Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin

Recommended Posts

Jim,

Thanks for posting the ARRB testimony by Dr. Humes concerning the X-ray.

Yes, there are some problems and some discrepancies concerning the autopsy of President Kennedy. I cannot deny that fact. Nor have I ever tried to deny that these discrepancies and oddities exist in the record of this case. But I certainly don't believe that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel (and his 3 colleagues on that 1968 panel) decided to falsely "move" the entry wound in JFK's head northward by a total of four inches as part of some sinister and covert cover-up operation.

That theory, in my opinion, is ridiculous (and, frankly, laughable), mainly due to the fact that the total amount of "net gain" that would have been attained via such an underhanded piece of on-paper surgery to the President's skull would have been extremely minimal to the people who were orchestrating such a fraud so as to fool the public at large.

Because whether the wound was right at the level of the EOP on JFK's head or 100 millimeters above that location (as determined by Dr. Fisher's Clark Panel in '68), the end result (either way) would have been a conclusion that has one single bullet striking the President's head--with that one bullet entering JFK's head from behind.

And both of those possible entry points---whether it be a high point or a low point---are both perfectly consistent and compatible with the conclusion that has Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin firing his rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building (especially when factoring in the likelihood that the bullet that crashed into JFK's head probably changed directions somewhat after striking the hard skull, thereby eliminating any definitive conclusion that any investigative body would hope to reach about the precise angle of trajectory of the bullet as it travelled through the President's cranium).

For more about that pesky "6.5mm. Object" seen in one of JFK's X-rays .... Click-Here-Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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. 

Well, since you believe that President Kennedy sustained a "right frontal entry wound that blew a fragment of his right occipital skull backward", then you really have no choice but to also believe that ALL THREE of the photographic pieces of evidence depicted below (the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and Abraham Zapruder's home movie) must have been faked and manipulated by someone so as to completely eliminate the right-rear blowout of the President's skull. If you choose to believe in such wholesale fakery of the evidence, be my guest. But you'll pardon me if I excuse myself from sitting at your table.

JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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

Jack-Benny.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

Bingo! Bam! Damn! yes!  Humes was Not a FORENSIC Pathologist.  Leading, Greatly experienced ones from New York and Pennsylvania were an hour away by plane.  Why where the not used?   Humes knew what he was doing as a pathologist but lacked the investigative capability to do it fully in terms of forensics.  It didn't matter.  He was selected to do a job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey wants to ignore the fact that, as Pat Speer discovered, Fisher admitted in a medical journal that the reason the panel was convened by Clark was for the express purpose of refuting some of the junk in Thompson's book. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination,  p. 150)

Ramsey Clark was so disturbed by the Saturday Evening Post preview of  Six Seconds in Dallas that he got hold of some of the proofs of the book.  As anyone can see from looking at Thompson's book, p. 111, he  creates a very large problem in trajectory since you have a bullet fired downward which is now going upward in JFK's skull. So Thompson showed how Humes and Boswell conned Rydberg into making a drawing in which JFK's head is much more ante flexed than it really is in the Z film at Z 312. In fact, its almost like Kennedy is bending over to look at his navel. 

Fisher's revisions solve this problem in all aspects.  You raise the entry to straighten the trajectory, you then get rid of the lower particles, and the coup de grace, you place a 6.5 mm fragment  where it needs to be. And by the way, in my book, with testimony from Custer, I show how this had been practiced before the fact with Ebersole and his so called White House "bust of Kennedy" which needed bullets and trajectory lines taped on it.  Yep, that is not a  joke. ( p. 160)

Share this post


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

You raise the entry to straighten the trajectory, you then get rid of the lower particles, and the coup de grace, you place a 6.5 mm fragment  where it needs to be.

And they went through all that fakery and legerdemain just so they could say basically the EXACT SAME THING ---- that being: the bullet entered JFK's head from behind. Right?

And, Jimmy, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Dr. Russell Fisher, the Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland since 1949, would have held the opinion in 1968 when he was a part of the Clark Panel that a bullet which has just hit a very hard object like the skull of President John F. Kennedy could not possibly have changed its trajectory after striking that object? You don't really think that Fisher held such a belief, do you James? Anyone who thinks Dr. Fisher held such a crazy belief in the year 1968 must, themselves, be a little crazy.

Ergo, there was no good reason whatsoever for Russell S. Fisher to want to engage in the type of "Let's Raise The Entry Wound By Four Inches" scheme that James DiEugenio thinks he did engage in.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey,

Look, unlike you and your late mentor, I do not try and distract from the facts by speculating as to why someone would do something.

I just present the facts as I can collect them.  

And no, those alterations do change the case. Its called the second autopsy in the JFK case.  Just as Fisher said, the idea was to counter Thompson's book.  

These alterations do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But getting back to Paul B, I see I ignored his question.

I have answered this before as to why I think Shaw did what he did with Andrews, but I will do so again.

Shaw did not have the gestalt story.  So he was acting out of turn on that call to Andrews.  Unaware that Oswald would be polished off the next day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Litwin in this interview states that the million pages of released file documents don't bolster the conspiracy theorist's case.

I would love to stop Litwin right there and ask him if he believed the agencies didn't routinely or ever destroy documents for many reasons ( or claim they are missing or never existed ) especially when these documents would incriminated them in any way? Of course documents bolstering a conspiracy explanation in any substantial way would never be released.

He knows the true answer to this question. 

And how can Litwin and his fakely enthused infomercial product promoting partner interviewer keep a straight face while saying what a great book " Case Closed" is?

Everyone knows Posner's credibility was embarrassingly shot with the discovery of the Ferry/Oswald photo in the hugely important matter of whether Dave Ferry personally knew Lee Harvey Oswald and whether Ferry was provably lying about his claim of never meeting or knowing Oswald.

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

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.

Well, I would argue that one doesn't need Jim D. to figure out who Fred is. A quick trip to his website would give you the idea that he is a conservative-minded (oh the horror) fellow who believes that LHO killed JFK alone and that he is an openly gay man. No real mysteries here that we need Jim D. to enlighten us about.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


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

Excellent, detailed analysis.

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

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

I can clear up one thing-it was not money. With the exception of Case Closed, every LN book I know of has been underwhelming commercially. Perhaps Fred will break the mold here but I think his main motivation was to tell a story that is severely under represented in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, Litwin never read any of those documents.  The guy wrote an agitprop book as I proved in my review.

This has been the MSM strategy in order to deceive the public for many years now.  And they trot on clown after clown in order to deny the fact that the ARRB proved Garrison was correct about Shaw and Ferrie, and that the FBI knew such was the case.

They also do not go near the Jeremy Gunn inquiry into the medical evidence. Because, among many other things, its shows that the original autopsy was a cover up.

Parnell is such a pom pom boy that he does not understand that Litwin could never debate me. (Parnell misses my whole point about 9/11)

 Just like Parnell  ignores what I wrote that demolishes Litwin's book, Litwin has to ignore it also.  Or how he could he get blurbs by the likes of Conrad Black and Daniel Pipes?

As I said, unlike Litwin and Daniel Pipes, I have never seen the JFK case as a part of the Culture Wars. Whether it be by the right, or the left (Chomsky and Cockburn). I see it as a murder case, plain and simple.  That is not Litwin's approach.  Which is why his book is worthless.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

But getting back to Paul B, I see I ignored his question.

I have answered this before as to why I think Shaw did what he did with Andrews, but I will do so again.

Shaw did not have the gestalt story.  So he was acting out of turn on that call to Andrews.  Unaware that Oswald would be polished off the next day.

 

Hi Jim - I don’t recall asking this question before, but it has bothered me for years. If Oswald had lived and gone to trial Shaw’s connection to him would have seen the light of day. How could this be good for Shaw? I fail to understand why Shaw would do anything that drew attention to himself. This is especially true in the light of what we have discovered about Shaw’s background in OSS and CIA, and with Permindex. 

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I see that call as something like a slip up.  Shaw let his guard down, since he did not know what was really going on.  

I compare it to Ferrie looking for those photos of him with Oswald.  That was a stupid thing to do also because, as I noted above, it would draw attention to oneself.  After all, if Ferrie's relationship with Oswald was innocent, why would he lie about it and then try to obstruct justice by concealing it?

The idea that the JFK murder was a perfect crime is simply not the case at all.  The concept was a good one: framing a pinko Marine who was really an intel agent.  But as far as the execution goes, there were many, many slip ups.

None of which mattered.  As the important thing was the cover up.  And by having the FBI lie about who Shaw was, and intimidating the heck out of Andrews,while the MSM pilloried Garrison,  it worked.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, if you go to You Tube and look up Fred Litwin, you will see what I mean about him being a Culture Warrior.

Video after video on things like political correctness and how public broadcasting is too biased.  He even calls Canadian broadcaster Brian McKenna out for being  Irish, and that is why he does specials on the JFK case.  (Geez, I'm Italian so what's my excuse for writing my books?)

See, this is part of the backdrop that people miss about McAdams also.  He also tries to turn this into a Left/ Right issue and he is also much more involved with the whole rightwing financed Koch communications and propaganda empire than most people understand.

But like I noted, to me its  odd that they see this as that kind of an issue.  I think they did not like what the film JFK did to the public. So now they consider it a cultural battleground.

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

×