James DiEugenio

But its actually worse than that. When Jim Garrison turned Ferrie over to the FBI, he signed a statement in which he lied his head off. He said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or used one, or even knew how to use one. He said he did not know Oswald and Oswald was not in his New Orleans CAP. He said he never knew Sergio Arcacha Smith from 544 Camp Street or any Cuban exile group since 1961. Every single one of those seven statements constituted perjury under Title 18 US Code Section 1001. It would have taken about a day or two for the FBI to find the evidence to indict Ferrie for his declaration. My question: Did the WC ever pursue this relevant perjury?

To answer my own question: There is no evidence that the WC knew that Ferrie was doing these quite curious things within 72 hours of the assassination. So they never were able to ask him: Why would you want to collect any evidence connecting you to Oswald in the wake of the assassination? But I will add the clincher: the FBI did know he was doing those things. How? Because the people who Ferrie was calling about those artifacts contacted the Bureau and told them! Now if those quite innocent people suspected something was up, do you not think the Bureau did? They didn't. There was no follow up at all, period. In fact, the photo of the two did not surface for 30 years. Now, most rational thinking people--which eliminates FC and DVP--would then ask: Hmm, the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph, and they did nothing with Ferrie's odd behavior in the wake of Kennedy's murder. Why would they do that kind of thing?

Let us keep on going. (But if I was the other side, I would have yelled "Uncle" by now.) Did the WC know that within about 72 hours of JFK's assassination, David Ferrie, who was close to Oswald in the CAP and who knew him from Banister's office in New Orleans that summer, was looking for evidence that connected him with LHO? This included things like a picture from the CAP, and his library card. The reason he wanted these pieces of evidence is that he wanted to eliminate them from the record. Did the WC know that?

BTW: This is priceless as an indication of how acute and honest FC is when he is getting his butt kicked. FC on the Raleigh call : My answer : I don't know and I don't care. Because, only YOU think that it is relevant. in fact, it is NOT. Which shows he did not even read the Grover Proctor article, the definitive study of that call. Even Bob Blakey said the call was really disturbing. Oswald is trying to call a military intelligence officer on the east coast, a man who lives about 2 and a half hours from Nags Head NC. Now, FC, let us take a step back. Why would he try to do that? Well, was not LHO in the Marines? Did he not do some funny stuff there: like learn the Russian language to the point that according to Rosaleen Quinn and TItovets, he spoke it quite well by the time he left the service? (A point Davison slipped up on in her trashy book and admitted was the case.) Did LHO then not leave the service early, before his term was up? Did he then not "defect" to the USSR? Nags Head was a naval base which prepared guys to do just that. (Just so you understand: the Marines are a part of the Navy.) Now, you find absolutely no importance to the fact that the morning after LHO tried to make that call to a military intel officer he was rubbed out in the DPD parking lot, literally in the arms of the police? Well, i beg to differ with you but if even Blakey thinks its disturbing, that makes you kind of weird.

This is the kind of person PB is. First he writes this: Analytical thinking isn't your strong point, is it Jim? Then he cuts out the following: Hey Paul, you claim to be a scientist right? (Of course, a scientist who, unlike everyone else, still somehow claims some validity for the CBLA.) Now, when you look at the Z film, somehow that does not say anything to you? JFK is hit like a thunderclap, his entire body is smashed backward and lifted slightly upward and to his left, with such force that it bounces off the seat; motorcycle policemen are hit with blood and issue with such force that they think they were hit themselves. And somehow that is one shooter. With the TSBD behind the limo? Now, before you run into the arms of the lying Alvarez or the phony Sturdivan, you know the whole "jet effect" and neuromuscular reaction has been discredited by Aguilar and Robertson and also on TV in ITTC. (But I know you will run there anyway, since you cannot do anything else.) Now, if there is one shooter, then why did all those witnesses run to the GK, many more than went to the TSBD. (Which is another indication that you are wrong with your first point.) Besides that, then what about the testimony that will live forever in the minds of anyone who was interested in this case back then. A guy named Sam Holland, and the seven other witnesses who saw smoke from the GK. (like Simmons.) Sam actually ran over there if you recall. And he saw those footprints which looked like they were going back and forth. And then you match this up with Bowers, and the false SS ID and the guy talking into what looked like a radio mike etc. I mean that was all established back in 1967. I have saved Baker's best for last: He says one shooter, seen by a few and in perfect alignment. Say this: what chutzpah this guy has. He must think we are idiots. One shooter from the rear who rammed JFK backwards into his seat. Yeah sure. Second, the only witness in 55 years who said LHO was in that window was Brennan. Not only was Brennan not able to ID Oswald at the phony line ups--which is incredible on its face--but as Ian Griggs writes, there is a real question if he was even at a line up. And the FBI gave up on trying to determine how his story ever got to the police in the first place. Now if you balance all the problems with Brennan, with the impossibility of Oswald being on the sixth floor--which has been proven by a slew of writers--like say Roffman, way back when, then, puhlease Mr Baker. Third, do you really think we buy Dale Myers and his phony cartoon about the alignment? Bob Harris destroyed that fake rendition years ago. So did Pat Speer. Larry Schnapf will be bringing a computer simulation out that will show the Single Bullet Fantasy was not possible. As per reading my book, c'mon, you don't really think I buy that do you? Can I give you a quiz? Try something else. Reminds me of what DVP does on his web site.

Short answer to the above, since they will never admit it: The WC did nothing of the kind. They did not even cross check the results with an independent firm. They accepted all the crapola that test symbolized, even to the point that it rendered the FBI suspect as an investigating body. That symbolizes the worthlessness of the Warren Commission.

Now, in addition to Ruby lying on his polygraph test--a fact that the Commission misrepresented by saying he passed, a deception that cover up artist Jean Davison actually bandied about in her book and DVP did not call her on it--did the Commission explain how that test was actually rigged in advance by the FBI technician? And did the WC explain how the elaborate deception arranged by the technician was so multi layered and purposeful that it violated about 12 different protocols of good practice? To the point that the test was deemed useless by a panel of experts who studied it? It was so planned in advance bad that Bugliosi (another DVP hero) had to deliberately misrepresent it in his book. Did the WC then conclude by saying it was difficult to deem this was all an accident, and therefore the FBI knew what was happening with the test?

To answer DVP's above: This is the kind of researcher you are: There are some things I have listed the HSCA did not know about, and you do not know the difference. To answer FC, who sometimes does not know how funny he really is: One of the questions that Ruby lied about indicates he did know Oswald prior to the assassination. I am tempted to say Case Closed right there. But since it is alway amusing to fiddle around with these shameless charlatans, I will continue on to show what a mockery of justice and alleged "Fact Finding body" (DVP's explanation) the WC was. (How can you be a fact fining body if you leave out all of these facts?)

Now let me ask another question of FC or DVP: Did the WC know that Ruby lied on his polygraph test?

I urge everyone to read this fine article on the Raleigh Call. You will never see anything like this posted by DVP or FC or the Arizona lawyer. (Who said he was leaving but now is back. Some Xmas gift eh?) Please read this all the way through, it brings up some very real questions about what Oswald was thinking in detention with no lawyer. http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

Let me answer my own question since DVP will take 12 hours to reply. There is no evidence that they did know about this call. Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.

Davey: There is a difference between making assumptions that are based on the evidence, versus making them in spite of the evidence. The WC did the latter all day and every day. So did Bugliosi. Whenever there was a problem with the evidence, Bugliosi would say, well that is OK sine we know Oswald did it.. Recall, the WC and VB are the prosecution. Not the defense. They had the burden of proof. Therefore, they should not be able to use many assumptions, particularly when they clash with the evidence. Especially considering the high standard to prove guilt in a murder case. But see, if you recall, Oswald was murdered, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. After screaming he was just a patsy, he never got his day in court. Unlike the Nazis at Nuremburg, he never even had a lawyer. I find it interesting that he was rubbed out the morning after he made the Raleigh call to John Hurt. Which is another thing I was going to ask you: Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?

I recommend everyone read this article on the letter. It is an honest treatment of the facts, facts which DVP does not want to detail. https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/

You did not answer my question did you? Instead you went into our usual tantrum about "Everything is fake!" This is a diversion on your part since you cannot face the facts on this particular issue on which you thought you had a slam dunk: See, LHO was in Mexico. It backfired on you. The name was wrong, LHO did not meet with Hosty, and he could not have known the diplomat was transferred. Plus that diplomat said he never met with Oswald. That is four strikes. Those are facts that you do not want to deal with. And you escape into a world of assumptions, just like the WC did. I never said the letter was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false. I indicated that there were serious problems with the letter. Problems you want to paper over and never bring up.

https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/

Davey: Is it utterly impossible for you to tell the whole story about any piece of evidence in this case? Answer: Yes

Note DVP did not contest any of the answers I gave above, that is NO NO and NO.

That evidence about the probes is really strong for the fact the bullet did not transit. I used a lot of it in The JFK Assassination : The Evidence Today.

Davey: Did the reality that these were not facts, but actually false, did that influence any of the members of the WC or the FBI to suspect that something was up with the letter? Answer: No. And in fact when you trotted it out a couple of days ago to say, "See Oswald was in Mexico" did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter? Answer : No. Would you have acknowledged them if I had not brought them up. Answer : No.

Ok Davey, you are somewhat tongue tied? In the letter, how does the writer know that Azcue was transferred out of the Cuban consulate? That did not happen until November 18th. And, of course, you know that Azcue denies Oswald was in the consulate in the first place. These mistakes were so obvious to the Russian embassy in Washington, that is was they, not the critics, who first thought it was ersatz. But this is Davey. He is such a sucker for any WC malarkey that he posts this crap and lets others clean up the mess. Not noticing that the "evidence" he posts backfires on him to the point that it aids the cause of the critics. And then he sits there with his thumb in his mouth.

In the letter, Oswald says he met with Hosty and Hosty gave him a warning. Davey, when did Hosty meet with Oswald prior to MC or directly after? And that is not all. But I am surprised you missed that obvious faux pas.

HA HA HA HA LOL In 20 pages, I swept the evidence under the rug? FC, can you help Davey Boy out? What is the other problem with that letter?

FC, look if you want to start a new thread on Tippit, go ahead. But there have already been several, and here is my reply to you on that. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium So go ahead and restart it. I am awaiting a reply from DVP about the other serious problem with that letter.

Davey, you are going to tell me that Oswald, who spoke fluent Russian, somehow talked to this guy who was named Kostikov about getting an in transit visa to Russia from Cuba , and he screwed up his name that badly? Now, you do know that there was a Soviet agent named Kostin, right? You are aware of the other serious problem with that letter right? I wait for your reply. (FC, you radically shortchanged me. I did not just mention Odio and Cheramie. That is not even close to what matters I have listed here that the WC never ever even knew about. How about the Chicago Plot. )

Did Baker just say what I think he said? A pile of warmed over WC malarkey. All to avoid the question about there being no evidence for a transiting wound in JFK's back. And the generals knew that which is why they stopped Humes from the dissection. First, there was never any survey of anything close to all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza about the number of shots or the directionality. Go ahead, try and find where the FBI tracked down all the witnesses. You will not find that in the record. Which should tell you something right then and there. Second, no other weapon found? There were two reported that morning, an Enfield and a Mauser, plus they found a Mauser shell in Dealey Plaza. And we did not learn about that until 30 years later. Third: One shooter!!! HAHA HA HA HA LOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL Hey Paul, you claim to be a scientist right? (Of course, a scientist who, unlike everyone else, still somehow claims some validity for the CBLA.) Now, when you look at the Z film, somehow that does not say anything to you? JFK is hit like a thunderclap, his entire body is smashed backward and lifted slightly upward and to his left, with such force that it bounces off the seat; motorcycle policemen are hit with blood and issue with such force that they think they were hit themselves. And somehow that is one shooter. With the TSBD behind the limo? Now, before you run into the arms of the lying Alvarez or the phony Sturdivan, you know the whole "jet effect" and neuromuscular reaction has been discredited by Aguilar and Robertson and also on TV in ITTC. (But I know you will run there anyway, since you cannot do anything else.) Now, if there is one shooter, then why did all those witnesses run to the GK, many more than went to the TSBD. (Which is another indication that you are wrong with your first point.) Besides that, then what about the testimony that will live forever in the minds of anyone who was interested in this case back then. A guy named Sam Holland, and the seven other witnesses who saw smoke from the GK. (like Simmons.) Sam actually ran over there if you recall. And he saw those footprints which looked like they were going back and forth. And then you match this up with Bowers, and the false SS ID and the guy talking into what looked like a radio mike etc. I mean that was all established back in 1967. I have saved Baker's best for last: He says one shooter, seen by a few and in perfect alignment. Say this: what chutzpah this guy has. He must think we are idiots. One shooter from the rear who rammed JFK backwards into his seat. Yeah sure. Second, the only witness in 55 years who said LHO was in that window was Brennan. Not only was Brennan not able to ID Oswald at the phony line ups--which is incredible on its face--but as Ian Griggs writes, there is a real question if he was even at a line up. And the FBI gave up on trying to determine how his story ever got to the police in the first place. Now if you balance all the problems with Brennan, with the impossibility of Oswald being on the sixth floor--which has been proven by a slew of writers--like say Roffman, way back when, then, puhlease Mr Baker. Third, do you really think we buy Dale Myers and his phony cartoon about the alignment? Bob Harris destroyed that fake rendition years ago. So did Pat Speer. Larry Schnapf will be bringing a computer simulation out that will show the Single Bullet Fantasy was not possible. As per reading my book, c'mon, you don't really think I buy that do you? Can I give you a quiz? Try something else.