James DiEugenio

That stuff is all true. Garrison's phones were tapped by two sets of tappers, Gordon Novel for the CIA, and also by the FBI, which went through the actual phone lines. BTW, two people have emailed me about this article. One sent it to the original publisher, and asked if I could reply and one sent it to the author. As per the former, on a cold day in Hades.

No I think he is trying to say that if your book is worth reading, you at least should have addressed these questions. If not, its just another piece of McAdams style boilerplate.

You know, I like both Sandy and Bart, but this thread is not about this topic. At least I doubt if Litwin has it in his book. Can we get back to what the topic was, that is Mr Litwin reforming himself and finding salvation with the Warren Commission.

This came from an FBI interview with one of the justices down in New Orleans. He was not dealing with the Shaw case. Garrison showed him some of the stuff he had. Mellen mentions it in her book. As to your questions, I have no doubt that once the FBI learned about it they sent in, or got in contact with one of the various infiltrators in Garrison's office, and it disappeared. Which happened to a good deal of the evidence he had. As per your other question 1.) I don't think Garrison liked admitting the fact that so much valuable evidence was gone, and 2.) Garrison had so much fascinating stuff that there just was no way he could present it in an interview anyway.

Francois: In the above, do you mind answering the questions? Either you or Mr.Litwin, perhaps he deals with this matter in his book. Considering that Stringer denied taking the brain photos since it was not his film or technique, and the particle trail Humes described is not on the x rays today then: 1.) Who took the autopsy photos and why did it have to be someone else? 2.) Where did the particle trail go and why?

Francois, Its you, DVP and Tracy who have absolutely no standards of what constitutes proof or evidence. The non pareil of this is the fact that you stay in denial, even when the witness who created the record admits something is wrong with the record! Two examples: Humes and the missing particle trail above, and Stringer denying he ever took the photos of JFK's brain. In fact he actually said he could not have because its the wrong film and the wrong technique. He never used either one. Recall, what Davey Boy said about that one? Stringer had a bad memory. Yeah, he forgot what he was doing for 15 years and how he did it. So please do not ever tell anyone about what standard of proof or critical thinking is. Because you have no idea what either one is about. Those two samples, from about 70 of them, are enough to show that something was seriously wrong with the autopsy of JFK. At the very least, one has to ask: 1.) Who took the autopsy photos and why did it have to be someone else? 2.) Where did the particle trail go and why? It will be a cold day in Hades when you three ever ask those questions, even though they are completely logical and well founded by the evidence.

Does DVP even realize what he is saying at times? I really wonder. Davey: Are you saying that the pictures Minyard had, and which several other people have seen, that those pics and those descriptions are fake? You guys trap yourselves so often in this case its funny. Now did Humes write in his report that there was a trail of particles leading from the EOP to the trail near the top of the skull behind the eye socket? Yes he did. Is that fragment trail visible on the x rays today? No, and Humes was surprised when he saw that they were not. When Jeremy Gunn asked him about this he could not explain what happened. Same thing here. But in the face of the above, like your mentor Vince, you choose to go into denial. Remember what Vince said, this is a simple case.

BTW Mr Litwin, what did the late Mr Roy say about the following: Instead of looking at 1967, when everyone and their mother doubted the Single Bullet Fantasy and Garrison was closing in on him, why not tell us about 1963 Davey? If Ferrie had no connection at all, then why did he begin searching and calling his former CAP pals to see if anyone had any evidence linking him to Oswald? Why did he lie his head off in his FBI report? Why did he drive to Houston through a rainstorm to a skating rink and then sit by a phone for a couple of hours? Why was he worried about Oswald having his library card? And what about the Bomb package? You probably don't even know what that one is do you? Are you going to ignore these just like DVP did?

Litwin's logic is fascinating. Because Chetta decided to rule it was a suicide then the suicide notes do not say what even McAdams says at least one does say. Do you want to explain why the autopsy report does not mention the burns and cuts inside Ferrie's mouth and actually covers them up Fred? These are pics that Minyard saw and has shown to people. Based upon that, is it not possible that someone forced a solution down his throat with a tube? And if that was not possible then why did the report not just cover that evidence up but actually falsified it?

I agree with that. And if that was not enough, Kennedy offered Portugual 4 billion in aid if they would set free Angola and Mozambique. They said no, so JFK sent aid to the rebels. Wall Steet got the message.

Thanks for that correction Sandy. That was actually a source that Joan Mellen used. Can you show in the autopsy report where it talks about the bruising on the inside of the mouth?

Von Pein is almost as funny as Litwin. Instead of looking at 1967, when everyone and their mother doubted the Single Bullet Fantasy and Garrison was closing in on him, why not tell us about 1963 Davey? If Ferrie had no connection at all, then why did he begin searching and calling his former CAP pals to see if anyone had any evidence linking him to Oswald? Why did he lie his head off in his FBI report? Why did he drive to Houston through a rainstorm to a skating rink and then sit by a phone for a couple of hours? Why was he worried about Oswald having his library card? And what about the Bomb package? You probably don't even know what that one is do you? All of this is in Destiny Betrayed second edition. You and Litwin should read it, then you would not have foot in the mouth syndrome. In any other case, Bugliosi would have said this all indicated "consciousness of guilt". But since this is JFK, no way this time. He was being paid to prop up the Warren Report.

The autopsy report on Ferrie is about one page long. As Dr. Martin Palmer said the autopsy was "slipshod". Since it was only a partial one and they did not even open the brain case, casting the berry aneurism verdict into doubt. Also samples of the blood were not kept. The photos reveal the inside of Ferrie's mouth as really burnt and Minyard says you can actually see contusions there. MInyard speculated these could have been caused by "something traumatically inserted into Ferrie's mouth." (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, pp 106-09) Now go back and look at the report and see if that information, preserved in pics, is in the report. I can save you the time. It is not. That piece of information is actually covered up in the report. In other words, you would not have gotten it from the report, you have to look at the pictures. Who was going to go down there and do that? Denny, does Mr Litwin mention this information in his book?

The two articles by Rose and Bridger are, "Important to Hold that Man", The Third Decade, Volume 2, No 4, p. 17 "The Myth of the Depository Roll Call", Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 11, No. 2, p. 38

The following puts Chandler to rest: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t166-dr-pittelli-vs-david-reitzes-friends No one knows how Ferrie died. You have two doctors, Palmer and Pitelli, who have problems with what Chetta did. And so did the following New Orleans coroner, Frank Minyard. So to assume the notes could not be suicide notes because Ferrie did not take his own life is pure McAdamsism: you direct the reader to your conclusion by cutting off other important information and professional views of what happened. This, of course, is precisely the fatal flaw in the WC. As per the so called line up that LHO was missing from at the TSBD: Can the man be real? Did Litwin really polish off that old chestnut? Then he really is a Posnerfile. From page 124 of my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today: Many years ago, Jerry Rose wrote an article which began to expose this canard. First of all, more than one business was located at the Depository. Such a roll call, if there had been one, could not account for everyone in that building. As Mark Bridger pointed out in 2007, there is no evidence that any such roll call, in the normal usage of that phrase, ever too place. At the most, there was an informal head count by Roy Truly of his own book warehouse employees. And the time for it is not definite. And even there, Oswlad was not the only one missing. As Bridger points out, so was Givens. As Bridger shows, Bugliosi appears to have borrowed this roll call device from the Warren Commission, Dallas DA Henry Wade and Gerald Posner, among others. As Bridger notes, it has little substance. Second, as Rose pointed out, in March 1964, it was discovered that there were several people missing from the TSBD from their lunch hour until 1:30... I should add, one of these people was told "the building would be shut down and so she went home." If this is the kind of book Litwin wrote then its just another diversionary waste of time.

Its neat that Mort is still around though sad he is not nearly at 100 per cent. About DeGaulle, there was a falling out between the two after 1961. It was due to JFK's manifest anti colonialism about Africa. Then, in 1963 JFK actually wanted suggestions from the State Department to further dislodge the still maintained ties between the former French colonies and Paris.

Thanks Andrew, will forward to web master.

Paul, I note you say you have talked to Mort Sahl a coupe of times recently. I assume this is his one man show up in northern California where you happen to live? Did you have a cup of coffee with him after?

I don't know for a fact. But Garrison did have a file on that matter. This is one of the things that is really frustrating in this field. See, what we have of the Garrison inquiry is, at best, maybe 60 per cent of what was there. As I have pointed out, Garrison's files were dissipated in three ways: 1. Saboteurs in his midst who walked off with them like Boxley. (Which was made easier by Garrison putting Tom Bethell in charge of the files. I can just see him dropping down a carton and Boxley putting it in his car.) 2. Garrison's friend Steve Bordelon had some of them in his garage and these were stolen. 3. Connick incinerated what was left behind. So the considerable amount of fascinating stuff that is there stands out even more since there is so much that is not there.

Ron, yes the HSCA said there were four shots and that did make the news for maybe a day or two. Steve is working on his book right now as far as I know. Those Garrison papers are available at the NARA. I had a friend back then who used to send me those documents since he lived in the area. Man, the stuff that was in Garrison's files was really something. Wallace MIlam once asked me to show him some of the material so I brought the docs to a conference. He said, "Garrison had stuff like this?" I tried to write about some of it in Probe, but there was material that I just could not get to. To give you one example: Garrison was the first guy who said Vietnam was part of the reason JFK was killed. I never understood why or how he said that back then. It turned out that a professor from Ohio University sent him a 25 page handwritten letter showing him why this was so. In going through his files, you see that many people saw this as a chance to go ahead and give him the information they had. Since he was the first guy to really investigate the case. So not only did Nagell want to talk to him, so did DInkin. So did Bolden. And so for the first time, you had these leads that the WC buried, that were now coming forth and getting a hearing. Garrison's investigation of the Clinton/Jackson incident was really something to behold. Just amazing the stuff he turned up there. No wonder Hoover wanted it buried. Or how about this one: Garrison had a job application Oswald filled out naming Ruby as a reference.

Thanks Paul and Joe, here is my favorite part of the essay: Garrison had always insisted that, for various reasons, he was never able to reveal most of the evidence he had secured from 1967-69. After authors like William Davy, Joan Mellen and myself went through what the ARRB attained, we had to agree. The Garrison files in the Archives today hold an abundance of utterly fascinating material on a wide array of subjects dealing with many aspects of the JFK case. Does the MSM reveal any of this to the public? Nope. One of the most embarrassing aspects of the three-week binge that the media went on last year in anticipation that the JFK files were finally going to be completely declassified was this: No one chronicled what the ARRB had already released. Which was significant. It was about 2 million pages of material that opened up new vistas on subjects like Rose Cheramie, Kennedy and Vietnam, and the medical evidence in the JFK case. Guests like Larry Sabato, Phil Shenon and Gerald Posner did not want to discuss those topics. Nether did their hosts like NBC stooge on JFK, Rachel Maddow. It is easy to understand why this would occur. As Upton Sinclair once said: It is hard to make journalists understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it. Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as a liberal media. In the twentieth century, and up until today, the American media has been controlled by an oligarchical class. Some authors call this class the Eastern Establishment. Some call it the Power Elite. As sociologist Donald Gibson explained in his fine book Battling Wall Street, President Kennedy was not a part of that group. He never joined the Council on Foreign Relations; he did not join any secret societies at Harvard; he didn’t like working intelligence during World War II. He got transferred out to the South Pacific and served with a bunch of Joe Six Pack guys on what were close to suicide missions. As this author demonstrated in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, both in the Senate and in the White House, Kennedy was opposed to much of what this Power Elite was doing abroad, especially in the Third World. (See Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 21-33) After his death, the progress that he did make in the White House was largely halted, and then reversed. (pp. 367-77) Due in part to the ARRB, we know much more about these changes, especially regarding Indochina. My other favorite part if the ARRB memo saying the CIA destroyed Clay Shaw's 201 file. Geez, wonder why?

Its incredible I think that the MSM is so intent of staying with this Hugh Aynesworth inspired meme that they do not want to deal with all the new info on the New Orleans angle. In fact that is what the writer actually says. I really think that memo from the ARRB about Shaw's file being destroyed says it all. After that, this writer comes along like Lt. Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun, "Nothing to see here!"

It never ends, especially down there in the New Orleans area. But take a look at who put up the foundation money for this one. Then look at what the author says about declassified documents of the ARRB. Not needed for historical research. LOL. John Newman is up a tree. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-the-beat-goes-on

Here is the Litwin essay Carlier thinks so highly of: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toobig.htm Can you believe this guy? One example, the NAA test has now been proven to be junk science. But like many other cheapjack writers, there is no delineation here between the conspiracy and the cover up. When in fact, its obvious from the day of the assassination that the FBI decided to go with the cover up around the patsy. Hoover was glad JFK was dead because now RFK would have no power over him. I can imagine this book is more of the same rubbish.

Hopefully this will raise the level of discussion. https://kennedysandking.com/articles/the-alex-jones-affair