Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Wrong. The medical evidence doesn't suggest any such thing, and the HSCA and Clark panels knew this. There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head. All the autopsy doctors substantiate this, as does the autopsy report itself. If the HSCA and Clark panels saw any proof of the "EOP" entry in any of the photos or X-rays, of course they would have said so. There was no logical reason under the sun for those men to start lying about where that entry wound was.

Conspiracists have invented various reasons for the HSCA and Clark people to want to raise the wound up into the cowlick, but that's the fertile imaginings of the CTers at work and nothing more than that. The fact is: those men studied the photos and X-rays and saw the wound high on the head....so that's what they reported. Simple as that. (The unproven theories of CTers notwithstanding.)

Dr. George Burkley either suspected or believed that Kennedy may have been struck in the head by more than one missile. He was not called by the warren commission to testify about his experience beginning at the motorcade, at the Dallas emergency room, in Maryland for the autopsy, etc; he only wrote a 11/23/1963 Death Certificate and a 11/27/1963 affidavit which did not mention any specific evidence about the head wounds except the fact that they were fatal.

In this 10/17/1967 interview at the Kennedy Library, Burkley stated "My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium". The interviewer did not bring up the possibility of more than one gunshot to Kennedy's head, Burkley did. Independently. When asked "Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?", he replied "I would not care to be quoted on that". Then, a 3/18/1977 memo from Dr. Burkley's attorney said "he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated", and that Burkley would be available to interview. A short August 1977 interview report written by Dr. Purdy of the HSCA medical panel reads "Dr. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. Dr. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two". Burkley then gave a 11/12/1978 affidavit to the HSCA saying  "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", "I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets". And finally, author Henry Hurt interviewed Burkley in 1982 (Reasonable Doubt, page 49):

It is significant that Dr. Burkley had been with the President in Dallas, with him in the Parkland Hospital emergency room, with his body as it was flown east, and present during the autopsy. It is also significant that even though he was the only doctor present both at Parkland and at Bethesda, Dr. Burkley's testimony was never taken by the Warren Commission, nor was it taken later by the House Select Committee.

In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

This startling statement, after so long a silence, amplified an obscure exchange Dr. Burkley had in an oral-history interview on file at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

[...]

When he originally telephoned the author, Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey did not even know about the disappearing particle trail that Humes reported on and then was forced to take back in 1996 under questioning by Jeremy Gunn.

The reason that was done, and also the entrance hole raised, was to negate the evidence of more than one bullet strike in the skull.  

The other reason was to eliminate the lie in the Rydberg drawings about JFK's head being anteflexed in a position it was not in the Z film.

Look Davey, the medical evidence is a real loser for your side.  Which is why you and Ayton  were so skimpy about it in your grossly mistitled book.

Why don't you  drop it and go back to what the title of the thead is?

Oh, because you don't know jack about New Orleans.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory,

Since when is Jenkins a physician?  And he was not a pathologist either.

Also, you have threads on that already.

DVP just added in those senseless quotes form Humes, because he doesn't know jack about New Orleans.

You do, so it would be more proper for me to ask you to comment on Litwin's chapter on Jim Garrison.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Cory,

Since when is Jenkins a physician?  And he was not a pathologist either.

Also, you have threads on that already.

DVP just added in those senseless quotes form Humes, because he doesn't know jack about New Orleans.

You do, so it would be more proper for me to ask you to comment on Litwin's chapter on Jim Garrison.

      Speaking of Litwin and Jim Garrison, I have not read Litwin's book, (nor do I plan to) but I did watch the CBC video interview of Litwin posted by David Von Pain - 15 minutes of my life that I'll never get back again.   I noticed that the clueless CBC interviewer referred to Oliver Stone's film, JFK, as "fictional," and did the standard MSM eye roll while mentioning  that Oliver Stone was "strange," or something to that effect.  This was in the context of Litwin claiming, with a straight face, that the urbane, philanthropic Clay Shaw had been unfairly persecuted and slandered by Garrison because he was gay, etc.   I felt my blood pressure rising as I listened to Litwin's scurrilous nonsense.

    I know a number of fairly educated, intelligent people who still do the Oliver Stone eye roll, when the subject arises -- and I, myself, used to mistakenly think that Oliver Stone was a flaky pseudo-historian.  (It was probably a sound-byte that I read in the New York Times over the years.)  The MSM has uncanny power to mislead the public about these issues over the long term.  And, once these erroneous sound-bytes are repeated  -- especially in "reputable" MSM sources-- they become fixed in the public consciousness. 

    How can people who know the truth counter this pervasive disinformation -- especially when they are labeled as "conspiracy theorists" by the MSM?

Share this post


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

Cory,

Since when is Jenkins a physician?  And he was not a pathologist either.

Also, you have threads on that already.

DVP just added in those senseless quotes form Humes, because he doesn't know jack about New Orleans.

You do, so it would be more proper for me to ask you to comment on Litwin's chapter on Jim Garrison.

My apologies I thought Jenkins had earned a Ph.D. As for the article I read it but want to reread it before commenting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

"...a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull" -sibert and o'neill report

Just to be clear.....

You aren't suggesting in that truncated portion of THIS PAGE of the Sibert/O'Neill Report that Humes was saying that TWO separate bullets entered JFK's HEAD....are you? Because the S&O Report is quite clear in that page I just linked that only TWO bullets total hit Kennedy---one entering the upper back and one entering the back of the head. The reference to "a second high velocity bullet" in that S&O Report was clearly referring to a second TOTAL bullet to hit the President. It wasn't referring to two head shot bullets.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Just to be clear.....

You aren't suggesting in that truncated portion of THIS PAGE of the Sibert/O'Neill Report that Humes was saying that TWO separate bullets entered JFK's HEAD....are you? Because the S&O Report is quite clear in that page I just linked that only TWO bullets total hit Kennedy---one entering the upper back and one entering the back of the head. The words "a second high velocity bullet" in that S&O Report was clearly referring to a second TOTAL bullet to hit the President. It wasn't referring to two head shot bullets.

Bullet entered "back of head", exited through "top of skull". Large defect in the "vertex", smaller wound in the "occiput". The verbiage here implies the small head wound was situated sharply below the large head wound and the corresponding "exit" point. The Rydberg drawings show exactly this. The autopsy pathologists knew that a bullet path from the small head wound to the large head wound would be upwards, not downwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Micah, you aren't suggesting that the Sibert/O'Neill report was saying there were TWO head entry wounds, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Garrison was right.  It was, that dirty word, a conspiracy.  Oswald didn't act alone if at all in any capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But, Micah, you aren't suggesting that the Sibert/O'Neill report was saying there were TWO head entry wounds, are you?

The wounds as originally described can only be compatible with a conspiracy. That's more than a suggestion. Even if there was no cover-up of a "second entrance wound" (by the way, many lone nutters like Larry Sturdivan and Lawrence Angel believe there was a cover up of a "second exit wound" in the forehead above the right eye), there was still at least 3 square inches of missing bone and scalp that may have contained evidence we will never see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

@Ron Bulman:

Do you think Oswald shot J.D. Tippit?

No, but which Oswald?  The one tackled and drug out he front door to the waiting camera?  Or the one escorted down from the balcony and out the back door?

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Jim I so would say you did a nice review.    I would add that in an extremely rare move, a federal court interrupted state criminal proceedings and stopped Garrison from pursuing Shaw for perjury. This is a significant part of my article regarding Garrison. Like Posner and so many others, they do not reflect on many facts regarding Garrison but look for good talking points that are opinion more than factual. One day I will share my article on Garrison and Shaw.  I have to decide if I want to update it or not. Probably I would like to let it be as written in 2002 as it still stands the test of time. 

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


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

This was in the context of Litwin claiming, with a straight face, that the urbane, philanthropic Clay Shaw had been unfairly persecuted and slandered by Garrison because he was gay, etc.   I felt my blood pressure rising as I listened to Litwin's scurrilous nonsense.

In 1967, Garrison discovered not only the involvement of Shaw in the plot to assassinate JFK, but also that Shaw was part of Centro Mondiale Commerciale, the Italian branch of Permindex. The Italian journalist Michele Metta was able to get the CMC papers and thanks to these exclusive documents can today show how much Garrison was right and how much right you are in feeling your blood pressure rising at listening to Litwin’s scurrilous nonsense, as you properly call it. In fact, the CMC papers not only show that CMC was an undercover CIA and Mossad station, but also its connections to Gladio, the stay-behind NATO secret army. Besides, Metta also exposes, once again thanks to these exclusive papers, the connections between CMC and the so called Strategy of Tension which put bombs on trains and in public places in Italy under a CIA umbrella since the end of the 1960s as an anti-marxist strategy with roots in Operation Northwoods – operation vehemently rejected by JFK, by the way. Not only that: Metta also demonstrates that CMC was effectively at the center of a plot to destroy JFK no matter how. But read all this by yourself:

https://www.amazon.com/ITALIAN-UNDERCOVER-MOSSAD-STATION-ASSASSINATION/dp/1719822662/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

So, this new tentative to once again smear Garrison is just rubbish. Period.

Edited by Paz Marverde

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

×