Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin

Recommended Posts

This guy is a complete poseur.  I did some work on him.  He is the Canadian version of the useless carnival barker David Horowitz.:please

But if you read this you will see that his work, if that is what you wish to call it, is simply and completely pitiful.  At best its an obsolete relic,  at worst it is simply a diversion from the unearthed facts.  In the sixteen downloadable pages of his chapter on Garrison, I could find not one declassified ARRB document that he read or used.  Not one.  And as I note that is really bizarre since the ARRB did some decent work in New Orleans.  Who does he use as sources then? Aynesworth and Phelan. :stupid Without telling the reader about their intel associations and their denials of them.  He then gets even more silly and drags in, of all people, Paul Hoch.  I explain why this is bonkers is the piece.  And he accuses Gary Aguilar of not being intellectually honest.:help

From what I could find out, the guy made a lot of money in the computer field and then became a Culture Warrior up in Canada.  He is trying to be their  Bill O'Reilly.  Like we need another Fox News clown in the JFK case.  Ridiculous.

Read it and weep. 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved the article Jim, well done.

Destroy, destroy and destroy some more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not for the efforts of Jim D. we would not know the truth of Litwin's full background, his ideology and political activity and association history and the selectively weak and corrupted content of his book that Litwin has presented and promoted on this forum.

Jim's linked essay above  is, as always, an invaluable must read for those of us who need and value deeper facts before we waste our truth seeking time, effort and even money on a dishonest literary lemon.

Thank you Jim D.

And once again we see the names Rockefeller and DeRothschild pop up in this never ending secret power group story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, detailed analysis.

My question.  What motivated Mr. Litwin to write and market this disinformazia?

Was it money,  notoriety, or some misguided political agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bart and Joe.

WN, as I tried to discern, Litwin has become a culture warrior up in Canada.. The excuse he gives is that this came about as a result of 9/11 and his being Jewish. 

That has never made very much sense to me since Al Qaeda--backed by Saudi Arabia-- did not attack Israel on 9/11, they attacked America. But that is what I could discern.

But see, I have also never been able to understand people who regard the JFK case as part of a culture war.

To me, I have always examined the JFK case as a homicide.  And I have always treated it as a murder investigation.

Historically speaking, the problem with the JFK case is that the Warren Commission did not deal with that case as a homicide investigation. And that is how it became part of a culture war, in more ways than one.  Not just left vs right, but also those who want transparency and declassification vs those who care so little about it they do not even tell their readers about it years after the fact.  I mean what kind of a writer does not deem it important that the FBI was getting information that matched up with Garrison's, namely that Shaw was Bertrand? Or that Ferrie was trying to hide the fact he knew Oswald in the days after 11/22/63?

These are matters for a criminal inquiry.  As an investigator you ask:  Why are these people lying?  When Ferrie lied to the FBI, that was a criminal act.  Same as when Shaw lied on the stand.  But even beyond that, why did the FBI let Ferrie lie to them?  And why did the FBI and CIA cooperate with the cover up around Shaw?

These are the kinds of questions that go to the heart of the national security cover up about the JFK case.  A culture warrior like Litwin does not want his readers to go there.  Because, unlike  us, he values security over liberty. Even up in Ottawa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Bart and Joe.

WN, as I tried to discern, Litwin has become a culture warrior up in Canada.. The excuse he gives is that this came about as a result of 9/11 and his being Jewish. 

That has never made very much sense to me since Al Qaeda--backed by Saudi Arabia-- did not attack Israel on 9/11, they attacked America. But that is what I could discern.

But see, I have also never been able to understand people who regard the JFK case as part of a culture war.

To me, I have always examined the JFK case as a homicide.  And I have always treated it as a murder investigation.

Historically speaking, the problem with the JFK case is that the Warren Commission did not deal with that case as a homicide investigation. And that is how it became part of a culture war, in more ways than one.  Not just left vs right, but also those who want transparency and declassification vs those who care so little about it they do not even tell their readers about it years after the fact.  I mean what kind of a writer does not deem it important that the FBI was getting information that matched up with Garrison's, namely that Shaw was Bertrand? Or that Ferrie was trying to hide the fact he knew Oswald in the days after 11/22/63?

These are matters for a criminal inquiry.  As an investigator you ask:  Why are these people lying?  When Ferrie lied to the FBI, that was a criminal act.  Same as when Shaw lied on the stand.  But even beyond that, why did the FBI let Ferrie lie to them?  And why did the FBI and CIA cooperate with the cover up around Shaw?

These are the kinds of questions that go to the heart of the national security cover up about the JFK case.  A culture warrior like Litwin does not want his readers to go there.  Because, unlike  us, he values security over liberty. Even up in Ottawa.

Great, concise article. Question - what do you think is a good explanation for why Shaw would try to get legal counsel for Oswald? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC interview of Fred Litwin (posted by David Von Pein) is utterly appalling.

How did this dishonest, erroneous nonsense get televised in Canada?

Did the CBC interviewer really not know that Richard Helms admitted under oath that Clay Shaw was, in fact, a CIA asset?  That Shaw was, in fact, guilty of perjury?

And what is Litwin's nonsense about two pathologists employed by the Kennedy family claiming that autopsy findings supported the Lone Nut in the TSBD narrative of the Warren Commission?

Someone needs to contact the Chairperson at CBC, Michael Goldbloom, and let him know that Fred Litwin is a bald-faced xxxx.

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The CBC interview of Fred Litwin (posted by David Von Pein) is utterly appalling.

How did this dishonest, erroneous nonsense get televised in Canada?

Did the CBC interviewer really not know that Richard Helms admitted under oath that Clay Shaw was, in fact, a CIA asset?  That Shaw was, in fact, guilty of perjury?

And what is Litwin's nonsense about two pathologists employed by the Kennedy family claiming that autopsy findings supported the Lone Nut in the TSBD narrative of the Warren Commission?

Someone needs to contact the Chairperson at CBC, Michael Goldbloom, and let him know that Fred Litwin is a bald-faced xxxx.

What kind of junk/crap are you trying to peddle here, W. Niederhut? You surely know that there were seventeen (17!) different pathologists over the years who have ALL maintained that President Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from BEHIND.

Even mega-CTer Dr. Cyril Wecht (one of those 17 pathologists) agrees that the autopsy photos and X-rays show only wounds that were caused by bullets that entered JFK from the rear.

You owe Fred Litwin an apology for calling him a "bald-faced l-i-a-r". But maybe you think those seventeen pathologists (from Bethesda to the Clark Panel to the HSCA) who agree that Kennedy was shot only from behind are the real "bald-faced liars", eh?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything I was too soft on this guy.  He gets on Ontario TV and recycles the GIGO from his book.

He actually said that what closed the door on conspiracy for him was that the ARRB's 2 million pages was nothing but a zero.

Well, yeah, if you did not read them or choose not to address them, its nothing.  But as I quoted in my article, either Freddie Boy did read them and he does not want anyone to know about them, or he did not read them at all.  These documents completely puncture the false image of Garrison and New Orleans that he is trying to peddle.  

Clay Shaw was a highly valued contract agent for the CIA going back to the fifties. They admitted that in their own document. He was involved in at least two, probably three covert projects for the Agency.  This is why he had a covert security clearance. They admitted that also. As I proved in my piece, Shaw committed perjury at least four times on the stand. And as I also showed, he could simply not tell the truth because it would open the door for more questions he simply could not answer since it would be too incriminating.  What makes it worse is that the FBI knew what the facts were, and the CIA covered up for him with an internal lie.

David Ferrie lied his head off to the FBI.  He then tried to obstruct justice by collecting evidence that would expose his perjury in the immediate days after the assassination.

Litwin even misrepresents the stuff about the Kennedy family and the autopsy artifacts.  The Secret Service had those at first, until around 1966.  Then a deed of gift was put together.  When Garrison tried to get them for the Shaw trial, the government mightily resisted, and as Wecht would say later, the government lawyer screamed in court they would appeal until Hades froze over.  But Ramsey Clark had no problem getting them for the Fisher Panel so that good ole CIA buddy Russ Fisher could change the original autopsy in order to cover up the exposure of it by Tink Thompson in his book.  Again, that is not me saying that, its Fisher saying it.

So what happened was that CIA buddy Russ altered the entrance point of the rear skull wound by raising it four inches, in other words about as far as you could on the back of the head.  Then, someone, we do not know who, added a 6.5 mm fragment on the X-ray to make that alteration/falsification more credible.  Neither Humes, Boswell nor Finck could recall seeing that artifact in the morgue.  What makes it so hard to buy at all is that its about 50 per cent larger than the one they did see. Yet try and find it in the report.

The other thing that happened is that they erased a particle trail that Humes wrote about which connected the lower entrance wound upward.  

So let us tally up what Russ did: 1.) Raised the rear entrance 2.) added a bullet fragment which just happens to be 6.5 mm disk shaped 3.) Erased a particle trail.

Oh and I forgot. Stringer denied taking the pictures  of JFK's brain in the archives today.  He never used that film, or the press pack technique.  

All of this was unveiled by Jeremy Gunn and the ARRB.  As was the stuff on Shaw and Ferrie.  

Fred Litwin should be ashamed of himself. :down

But he is a Culture Warrior.  People like him and Daniel Pipes don't care about facts. In fact, they are actually at war with facts because they lead to an inconvenient political truth about America.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the 17 pathologists who confirmed ONLY REAR ENTRY WOUNDS all liars, Jim? Or do you want to pretend that all the photos are fake?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey Boy:

In how many murder cases does the fatal wound change location, does the fatal bullet miraculously show up on the x rays five years later, and particle trails disappear?  Plus the official photographer denies he took the most important pics?  Can you name an instance outside of the movies or fiction?

(Sound of crickets in the night)

I have no idea what you are talking about with that second comment. Everything I listed and mentioned above is factual and shown by the government's own ARRB documents, which Litwin denies. If you want to say that these documents and this testimony is fake then that makes you quite a conspiracy theorist.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey Boy:

In how many murder cases does the fatal wound change location, does the fatal bullet miraculously show up on the x rays five years later, and particle trails disappear?

Jimmy Boy,

Not a one of those things happened, of course.

...The fatal entrance wound never "changed" locations. It was always in the same place on the BACK of Kennedy's head. And the "red spot" photo proves it was high on the head, not low. Mistakes have been made by some people (including the Bethesda doctors) over the years as to the precise place on JFK's head where that wound was located, but the biggest mistake was made by Humes & Boswell on the night of the autopsy by not measuring the vertical distance of the wound from ANY body landmark. Incredibly, it appears they didn't measure the "north/south" distance from any landmark at all! But the photographs confirm it was 100mm. above the EOP. Why not go with the BEST evidence (in this case, those photos)? Or am I supposed to believe the Red Spot pic is a phony?

....Nobody KNOWS what the "6.5mm opacity" is on the A-P X-ray. Nobody can say for CERTAIN. Maybe it's a metal (bullet) fragment, but maybe it's not. We'll likely never know for sure.

....And your constant refrain of "The particle trail disappeared" has me shrugging too. What are you talking about? The "particle trail" is easily visible in the lateral X-ray of Kennedy's skull. Why would anyone insist it has "disappeared"? It hasn't disappeared at all. ~shrug time~

JFK-Head-Xray.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

What kind of junk/crap are you trying to peddle here, W. Niederhut? You surely know that there were seventeen (17!) different pathologists over the years who have ALL maintained that President Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from BEHIND.

Even mega-CTer Dr. Cyril Wecht (one of those 17 pathologists) agrees that the autopsy photos and X-rays show only wounds that were caused by bullets that entered JFK from the rear.

You owe Fred Litwin an apology for calling him a "bald-faced l-i-a-r". But maybe you think those seventeen pathologists (from Bethesda to the Clark Panel to the HSCA) who agree that Kennedy was shot only from behind are the real "bald-faced liars", eh?

Mr. Von Pein,

     I am a physician, (Harvard Medical School '83) and I have studied the original medical reports from the Parkland ER.  JFK, clearly, had a right frontal entry wound that blew a fragment of his right occipital skull backward, behind the limo-- consistent with the Zapruder film.

   My understanding is that the physician who conducted the Bethesda autopsy was not even a forensic pathologist, and was quite reluctant to sign off on the substandard "autopsy" that may well have been conducted on a surgically altered cranium.

  As for Fred Litwin, I will stand by my original comments about his utterly appalling interview on CBC television.  He made several blatantly false statements.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute his errors to ignorance, but I don't believe that he is ignorant. 

P.S.  This is my last comment to you.  I do not wish to converse with you, going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

On February 13, 1996, the following dialogue took place between Jeremy Gunn and Jim Humes. The X rays were in front of the witness when Gunn asked the following question:

Q: Do you recall having seen an X ray previously that had fragments corresponding to a small occipital wound?

A: Well I reported that I did, so I must have.  But I don't see it now.  (The JFK Assassination, by James DiEugenio, p. 152)

If this is to hard to figure Davey, Gunn referred to the occipital area because that is the area in the lower rear skull where the original doctors placed the entrance wound.   As Humes admitted, and DVP will not, he saw and reported about a trail of particles that originated from that wound and rose upward.  As many people have noted, they are gone today.

Your point about the disk shaped object tries to dodge the issue.  Why did the pathologists not see this in 1963?  Especially since its bigger than the largest one they did see by a factor of fifty percent. But beyond that, is it credible that they would miss a disk shaped object that was in perfect position to complete the arc of the fragments and was also the right caliber?  Maybe to Litwin and DVP, but not to the rest of the 99.9 per cent of the public who do not know about it.

Your last point is nothing but sophistry.  The original autopsy had the fatal entrance wound at the lower rear of the skull. Will you have the cajones and honesty to admit that?   Russell Fisher changed the entrance wound location and raised it four inches higher to the top of the skull.  But if it was always there then why did Baden have Ida Dox paint in raised edges around it to make it look more like a bullet wound than a blood drop?

These are simple facts of the case which, like the others, you do not want to admit. Just as Litwin does not.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×