James DiEugenio

Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her. That is in the WCR.

Yes it does Ron. It was a vacuum operation. FInck did not admit that anywhere that I know of, not even on the stand at the Shaw trial. And he would not have admitted it here except that Gunn had him cornered. These guys did not want to testify at all before the ARRB. They all had to be subpoenaed. Note how non committal he is in all of his replies. In a real murder inquiry, he should have been indicted for perjury.

As everyone understands who reads my book, the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, Pierre Finck did much to blow open the JFK case at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969 in New Orleans. (pp. 300-303) Under some adroit questioning by Al Oser, he admitted things that the American public was never supposed to know. For instance, that there were dozens of military higher ups in the room, Admirals and Generals, (one of them turned out to be LeMay.) He also said that Humes shouted out, "Who is in charge here?" And a general replied, "I am". When asked why the back wound was not dissected, after eight different restatements of the question, FInck finally said, because Humes was ordered not to. This should have been front page news but we know how the MSM operates on the JFK case. Well, at Paul Seaton's site he extracts some of Finck's last testimony on the subject. (Piere passed on, I think last year.) This was before the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn. Man did Pierre learn his lesson. He just lied his head off this time around. He learned that in the JFK case, you don't tell the truth. It gets you in trouble. Read it and weep. http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/finck-notes.htm

Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also? Have you ever indicated on you rite that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home? If you have not then who is pot and who is kettle?

We don't know who wrote the report we have today. Because as Humes admitted to the ARRB, he not only deep sixed his notes, but also his original report. (McKnight, p. 165) McKnight goes on to add that this likely happened right after the murder of Oswald in Galloway's office. (ibid, p. 163) Its your secret since you do not divulge this information when you make your silly assertions.

DVP: Totally untrue. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission could have very easily determined the location of the back wound from the autopsy report ("14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"). And that's no doubt what they did. Even if they did look at the autopsy photo, they wouldn't have relied ONLY on that photo. They would have utilized the best measurement for the back wound---which was in the autopsy report. Does this guy ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth? Let me quote from Pierre Finck through the auspices of the ARRB, a body which DVP has never quoted from to my knowledge, and for good reason. In relation to the 14 cm BS: "These are not fixed landmarks, and unless the length of the neck and the position of the body on the autopsy table are known, the measurement is forensically useless. The forensically prescribed fixed body landmark used as the point of reference for locating a trauma suspected of being a through and through wound should have been Kennedy's vertebrae. The correct medicolegal procedure would have been to locate the wound by measuring from the top of the head down the midline or the spine of the body. In his ARRB interview FInck conceded to Jeremy Gunn that JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 178-79, emphasis added) The reason the 14 cm nuttiness was used was to disguise the true location of the back wound. Because by using that terminology, the location, as McKnight notes above, is allowed to drift. (FYI, the mastoid process is part of the ear! Why anyone would use that to locate a back wound is DVP's secret. Because its baloney.)

Oh no. That is really too bad. John Hunt, as Pat notes above, was one of the real work horses as opposed to a show horse in this case. Like Malcolm Blunt, John really did research. And he gave it out to anyone who was interested. He was quite meticulous and he dug up stuff on the medical and ballistics angle that no one else did. He will be missed.

BTW, this also makes it harder to understand how DVP can say that if you lower the inshoot from the neck to the back, that makes the Single Bullet Fantasy more tenable. From the look on Specter's face, i think he disagrees. But there is also this point: this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos. They had to have them to get that dotted location.

LOL, ROTF, LMAO That look on Specter's face is priceless. "Hmm, we have a problem here."

False. You did not post it here. What person with any brains would go to your site to see your phony discussions which you rig? Or maybe some of the newbies like Adam do not know that? See, what DVP does is he steals some stuff from this forum. As you can see, about 99 per cent of the time, he gets thumped here. (The other 1 per cent no one pays any attention to him.) So he then picks that stuff up from here and brings it over to his site. There he arranges it in such a way that it looks like he does much better than he actually did. In other words its all a dog and pony show with him as the MC of DVP Follies. One of the reasons he will not show the reverse angle here is because on that angle its actually shown that they placed the back wound too far down for the shot of Specter to be matched up with it. As you can see from just the photo above, Lying Arlen has the rod on top of the guy' shoulder. The top of one's shoulder is at the base of the neck.

This is so silly. But that is Davey. Any fool, or zealot, can handle a pointer. (But note Davey never shows the reverse angle.) But what about the ramifications of that picture? From Jim Gordon on May 27, 2014 to DVP: As I see it you have three major problems. First. The body has no natural path from entrance to exit without the body suffering incredible damage. Second. The bullet enters at a point lower than it exit point. How was this bullet able on a downward trajectory move upwards in the body? Third. If the bullet did take the direct route from entrance to exit, once it had passed T1 there was no means to correct its direction. It will exit going in the wrong direction. His last point is devastating to DVP, Bugliosi and Dale "Mr. Single Bullet Fact" Myers. John Orr's simulation will demonstrate that not only did Myers pull a hoax--as has been proven by Harris, Speer, and Cranor--but it will show why he did so.

I agree Derek. I have been saying this for a long time. From about 1997. At that time Lisa Pease and myself wrote a two part essay in Probe Magazine about JFK and the Congo and the murders of Hammarskjold and Lumumba. Ever since that I have tried to stress how important Congo was in both the history of Africa, as a Third World struggle and what huge stakes were on the table. Three central actors had to be murdered for the imperial powers to win out: Lumumba, Hammarskjold and Kennedy. And that is what happened.

Hopefully, this will give some exposure to the whole Congo crisis and the murder of Lumumba. IMO, the best part of Newman's Countdown to Darkness is his research and analysis on that affair. Ike and Dulles ordered the assassination of Lumumba and then tried to cover it up. https://jfkjmn.com/new-page-1/

The Williams book you linked to actually had a strong role in igniting all of this. But who would have thought that it would have gotten to this point, with documentary films coming up at Sundance. Kennedy called Hammarskjold the greatest statesman of the 20th century. And he was. To put it all on the line for Congo?

If you click through to an earlier story you well see something that I had no idea about. Kennedy's ambassador to Congo, the visionary Edmund Gullion, suspected that Hammarskjold was shot down the night it happened! And he suspected it was this guy. We had to wait fifty years to learn that. Its enough to give me a headache. This makes my cover article for the first issue of Deep Truth Journal look pretty prophetic. It was titled, "JFK and the Congo Crisis".

FC: The guy they talked to was not Oswald. Oswald was not short and blonde OK. And why do you keep on bringing David Mantik to this? What has Mantik ever written about Mexico City? Josephs' article is profusely footnoted with primary documents. If you do not want to read it, fine. But do not comment on it unless you have. Denny: That is a good question. I am beginning to lean toward the idea that the short, blonde guy was the person masquerading as LHO, but afterwards the CIA set up some phony evidence (transcripts) , and then Ochoa and Echeverria put together the false trail on the buses.

This is neat. The late Bob Parry's site, Consortium News, ran a year end poll of the best articles they published for 2018. My negative review of Chris Matthews biography finished in the Top Ten. After you read it, I think you understand why they killed RFK. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/04/distorting-the-life-of-bobby-kennedy/

No, no. As I recall it, Wayne was one of the very few people running AWAY from the scene. One or two witnesses thought this was suspicious. And they thought they saw a piece of a metallic object wrapped in a poster he was carrying so someone yell to stop that man. Someone tackled him and he was then arrested by security guard. To say the least, Michael Wayne is a very suspicious character.

Sandy: Sometimes FC is cognitively challenged. You know, all that critical thinking gets to you. He ignores all the things I said that make this documentary not trustworthy. And then he says trust it anyway. David Josephs explains why the two girls on the bus down cannot be taken at face value. And I linked to his essay showing why. Everyone knows that in the declassified HSCA interview Duran said that the man was about 5' 5" tall. And I already noted that. Now, because this show does not include this information and essentially goes by the WC version, FC wants us to buy into it. You know, that critical thinking of his.

No, not quite that long. But it was well over 600 pages. But I did actually write an intro that is billed on the cover. Had to go through it three times until Lisa approved the last version.

BA: There were three people who taped it. One was Len Osanic. He played one of his tapes, that of David Josephs, about ten days ago. I think he will be playing them one by one over time. Max Good also taped it, he may put his on Vimeo. I will let you know if he does. PS: Robert, that article was written by John Newman in 2003.

First of all, this was not a 2013 Frontline documentary FC. It was a repeat of the 1993 PBS documentary Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? This documentary was produced by its two lead consultants, Gus Russo and Dale Myers. And if that is not enough, how about this: Dale Myers always said that they did not go into this with a point of view. They were going to let the chips fall where they may. HA HA HA! Well when the Frontline producer Mike Sullivan died, Myers noted his death and finally spilled the beans on his own BS. He said Sullivan had decided at the start that Oswald was the chief and only suspect and that is what they would use as their investigative guideline. So how can one trust a guy like that, plus Mr. Single Bullet fact Dale Myers, and Russo? The only thing this show really did for the good is that it showed the photo of LHO and Ferrie at the CAP cookout. The picture that Ferrie was frantically looking for in the days after the assassination. So he could lie his head off to the FBI about not knowing Oswald. But Russo and Myers and Sullivan left all that out. This show marked two milestones. First, that PBS was now in the pocket of the Power Elite, at least on the JFK case. If you recall, PBS later went on to do that horrendous Cold Case Nova program. Which tells us about their funding problems ever since the Reagan years. And second, with it, Russo and Myers now proved they could be trusted by the MSM as cover up artists and they went on to future employment for anniversary specials e.g. Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw. I mean c'mon, a jerk like Epstein who says that Oswald joined the Marines so he could get a gun? I mean, when you are getting your butt hand to you, you get desperate right FC?

There is a reverse angle to that picture which Gil Jesus always shows. DVP does not. The point is this about the WC and the lie about the autopsy photos. The Commission tried to keep this a secret. Not even the staff lawyers knew about it. (Although Specter did see one or two photos from Elmer Moore who ended up being Warren's assistant.) But not only does it belie what Ford said, it also belies the complaint these guys would always offer: well we did not have the autopsy materials. Yes they did. McCloy was one of the worst on this. But he knew they did. The other thing is, they would blame the Kennedy family on this issue, when in fact the deed of gift had not even been signed at that time. In reality, the Secret Service had control of the materials. Now, one thing that was accomplished by doing this trickery is that it made it easier for Specter to complete his cover up on the medical evidence. We know from the Law book that Specter almost automatically threw out anything he knew would scuttle the Single Bullet Fantasy or the two shots from the rear scenario e.g. the Burkley death certificate, the testimony and reporting of SIbert and O'Nneill. Well, by keeping the autopsy materials away from him that made his job job much easier. As the photos above suggest.

I guess I have a different take on this than most people here. I personally do not think that Hoover was a part of the plot myself. The actual plotters would know upon past performance that he would willingly go along with this. For more than one reason. 1. Since Oswald was an FBI informant, he would have had to cover up who Oswald was. The late reporter Jim Phelan was a lying, two faced FBI toady, but in an unguarded moment he once told writer David Chandler that he was in Hoover's office a couple of days after the assassination and got the distinct impression that Hoover was ordering all FBI internal files on Oswald incinerated. 2. No Attorney General ever made Hoover do the things that RFK did. Including going along, however halfheartedly, with his civil rights program. Within days of the assassination, Hoover ripped out Bobby's private line into his office. 3. Since Hoover was good buds with LBJ, and he saw that Johnson was using the whole atomic holocaust excuse to keep everything under wraps, he realized heck, the fix is in. Swim with the tide. 4. Hoover did not give a damn about JFK personally. Which is why, that Saturday, he was at at the track. After all, he knew he was going to be fired in a Kennedy second term. 5. Hoover was an expert at faking evidence and getting his agents to go along with both that, and presenting perjured testimony in high profile cases. In The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I spend about three pages going through examples of this kind of flim flammery, which dates back to the Palmer raids. (See pages 237-40) Recall what Nixon said about the Hiss case: we built the typewriter. That is not all the FBI did in that case. There are three strong indications by Hoover himself that he understood what he was doing with the cover up. There are two that come from from private interviews with personal acquaintances. (Ibid, p. 246) Plus the marginalia he wrote up about how the CIA had handed him a snow job about Oswald being in Mexico City. But there is also what FBI agent Bill Turner said while working on an article about the JFK case. Some agents still there gave him some documents and Turner easily understood that the fix was in. He told me there are three steps in any FBI inquiry: collection of all relevant leads, the following through of those leads to their ultimate ends, and the garnering of all info into a report that did not adjudicate. Turner said it was obvious that step 2 was not done in this case. And without that, you could not perform step 3. But he said what made that worse was the fact that in this instance, the FBI actually did decide on a verdict anyway! To him that was the dead giveaway that this got the OK from on high. Even the WC was shocked by this. As Turner told me, FBI agents do not act like this unless Hoover and Tolson wanted them to.

Ron: What about the most important part of the book? My introduction!?