James DiEugenio

Because they contacted the people who told them how to get into the hospital. That would be McGehee, Morgan, and Palmer the registrar, and also the Sheriff, Manchester. Those were the witnesses that saw Oswald and Manchester, Palmer and, to a lesser extent, Morgan saw Shaw. Then the people inside the hospital like Dedon saw Oswald. So they went ahead with it anyway. BTW, the above are the people Garrison produced at trial. I believe he only used one CORE worker. And they had already talked to McGehee and Morgan before they got to the registration drive. Plus with Morgan, his two kids saw Oswald too. Really good witnesses, Mary and Van. I talked to both of them, in addition to Morgan and McGehee. And McGehee's daughter was also good. Once when I went to see him, he was ill, but she came out and talked with me for about an hour. We were sitting at an outdoor restaurant, and some guy walked by, and she said pointing to me, "He wants to talk about Oswald being up here." and the guy replied, "Oh yep he was." Everyone knows it happened up there. Its like a common history everyone carries around from their parents to their sons and daughters. You have to go there to understand it. Bugliosi did not. I still don't think he went anywhere. Which is amazing. Twenty years, a million bucks, and you never leave your office?

Thanks so much Gene and Joe. That is what we try to do at Kennedys and King. Like a beacon in the night. WN, That is pretty much correct about Oliver Stone. If you go through his films with the specific intent of finding things that do not jibe with the factual record, then yes you can find them. But my point has always been that the use of dramatic license by Oliver is 1.) Not as extensive as with other notable directors who do not get called on it, 2.) Is in most part justified by both character and information elsewhere. Where with others its not. So I have always felt he got singled out for who he was. Whereas people like Eastwood and Spielberg get the benefit of the doubt since they are part of the club. Here are two examples: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/ https://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/30/clint-eastwoods-dishonest-j-edgar/ What Spielberg and Hanks did with the Pentagon Papers was really a disgrace I thought. Making a film about the Pentagon Papers through the Post would be like making a film about Watergate through the Times. And to falsify what the Post did to help Johnson continue the war after JFK's assassination? Barfbag please. But this is the culture we live in. Oliver tells the truth about Vietnam, he gets attacked by the everyone plus the kitchen sink. Spielberg and Hanks make false heroes and heroines of Bradlee and Graham, and heck, almost no one raises a peep about it. Except me. BTW, when I talked to the Times lawyer, Jim Goodale, he told me that when Spielberg sent him the first script, Ellsberg was not even in it. The only scene he was in, was the scene where Bagdikian went to his motel to get the papers. Can you imagine doing something like that? Goodale raised some heck about it and it was corrected. But that is Hollywood, outside of say Stone and 2-3 others.

This seems to work at his sight the MP 3 http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black928a.mp3

Most of these Mob books are so unreliable. I mean just from that list above, I mean so many people were making tapes of MM that her yard must have been crowded with parked cars and tripods. Monroe got introduced to JFK through his sister who was married to Lawford. This was in October of 1961 at Lawford's Santa Monica beach house. There were several other guests there for dinner. (Donald Spoto, Marilyn Monroe, pp. 486-87) Cohen was part of the Jewish Mafia, via Lansky and Siegel which was not interwoven with the Italian Mafia, of which Marcello and Trafficante were a part of. I have never seen any link at all between Cohen and Cuba and Castro in any documents. And My God, everyone knows that Ruby's idol was McWillie, not Cohen. You really have to watch yourself in these areas. Its a morass.

John, in fairness to Mr. Metta, I think it should noted that he does proffer the whole Hemming, Trujillo episode as his background to a plot to kill Kennedy. And Metta does trace some ties in funding a plot to CMC. (pp. 49-51) William Turner previously talked about the funds that Banister sent to Permindex for an attack on DeGaulle through Maurice Gatlin. And Metta does place some ties between what Hemming called a French team, and the OAS and Soutre. And the Houma raid that Banister, Ferrie and Novel were part of and that Garrison talks about in his book, that was a tie in between the CIA and the OAS. (Garrison, p. 40) Should also add that Nagy had a home in Dallas at the time, and Shaw was in New Orleans. Whether or not one agrees with this, or buys Hemming, that is another matter. But they are in the book. I think Metta's book is quite interesting. I wish it was better written and organized, and it really does need an index, but its really a fascinating read for the wide web of international intrigue that he draws.

One of the greatest cover up trials in recent memory. What the CIA and FBI poured into this proceeding and in obstructing Garrison was monumental. Which shows you what they felt was on the line.

This really smells like a cover up. Look, Jim Douglass went there. He talked to Vallee's sister. He went to the site where the guy worked. He found a new witness in Moyland. And people ask: Where is the FBI report? I mean where is the one that Walter reconstructed? Where are the ones on Clinton/Jackson which the FBI knew about and actually visited the hospital. Since when does anybody rely on J. Edgar Hoover as sine qua non of authenticity in the JFK murder.

Notice what Tunheim said, that there were no more files hidden anymore. Wow. As anyone who has studied this knows, this is not true even today. And it was sure not true then. Max Holland? Where did Posner get the time to read the four million pages? And man was he serious with what was in there? And Harry was correct the Board did not draw any conclusions.

No, Epstein's book on Snowden was torn apart there: https://www.thenation.com/article/alternative-facts/ BTW, Epstein did the same with the Black Panthers. In that case, he tried to cover up for the FBI's COINTELPRO operation against them. This is one reason I say, what you do not know about modern history you will find in the JFK case.

I disagree with John on that. Probably because I know more about Shaw than most people here. The whole take on Shaw in the anti Garrison sixties was that he was really Mr.Clean. And Garrison was up a tree. This was the MSM angle. It was adapted by some in the research community who became violently anti Garrison. I named some of them above. But as time has gone on, one now sees that this was not the case. Shaw really was what some, including Garrison, thought he was: a deep cover CIA agent from at least the fifties. As Regis Kennedy said, part of this service he did in Italy for about five years. This was his CMC/Permindex association. Then there was his covert security approval, which we also know about now, and Marchetti thought was for Tracy Barnes' DOD operations And then there was that document that Joan Mellen got which says he was a highly valued, well paid contract agent from the fifties. Finally we have that really important memo from a member of the ARRB which states that the CIA destroyed Shaw's 201 file. I mean how much more indication does one need that there was an internal cover up about who Shaw really was? This coincides with what Gordon Novel once wrote to the late Mary Ferrell: that the internal cover up about Shaw began in 1964, ordered by Howard Osborne at the Office of Security. That appears to be true from this other evidence. And when you encounter something like that then one meets up with the whole consciousness of guilt syndrome. I mean why begin the cover up about Shaw in the first place? And we also know through Mellen that the FBI covered up the Clinton/Jackson incident. Once one understands this, then what happened to Garrison, and the people used to attack him--Sheridan, Phelan, Aynesworth--makes perfect sense.

Thanks Joe. Most of them are too long to post here. So I just provide the links. Epstein was a queer character. Some people think he simply switched sides. But there were some who actually felt that he was one of the early plants. But when he turned, he really turned. And he has more or less kept it up ever since. Same thing on Snowden. The Nation ripped him to shreds on that one.

Let me reply to both: The ARRB released so much stuff about Clay Shaw that Fred Litwin had to do a nauseating cover up about the guy. You can read it here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2 Litwin and Tommy Graves reply well, that is only a review of one chapter of the book. My answer: if you make that many mistakes and that many misrepresentations in 17 pages, what is the point in reading the rest? Its pretty obvious to anyone who gives two hoots that Garrison was correct about Shaw being a deep cover agent in New Orleans. Shaw did CIA work for Permindex, he had a covert security clearance, and they then destroyed his 201 file. And we have that in the ARRB's own words. Don't hold your breath for Hoch, Scott or Thompson or Summers to apologize. They will not under any circumstances. To this day they think they are correct, which tells you a lot about this case. These declassified files are the link between Shaw and Oswald. One source in the 80's said in an interview that the intel apparatus for New Orleans was made up of Shaw, Banister, and ONI reserve officer Guy Johnson. My view of the Clinton/ Jackson incident is similar to what Bill Davy makes of it, and also Garrison. I think the end game was to get Oswald's files into that hospital, in the employee department, and then switch them to the patient department on the eve of the assassination. Presto! Oswald really was a sociopath. And Oswald even knew a couple of doctors who worked there! One was a pal of Sergio Arcacha Smith. It did not happen for the simple reason that Shaw and Ferrie did not know about the CORE voter drive going on in Clinton; therefore about 40-50 people saw the trio and the Cadillac. As per fleeing from Italy, yes that is accurate to my knowledge. The same thing happened eventually in Italy as happened previously in Switzerland. Permindex was what Jim Garrison thought it was. A thinly disguised shell company for intel uses, and the investment purposes of very very wealthy people, Bilderberger types. Litwin covered that up also. He looks like a clown with what Maurice Phillips, Kowlalski and Metta have now got on the record. Let me take that back, I might be insulting the clown union by writing that. PS: that is a very interesting chart by Mr Wheeler. One which everyone should take a look at. As with Permindex, there is a level of involvement in this case that goes above the CIA.

One of the things I talked about on Len's show this week was how much more data we have on this case today due to this film. Therefore, what one could do today because of that enormous amount of new information. Its a disgrace in retrospect what happened to Oliver Stone. I have always believed the main reason was the Vietnam angle of the film. People just did not want to believe that without Kennedy's death there would not have been a Vietnam War. But not only was the film correct back then, it is now backed up with so much data that it approaches a hundred per cent certainty. And this is what I mean about the wages of secrecy. And how it cripples democracy. So to think that the other attack angle was through JAMA, my God. The medical evidence today in this case is, again, stronger now that it was then. Again, thanks to this film and the creation of the ARRB. One of the hack writers who made it his agenda to knock Stone was Ed Epstein, Mr. "Hey isn't Jim Angleton brilliant? Philby was really a triple agent." Anyway, two idiot journals allowed him to vent his spleen on the film. No one took him on so I did.Three times. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein

Just posted at Kennedysandking.com, my review of Countdown to Darkness. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/john-newman-countdown-to-darkness-volume-2 Plus link to a review of Volume 1, and two excepts from Into the Storm which is Volume 3.

LOL

BTW, I talked about this subject, Permindex/CMC on Black Op Radio tonight in the lead segment. Mentioning all three contributions: Metta, Phillips and Kowalski. It is important work I think. I also could not avoid taking a shot at Litwin and his non investigation. The guy lives in Ottawa and yet could not go to the Archives and do real scholarly work. Relies on that BS from Mitrohkin and Sword And Shield. While this new work demolishes what he wrote.

To my knowledge, I do not think so. But I have to qualify this by saying I am not well versed on the Homer Echeverria story.

He goes off the rails at about 4:22. This was the problem I had with him. Everyone thought it was LBJ at the time of the assassination? Hoover killed King? The shooters were in the family? How does he know who they were? He did a nice recovery from that at the end.

Makes you wonder does it not? Literally hundreds of books written on the JFK case in the last several years. IMO, most of them worthless. Lisa writes a good book on the RFK case and look what happens. Were we barking up the wrong tree for decades?

The world is starting to turn? https://ktla.com/2019/02/28/author-lisa-pease-talks-about-her-new-book-a-lie-to-big-to-fail-the-real-history-of-the-assassination-of-robert-f-kennedy/ She told me that Wolf Blitzer wants her on next.

Paul: I kind of disagree with that. If you follow Newman's Oswald and the CIA there are two phases to Oswald in New Orleans. He calls the first phase the undercover part and the second phase the breakout part. In the first part its pretty obvious that Oswald was leafleting to leftist groups in hopes of snuffing out some Castro sympathizers. (See pages 309-11) This would include the NOCPA group which included professors from Tulane. And also students like Hugh Murray. That postulation in that book is that Oswald laid the groundwork for the provocateur stuff first, and then went public to discredit what he had done. Which culminates in the Butler interview where he is exposed as a Russian traveler. As per funding, I agree with Jim Garrison on this. Oswald's whole role/profile was to display himself as an itinerant wastrel. The payoff would come later.

Mr Wheeler, With all due respect, that is Mr. Club for Grwoth, Jim Jordan you are quoting: Mr. "I didn't know the coach was molesting young boys on the wrestling team". I would rather let the dust clear first.

Nice one. I always thought that was the case. Talk about Kafka.

Oh, they hired the professional hired gun for his connections through the senate. Sounds like Arlen.

I did not know that Specter was Shapiro's lawyer. Interesting. I did a review of Roger Mattson's book on this subject called Stealing the Atom. You are correct about Kennedy being dead set against Dimona. I have an article coming out about this which I think is something of a milestone on the subject. Kennedy was the first and last president to threaten to pull US funding for Israel unless they stopped building a bomb. They lied to him, and then they stole the HEU from America. A really tawdry story about betrayal. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/11/how-israel-stole-the-bomb/