James DiEugenio

Yes David that lists the camera. But I distinctly recall seeing the actual camera lying on the floor but not within a spread out display of the evidence. It was laying against the wall horizontally. I could have sworn someone here captured it, maybe Ray M?

I could have sworn I once saw a picture of the MInox in the DPD prop room laying on the floor up against the wall. I think something was on top of it. I thought it was on this site. Does anyone recall that picture? If you do, can you retrieve it?

BTW, since Litwin dropped his morsel of his book here he has been a busy beaver. He had a brief article in Toronto Star, and did a TV show in Ontario. He also had said that he turned went from one side to the other in the space of four years. That is from the Z film ABC showing to the HSCA report. Pretty short time he was a JFK Conspiracy Freak. Fred did another article for an online journal which I will discuss in a separate article. We may have to set up something called the Litwin Watch.

I did notice that AOL article, which was not as bad as the first one. I mean, why not talk about something genuine like what he did with civil rights? I mean if i could do this why couldn't some reporter at AOL have done it? Or how about his showdown with the steel companies? Or the Missile Crisis? Or the American University speech? This is what I mean about this cottage industry and how effective it has become.

So Don, is your conclusion that Nixon was there for a prisoner exchange of OPLAN 34 ARVN guys?

Yes that is what I recalled. They worked Saturday, but not with the public. And you are saying the camera coverage would have caught him anyway? What is the significance of the signature at the bottom?

Isn't there an exception about that Saturday closing David?

Ron: Whenever DVP brings up his WC ideas of the Tippit murder, just link to this article https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium This includes the newest research on that case and shows the cover up that the WC performed on the death of Tippit. The whole timeline of TIppit's activities from about a little before noon to the time he is killed was completely concealed by the Warren cover up artists. That is why I had to use McBride's book to put together what he was really doing in the last hour of his life. You will never find that out from the WR. Jim Garrison did a fairly nice job on that case but I don't think he ever got to the importance of Croy and Westbrook and their BS stories. Or how Hill did the cover up through the press on that. BTW that article on Tippit really hit a nerve. Talk about a lot of views.

Cory, Since when is Jenkins a physician? And he was not a pathologist either. Also, you have threads on that already. DVP just added in those senseless quotes form Humes, because he doesn't know jack about New Orleans. You do, so it would be more proper for me to ask you to comment on Litwin's chapter on Jim Garrison.

Davey did not even know about the disappearing particle trail that Humes reported on and then was forced to take back in 1996 under questioning by Jeremy Gunn. The reason that was done, and also the entrance hole raised, was to negate the evidence of more than one bullet strike in the skull. The other reason was to eliminate the lie in the Rydberg drawings about JFK's head being anteflexed in a position it was not in the Z film. Look Davey, the medical evidence is a real loser for your side. Which is why you and Ayton were so skimpy about it in your grossly mistitled book. Why don't you drop it and go back to what the title of the thead is? Oh, because you don't know jack about New Orleans.

Paul, are you trying to hurt my feelings? Its in my book, Destiny Betrayed, on page 104. Good source also, Joe Oster. When Oster quit 544 Camp Street, he went to work for Southern Research, which eventually became Wackenhut.

That is for sure. Banister probably hated JFK for that issue. Banister was part of the state Sovereignty Committee. Those nutty states rights groups who wanted segregation forever. And he thought the civil rights groups were commie fronts and ridiculed JFK for being friendly with them. Hanging out with George Lincoln Rockwell. Any BTW, Delphine Roberts was as rightwing as Banister was. She picketed catholic churches for desegregating their schools. For people today its hard to understand just how radioactive the integration issue was back then. But I am old enough to remember those things since they were televised since they made such dramatic visual images. For instance, I will never forget the face-off at Alabama between Wallace and Katzenbach. After doing the research I am now convinced that the reason Wallace eventually stood aside was he knew that if he resisted Kennedy's order, the judge was ready to jail him for obstruction of justice. The judges on that Fifth Circuit were the real hidden heroes of the whole struggle in the south . Bobby Kennedy knew he could count on them in the end.

Yes WN, I do sometimes feel like Jack Webb and that speech, "Its an endless, glamorless, thankless job that's gotta be done." But every once in awhile you get some moment of gratification. Like now when you google the Kennedys and Civil Rights, this article is on page one of Yahoo and Google.

To get back to the real world and the topic at hand, if I recall correctly, I don't think Butler testified before Garrison's grand jury. In fact, that might be why he left New Orleans. But he later did return. And he set up a rightwing radio station with some people who were friends of Ferrie's, like Layton Martens. This was in support of the Contra War under Reagan. It was at that time that Ed Haslam, then an advertising employee, went to the station and discovered that Butler had kept some of Banister's files over the years. Butler is a fascinating character who knew the whole underside of that New Orleans anti Castro network. In fact, I think it was Butler who got Gordon Novel involved with that proposed city wide telethon in 1961, where a man who greatly resembled David Phillips was in Banister's office as one of the organizers. And then of course, he was part of the alleged exposure of Oswald as a Russian defector on local media. To me that was probably part of the whole CIA anti FPCC campaign. Which we know was run by Phillips. New Orleans was the perfect place for the setting up of Oswald in the summer of 1963.

Another thing that I always found interesting about Butler was how he got out of New Orleans and went to LA after Garrison got onto him. But he packed up the INCA files before he left. The other thing that is interesting is that he had at least a part of Banister's files after his death. Which means he had to be closely involved with 544 Camp Street. Is Butler still alive?

Here you go Ron, all you need to know about the rightwing New Orleans psy wars specialist who did so much to get the word out about LHO in the hours after the assassination even before LHO was killed. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ed-butler-expert-in-propaganda-and-psychological-warfare Anybody who says, like Fred Litwin, there was nothing happening in New Orleans is full of it.

I decided to bring this back because I have the Russell book and bought the Enquirer. The banner on the cover is simply misleading. In the article and in the Russell book there is no hint that she has proof Oswald was innocent. And the idea that she is now demanding a new investigation is simply wrong since the story is from 1993. (On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, pp. 205-10) If you read the Russell book and compare it to the new article one can see how the readar could confuse her comment about comparing herself with a double or triple agent. In the book one can see plainly that what she doing was comparing Richard Case Nagell and his predicament with Oswald's. (p. 205) In the article, that distinction is not made clear, as it jumps from her talking about herself to making the comment about Lee being a double or triple agent. So it was easy to misconstrue since the true meaning was lost in the transfer. There are two things that are important that Marina told Russell and the article does not screw them up. She says that someone touched up the BYP. The rifle is different and there should have been more poses. She also contravenes the Arizona lawyer in his WC depiction of LHO. In the book she says that "He was not just a plain Joe from the street, of course not." Then the article quotes the rest: "He was manipulated and he got caught. He tried to play with the big boys." She also says in both that she had a hard time buying him as the assassin because Lee loved JFK. She later said in the book "I can't tell you how much he admired John F. Kennedy." (p. 206) She also calls Posner a "phony baloney" with a big machine behind him. (p. 206) In the book she has a sharp riposte to Russell saying that history changed the day of the assassination. She replies, "No, history went back to where it was supposed to be. Because Kennedy would have changed it." (p. 207) She is also very interested by the mysterious DOD card that the LaFontaines made an issue about.(p. 207) No one has ever gotten to the bottom of that card. But I hope Chris Newton finally does. He did some really good work on that on this forum. I am trying to get him to do an article for K and K. The lawyers at the meeting were Dan Alcorn and Jim Lesar of the ARRC, Joan Stanley and Harvey Silverglate a famous ciivl liberties attorney from Cambridge.

After doing a lot of study on this, I believe that Shaw was on the ground level of the machinations in setting up Oswald. Oswald was pretty much being set up in New Orleans in more than one way. And I believe that those activities were designed to be exposed after JFK was killed. As L. C. Delsa, the HSCA investigator told me, what struck him as being so odd about Oswald was his low profile in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination, as opposed to his high profile in New Orleans. A profile which he himself almost seemed to seek out. IMO, the Clinton/Jackson incident was called off because Shaw and Ferrie did not know about the CORE voter drive. If not for that, I agree with Garrison that this would have been used to somehow show that LHO was certifiable. Its always been striking to me how fast Ed Butler got to Washington after Kennedy's murder.

BTW, if you go to You Tube and look up Fred Litwin, you will see what I mean about him being a Culture Warrior. Video after video on things like political correctness and how public broadcasting is too biased. He even calls Canadian broadcaster Brian McKenna out for being Irish, and that is why he does specials on the JFK case. (Geez, I'm Italian so what's my excuse for writing my books?) See, this is part of the backdrop that people miss about McAdams also. He also tries to turn this into a Left/ Right issue and he is also much more involved with the whole rightwing financed Koch communications and propaganda empire than most people understand. But like I noted, to me its odd that they see this as that kind of an issue. I think they did not like what the film JFK did to the public. So now they consider it a cultural battleground.

Paul, I see that call as something like a slip up. Shaw let his guard down, since he did not know what was really going on. I compare it to Ferrie looking for those photos of him with Oswald. That was a stupid thing to do also because, as I noted above, it would draw attention to oneself. After all, if Ferrie's relationship with Oswald was innocent, why would he lie about it and then try to obstruct justice by concealing it? The idea that the JFK murder was a perfect crime is simply not the case at all. The concept was a good one: framing a pinko Marine who was really an intel agent. But as far as the execution goes, there were many, many slip ups. None of which mattered. As the important thing was the cover up. And by having the FBI lie about who Shaw was, and intimidating the heck out of Andrews,while the MSM pilloried Garrison, it worked.

In relation to that, note what I said at the end of Part 2. On the fiftieth anniversary of the RFK assassination, Amy Goodman had Dyson as her sole guest about Bobby Kennedy. And never once, as far as I could see, did she question any aspect of his book or his whole specious analysis. Talk about the blind leading the blind. This is one reason I left Pacifica.

Joe, Litwin never read any of those documents. The guy wrote an agitprop book as I proved in my review. This has been the MSM strategy in order to deceive the public for many years now. And they trot on clown after clown in order to deny the fact that the ARRB proved Garrison was correct about Shaw and Ferrie, and that the FBI knew such was the case. They also do not go near the Jeremy Gunn inquiry into the medical evidence. Because, among many other things, its shows that the original autopsy was a cover up. Parnell is such a pom pom boy that he does not understand that Litwin could never debate me. (Parnell misses my whole point about 9/11) Just like Parnell ignores what I wrote that demolishes Litwin's book, Litwin has to ignore it also. Or how he could he get blurbs by the likes of Conrad Black and Daniel Pipes? As I said, unlike Litwin and Daniel Pipes, I have never seen the JFK case as a part of the Culture Wars. Whether it be by the right, or the left (Chomsky and Cockburn). I see it as a murder case, plain and simple. That is not Litwin's approach. Which is why his book is worthless.

But getting back to Paul B, I see I ignored his question. I have answered this before as to why I think Shaw did what he did with Andrews, but I will do so again. Shaw did not have the gestalt story. So he was acting out of turn on that call to Andrews. Unaware that Oswald would be polished off the next day.

Davey, Look, unlike you and your late mentor, I do not try and distract from the facts by speculating as to why someone would do something. I just present the facts as I can collect them. And no, those alterations do change the case. Its called the second autopsy in the JFK case. Just as Fisher said, the idea was to counter Thompson's book. These alterations do just that.

Davey wants to ignore the fact that, as Pat Speer discovered, Fisher admitted in a medical journal that the reason the panel was convened by Clark was for the express purpose of refuting some of the junk in Thompson's book. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, p. 150) Ramsey Clark was so disturbed by the Saturday Evening Post preview of Six Seconds in Dallas that he got hold of some of the proofs of the book. As anyone can see from looking at Thompson's book, p. 111, he creates a very large problem in trajectory since you have a bullet fired downward which is now going upward in JFK's skull. So Thompson showed how Humes and Boswell conned Rydberg into making a drawing in which JFK's head is much more ante flexed than it really is in the Z film at Z 312. In fact, its almost like Kennedy is bending over to look at his navel. Fisher's revisions solve this problem in all aspects. You raise the entry to straighten the trajectory, you then get rid of the lower particles, and the coup de grace, you place a 6.5 mm fragment where it needs to be. And by the way, in my book, with testimony from Custer, I show how this had been practiced before the fact with Ebersole and his so called White House "bust of Kennedy" which needed bullets and trajectory lines taped on it. Yep, that is not a joke. ( p. 160)