James DiEugenio

Davey, You ignored each and every item in that bill of indictment for Clay Shaw. Michael is absolutely correct on that. Every part of that list is made up of evidence that was rolled out by the ARRB. I did not originate this, it is all in documents and/or testimony. Some of the points I footnoted, some I did not. I could have footnoted them all, but I think I have a reputation on this site for honesty and scholarly discipline. That is why people source me and interview me. You were not able to answer any of it in a coherent way. Why can't you just man up and admit that? You do not know jack about New Orleans. Why is that so hard to admit? You then doubled down on that by using the fraudulent volume RH by the hack Bugliosi. And you get more custard pie on your face. You did not have the barest idea about what happened at Shaw's trial. You then trusted Bugliosi and he ended up being untrustworthy. You never get tired of falling on your face do you? And we are supposed to ignore that because you do?

There goes another pivot by the new millennium's Elgin Baylor. First, he gets punked on Myers. Then goes to Garrison. On which he is utterly ignorant and so lost that he used Bugliosi, of all people, on Garrison. Now he gets shown the door on that issue and so he comes back and says well, since DiEugenio believes Oswald is innocent, and Buglioisi does not then somehow Bugliosi's gasbag of a book is right. Davey started praising RH two years before it was published. He then put up a publicity page for it. He could not find one serious error of fact in the 2.646 pgs of waste product. he could not even note that Bugliosi lied in the introduction. Which he did. I would wager he had never read my book either. But he makes value judgments about it. Figure that one out. I showed in excruciating detail the fraud that RH is. To use this latest example, I do not believe that Bugliosi did not know about the three summations. Since he did read Bill's book. He used that in censored form to smear Garrison. Davey just cannot stomach the fact that his two favorite authors, Vince and Jean Davison are both cheap hacks. Bugliosi is a longer hack than Davison. That is the main difference. And that is a proven fact by me, since I reviewed both books.

Ever hear of the blind leading the blind? Perfect example above by DVP. Even though i went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail, and especially his chapter on Garrison, somehow DVP makes like the guy on the cover of Mad magazine, "What? Me worry?" I spent 24 pages exposing the whole circus that was VB's discussion of Garrison in The JFK Assassination: The EvidenceToday. But there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source. But in this case you did not need my book to find out the facts. You could have used Bill Davy's shorter book. The Shaw trial had to be handled by three lawyers: Alcock, Oser and Garrison. Garrison had severe health problems throughout, including a painfully wrenched back and the Hong Kong flu. Therefore, generally speaking, Oser handled the Dealey Plaza side, and Alcock the conspiracy side. Consequently, it was Alcock who delivered the summation for Shaw's role in the conspiracy, not Garrison. Alcock plentifully referred to Shaw by his name or as the defendant throughout his summation. For example, 4 times on one page. (See Davy, p. 240)

Let me add why that is so interesting. Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done, the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412". If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program, Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years. All of this new information utterly dissipates the malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA. And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program. Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance. When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance. He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services. Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196) What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged. Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct. Now, please add the above into the following new info: 1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath. 2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue; and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath. 3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about). 4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about. 5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216) 6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid) Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone? It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think. People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly, if there is nothing to hide. There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it. And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33). This is what I mean about DVP. He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape. Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.

Micah: Never grant DVP a naked assumption. The idea that Garrison thought Shaw was innocent is nothing but a manifestation of his malignant imagination. Probably borrowed from like minded warlocks like John McAdams. DVP knows about as much about New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry as I do about astro physics. The reason he said that was because I showed, with examples, that Myers' word was pretty much worthless. So he did his usual pot kettle tap dance in order to move away from that and onto something else. In this case Jim Garrison. And he makes this completely imaginary, unfounded charge. Today, I have some real problems with the record of the ARRB. But they did not do a bad job in New Orleans, and they did try and pursue Shaw's 201 file at CIA. In November of 1996, a man named Manuel Legaspi told Jeremy Gunn that he had discovered that Shaw's 201 file had been destroyed.

Or Philip Nelson for that matter. To this day its mind boggling to me that Fetzer called Nelson's book on Johnson the equivalent of Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable for LBJ.

Well, there he goes again, with an Olajuwon pivot. Cannot defend his man Myers and he now escapes into completely obsolete charges against Jim Garrison. In the wake of the latest scholarship on Garrison by people like Bill Davy and what the ARRB produced as evidence, that the CIA had destroyed Shaw's 201 file, then this is another loser for DVP. I wrote about 60 pages in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed showing the massive effort to stop JG. Its very simple. If Shaw was innocent, that would not have been necessary. Shaw himself was confident because he knew that Washington would have to come to his aid. That one is a dry well for you DVP. You lost twice tonight, on Myers and this one. But go to sleep and wake up and bang your head against the wall again tomorrow. You are making tons of converts here as you can see.

This is a perfect illustration of what a zealot DVP really is. Of those five articles in that link that destroys Myers, only one is by me. And mine does not deal that much with what Myers is trying to defend himself against in that blog entry. Harris, Speer, and Mili and Kelin can all fend for themselves and anyone can see the distortion of anatomy that Pat uses Myers' own work to decapitate him with. Its right there for anyone to see except a zealot like DVP. Zealots by definition cannot see. My article does not deal that much with that as I figured I could not do better than for example Harris did: he humiliated Myers so much that Myers begged You Tube to remove his critique. What I tried to focus on was the man's lack of candor and his penchant for misrepresentation. In other words: can Dale Myers be trusted with the facts and his own record. If he cannot be trusted then why should anyone listen to anything he says about this case? If he does not care about that stuff, then he probably did what he did for cash. In other words, you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. Myers knows what the MSM wants and he gave it to them. (The MSM did this with Bugliosi also, they arranged Max Holland and Thomas Mallon to review his worthless book.) In my review, i isolated several points about Myers in which I showed that he had been, to be kind, less than candid about the facts and also about himself. These were, in order: 1. His past years as a critic of the WC. Which were not evident in either the first edition of his TIppit book or in Reclaiming History. 2. HIs contribution to VInce Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History. (This part makes the whole essay worth reading, just to see what a weasel Myers is.) 3. His real thoughts about Bugliosi and his book. 4. His ability to see through the Stemmons Freeway sign. 5. His alteration of Z frames. 6. His pretense of peer review at ABC. 7. His employment by PBS on the 1993 Frontline JFK special. This last point is even worse today than it was when I wrote that essay. For when I first called out Gus Russo and Myers for that piece of propaganda I used a source who said Myers and Russo had to know what they were doing from the start, as opposed to what Russo had told me about the show changing focus in process and after principal photography. Myers replied to me by saying, hey I have worked in TV for a long time and I know that programs are not really planned from the beginning. In other words, the Oswald did it spin for PBS was a matter of delayed discovery. Well, Myers could not help himself. He was so grateful for that opportunity to break into the mainstream, that when the producer of the show died a few years ago, Dale thanked him profusely. A bit too profusely. There, he admitted what he had previously denied. The show did have a focus on Oswald as triggerman from the beginning. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/07/michael-sullivan-producer-for-frontline.html If a man cannot be honest about something as basic as that, how can anyone believe him about anything? Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter. Which is why he is what he is.

Should not have done that Davey. If there is one person our site has utterly destroyed, its Dale Myers. And again, the fact that you dismiss all of this, even when its done with illustrations so just how around the bend you are on this issue. Sort of like Nixon still punning Vietnam after he knew the war was lost. Even Ambrose had to admit that he was really unbalanced about Indochina. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/226 I advise everyone to read each of these critiques since taken as a whole they leave Myers with no leg to stand on.

If anyone wants to see what a shameless water carrier DVP is for Dale Myers, please click this link: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania Anyone can see what happened here. Because the illustrations are profuse. Its not just the phony computer illustration about the bundled up top of JFK's neck with the shirt collar disappearing underneath the jacket. Its the peculiar shape of Kennedy's head and neck and how his head protrudes from his neck at an angle. Just compare that to the JBC model. For DVP to insert Myer's utterly deceptive denial, and to say in effect, "What do you believe, Myers or your lying eyes?" this is what causes people like Joe McBride to wonder if someone is paying him. I have never done as much but for DVP to fail to understand why someone with Joe's background would think so in the face of this witless fiasco, that shows an almost astonishing lack of self awareness of himself and his psychology.

I think it was Barbie Zeilizer in her book who said that the JFK case illustrated the failure of the media to handle a complex subject. I think she also added that it showed the first real crevice between the MSM and the public on a major issue.

Tracy: According to Fonzi, his wife acknowledged the reception of the money. As per Carlier: I have heard this story from you a number of times. I still do not understand what its supposed to mean. There are some people who believe the thesis of Lifton's book. There are some people who do not. But to me, that is not the point. The point is that almost everyone thinks today that something went really wrong at Bethesda. All one has to do is read the report of the ARRB on that issue. One which Jeremy Gunn approved. Lifton's book, as he will admit, is a radical solution to this problem. For some he succeeded, for some he did not. There is a big difference between a private citizen trying to address a serious problem in the evidence in this case, and the government, via the WR, simply covering it up. Now if you do not think anything went wrong there, then say so. As per Salinger, how is what he thought representative of what the Kennedy family thought? We know Jackie and RFK did not think that through the William Walton mission. Through the Talbot book, we also know that the family had a meeting and at the meeting, RFK asked them what they wanted to do about this problem as he perceived it. I find it hard to believe that you do not know this stuff FC. You always brag about how many books you read. And also your critical thinking skills. As per certain doctors at Parkland, this is the same as Alyea. Alyea's testimony to Larry Hancock clearly denotes conspiracy, but he will not say that. But people who understand what he is saying, and fit it into the chain of evidence, can understand that in a way he can't. Your failure to understand these rather simple points is puzzling.

And the thing is, when JFK came out, Lewis was a prime attacker of the film. Well, if you wrote crapola like this back in 1964, its understandable.

Here we go again. False dichotomy of CT vs LN. Instead of WC zealot vs critic. You either buy their malarkey or you don't. Then this: Morley writes for left-wing web sites. You mean like Newsweek? That publication was revived from the dead, and is now edited by Chris Ruddy. If you do not know, Ruddy was the righting hatchet man who worked for Richard Mellon Scaife to create the Clinton Crazies. He was then rewarded with the rightwing media site Newsmax. And oh puhlease, with that Veciana was not a CIA agent. Yeah, Phillips paid him 260,000 bucks because he only did asset work. I mean if you want to read some really hilarious stuff, take a look at what the CIA says about its interactions with the Garrison investigation.

The more one reads that story the funnier it gets. Lewis writes that experts traced the trajectories of the bullets. How can you trace the bullet trajectories if none of the wounds in Kennedy were dissected? That is just pure malarkey. And Lewis fell for it. It then says that the verdict was unanimous. Not knowing that the troika of Dulles, McCloy and Ford tricked Russell at the last meeting. It then actually quotes the report about Oswald's motive. Not knowing that this was Liebeler who wrote that part, and that decades later he admitted, he didn't have the slightest idea as to what he was talking about. The NY Times was flying blind. And three years later, they were going to get the carpet pulled out underneath their feet.

FC keeps on asking about Lifton's reply. Lifton has not replied FC, why don't you PM him? But as to how this thread got sidelined, there are two reasons for it. Someone posted a story about the trajectory of the posterior bullet to the throat. Then you commented to someone's reply to that with this: "You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination." You also then said that you found no indications that anyone interfered with the Parkland doctors' testimony. I showed why those statements are wrong. And then DVP came to your aid. And that is why we are now here. With you and he still saying, after 55 years of contrary evidence, that somehow, according to Bugliosi, the WC and the FBI did an excellent investigation into Kennedy's murder. And me quoting FBI witnesses, including Hoover, that such was simply not the case.

HA HA HA BTW, at the 30th anniversary on Nightline, nut case David Belin said that he had seen every CIA file dealing with Oswald. At a Chicago seminar that year, Eddie Lopez snickered as he repeated that. Burt Griffin was there and he added, "Well, I tend to disagree with David myself sometimes."

This is what happens when you get into a silly back and forth with these guys. I never said anything more valid than there was no inquiry in 1963-64. And I never say anything on this case without back up. If you read The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, you will see that statement is based on my talks with the ten year veteran of the FBI Bill Turner. He understood how FBI inquiries are conducted and he outlined the three step process to me: collection of all relevant leads, the following of the leads to their ultimate end, the collation of all the information into a non conclusive report. Bill said that in the JFK case, it was obvious to him that step 2 was not done. In fact, the inquiry was so lacking in that part that he concluded that the fix had to be in from the beginning. Because FBI agents just do not act like that. But if that crucial step was neutered then step 3 was compromised. Which is what he said happened. But it was even worse, because even though step two was dodged, this report was conclusive. BTW, this is what the WC objected to also and its something Bugliosi tries to cover up. Please, when did the FBI investigate David Ferrie? Can anyone keep a straight face reading an FBI report that deals with MC in three pages? I mean David Josephs is just getting warmed up in three pages. And he is not done for 30 more at least.With all this new info on that aspect that neither FC nor DVP have read, I mean three pages is just sick. Or what about what Don Adams, another veteran FBI agent said. When he was stationed in Dallas, he went down to a screening room and watched the Z film for the first time. When he left he told the two guys with him, "Well, he was obviously hit from two directions." They replied with words to the effect: You think we do not know that? But that is not what Hoover and Tolson want to hear. OK, so its not me. Its guys in the FBI who knew this. And so did Hoover. For instance he wrote in a memo that the CIA had sold him a snow job on Oswald in MC. As he said in the late summer of 1964 when asked by the son of a friend, he could not tell him what really happened in the JFK case as it could endanger our political system. As they say, that is from the horses's mouth. Vince deliberately avoided all this to sell his flatulent and mendacious book.

No, there have been many times when i have approved of and welcomed such matters. Sometimes I have done it myself. For instance, the whole Shane O'Sullivan JM WAVE guy, Morales and Johannides at the Ambassador Hotel. It was also good when the Roscoe White imbroglio was negated. But the difference is this: I don't separate out people into CT vs LN categories. I have always used the WC zealots vs critics rubric. For the simple reason that the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964. Anybody who says it was does not know the case or has an axe to grind about a football field long e.g. McAdams with that phony chart. The Warren Commission was simply a combination joke and travesty. The very fact that, as Rick points out, we don't know who that guy is in the film is just one indication of how bad their inquiry really was. The real beginning of an inquiry was when the critical books and essays began being published from about 1965, that is when the true outlines of the crime began being outlined. The fact that the case was not professionally investigated at the time is what caused all this uncertainty and doubt. That plus the fact that those opposed to putting all the evidence on the table were successful up until the JFK Act. And thanks to Trump, after the JFK act. I mean when you cannot put everything out there 55 years later, then we know that something is rotten in Denmark. Except you and FC of course.

I don't know what Trump is about, what he thinks, what he really believes. The guy switches advisers likes most people switch overcoats. He makes so many contrary statements that its hard to figure out what he is driving at.

FC in reply to me: As for Joe Smith, please. First of all, I hope that you have read "The man who wasn't there" by Chris Mills. Mike Griffith is one of the unsung heroes of the JFK case. Not many people know of him and he does not frequent these forums. (From DVP and FC, I can see why.) He just plods along doing the best work he can, which is quite good. Apparently FC is not aware that the above essay he suggested to me as being definitive was pretty much harpooned by Mike. This is the kind of work FC does. This is the kind of researcher he is. http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

I don't know off hand, but one might be Phil Buchen. I made an error in that narration. Nixon was not actually impeached. Impeachment proceedings were initiated in the House, and three articles of impeachment were approved. But the entire House had not voted on them yet. What happened was that Goldwater and Hugh Scott went up to visit him at the WH and told him that he had no chance of surviving a trial in the senate. That he should resign and that way he would preserve some of his dignity and probably some of his personal benefits as an ex president. So he did. BTW Joe, what Ford did, and very few people acknowledge this--although I tried to hint at it--is he brought Paul Nitze's group into the White House called the Committee on the Present Danger. This group of rightwing crazies thought that Kissinger and Nixon WERE TOO LIBERAL! And they outflanked Kissinger and were allowed to go head to head with the CIA on the Soviet threat. And its through all this that fruitcakes like Richard Perle and Democrat turned Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick started the Neoconservative movement which would really flourish under Reagan. If you recall, Cheney did the same thing under W in order to manufacture the Mushroom cloud myth about Hussein and Iraq. With what Ford did, Kennedy's foreign policy--which had been altered and then reversed by LBJ and RMN--was now extinct. It became something that people like us talk about on sites like this. It became a relic in a museum.

OMG Davey, that was some pivot by you, worthy of Elgin Baylor. And it shows you will never admit the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence by the FBI. I thought I roasted you pretty well, along with Vince, about how Vince tried to cover up what the HSCA told us about the FBI rigging the polygraph test. If you recall I pasted you all over this board on that one. But somehow, Davey now seems to forget about that issue and about how Vince deliberately covered it up in his book. That short memory serves you well in your continual denial of the facts of this case and what Hoover did in it. What about what I just mentioned? How the Bureau literally tried to paste over the remnants of the Tague hit on the curb. And how Tague was so stunned when he went back and found out the crease had been covered. Remember what the FBI said about that one Davey? It was a matter of street cleaning? This was in July, eight months after. Think Edgar had it figureed out by then? Did you ever hear your phony heroine Jean Davison say anything about these two instances in her three hundred page book? I mean the HSCA was issued four years before she published. So did she not read the volumes before she smeared Mark Lane on Ruby's polygraph? Its one thing for Hoover not to understand the facts of a case he did not give a darn about. I mean, the day after he was at the racetrack, a point that is in my book. Its another thing that weeks and months later, he was still trying to conceal important evidence in the case. And, no Davey, Jean Davison does not go into the horrendous record of Hoover in high profile cases at all and Vince cuts the worst things he did out of that record. For example what he did to Cornelius Gallagher, or his employment of false witness Harvey Matusow. You will read those in my book, but not in Davison's or Bugliosi's. Do you know who those two men were? They are fine examples of how Hoover and the FBI manipulated evidence to convict innocent men. Something he had a track record of doing quite well. Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case. That report spent all of two pages on the Tippit murder. It dealt with Mexico City in three. In that report there is not one mention of Michael Paine, George DeMohrenschildt or David Ferrie. The FBI had to know about Ferrie since they let him lie his way through his FBI interview after Garrison turned him over to them. But that is not the worst of it. In my book, I spent a full page listing instances where, like Elmer Moore, the FBI tried to get witnesses to alter their testimony on key points e.g. Nelson Delgado. I list eleven case of such stuff. Did Davison ever mention this? Did Vince? Please show us where Davey. And do it without spinning or pivoting a la Olajuwon.

This is one of the last bastions of the shameless defenders of the Warren Report. See, there really was no cover up, by anyone. Even when they admit it, like Moore did. Even when the words came out of their own mouths and a credible witness was there. Even when the guy brings a lawyer to the Church Committee because he knows what he did was a felony. This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which FC and DVP exist, its somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle. As per the FBI not being involved with a cover up, I mean pulease. Even Hale Boggs said such was the case. Recall that quote, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission." (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 233) But nothing is ever enough for DVP, FC or the late Bugliosi. One of the most mendacious sentences in Bugliosi's tree killer waste of a book was when he said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition of an FBI cover up in the JFK case. (ibid, p. 246) I actually thought he meant that in a satiric way; yes Vince there is a mountain of evidence to indicate such was the case. But the lawyer was trying to avoid a huge logical problem for himself and his book. If he admitted what Hoover had done, then this made it very unlikely the WC could be correct since the Bureau did by far the largest part of the inquiry. So therefore, he told a huge prevarication about the FBI's performance in this case. But not only that, he did a pretty drastic make up job on Hoover. Including deodorant. I mean by this time, there had been at least five full length exposes of just how bad Hoover was. Bugliosi kept the worst from his readers. As do all the WC zealots: DVP, Davison, FC, McAdams etc. They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case. So I really took Vince to task on this whole issue, since he made it easy for me to do so. I spent 37 pages exposing just how much Bugliosi left out of both his portrait of Hoover and the diddling of the FBI with the evidence in this case. I especially liked it when I could use actual FBI agents who were so sick of what Hoover had done in the JFK case, since they saw that event as the beginning of the end of the Bureau's reputation with the public. So I used witnesses like Bill Turner and Don Adams. But really all one has to do is recall this key fact: The FBI report was so bad that the WC failed to compile it as part of the volumes. And Hoover never swallowed the Magic Bullet. In fact he literally tried to erase it from history with a patch over the curb to hide the Tague hit. I really had fun with that one. So will everyone, except DVP and FC. (ibid, pp 250-54)

Please use this link. The older one is inactive.