Sylvia Meagher and Clay Shaw vs Jim Garrison

[David Andrews]

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Interesting that you mention Leo Strauss, Anthony.  As I recall he was an erstwhile mentor and intellectual Godfather of the Neocon movement.

He studied Machiavelli, and his pupils-- including Paul Wolfowitz -- believed that the ignorant masses must be manipulated to achieve the political ends of the state.

Wolfowitz, et.al., certainly actualized that concept with the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" after 9/11.

Epstein was, obviously, engaged in a similar process by helping the Deep State cover up the murder of JFK.

 

The BBC doc The Power of Nightmares argues that the disciples of Strauss, from Kristol to Wolfowitz, went into think tanks and lobbied to stay in succeeding presidential admins because liberal academia denied them professorships or wouldn't put them on the tenure track.

...Then it goes on to say that Osama, Zawahiri and company were under similar vicissitudes in the Islamic world.

[James DiEugenio]

I didn't know that Epstein argued for Team B.  That is really something.  Team B was a neocon pipe dream backed by the likes of Nitze, Pipes and Kirkpatrick.

That Ph D book you cite was published in 1973. Therefore he was under that direct influence pretty early. 

I really think that VInce was right about Epstein and Sylvia Meagher was wrong about him.

I mean, what the heck does his concept of "political truth" mean anyway?  It can mean anything one likes it to.   

Then after he tells Vince "he's changed" Joe McGiniss, does the hit job on VInce?

Edited October 13, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Rob Couteau]

20 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I take it that Epstein's association with ardent anti-communists and militarist folk rubbed off just a little

Always interesting to see how these guys do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a larger pattern, with its typical modus operandi.

Thanks for this great info, Anthony.

[Cliff Varnell]

Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi Discuss Problems with the Warren Commission Report, Philadelphia (1966)

https://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/vincent-salandria-and-gaeton-fonzi-discuss-problems-with-the-warren-commission-report-philadelpha-1966

Salandria:

Let me show you one specific point which I think will help to clear this up. You'll have to turn that off for me [meaning the tape recorder, seemingly it is on the desk where Salandria wants to lay out his books and documents. Salandria gets the book Inquest by Edward Epstein]

[recorder off/on]

... the essence of the book turns on the matter which I discussed in my article in the March Liberation, 1965 which shows that the autopsy face sheet - Commission Exhibit 397. It indicates a back hit which is lower than a neck hit - the neck hit is the front hit. And there in lieu of the x-rays and photographs - which were the primary evidence and the only admissible evidence in any court room but which were never shown to the Commission - they produce Commission Exhibits 385 and 386 which contradicted the face sheet, contradicted the FBI evidence with respect to where the holes were in the clothing in the shirt and the coat of the President, contradicted the Secret Service agents who saw the blood going. [Secret Service Agent] Glen A. Bennett says it's four inches below the shoulder. Clinton Hill, who was a Secret Service agent at the autopsy, will indicate that the bullet wound was six inches down from the neck. Kellerman and Greer too - Secret Service agents also present at the autopsy. Now this is pretty dramatic and Epstein builds his whole book on this point.

...
Read Epstein's book but... I don't want to be arrogant. But Epstein, you know, has been consulting with me and what he did was just take one little segment of an article of mine, and he admitted this is what he did and he promised to give full credit but didn't but that's not important. 

[Ron Bulman]

This all makes me wonder if both Meagher and Epstein weren't influenced after their first works respectively.

[James DiEugenio]

I never had any suspicions about Sylvia.  I just thought she was terribly misguided, overly self righteous and misinformed about Garrison.

Epstein is a different case altogether.

In looking back at his first book, Inquest, Vince made a good point about the spectrum Epstein tried to create.  Just what was that concept of "political truth"?  Is that not an oxymoron?  It was a very neat creation in order to say that anyone who argued that the Commission was a forensic fraud was now a "demonologist".  When, in fact, that is just what the Commission was : a forensic fraud, in more than one aspect. So what Epstein was doing was now caricaturing the real critics of the Report and attempting to marginalize them by saying that the Commission was not really that bad, when in fact, it was.

So this makes me wonder about that scene I described from John Kelin's fine book Praise from a Future Generation, with Epstein telling VInce he had changed.  I am not so sure about that.  I mean this was just five months after his book came out. How does a change like that happen that quickly? That godawful section in Esquire, that was just a month later.

Vince may have been right, Epstein was a plant from the start.  And surely, as Anthony brings up, he was under some very suspicious academic supervisors. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Just got done taping a 90 minute segment on my article for Black Op Radio with John Kelin. 

His book, Praise from a Future Generation is simply unique in the field.  And I could not have written the article without his book as a reference.  If you have not read his book, you really should.  Its like ten bucks on Kindle.  Well worth it.  So many bad books out there.  But this one is a good one.

Getting a lot of likes for the article.  People even making donations based on it.  I think it hit a nerve somewhere.

Anyway you can listen to that show tomorrow night.

[Rob Couteau]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just got done taping a 90 minute segment on my article for Black Op Radio with John Kelin.

That's great news! Looking forward to it. Kelin's book recently helped me to create some additional context for Stanley Marks' "Murder Most Foul!" and to verify certain facts and events.

I found that the last two-thirds of Kelin's book really paints a deeper portrait of the human dimension of these researchers and gives you a sense of who they were as people. As well as showing you the evolution of thought in the early days of the case.

PS: Epstein's "political truth" reminds me of Maoist "thought reform."

Edited October 15, 2020 by Rob Couteau

[James DiEugenio]

Kelin's book is so underrated and overlooked that its kind of a crime.  That book redefines the word unique.  There simply is nothing like it. 

It is so good as an historical backdrop to the whole critical community.  Its where this whole thing started. In large part its why we are here on this forum.

When you listen tonight you will see that Praise from a Future Generation  really started with Vince Salandria.  He gave John several boxes of early correspondence and then John took it from there.

Marks is a bit different as I see it.  His view of the case was much bigger than the early critics were, and at a much earlier date.

On the show though, you will find out that John did not get most of his stuff on Meagher from Vince.  He got it from Hood College and the Weisberg archives. That is what a good job he did researching that book.  And so much of it is from primary sources.

And the stuff he has on Epstein is just excellent.  On the show he actually read from VInce's notes about the meeting in Boston where Epstein said "he changed".  Here is my question:  How do you change five months after your book is published?  Who does a backflip that fast?

Edited October 15, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

Jim, I shouldn't have posted before I fully read your article.  I just did.  I now understand Meagher was should I say misguided regarding Garrison and Shaw.  But it is hard to believe Epstein flipped.  It seems more likely he was used, coached, directed writing Inquest.  But why?  The book does question the WC's conclusions, it raises questions.

From the cover, "Is one of the murderers of John F. Kennedy still on the loose?"  "Raises monumental doubts,,, The investigation must be re-opened".

What was the purpose of his "coaches".  Why stir the pot, if they wanted to "settle the dust"?   

[Paul Jolliffe]

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Jim, I shouldn't have posted before I fully read your article.  I just did.  I now understand Meagher was should I say misguided regarding Garrison and Shaw.  But it is hard to believe Epstein flipped.  It seems more likely he was used, coached, directed writing Inquest.  But why?  The book does question the WC's conclusions, it raises questions.

From the cover, "Is one of the murderers of John F. Kennedy still on the loose?"  "Raises monumental doubts,,, The investigation must be re-opened".

What was the purpose of his "coaches".  Why stir the pot, if they wanted to "settle the dust"?   

Ron,

The purpose of any official "investigation" by the federal government in JFK will be simply to control any extant pieces of evidence that might yet emerge. Remember, there is still a fair amount of material at the National Archives, that, while there is certainly no smoking gun, might yet shed much more light on those responsible for the cover-up and to whom they were connected.

Harold Weisberg had some interesting insights on this very topic:

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

If you compare Epstein's book with say Lane's or Meagher's, his book is not a forensic debunking of the Commission's case against Oswald.  Its more like an inside story of how the case was put together and how the Commission settled for what he calls a "political truth".   But he anticipates what is about to happen: that is full scale attacks on the WR.  And he now labels them as "demonologists" in advance. 

I believe those rubrics places on the book were simply to sell more copies.  Because as I revealed in my essay, Epstein did not want to do book pub.  And then just months later, he starts doing what he talked about in his book, demonizing the critics.

BTW, to this day he plays down his book.  And he always brings up Lane's book as a point of comparison.  The one time he did debate anyone, he was so bad that he got routed, by LIebeler. And by 1967-68 he is even taking back the pictures in his book of the locations of the holes in the suit coat and shirt of JFK.

[Rob Couteau]

What Epstein did sort of fits into the notion of a limited hangout as defined by Victor Marchetti: "a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

[Rob Couteau]

Just finished listening - a great interview with Jim and John Kelin. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Rob.  Like I said John's book is so underrated.

BTW, I did not know that he actually saw the late Maggie Field's "panapolies" through her daughter Gwen.

Field tried to publish a book that would feature, at the top of a page, one of the conclusions of the WR.  That is, for example, CE 399 as the Magic Bullet, or the anterior neck wound being an exit for the back wound, or the rifle being the only one with that serial number.  All of them palpable lies.

Then she would collect all the evidence in the 26 volumes that would either contradict or compromise those conclusions, but which the Report ignored.  She would then paste that information and source it, below that top conclusion on a poster board.  Thus showing, with its own data, how the WR was not just wrong, it was a knowing fraud.  Can you imagine how devastating such a book would have been at the time?  The publisher reneged on the deal saying it would have been too expensive to produce.

In rereading John's book, i was really struck by the impact those early critics had.  It was just several people really, just ordinary citizens e.g. housewife Shirley Martin, small businessman Ray Marcus, lawyer Salandria, teacher Feldman etc.  Yet their writings were so effective that they mortally wounded a huge Establishment project, one backed by the entire MSM, plus the FBI, the CIA, the White House, the V of A, etc.  Talk about a David and Goliath match up. 

And what John's book shows is that even sacred cows of the Left went along with the WC fraud: A. L. Wirin, Izzy Stone, The Nation. And my God what the NY TImes did, that was simply a disgrace. The Times actually cooperated on getting three different versions of the WR BS published.

But this small group of of ordinary citizens stayed the course, and in a real way, triumphed.

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by James DiEugenio