James DiEugenio

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)

May I suggest we unite this with the Rodney Rivers thread? I do not know why there are two of these. Its the same topic.

I am afraid David is right about this guy. https://www.youtube.com/c/valuetainment?sub_confirmation=1 Wow, why would Jenkins go on with someone like that?

Davey: On February 13, 1996, the following dialogue took place between Jeremy Gunn and Jim Humes. The X rays were in front of the witness when Gunn asked the following question: Q: Do you recall having seen an X ray previously that had fragments corresponding to a small occipital wound? A: Well I reported that I did, so I must have. But I don't see it now. (The JFK Assassination, by James DiEugenio, p. 152) If this is to hard to figure Davey, Gunn referred to the occipital area because that is the area in the lower rear skull where the original doctors placed the entrance wound. As Humes admitted, and DVP will not, he saw and reported about a trail of particles that originated from that wound and rose upward. As many people have noted, they are gone today. Your point about the disk shaped object tries to dodge the issue. Why did the pathologists not see this in 1963? Especially since its bigger than the largest one they did see by a factor of fifty percent. But beyond that, is it credible that they would miss a disk shaped object that was in perfect position to complete the arc of the fragments and was also the right caliber? Maybe to Litwin and DVP, but not to the rest of the 99.9 per cent of the public who do not know about it. Your last point is nothing but sophistry. The original autopsy had the fatal entrance wound at the lower rear of the skull. Will you have the cajones and honesty to admit that? Russell Fisher changed the entrance wound location and raised it four inches higher to the top of the skull. But if it was always there then why did Baden have Ida Dox paint in raised edges around it to make it look more like a bullet wound than a blood drop? These are simple facts of the case which, like the others, you do not want to admit. Just as Litwin does not.

Davey Boy: In how many murder cases does the fatal wound change location, does the fatal bullet miraculously show up on the x rays five years later, and particle trails disappear? Plus the official photographer denies he took the most important pics? Can you name an instance outside of the movies or fiction? (Sound of crickets in the night) I have no idea what you are talking about with that second comment. Everything I listed and mentioned above is factual and shown by the government's own ARRB documents, which Litwin denies. If you want to say that these documents and this testimony is fake then that makes you quite a conspiracy theorist.

If anything I was too soft on this guy. He gets on Ontario TV and recycles the GIGO from his book. He actually said that what closed the door on conspiracy for him was that the ARRB's 2 million pages was nothing but a zero. Well, yeah, if you did not read them or choose not to address them, its nothing. But as I quoted in my article, either Freddie Boy did read them and he does not want anyone to know about them, or he did not read them at all. These documents completely puncture the false image of Garrison and New Orleans that he is trying to peddle. Clay Shaw was a highly valued contract agent for the CIA going back to the fifties. They admitted that in their own document. He was involved in at least two, probably three covert projects for the Agency. This is why he had a covert security clearance. They admitted that also. As I proved in my piece, Shaw committed perjury at least four times on the stand. And as I also showed, he could simply not tell the truth because it would open the door for more questions he simply could not answer since it would be too incriminating. What makes it worse is that the FBI knew what the facts were, and the CIA covered up for him with an internal lie. David Ferrie lied his head off to the FBI. He then tried to obstruct justice by collecting evidence that would expose his perjury in the immediate days after the assassination. Litwin even misrepresents the stuff about the Kennedy family and the autopsy artifacts. The Secret Service had those at first, until around 1966. Then a deed of gift was put together. When Garrison tried to get them for the Shaw trial, the government mightily resisted, and as Wecht would say later, the government lawyer screamed in court they would appeal until Hades froze over. But Ramsey Clark had no problem getting them for the Fisher Panel so that good ole CIA buddy Russ Fisher could change the original autopsy in order to cover up the exposure of it by Tink Thompson in his book. Again, that is not me saying that, its Fisher saying it. So what happened was that CIA buddy Russ altered the entrance point of the rear skull wound by raising it four inches, in other words about as far as you could on the back of the head. Then, someone, we do not know who, added a 6.5 mm fragment on the X-ray to make that alteration/falsification more credible. Neither Humes, Boswell nor Finck could recall seeing that artifact in the morgue. What makes it so hard to buy at all is that its about 50 per cent larger than the one they did see. Yet try and find it in the report. The other thing that happened is that they erased a particle trail that Humes wrote about which connected the lower entrance wound upward. So let us tally up what Russ did: 1.) Raised the rear entrance 2.) added a bullet fragment which just happens to be 6.5 mm disk shaped 3.) Erased a particle trail. Oh and I forgot. Stringer denied taking the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives today. He never used that film, or the press pack technique. All of this was unveiled by Jeremy Gunn and the ARRB. As was the stuff on Shaw and Ferrie. Fred Litwin should be ashamed of himself. But he is a Culture Warrior. People like him and Daniel Pipes don't care about facts. In fact, they are actually at war with facts because they lead to an inconvenient political truth about America.

Thanks Bart and Joe. WN, as I tried to discern, Litwin has become a culture warrior up in Canada.. The excuse he gives is that this came about as a result of 9/11 and his being Jewish. That has never made very much sense to me since Al Qaeda--backed by Saudi Arabia-- did not attack Israel on 9/11, they attacked America. But that is what I could discern. But see, I have also never been able to understand people who regard the JFK case as part of a culture war. To me, I have always examined the JFK case as a homicide. And I have always treated it as a murder investigation. Historically speaking, the problem with the JFK case is that the Warren Commission did not deal with that case as a homicide investigation. And that is how it became part of a culture war, in more ways than one. Not just left vs right, but also those who want transparency and declassification vs those who care so little about it they do not even tell their readers about it years after the fact. I mean what kind of a writer does not deem it important that the FBI was getting information that matched up with Garrison's, namely that Shaw was Bertrand? Or that Ferrie was trying to hide the fact he knew Oswald in the days after 11/22/63? These are matters for a criminal inquiry. As an investigator you ask: Why are these people lying? When Ferrie lied to the FBI, that was a criminal act. Same as when Shaw lied on the stand. But even beyond that, why did the FBI let Ferrie lie to them? And why did the FBI and CIA cooperate with the cover up around Shaw? These are the kinds of questions that go to the heart of the national security cover up about the JFK case. A culture warrior like Litwin does not want his readers to go there. Because, unlike us, he values security over liberty. Even up in Ottawa.

This guy is a complete poseur. I did some work on him. He is the Canadian version of the useless carnival barker David Horowitz. But if you read this you will see that his work, if that is what you wish to call it, is simply and completely pitiful. At best its an obsolete relic, at worst it is simply a diversion from the unearthed facts. In the sixteen downloadable pages of his chapter on Garrison, I could find not one declassified ARRB document that he read or used. Not one. And as I note that is really bizarre since the ARRB did some decent work in New Orleans. Who does he use as sources then? Aynesworth and Phelan. Without telling the reader about their intel associations and their denials of them. He then gets even more silly and drags in, of all people, Paul Hoch. I explain why this is bonkers is the piece. And he accuses Gary Aguilar of not being intellectually honest. From what I could find out, the guy made a lot of money in the computer field and then became a Culture Warrior up in Canada. He is trying to be their Bill O'Reilly. Like we need another Fox News clown in the JFK case. Ridiculous. Read it and weep. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2

Thanks for the link to that AOL article Joe. And the thing is, most of those ridiculous statements in it are rubbish. Simply unfounded and unsubstantiated. Like I have said before, there is a cottage industry in these types of trashy books. And once a friend of mine gets her web site up, you will see how she will 1.) Expose that industry, and 2.) Show just how phony most of these accusations are. She has really done her homework on this. And she goes well beyond what I wrote about in my original essay back in 1997. And if you read my review of that very bad Discovery Channel six part documentary earlier in the year, they used some of these, let us call them, unscholarly journalists. So its synergistic as they say, the broadcast media and the print media. And with what we know about the strictures against the new evidence in the JFK case, that is the institutional set up we have. Its not conspiratorial anymore, as I demonstrated back in the sixties with my long article on Roger Feinman's work at CBS, it was. What makes this so nauseating is that: 1.) There really is a lot of new evidence unearthed by the ARRB that the public does not know about. 2.) There are new books about JFK's presidency that have a lot of new and interesting info in them. 3.) The stuff we now know today about LBJ, Nixon and Eisenhower all are true and accurate and are much worse than anything Kennedy ever contemplated much less did. For instance, the stuff about Ike in John Newman's second volume has really made me reevaluate his presidency. But that is how the game is played in both academia and the MSM. The table has already been set. The dinner is planned and that is that. Thank God for the web.

I have to say Ron, that radio appearance in Moscow was really interesting. The hostess was quite interested and knowledgeable about the subject matter. Both the assassination and JFK himself. About Charles Houston, I had heard his name before, but prior to writing that series, I really did not know just how important that guy was to the civll rights movement. I mean to literally devote your career to overturning Plessy v Ferguson? Talk about heroic. And then to die tragically just four years before that goal is achieved. I was so glad to find that quote by Thurgood Marshall about Houston, "We were just carrying his bags, that's all." It shows just how bad the MSM is that almost no one knows about this guy. But, of late, there has been something of a boomlet and now there are five books out about him. Hopefully there will be a film about him, its made to order for a TV docudrama.

Kirk: There are no conspiracies in the media today about the JFK case, although there were back in the sixties and seventies. Today, it has simply become institutionalized. It is more or less a system. We know this from Alec Baldwin's revelation in Houston at the mock trial. He said that at the fiftieth, he made a proposal to the president of NBC about a special on JFK. Knowing who he was dealing with, the reply was words to the effect that we have reconciled ourselves to the official story. I don't see how it gets more clear than that. And that is why Rachel Maddow does what she does. Bill O'Reilly did the same when he got his orders from the late Roger Ailes at Fox. All one has to do is observe what Gus Russo did from 1993-2013. 1993: PBS special on Oswald. 2003: ABC special on the JFK case with Jennings. 2013: NBC special with Brokaw on JFK. Sorry, I do not consider that a coincidence. Another good example of this was the whole uproar over the declassifed JFK files that took place last September and October. Who were the recurring guests: Shenon and Sabato. And they actually would throw in Posner. No Jim Lesar, no Rex Bradford. I managed to get on--in Moscow.

As per the other points of the Arizona lawyer: Today, there are about seven books on the shelves conceding JFK's intent to withdraw from Vietnam. I have read almost all of them e.g. David Kaiser's book American Tragedy, James Blight's book Virtual JFK, Gordon Goldstein's book Lessons in Disaster are just three. How many has the Arizona lawyer read? Because these books go beyond the evidence in Newman's book which was published in 1992. This is because the ARRB declassified several tapes and transcripts on this very issue. Has the Arizona lawyer read any of them? (Sound of crickets in the night.) So here is my question: if you don't know any of this stuff, why come here and pontificate as if you do? What is the point? Is it to show that, Warren Commission style, ignorance is better than knowledge? Or is it to play cheerleader for someone like Kirk who has about a wide a knowledge base on this as you do? To me this is about as useful and scholarly as the stuff Tommy Graves used to pull here. The whole point is that prior to 1992, there were no books on the issue. Now are you going to tell us that for 30 years not one single scholar knew anything about this? No one knew about the fall debate in 1961 in the Oval Office, where Bobby Kennedy and JFK stood up and repeatedly said, "There will be no combat troops in South Vietnam!" There were about 11 people there. No one recalled that meeting or debate that went on for two weeks? No one recalled JFK telling Galbraith he wanted a report from him out of Saigon, and when he got back to DC, he wanted him to hand that report to McNamara and tell him that it was from the POTUS? No one recalled McNamara then doing a 180 degree turn on the issue after this and then requesting that the divisions heads and JCS begin to put together withdrawal schedules. Which were then submitted at the May 1963 Sec/Def meeting in Hawaii? And recall McNamara's reaction to this? These schedules are too slow. I mean there were only about thirty people there for that one. Or maybe you recall the meeting between JFK, McNamara, and Bundy in which McNamara literally says, "We need a way to get out of Vietnam. This is a way of doing it." (Oct. 2, 1963) I mean you are aware of that discussion about Kennedy's withdrawal plan right Lance? Now as far as JFK and Vietnam goes, we do not just have what he did in office from 1961-63. We have a record that goes as far back as 1951. That was his meeting with Edmund Gullion in Saigon, where Gullion told him the French will never win this war. And as RFK said, that meeting had a deep impact on JFK's thinking, which we know from the many speeches he gave on the subject from 1951-57, culminating in his great Algeria speech. What historians do is try and detect origins and then consistent patterns. This usually indicates characteristics of a president. (BTW, when I say about the wrong browser, that means that I have the Arizona Lawyer on ignore, but if you come in on your other browser that is not tied into this site, you see these ignored comments.)

The chart below is simply an adducement of facts drawn from the reading of 45 books, two interviews and one doctoral dissertation on the subject. I would like to know how many books Lance read on the subject? Four Presidents: A Comparison of Civil Rights Actions and Achievements FDR (13 years in office) TRUMAN (7 years in office) EISENHOWER (8 years in office) KENNEDY (3 years in office) 1 Fair Employment Practices in Defense Plants (FEPC) Integrated the Military Sent troops to Little Rock in 1957 Orally committed to backing the Brown decision 2 Appointed African Americans as policy advisors Tried to pass a civil rights bill Established Civil Rights Commission Indicted school officials who defied court orders on Brown 3 Made speeches on civil rights in 1952 Created a Free Schools district when Virginia decided to drop public education 4 First administration to join civil rights cases as a plaintiff, not a friend of the court 5 Petitioned the ICC to integrate interstate busing and terminals 6 Systematically began to file cases to break down denial of voting rights in the South 7 Financed voter registration drives in the South 8 Began the drive to ban poll taxes with the 24thamendment 9 Started a massive and rigorous affirmative action program in all branches of federal government 10 Announced that no member of his administration would join a segregated establishment or speak at a segregated event 11 Revived FDR’s FEPC with the CEEO 12 Established rigorous contract and grant requirements to integrate private colleges in the South 13 Established a program to make federal contractors follow non-discriminatory hiring practices 14 Carried out court orders to integrate the last public universities in the South 15 Exploiting an exception to the law, sent in federal marshals and troops to Oxford, Mississippi and to Alabama during the Freedom Rides 16 Signed the Housing Act of 1962 17 Negotiated a settlement to the Birmingham demonstration in 1963 18 Endorsed the March on Washington in 1963 19 In a nationally televised address of 6/11/63, made the most forceful presidential address on civil rights since Lincoln 20 Established the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in 1963 to represent victims of civil rights abuses in the South 21 Submitted the epochal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began a massive lobbying program to pass it So much for the received wisdom that the Kennedy administration “moved cautiously on civil rights” until they were pushed into it.

Every once in awhile I make a mistake and come here on the wrong browser. Which means I have to read the drivel by the Arizona lawyer. Oh my aching back. Where does this guy get this rubbish? Is he still reading the Warren Report and taking that junk seriously? How many witnesses do you need to place Oswald at Banister's office? I mean if the 544 Camp Street address on his flyers is not enough for you, then how about Dan Campbell, Allen Campbell, Delphine Roberts, Mary Brengel and two INS agents who were tracking down Ferrie. And that is not all. I made a point of listing them all in Destiny Betrayed. Why was Banister so upset when the FBI had those flyers with his address on them? Why did Banister pistol whip Martin when he suspected he was trying to pilfer the Oswald file and made insinuations about Banister being involved with Kennedy's murder in Dallas. My God, that is right in the HSCA Volumes, No. 10 page 130. As per Bertrand calling Andrews, there were three witnesses who certified that call, including a PI who Andrews called and told him about going to Dallas for this guy. And as per Shaw being Bertrand, there is simply no doubt about this today. There are more than ten witnesses who certify that fact. When you then add in what Malcolm Blunt got from Angleton's pal Bagley about the tracking of Oswald's CIA file being prearranged so that very few people would know about, and no 201 file would be opened on it until much later, I mean, please give us all a break. Lee Harvey Oswald was an intel agent from the word go. And to deny that says much more about the Arizona lawyer than it does the facts, which he does not bother with very much. As per Marina, Richard Russell had nothing but scorn and suspicion for her. And contrary to what Parnell says, Marina is ashamed of her WC testimony today. Geez there was a movie made about that subject. What nonsense.