casino, Liggett notices her, tells a co worker and Lois decides to get lost.So we're assuming he never died. But if Malcolm Liggett and his wife are in that photo, all bets are off!

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

From Kennedys and King .com The Case Against Lyndon Johnson.  

 

But beyond that, as noted in the Madeleine Brown section, Estes later became a conduit for unbeleivable stories about the assassination. In addition to knowing the identities of the three assassins in the murder, he later got into a mutated form of David Lifton’s body alteration theory. In his 2005 book he now said there was body alteration in the JFK case. But it was not to JFK, but to a lookalike. Before the assassination, a mortician named John Liggett was to find a body like Kennedy’s, and it was to later match certain wound descriptions. On the day of the murder, Liggett was picked up in a hearse that contained the lookalike’s body. At Love Field he got on a plane and instructions were relayed to him and he made it look like the double had been shot in the head from the rear. Then, photographs of both bodies were taken and were later mixed and matched for the offical story. (Estes, pgs 155-157)

Who can beleive such a man? Or such a story? Well, maybe the always gullible Nigel Turner. He put Liggett’s wife on his extremely disappointing 2003 version of The Men Who Killed Kennedy.Turner and Arts and Entertainment Network were promptly sued by Liggett’s brother. A settlement was reached in 2005. That is what Turner gets for listening to a con man who said, at his second trial for fraud, words to the effect that his problem was he lived in a dream world. (Wall Street Journal, 8/7/79)

This is what I mean about it being a non starter.  It is simply absurd on its face.  Its so wild, I don't even know why are discussing it.  But this is Nigel Turner, that is the kind of stuff he wanted to go with.

And BTW, even in the first go round, the whole idea of Badge Man is very problematic also.  And you can look that up on these threads.  Een Greg Burnham, who was friendly with Jack White, posed some real questions about it.

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

Dr. Robert Livingston's story is probably a lie. Humes and Boswell denied talking to him when speaking with the ARRB. A much better model for the "early throat wound discovery" is where Dr. Humes calls Dr. Perry shortly after midnight while the autopsy was already in progress, probably after Sibert and O'Neil departed.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 7/30/2017 at 0:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

He was not in Corpus Christi and he proved it.  He was in Southern California.  That is why they settled in six figure territory.

 

Michael:  When you sayI am being disingenuous, that is getting personal.

To the best of my knowledge, Liggett was surfaced by serial xxxx Billy Sol Estes, and it was for the purpose of body alteration.

To me its a non starter.

Jim Says

" That is why they settled in six figure territory."

 

Jim again, you stated that they settled for 6 figures. Cite your sources for that.

 

 

Not that isn't worthwhile to mention that they came to an undisclosed settlement. But seriously Jim that info's really sketchy. Do you have any more details than the rest of us? So Malcolm Liggett could verify his whereabouts 40 years later? Was Malcolm's wife his alibi? I'll play devil's advocate and employ your typical skepticism.  One thing that people don't realize is that it was very easy back in 1963 to not leave a paper trail. (Unless of course you were LHO, and wanted to document you bought a murder weapon you could have bought for cash at a corner gun store or document you took a bus to Mexico City) The average American didn't have a credit card. The first BankAmericard came out in 1966. It was a consumer cash economy, people paid in cash. There were credit cards in the 50's but they didn't gain acceptance because the average American thought 1) that if they got them stolen they'd go into debt to the credit card companies and 2) People were much more concerned with privacy rights than they are now. Because it was easy to leave no record, people chose to leave no record. Not everybody of course, people wrote checks. It just wasn't an intrusive society. And that's always been the chief way people can trace the actions of others.

Malcolm Liggett could have left for LA on the the 15th and gotten back to Texas on a private plane with no record at all.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Michael Clark]

Following Kirk...

I am not sure how these things work, but I have the impression that a person or entity can sue someone, then settle out of court, under a confidential agreement for one dollar. The record will show that the suit was in some way successful.

I apreciate that Jim, as a researcher, or due to some history, cannot, or will not, give an inch on somebody like Nigel Turner's witnesses without feeling like he has lowered his own bar in regards to recearch cridibility. So the baby goes out with the bath water. But that does not have to be the case for everyone. The rest of us can say that, for example, Lois Liggett is credible and her story makes sense, without any deference to the credibility of Nigel Turner. That said, I'd like to see a researcher be more up-front with the reality of that situation  More importantly I would have much more respect for a researcher who can express that situation in critical terms, instead of normative terms lie "boloney", "poppycock" or "hogwash".

All that said, Jim doesn't owe me anything, my expectations are set, and I thank him for what he does.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

Also, I was given more to chew on and hopefully will have some confirmation tomorrow that the Carousel/Mac Liggett/Ruby photo is properly Identified. I made an inquiry today and I expect a response tomorrow.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Michael Clark