James DiEugenio

EL: Well, Paul, I think all of us are tired of hearing about your phantom "Top Secret" documents -- which apparently nobody (but you) think exist -- at least with respect to the JBS and Walker. . Well done Ernie. I look forward to your review. Larry: ​You have hit on the big problem with Caufield's book ​And it is amazing to me that Caufield never figured this out. In fact he never mentions it in his book. That is because, without Somerset he doesn't have a book. There is a good reason the FBI took him off of their payroll, which I will get into in my review. ​I am about 200 pages into this and I have not had such a reaction to a book since the Waldron/Hartmann pastiche Ultimate Sacrifice.

LOL, good one Tommy.

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU. Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do. Ptui. You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time. LOL ROTF

This one is really funny, even Duncan.

Yawn. FF

Toy cannon? In legalese this is called the preemptive strike. And I love the way he terms this all "goofiness". I guess those two bank supervisors were JFK aficionados also. And they read John's book and could not resist his charm and his demeanor. Or maybe John promised them a payoff? (Impeaching the witness, right.) And then the guy has the chutzpah to say, well why didn't John interview them before. Uh, Mr. Lance Lawyer, why didn't you do that before you graced us with your Perry Mason presence. Keep it up, you and DVP are a lovefest made in heaven. Von Pein loves lawyers who take his side. Just like he fell in love with Reclaiming History two years before it was published. The problem was this: see, the JFK case is anything but your usual garden variety felony case. That is what Bugliosi thought, and that is why his book is a giant, bloated, pretentious argument by verbosity and argument by insult. (And, btw, the latter is what Lance is becoming,) The problem in this case is that there was no legal procedure to protect the defendant. Therefore, anything went. The WC was, in large part, a rubber stamp for Hoover. (Which is something that to me, its incredible that Mr. Lawyer does not understand.) As lawyers say, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Well, that was the Warren Commission, as long as the sandwich had Oswald's name on it. You can't just isolate one aspect of one complex transaction and say, "Well, that is that, see you around." Far from it. That is like Hoover calling up Bardwell Odum and saying: Get Paine to say its his Minox. Odum does. And then, somehow, Oswald's Minox was never there. Except it was. See, there is a lawyer's truth--Hoover was a lawyer--and there is an actual truth. John will be getting at the latter.

Paine told LIfton Oswald showed him an 8 by 10? Interesting. Because it seems to me that should denote that LHO was working on the photo himself then? Which would be the perfect story for Mike to come up with. Keep it coming Mike. It was really your Minox, and Lee worked on the photos himself. I guess he wanted to keep those trust funds didn't he?

That is a really good question. And although I think its fundamental and key, its surprising that no one has ever done a systematic study. But I think the first person to do anything with this was Evica in And We are All Mortal. His concentration was on the rifle transfer, not the money order.

According to Jeff Carter, Paine first said this to Russo in 1993 as an interview for his Oswald did it book, Live by the Sword. Now, he may have said this to Lifton. But if so I have never heard Lifton repeat that in public. Although I do know he did interview Mike.

Jon and Sandy: Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing. Jon is correct. And he is also right in asking why on earth did the HSCA or the ARRB never investigate this?

If I recall correctly, that was Gus Russo, was it not? On both occasions, 1993 and 2003. Which explains why there was no follow up as to the contradiction.

Just don't borrow anything from John McAdams' class. Which he won't be teaching anymore but which I think there are some remnants online. But seriously, I would begin with the actual scene of the crime, set out the official story, and then show how the actual testimony and photos undermine that story. An excellent example would be linking SM Holland with Bowers.

This looks like its going to be a really comprehensive work. John sent me a part of it. It has illustrations, pics, charts and graphs and the whole visual aid angle covered.

I fought that James Gordon said this was now going to be halted? Instead its just shifted to a thread not called Prayer Man. But its the same topic. I was really looking forward to Greg's work and then debating the paper up above. If you announce a policy, don't let the combatants get round it by shifting ground. Sort of reminds me of LBJ and Vietnam.

Let us not forget Greg: in his revised story, done for the 30th anniversary and then recycled in 2003, Mike said that Oswald showed the BYP to him in April. Therefore, Mike knew LHO had a rifle. If the blanket was rifle shaped, then how could Mike have not suspected what was inside? If you don't buy that, as I do not, then another way of expressing this is: When was Mike lying? Back in 1964, or in 1993? (Please let us keep this to the Paines only.)

I agree, Ken kind of nailed good ole CB on that one didn't he? BTW, the whole thing about Shaw being a conspirator, this is just so silly its sick. In reality what it does reflect is a record about each aspect of the evidence that is simply indecipherable. Because of all the twists and turns in it. That is what CB an dithers try and avoid. This does not happen in the real world, or is so, only in a few instances. But in this case, its literally everywhere. And CB and his allies try and disguise this by playing the "conspirator" card. Because they don't want to deal with the shifting status of the evidence in the total evidentiary record. Just ask yourself: in ho many murder cases, are there two versions on the autopsy, and in one the back wound moves down and the head wound moves up.

My essential memories of Bill Turner and a commemoration of his writing career. Like Paris Flammonde, and many others in the field, the man deserves more than the public notice we have. http://www.ctka.net/2016/WTurnerObit.html RIP Bill

That is what I thought. Thanks Greg. And i agree about Martha Moyer. She was another ace researcher, who, like Carol, got ignored in the rush toward people like Waldron etc.

Funny. He says its the one meeting he goes to of the JBS, and that happens to be the one.

Can I ask the moderators: Why are there three threads on this event?

Greg: I am sure you will be covering this later in your book series, right? And you will be offering evidence for what you state here? Greg's volumes are very much annotated. At least so far. So you can see where he gets his material.

I used to have a dark room in the basement of my house. This was back in the seventies, when still photography was in vogue. The idea that a dark room has to take a lot of space is ridiculous. Not the case at all. I operated my dark room in a space of about 5 by 5, maybe 6 by 6. And I developed literally hundreds of pictures. It was not at all a difficult process. Nor did it consume a lot of space.

Nice one Greg.

Gene: Are you accusing that fine, upright, and kindly Quaker woman of, ly---well, being less than candid?

Bill wrote some books that I think were pretty valuable at the time they appeared. That is, they pushed the envelope. His book on the RFK case, co-written with Jonn Christian, was a very good effort in that field that opened up a lot of different angles in that case that no one had really seen before. His book, The Fish is Red, co-written with Warren Hinckle, was also very good on things like the growth and mutation of the anti-Castro community, using a lot of stuff from the Garrison investigation. This was later reissued and updated as Deadly Secrets. He did other books of interest also, like Rearview Mirror. And some of his essays, like those he did for Ramparts on the Garrison investigation, were valuable. Bill was a really skilled writer, which is not all that common in this field. I mean, just think of wading through the books of Weisberg and Livingstone. Turner knew how to organize material, how to break it down into major elements, and how to make it come to life. And he could turn a phrase. From what I understand, he was working on a major book about Cuban/American relations in his latter years.