William F. Buckley and the Assassination of JFK

[Alistair Briggs]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Alistair:

Its long story about Fetzer.  At that time, Fetzer had some credibility as a researcher.

Since then, he has gone over the cliff. See my essay at Kennedysandking.com called "The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer."

Cheers, I will have a look at it as soon as I can.

[James DiEugenio]

The second essay that Gary wrote presenting much of the new evidence of the ARRB was co written with Cyril Wecht.  Its in the book Trauma Room One.

Let me quote:  "The government. . . falsely reported that it had validated  JFK's autopsy photographs in two separate ways:  The first consisted of endorsements of the photos from witnesses who, it turns out, never did endorse the images, but instead refuted them.  The second supposed corroboration consisted of a report that scientific tests had matched the pictures  to the camera used in JFK's morgue; declassified documents, however, prove that the pictures did not match the camera, and now that camera has disappeared, and have the tests that proved it did not match the photos."  (p. 171)

 

This essay is a long and detailed critique of Lundberg's efforts at JAMA to cover up the massive failures at autopsy of Humes, Boswell and Finck.  This was after the exposure of the horrendous autopsy practices at Bethesda that night in Oliver Stone's film.  There, Humes had been exposed as being pretty much a pawn of the military brass who controlled things at Bethesda. And this was all factually based upon the testimony of FInck at the trial of Clay Shaw. Which Stone had in his files.  Lundberg did not like the fact that his friend was being treated truthfully.  So he retaliated with some, let us call it, unprofessional journalism. Which was penned by a former sportswriter.  One of the targets of Lundberg was Charles Crenshaw, who ended up suing them. Gary wrote this very good essay with Wecht to accompany a reissue of Crenshaw's book originally entitled Conspiracy of Silence.

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

In this particular essay, and again its stuff Lane did not have back then, Gary concentrates on some of the themes he hit on in  Murder In Dealey Plaza.

But he also adds in specific failures of the autopsy, like the incredible error of not weighing the brain that night, and the inexplicably bad photographs that were taken. (p. 176)

And a second subject he brings up is the military interference in the autopsy.  Again, a point Lane did not have back then. What he does to Humes on this is merciless. (pgs. 180-81)

Anyway, that is just a brief précis of one author on one aspect of the case that is new since the Buckley program.

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I should add, what DVP is proposing above is, as usual, contrary to what the rules of evidence are. Referring to evidence in a homicide case like a card game,  he says photos "trump" the eyewitness testimony.  That is simply false--no big deal with Davey of course.

When one reads McCormick on Evidence, one is exposed to what goes on in the real world, the place DVP has little relation to.  For it says, and I think he knows this:

"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly submitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps, and diagrams.  Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness."

Now, with all the witnesses we have today who render testimony  contrary to the photos, including the photographer Stringer; plus the fact that photos of the skull are missing, and that is according to no less than Finck;  plus what Stringer said about the photos of the brain, which are not even taken on the film he used, again, we get into territory almost as bad as CE 399.  If you were arguing the case against Oswald, you would probably not want the photos into evidence.  Because after all this testimony contrary to it, you are stuck in the position no prosecutor wants to be in, which is presenting dubious exhibits as evidence.

So much for that Von Peinism.  

Edited February 27, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

William F. Buckley???

edited**** 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Karl Kinaski]

 

• Michael Clark

  • Advanced Member
  •  
  • 
  • Members
  •  
  • 413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

   

  Posted 8 minutes ago · Report post

  William F. Buckley???

  •  
  • Quote

   

  I guy recruited by E Howard Hunt ...  

   

   

   

   

  KK

     

[Michael Clark]

Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch society,... "...... identified as Communists who took their orders from Moscow Eisenhower’s brother Milton, then president of Johns Hopkins University; his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles; Dulles’s brother, Allen, then director of Central Intelligence; and former secretary of state George Marshall, among others. In a note Buckley sent Welch along with the returned manuscript, he said that he found the charges against Eisenhower “curiously — almost pathetically optimistic.” If Communist infiltration of the American government was as extensive as Welch claimed, Buckley argued, changing presidents would not relieve the situation. Nor would political organizing. “Reaching for rifles” might be a better approach, Buckley argued." 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448774/william-f-buckley-john-birch-society-history-conflict-robert-welch

Edited November 18, 2017 by Michael Clark