James DiEugenio

What a card shark Davey is. It would have never come up if Ball had not read the FBI report. Can you be honest and give me a yes or no to that Davey?

Nice one David.

I suggested that they contact the office of AOC. I told them, look send her my article on RFK which was one of the ten most popular ones at Consortium News this year. She will then see that he was a heck of a lot closer to her than he was to Steny Hoyer, the guy she beat and the other dinosaurs. And she might sign on and so might Pressley. Ron, they are working on that issue right now. I will let you know about it when its finalized and you can sign.

Now, as Sylvia Meagher noted in her book, there is not any other witness in the volumes that can place a gun sack in Oswald's hands prior to the shooting or after he got in Frazier's car. I ask, does that sound possible? Does it sound probable? And recall, if one buys Frazier and his sister, the gun had to have been broken down inside that sack. Why was there no trace of grease or oil then? Further, how did Oswald put the gun back together? With what tools? Ian Griggs said he tried to do it with a coin and gave up after 25 minutes. And finally, let me bring up the key name of Troy West. West was the paper dispenser at the TSBD. When asked if Oswald ever came to him to get some paper in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he said no. When asked if he ever left his station he said nope. When asked if he ate lunch there, he said yes.

What Davey does not say is that the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report. This is Dougherty's WC testimony: Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door. Mr. BALL - When he came in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes. Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of. Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that? And later on: Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time. Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir. Ball tried to use the FBI report against him, but Dougherty held firm.

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence. Derek did not just make that up. Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald. I have that in my book and its sourced there. Davey wants to call him a xxxx. Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it. Therefore he is a xxxx according to DVP. (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book. That did not get a good reception when LIfton tried to use it here.) The point is that no one is ever going to know for sure since the WC was such a debacle of investigatory technique. One would think they would at least have gotten to the bottom of why there was no picture of the so called gun sack in situ. To my knowledge they did not.

You should add one thing Larry. John had nothing but disdain for Moldea. In fact, he had it out with him on this forum once. He actually made Moldea admit that he did not buy into the LAPD bullet audit in the RFK case. But the thing is, the word audit means accounting. If you do not agree with that then it means you think there were either more or less bullets fired. It is a virtual impossibility that there would be less. Because that would mean an even crazier schematic than Wolfer's. If you say there were more then that means you think there was a second gun. Although Moldea did not say that, to me that was the implication.

Davey Boy is shameless. Don't bother clicking through to his latest "obviousness". Why? Because they are anything but. First, Oswald never ordered that rifle Davey. You can moan and groan and think up of any silly and stupid excuse you want to. But one of the more convincing witnesses at the Houston mock trial was Brian Edwards. When he testified that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the WC said it was, that was a turning point. Its the first time that got on any kind of a jury record. It will not go away. Second, funny about that so called sack. How come no one else saw it? Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning? Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ? They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD? Yet the rifle was supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209. I had a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)

The above is more of Davey's Kreskin type of mind reading. Yawn. BTW, as per the whole pot/kettle thing, this is one of DVP's standard devices to transfer the unjustifiable practices he uses to others. Three comments: 1. No one will ever know for sure what Oswald said during those hours of detention with the DPD. The vast majority of it was not written down or recorded. And there is really no excuse for that. None, Zero. It is a complete disgrace. And to this day there is room for doubt that it was not recorded. I have never made any flat statements as to what Oswald said or did not say. It is only based on notes that may or may not be accurate. 2. As per the curtain rods story, Fritz said Oswald denied this. Now, do we know he denied it? No. But if he did not, it makes Fritz and Frazier look pretty bad. 3. To render Oswald's so called unusual trip to the Paine home on Thursday night into perspective, just ask yourself, "When did LHO start work at the TSBD?" So how unusual was it?

TMZ put the story back up: https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/19/jfk-rfk-mlk-malcolm-x-murders-assassinations-conspiracies-reopen-trc/ It is also up at Consortium News, the late Bob Parry's site.

Hold it. Do we need a history lesson here? Kilpatrick was a columnist for a major newspaper in Richmond in the late fifties and early sixties. This was well after Brown v Board. One of the cases included in that decision was the Prince Edward school system in Virginia, where the state deliberately deprived that school system of funding because of the Brown v Board case. Well Kilpatrick, in his best John Calhoun style, screamed "States Rights" to defend that decision to keep those kids without schools or teachers. Thereby ignoring the Civil War amendments and the Brown v Board decision. And Buckley backed him and had him write columns like this in NR! In fact, Buckley himself wrote columns echoing that attitude. As Mark Lane wrote in his book Citizen Lane, Buckley opposed voting rights for black citizens in the south even if they paid the poll tax. ( p. 321) How about this for Buckley's John Calhoun impression: "The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the south is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally in areas where it does not predominate numerically. The sobering answer is yes. The White community is so entitled because for the time being is the advanced race." (ibid) So much for America being a melting pot of different ethnic and racial groups, and also so much for majority rule/ minority rights. As per his Cold Warrior aspects, Buckley attacked Eisenhower for going to Geneva to just talk about nuclear controls in 1958. (ibid) Buckley had one goal in life: to purify the GOP of its wild and crazy John Birch society strain which sunk Goldwater, and to rid it of its moderate to liberal wing (Javits, Cooper, Goodell, Lindsay). He achieved that aim and paved the way for Reagan, Gingrich, and DeLay. And that is why the Republican Party is what it is today. BTW, let us never forget where Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign. The Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi. Seven miles from where Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman's bodies were recovered. And what was Reagan's theme that day? States Rights.

Uh, excuse me, we are going to reduce the murder of the UN Secretary General in Congo, the great Dag Hammarskjold, plus 16 other people, to Brandsetter and Lumpkin? Wow, I guess Lisa Pease and Susan Williams were all wet then. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/17/the-mysterious-death-of-a-un-hero-2/

This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic. I do not dispute the meetings. What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion. There is simply no way to ascertain that aspect. For the specific reason I mentioned, that is the passing on of the other party. As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain, the transfer to the FBI on the night of the 22nd has been certified and documented by writers like Carol Hewitt and John Armstrong. And it was done many, many years ago. In fact back in the late nineties for articles they did for Probe Magazine on Ruth and Micahel Paine and the disappearance of the Minox camera. How anyone can write about the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me. If you have not read my reviews of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, please do: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/legacy-of-secrecy-by-lamar-waldron-with-thom-hartmann The first one garnered a very nice compliment from a Los Angeles area Advanced Placement teacher. She said that she thought my review was a model for detecting misinformation and she taught a lesson to her class based on it. In the second, Waldron and Hartmann actually changed part of their book based upon my first critique, and I note it in the review.

Well, i have to rain on this parade. I never liked Buckley as either a person or a writer. The man was a racist and also a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior who would make good pals with Angleton. Buckley actually backed the writings of the Virginia newspaper racist James Kilpatrick into the sixties when JFK was breaking down Jim Crow in the south. As late as the eighties, he was pushing for extending the Cold War and criticizing the telefilm The Day After because it showed the dangers of atomic fallout. He and his brother James then did what they could to pull the Repubican party to the right by running against the moderate and liberal wings e.g. Goodell and Lindsay. This was picked up by Gingrich and Delay and that is why the GOP today is a bunch of rightwing nuts. So, please, I will not weep for Buckley.

i agree Larry. What I liked about John was that he actually got out of his house and went to the archives and dug through the paper to find new and interesting things. He took pictures of exhibits also. And he always shared what he had. He did fine work I thought on the ballistics and medical evidence in the JFK case. His posthumous RFK book should be good.

Isn't it just like Davey to be able to tell us when Oswald was lying and when he was telling the truth and why. I mean, we are talking about a guy who was literally murdered in the arms of the DPD in their basement when Captain Fritz jumped out and left him exposed. With two horns going off right before the murder by Ruby. The police then lied about how Ruby got into the basement and then covered up that lie. It was not exposed until the HSCA inquiry. And yet, somehow Davey will trust what these guys wrote down as the gospel truth about Oswald. And yet when Oswald says something exculpatory about himself, he is lying. Why? Because we know he is guilty. Same thing that Bugliosi did in his inflated door stop.

Actually there should be since I think Max Good taped it. There were about 6 good speeches given in addition to this.

This is really getting interesting now. What that story leaves out is that Allen Dulles was linked to SAIMR.

Paul: No one can review this book. It is simply not possible to do so. Mike LeFlem tried. I tried. And, going back over 20 years, no one has reviewed more books in this field than I have. The reason one cannot review this book is the same reason that Barr McClellan's book Blood Money and Power is almost unreviewable. Because, like that book, this is not a work of history, or to use a broader term, non-fiction. As Walt Brown said about the McClellan book, its a work of "faction". For any responsible critic to deal with a book like this, it would take up so much time that it would not justify in any real way the value of this book. But beyond that, the author deals with many key instances where the people involved are dead so they cannot be checked up on. For instance, if one recalls, about 25 years ago there was the famous General Lebed in Russia. Well, guess what? Fulton puts him in this book. He happens to meet him in Russia and what does Lebed wanted to talk to him about? Sit down before I tell you. Lebed wants to talk about the thesis of Ultimate Sacrifice--yep Juan Almeida and the coup in Cuba that Lamar Waldron and Tom Hartmann said the Kennedys were preparing. (See p. 62) Except Lebed makes up a different excuse for that whole wild C- Day scenario. Wanna hear it? Well, after the Missile Crisis, the Soviets left about a hundred tactical nukes on Cuba and Almeida was a way to go ahead and secure Cuba without atomic war. No joke. Now, I thought I would never hear something more bizarre than Ultimate Sacrifice. But, in just a few pages, Fulton manages to actually go beyond Waldron and Hartmann. The Waldron-Hartmann original thesis was so specious on its face that no one bought into it. And for good reason. (Click here for my review https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice) But we are to think that Lebed did. Conveniently for Fulton Lebed passed on in 2002. This device is used throughout the book. For instance, there is a meeting earlier where Robert White--who I knew--meets with former president Ronald Reagan alone. (pp. 20-23) Reagan goes on and on about the ARRB, about the Kennedys, about Oliver Stone and his movie and even more stuff that I don't even want to mention. He is a combination briefer and investigator. Again, how convenient for Fulton that neither White nor Reagan are around today so no one can cross check it. A large percentage of the book is like this. There is simply no way to check on rather unusual events--or it would be very difficult to do so. There is a document section at the rear of the book but there is nothing there that certifies these kinds of meetings described in the text. And Bill Kelly is correct about the whole conversation with Bouck. This one goes on for about four pages. And the book has Bouck saying stuff in there that is simply wrong. Like the SS had possession of all the evidence on the night of the 22nd. ( p. 113) This is not accurate. We know from Vince Drain that Hoover had shipped much of the evidence that night to the Bureau and the rest was held by the DPD. Fulton also has Bouck say that RFK controlled the JFK autopsy. Again, this is false. (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Trauma Room One, pp 177-86) Need I add that Bouck died in 2004. Robert White had what was probably the most extensive and valuable collection of Kennedy memorabilia ever assembled by one individual. He spent a lot of time and a lot of money gathering these items, and I personally saw that memorabilia on more than one occasion. The ARRB would quite naturally have been interested in interviewing him and in parts of his collection. The proliferation of books on the JFK case published in the last 20 years worries me. There is a surfeit of them since today its easy to do. Hard for anyone to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I am not saying that at all. And I don't think that David is saying it. I mean, on the record, when has Ruth Paine ever said anything helpful to the Oswald case for innocence? I mean what would be the ratio? Maybe a thousand to one? Same with Michael. What David is saying is that the people one would think would have to have seen the rifle, that is the FBI or Ruth and Michael Paine, have no knowledge of it. Now, go ahead and list all the things the Paines said or produced that was incriminating of Oswald. You would have a list about a mile long. But with FC, all of that is just fine and dandy, even though much of it is questionable as to the circumstances and provenance. She says one thing that is exculpatory, and FC goes batty..

Ron: To my knowledge that is accurate about the rods at his rooming house. All I am saying is that there is some different data around now. I do not know what to make of it.

Ron: I have to say that i felt that way about the curtain rod story myself for a long time. I am beginning to think I was a little bit too dogmatic about that. I say that for two reasons. First, it appears that there might have been a record of some curtain rods found by the cops at the TSBD and that record disappeared. http://www.whokilledjfk.net/curtauin_rods.htm Second, Greg Parker alerted me to the fact that Ruth Paine did mention some curtain rods being at her place which were not hers.

1.He was monitoring Oswald, keeping track of what the cops were doing with him. 2. Because he wanted to keep LHO a commie. That other group was a rightwing group with members like Arleigh Burke.

To me the most sickening part of the above is this: the WC was a bunch of lawyers. They had to have understood this. I mean Meagher was not a lawyer and she did. This is what she meant when she titled her book Accessories after the Fact. The WC went along with the collusion and cover up. And so did Vince Bugliosi.

This is even worse than I thought it was. Givens did not come up with his cigarettes story until almost FIVE MONTHS later. Excerpts from Meagher: 2/25/64 Warren Commission lawyers Joseph Ball and David Belin complete a first joint report, summarizing the evidence known by that date, and note discrepancies as to the time of Givens’ departure (and elevator race) from the sixth floor — 11:35 as against 11:40 or 11:45 a.m. Ball and Belin also note that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50 a.m. in the domino room and that three other witnesses also place Oswald on the first floor — William Shelley, at about 11:50 a.m.; Eddie Piper, at noon; and Mrs. Carolyn Arnold, who believed she had seen Oswald near the front door of the Book Depository at about 12:15 p.m. (Ball/Belin memorandum of Feb. 25, 1964, pages 101, 105–107, 110). 3/18/64 Givens, in an affidavit furnished by him to FBI agents Trettis and Robertson, states that when President Kennedy was shot, he was standing at the corner of Record and Elm Streets. “I returned to the Depository Building, and was told by a Dallas policeman that I could not enter the building. About an hour later I went to the Dallas Police Department and was questioned by the police for about 45 minutes.” (CE 1381, page 36.) Wearisome though it is, it must again be pointed out that there was no mention during the 45–minute interrogation of the cigarettes left and retrieved or of seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, nor were these alleged circumstances hinted at in the March, 1964, affidavit to the FBI, four months after the assassination. 4/8/64 Charles Givens gives sworn testimony to the Warren Commission in a deposition taken by lawyer David Belin, with no one else present except the court reporter. Now, for the first time, Givens tells the story (later embodied in the Warren Report) about the cigarettes forgotten on the sixth floor and the encounter with Oswald (6H 345–356, WR 143). Belin should have been fully aware that Givens had told a completely different story to the FBI and the police on the day of the assassination, and subsequently to the Secret Service and the FBI, since Belin had co–authored the report which discussed Givens’ accounts of his movements in considerable detail. But Belin did not challenge Givens’ new story nor place on record that on several earlier occasions Givens had sworn to a completely different account of his movements and actions on the day of the assassination. Indeed. in one oblique question, he asked, “Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50 … that morning?” (6H 354). Givens replied, “No, sir,” which meant either that he was giving Belin a false response or that the two FBI agents who had interviewed him on Nov. 22 had invented Givens’ reported statement that he had seen Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 a.m. Yet neither Givens nor the FBI agents were challenged or even queried in an attempt to determine which story was true and which was false. Did Belin thus passively and by omission became a party to collusion, perjury, and the suborning of false testimony? 6/3/64 The FBI promptly re–interviewed Givens, who told FBI agents Switzer and Petraski that he now recalled that he had returned to the sixth floor about 11:45 a.m. to get his cigarettes, etc. (CD 1245, page 182). The FBI did not even raise an eyebrow at Givens’ sudden recovery from sustained amnesia.