James DiEugenio

Lancie Boy, what is the level of your reading comprehension? Reading too much about alien abductions lately? Anyone can see from above that when I revisited the start of this thread some of your stuff "filtered through". In other words people were silly enough to engage with you on something besides alien abductions. As I tried to point out, any lawyer who somehow compares that with a homicide case is really a bowl of wax. There are courses in criminal prosecution and advanced criminal prosecution at law school. I have never heard of one in Alien Abductions 101, let alone 201. Did you take those classes? What were they like and can you tell us the college that offered them? But that is not the real point is it Lancie Boy? The real point in you bringing all that up is to imply that anybody who actually studies the record in the JFK case must be as weird and lost as someone who does Alien Abductions right, Lancie? You know, the whole Tin Foil cap crowd. correct? Geez Lancie, was Richard Russell into Alien Abductions? Was Hale Boggs? Was LBJ? Was Richard Schweiker? Is Al Gore? Was John Connally? No they were not. But they all had severe reservations about the Magic Bullet and some of them more than that. Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds. Schweiker said that when he studied the WC, it collapsed like a house of cards. After just one year of study Gore told Bud Fensterwald: You are correct, it was a conspiracy. See Lancie, the reason we are here is not because we think the moon landings never happened or aliens are abducting humans. I mean that might be what you are or were interested in. And you should continue to frequent those types of sites. We are here because Kennedy was killed by conspiracy, and that is not a theory, it is a fact. What is a theory is who killed him and why. That is what most of us are trying to figure out. Not because its fun, or interesting. Its not. But because we think something happened to this country in the sixties. In fact, according to a 2013 Hart Associates poll, 94 % of the public feels that way, namely that something happened to America after JFK was killed that sent the country into a downturn. (Maybe it was an outbreak of alien abductions? If so they should have called you, right Lancie?) That is what we are trying to do here. If you don't feel comfortable with it go to an alien abductions site, or a fake moon landing site. Should be easy to find. You would fit in much better there than here since whatever your detective skills are, they simply seem abysmal in a homicide case. But your attitude, rhetoric, and bombast would fit right in over there. Let us know if you need some help finding one. I am sure most of us would like to see you happy and wish you bon voyage to your new home. PS Thanks Denny.

Al probably does not know about the travail of Betsy Wolf. Because those files were not released until last year. Very few people know about her because she has not been at all outspoken about what happened while she was on the HSCA. As opposed to say Ed Lopez or Dan Hardaway or the late Gaeton Fonzi. Betsy Wolf quite literally spent months, extending over a year, trying to figure out the mystery that Al is talking about here. Why did the CIA place so many unusual restrictions on the Oswald file? She literally took scores of pages of notes on the file. She interviewed several people who had experience with handling CIA files on personnel. She studied the history of the Oswald file and tried to actually build a model on how it was structured through time. These were the questions she faced: 1.) Why was there no 201 file opened on Oswald until 13 months after his defection? 2.) Why were so many restrictions placed on that file once it was opened? 3.) Would the file have been opened if Otto Otepka had not written his letter to the CIA about the false defector program? Its really too bad that she did not talk to Bagley. He could have given her some really interesting information. The excellent archive researcher Malcolm Blunt has given me much of Wolf's work. I have only reviewed the file once and its so dense and complex I will have to read it again. (Sounds like fun, huh Lance?) But I can say this in a tentative way before I do the second pass. Wolf concluded that the CIA would not have opened the Oswald 201 file if Otepka had not written his letter. Combine what with what Bagley said and, sorry, its not alien abductions.

BTW, I avoid any thread the Arizona lawyer starts because, as I explained above, I understand his game. But I went back and read some of the early stuff on this thread and his quotes filtered through. This guy never tires of recycling discredited MSM baloney. This idea of a "benign" cover up is about 25 years old, at least. And the Arizona lawyer trots it out as if its new. And he then says, well see, you people would rather believe in some kind of a plot since its more fun! I answered this question at the 30th anniversary on a nationwide radio show! Yes, back in 1993! My reply was this: 1.) No its not fun doing what I do. Its hard work and a lot of it is tedious. I live in LA, so while people are going to Malibu and Manhattan Beach, I am at the Corner Bakery with three books on the table drinking iced tea and eating a tuna sandwich, taking notes. Lots of fun eh? 2.) The reason I, and many others do it, is simple: the core evidence in this case simply does not support the official story. You can spin it anyway you wish to. You can cover it up, you can disguise it, you can ignore it, you can say, as VB did, "Well that is OK since we know Oswald did it", you can say, as Payette does, "Well its same as alien abductions". None of that will change the spurious state of the core evidence. And as time goes on the state of that evidence has gotten worse. If a prosecutor as skilled and as storied as Bugliosi had to cover up the failings in the record by burying it in a 2,646 page cinder block, and using a record of invective and insult along the way to somehow conceal that failure, then you know how bad things are with that record. When your chief piece of evidence is CE 139, and you cannot tell the reader the simple fact that this rifle is not the rifle the Commission says Oswald ordered, then somehow you have lost your way as a representative of the people in court. And that encapsulates what has happened in the JFK case. Notable people who are storied in other respects somehow shrink in stature when they cannot deal with the phoniness of the evidence in the JFK case. Its been labeled off limits, outside of Hallin's inner spheres. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin's_spheres) Much easier to swim with the MSM current than to defy it. Just ask people who have tried to defy that current, e.g. Judge Joe Brown, Richard Sprague, Bob Parry, and Gary Webb. Unfortunately, in the last 2 cases, they cannot reply.

KG: But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like. One of the really fruity comments ever made here, but kind of par for the course with KG, who has yet to make an enlightening comment on the case. Which may show why he talks to Payette. I had been off of this forum for awhile until 3-4 years ago. I looked in and saw how DVP was essentially running roughshod over everyone with his SBT disease and the discredited "Its Oswald's rifle" baloney. I left a message at DPF to this effect. And began posting here in order to dispel the idea that anyone should take Von Pein's posting seriously, and I proved why. I was cheered on by most of the posters at that time as performing a quite helpful act by revealing that DVP was in no position to tell anyone what the facts of the case were. Since he was so biased that you could not trust anything he said. I stand by that statement today. And I would place Lance Payette is that category also. Except he is of the particular stripe who has the come on of "oh, i have seen the same thing with fake moon landings, and alien abductions. Plus I have read a lot of this stuff and somehow it really does not make all that much sense etc." The twofold giveaway with Payette is : 1.) What responsible lawyer could possibly compare moon landings and alien abductions with a homicide case? That is just so nutty that it should fall back on the guy who said it. 2.) To maintain that silly standard for the critical community, and yet to excuse every bit of chicanery, each bit of deception, every instance of unfairness, and all the incompleteness that made up the WC should tell anyone with any sense that Payette has an agenda only slightly smaller than the Grand Canyon. (Heck he's from Arizona isn't he?) And he then questions the decline in dialogue here. This is after he said he was leaving. Why should he leave when he has people like Kirk to play pattycake with. PS The post above is more proof of why Payette is as trustworthy as Von Pein. The man who said that the routing pattern demonstrated that the Oswald trip to Russia was a planned defection was not John, but Tennant Bagley. Bagley was a long time CIA officer who specialized in these matters. The fact that LP avoided the information and escaped into a cheap character smear tells you who this guy is.

Nice job Al. The comments by Bagley are really something. He said that shortly before he died. Makes you wonder.

Joe: Why are you leaving? I thought you were one of the better posters here. I do hope you reconsider.

Boy, did this thread go to Hades once I left for San Fran. I was piling up record after record which the WC had ignored, did not know about or never satisfactorily made a credible conclusion on e.g. Odio, the Kostin letter, Nagell, Cheramie, Ferrie's FBI provable perjury, Phillips and the anti FPCC crusade at CIA, the FBI taking Banister's address off the Oswald flyers etc etc etc. The Arizona lawyer called it mind numbing. I call it a disgrace. So bad he could not do his usual tag team act with Davey and FC. In his usual unintentionally funny way, Davey says he archived it at his site. HA HA HA HA If you look at what he did with the exchange on the Kostin letter, you will see he is still up to his old tricks. He left out the facts that 1.) There is no evidence Oswald could have known Azcue was transferred after the alleged MC visit, and 2.) Azcue denied meeting Oswald in MC. DVP should have a self disclosure statement on his site: "Please note that in all of my archived exchanges with WC critics, e.g. DiEugenio, I censor the conversations in order to make myself look better because if i did not, I would end up looking pretty silly."

BTW, I have to say that I thought that seminar went pretty well on Saturday. Although it was a closed invitation list, people came in from all over the country, and outside the country. Len Osanic flew in from Vancouver, Larry Schnapf from New York, Jim DeBrosse from Ohio. Always nice to listen to a distinguished roster of people doing current research on the JFK case, and in Lisa Pease's instance, the RFK case. Lisa's book A Lie to Big to Fail is now out and is being delivered. I wrote the Introduction for it and think it is the best book on that case. EF subscriber David Josephs was also there and I thought he did well, especially considering it was the first time he presented in the field.

As I said, then you have a dispute with physicist Paul Chambers.

Thanks Paul and Ron. (BTW, I do not really like to argue. I would much rather do what I was doing Saturday in San Fran. Presenting mostly new information to an interested audience in front of three cameras. Too bad it was not live streamed.. Nice to see you Mr. Brancato.) Baker somehow assumed that I was avoiding him? Is that what I am supposed to understand? When have I done that before? Why would I do that with him? As per his question, I think he is trying to say that somehow the famous JFK rearward reaction we see in the Z film is somehow unwarranted and not possible with a rifle shot? Is that what he is trying to say? And that somehow no one should ever bring this up again? (Although its OK for him to try and revive the CBLA.) And, sounding like Mike Baden, he says it only in Hollywood that bodies recoil like that. This argument is as old as the hills and its been discredited before by people like Gil Jesus. Gil has found film which show this type of reaction with bullet strikes. I don't like looking at them personally. But I have and other people have. And in those films, the body flew in the direction of the projectile. As Gary Aguilar has shown, in the WC's own experiments, the skulls used went in the direction of the projectile, and it was 10 out of 10 times. We know today that Alvarez rigged his experiments to make it seem otherwise. (Has Baker ever commented on the dubious scientific ethics in that?) Finally, a noted physicist named Paul Chambers wrote a book on this subject. Maybe Baker should argue with him.

But its actually worse than that. When Jim Garrison turned Ferrie over to the FBI, he signed a statement in which he lied his head off. He said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or used one, or even knew how to use one. He said he did not know Oswald and Oswald was not in his New Orleans CAP. He said he never knew Sergio Arcacha Smith from 544 Camp Street or any Cuban exile group since 1961. Every single one of those seven statements constituted perjury under Title 18 US Code Section 1001. It would have taken about a day or two for the FBI to find the evidence to indict Ferrie for his declaration. My question: Did the WC ever pursue this relevant perjury?

To answer my own question: There is no evidence that the WC knew that Ferrie was doing these quite curious things within 72 hours of the assassination. So they never were able to ask him: Why would you want to collect any evidence connecting you to Oswald in the wake of the assassination? But I will add the clincher: the FBI did know he was doing those things. How? Because the people who Ferrie was calling about those artifacts contacted the Bureau and told them! Now if those quite innocent people suspected something was up, do you not think the Bureau did? They didn't. There was no follow up at all, period. In fact, the photo of the two did not surface for 30 years. Now, most rational thinking people--which eliminates FC and DVP--would then ask: Hmm, the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph, and they did nothing with Ferrie's odd behavior in the wake of Kennedy's murder. Why would they do that kind of thing?

Let us keep on going. (But if I was the other side, I would have yelled "Uncle" by now.) Did the WC know that within about 72 hours of JFK's assassination, David Ferrie, who was close to Oswald in the CAP and who knew him from Banister's office in New Orleans that summer, was looking for evidence that connected him with LHO? This included things like a picture from the CAP, and his library card. The reason he wanted these pieces of evidence is that he wanted to eliminate them from the record. Did the WC know that?

BTW: This is priceless as an indication of how acute and honest FC is when he is getting his butt kicked. FC on the Raleigh call : My answer : I don't know and I don't care. Because, only YOU think that it is relevant. in fact, it is NOT. Which shows he did not even read the Grover Proctor article, the definitive study of that call. Even Bob Blakey said the call was really disturbing. Oswald is trying to call a military intelligence officer on the east coast, a man who lives about 2 and a half hours from Nags Head NC. Now, FC, let us take a step back. Why would he try to do that? Well, was not LHO in the Marines? Did he not do some funny stuff there: like learn the Russian language to the point that according to Rosaleen Quinn and TItovets, he spoke it quite well by the time he left the service? (A point Davison slipped up on in her trashy book and admitted was the case.) Did LHO then not leave the service early, before his term was up? Did he then not "defect" to the USSR? Nags Head was a naval base which prepared guys to do just that. (Just so you understand: the Marines are a part of the Navy.) Now, you find absolutely no importance to the fact that the morning after LHO tried to make that call to a military intel officer he was rubbed out in the DPD parking lot, literally in the arms of the police? Well, i beg to differ with you but if even Blakey thinks its disturbing, that makes you kind of weird.

This is the kind of person PB is. First he writes this: Analytical thinking isn't your strong point, is it Jim? Then he cuts out the following: Hey Paul, you claim to be a scientist right? (Of course, a scientist who, unlike everyone else, still somehow claims some validity for the CBLA.) Now, when you look at the Z film, somehow that does not say anything to you? JFK is hit like a thunderclap, his entire body is smashed backward and lifted slightly upward and to his left, with such force that it bounces off the seat; motorcycle policemen are hit with blood and issue with such force that they think they were hit themselves. And somehow that is one shooter. With the TSBD behind the limo? Now, before you run into the arms of the lying Alvarez or the phony Sturdivan, you know the whole "jet effect" and neuromuscular reaction has been discredited by Aguilar and Robertson and also on TV in ITTC. (But I know you will run there anyway, since you cannot do anything else.) Now, if there is one shooter, then why did all those witnesses run to the GK, many more than went to the TSBD. (Which is another indication that you are wrong with your first point.) Besides that, then what about the testimony that will live forever in the minds of anyone who was interested in this case back then. A guy named Sam Holland, and the seven other witnesses who saw smoke from the GK. (like Simmons.) Sam actually ran over there if you recall. And he saw those footprints which looked like they were going back and forth. And then you match this up with Bowers, and the false SS ID and the guy talking into what looked like a radio mike etc. I mean that was all established back in 1967. I have saved Baker's best for last: He says one shooter, seen by a few and in perfect alignment. Say this: what chutzpah this guy has. He must think we are idiots. One shooter from the rear who rammed JFK backwards into his seat. Yeah sure. Second, the only witness in 55 years who said LHO was in that window was Brennan. Not only was Brennan not able to ID Oswald at the phony line ups--which is incredible on its face--but as Ian Griggs writes, there is a real question if he was even at a line up. And the FBI gave up on trying to determine how his story ever got to the police in the first place. Now if you balance all the problems with Brennan, with the impossibility of Oswald being on the sixth floor--which has been proven by a slew of writers--like say Roffman, way back when, then, puhlease Mr Baker. Third, do you really think we buy Dale Myers and his phony cartoon about the alignment? Bob Harris destroyed that fake rendition years ago. So did Pat Speer. Larry Schnapf will be bringing a computer simulation out that will show the Single Bullet Fantasy was not possible. As per reading my book, c'mon, you don't really think I buy that do you? Can I give you a quiz? Try something else. Reminds me of what DVP does on his web site.

Short answer to the above, since they will never admit it: The WC did nothing of the kind. They did not even cross check the results with an independent firm. They accepted all the crapola that test symbolized, even to the point that it rendered the FBI suspect as an investigating body. That symbolizes the worthlessness of the Warren Commission.

Now, in addition to Ruby lying on his polygraph test--a fact that the Commission misrepresented by saying he passed, a deception that cover up artist Jean Davison actually bandied about in her book and DVP did not call her on it--did the Commission explain how that test was actually rigged in advance by the FBI technician? And did the WC explain how the elaborate deception arranged by the technician was so multi layered and purposeful that it violated about 12 different protocols of good practice? To the point that the test was deemed useless by a panel of experts who studied it? It was so planned in advance bad that Bugliosi (another DVP hero) had to deliberately misrepresent it in his book. Did the WC then conclude by saying it was difficult to deem this was all an accident, and therefore the FBI knew what was happening with the test?

To answer DVP's above: This is the kind of researcher you are: There are some things I have listed the HSCA did not know about, and you do not know the difference. To answer FC, who sometimes does not know how funny he really is: One of the questions that Ruby lied about indicates he did know Oswald prior to the assassination. I am tempted to say Case Closed right there. But since it is alway amusing to fiddle around with these shameless charlatans, I will continue on to show what a mockery of justice and alleged "Fact Finding body" (DVP's explanation) the WC was. (How can you be a fact fining body if you leave out all of these facts?)

Now let me ask another question of FC or DVP: Did the WC know that Ruby lied on his polygraph test?

I urge everyone to read this fine article on the Raleigh Call. You will never see anything like this posted by DVP or FC or the Arizona lawyer. (Who said he was leaving but now is back. Some Xmas gift eh?) Please read this all the way through, it brings up some very real questions about what Oswald was thinking in detention with no lawyer. http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

Let me answer my own question since DVP will take 12 hours to reply. There is no evidence that they did know about this call. Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.

Davey: There is a difference between making assumptions that are based on the evidence, versus making them in spite of the evidence. The WC did the latter all day and every day. So did Bugliosi. Whenever there was a problem with the evidence, Bugliosi would say, well that is OK sine we know Oswald did it.. Recall, the WC and VB are the prosecution. Not the defense. They had the burden of proof. Therefore, they should not be able to use many assumptions, particularly when they clash with the evidence. Especially considering the high standard to prove guilt in a murder case. But see, if you recall, Oswald was murdered, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. After screaming he was just a patsy, he never got his day in court. Unlike the Nazis at Nuremburg, he never even had a lawyer. I find it interesting that he was rubbed out the morning after he made the Raleigh call to John Hurt. Which is another thing I was going to ask you: Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?

I recommend everyone read this article on the letter. It is an honest treatment of the facts, facts which DVP does not want to detail. https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/

You did not answer my question did you? Instead you went into our usual tantrum about "Everything is fake!" This is a diversion on your part since you cannot face the facts on this particular issue on which you thought you had a slam dunk: See, LHO was in Mexico. It backfired on you. The name was wrong, LHO did not meet with Hosty, and he could not have known the diplomat was transferred. Plus that diplomat said he never met with Oswald. That is four strikes. Those are facts that you do not want to deal with. And you escape into a world of assumptions, just like the WC did. I never said the letter was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false. I indicated that there were serious problems with the letter. Problems you want to paper over and never bring up.

https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/