James DiEugenio

This is what he says: One other typical example among a great many: Jones alleges that one Gary Underhill “was a CIA agent.” Right after the assassination, Jones says, Underhill “begged his friends to keep him out of sight,” telling them “he knew who killed President Kennedy, and he was sure they would soon get him . . . Underhill stated that the CIA had Kennedy killed.” Jones offers no support for his allegation that Underhill was a CIA agent and doesn’t tell his readers from whom he obtained his information or the identity of Underhill’s friends. (Jones, Forgive My Grief, vol.2, pp.23–24) Underhill shot himself to death in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 1964. Or so the coroner’s office in Washington, D.C., ruled. But Jones suggests he was murdered. The CIA says Underhill “served with the Military Intelligence Ser- vice from 8 July 1943 to May 1946 as an expert in photography, enemy weapons, and related technical specialties. He was in infrequent contact with the New York office of the Domestic Contact Service of CIA from late 1949 to the mid-50’s. The contact [was] routine. Mr. Underhill was not an employee of the CIA” (DOJ Record 179-20003-10191, CIA memorandum dated September 28, 1967, p.6). This is bad even for Vince. He does not reference anything from the first edition of Destiny Betrayed in which I had primary documents about Underhill. Those documents were obtained through a private detective service. That PI service was paid by Ramparts Magazine and Warren Hinckle. And the thing Is I know Vince read the book. Man, this tendency of his to deliberately ignore stuff he knew was the best evidence in order to substitute lesser stuff as representative of the critical community, I mean really.

Did you ever read either one of my most recent books? Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once. If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?-- then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more? It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.

Since you know the page you presumably have the info don't you?

Brennan and Baker never saw Oswald, so what is relevant about that to this?

No reply about Otepka i almost three days eh. How could Bugliosi have not even mentioned him in his mammoth book, that is what I want to know. And in a bio of Oswald, Jean Davison ignores him. The guy who was trying to find out if Oswald was a fake defector or not? I thin that is kind of important.

Since he has not answered this in almost two days, I will take that as "No, its not on my site Jim." I didn't think so Davey. Even though its true and goes to the heart of the case.

Can I ask a question: What does Vince Foster and all that Chris Ruddy baloney about his death have to do with Vince Bugliosi? I started this thread and that is what I titled it.

Glenn: What I am referring to with "the above" is the title of the thread. Davey says this did not happen.

Reaching out to Blaine, Myers, Mack, McAdams,Davison. OK, see in the real world of people who do original research, these are not what one would call "original". Communication with published authors who you know are going to tell you what you want to hear, that is not original research. Doing original research is digging through documents for witnesses or information no one has seen before. Or finding information from witnesses who have been talked to before, but had not divulged certain information. You didn't do any of that. Which is what I thought. Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not, you will see that kind of thing a lot. Because, unlike you and Vince, I actually did travel around the country talking to people in their homes, or on their porch, or at the local coffee house. That's because the WC missed a lot of these people, since they conducted a (deliberately) incomplete inquiry. But since you answered the question, I will now let you know about the face sheet. The man who actually wrote up the original face sheet was James Jenkins, in consultation with Boswell. It does not look like the one we have today since it is double sided. It is still around today somewhere. We know that because when HSCA investigator Andy Purdy interviewed Jenkins, he had it with him. Did you talk to Jenkins, or did you think say, Sturdivan, would tell you something new like that?

Davey, this is nutty even for you: Hoover would have loved to have found a conspiracy in the JFK case? The only problem with this is a familiar one with you: all the evidence says the opposite. Let use use just four examples: 1. What did Hoover do on the Saturday after the assassination? Did he go into his office and ride herd on all the agents in Dallas and New Orleans to try and find out who the real killers were? That is what he would have done if he was intent on finding out a about a conspiracy, right? And he would have surfaced all those leads about people like Banister, and Ferrie and Clay Shaw and Clinton and Jackson ad 544 Camp Street. But he didn't do that did he? As I noted on the thread about evidence alteration, the FBI covered up the evidence of Oswlald's pamphlets with the 544 Camp Street address. But further, Hoover did not go to the office on Saturday anyway, he went to the race track with Tolson. (RP, p. 216) That's how much he wanted to find the real killers. Davey doesn't tell you that though does he? Neither does his hero VB. 2. Predating the Katzenbach memo, Hoover told LBJ, "The thing I am most concerned about is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." (ibid p. 221) Hmm. This is how one finds conspirators? 3. Even former FBI employees admit the Kennedy inquiry was a joke. Men like Harry Whidbee, Laurence Keenan, William Walter, Don Edwards, William Sullivan, Don Adams, they all say the FBI inquiry was either half hearted or worse. Some of them even say that FBI HQ rewrote reports from the field. (ibid, pgs. 220-21) 4. Finally, we have Hoover's own private thoughts. Twice. In the privacy of his office, months into the case, but while it was ongoing, he admitted the case was just a bunch of loose ends. Then while on vacation in the late summer of 1964, an acquaintance of the Director's asked him if Oswald was the actual killer. Hoover replied with: "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our political system would be disrupted." (ibid p. 222) Hmm. That does not sound like Oswald did it to me. But it does sound like he knew it was a conspiracy but didn't care to uncover it because it would bring down the government. (Maybe because he now knew the CIA had snookered him on Mexico City?) Davey, is any of this on your site?

What a bunch of baloney. Davey wants us to think he does not know the difference between a primary source and an original source. So what does he do in order to make his little stage play possible? He eliminates the following sentence: How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book? I wonder why he does this little diversion? But I think we know. He does not to answer the question. Because that tells us what kind of researcher he really is. Just recycles discredited WC baloney. So I will ask the questions again: How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book Davey? Let us see how long it will take to get an answer. (BTW, I am still holding my cards on the actual face sheet and how I know about it. )

The HSCA Ida Dox illustration of the rear of the skull photo is a false representation. In order to make the so called "cowlick" head wound look more like an actual bullet perforation, not just a drop of blood, Baden instructed "Ida Dox" (I put her name in quotes because that is a pseudonym) to raise the edges around the outside to give it a more cratered look. We actually have this in his own words. Randy Robertson found the memo at NARA in which he tells her, "You can do better than this." (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 133) Attached to that note was a photo of an actual wound. Doctors who have seen the actual photos, like Gary Aguilar, agree that this illustration was altered. This is how intent the HSCA was to sell the public on this new raised head wound in the back of the skull. And this is why Baden cannot be trusted with the medical evidence in this case. VInce Bugliosi prints the Dox drawing in his book in order to represent this new position of the head wound, without telling the reader about this embellishment. BTW, VInce was invited to the conference where Randy announced the discovery about Baden, but did not show up.

How about the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph test. FBI polygraph technician Bell Herndon told the WC that Ruby passed his polygraph. Well, not really. The WC did not independently cross check his work. The HSCA did. In their report, they scored him for about ten violations of professional procedure in this test, from having too many men in the room to having Ruby answer way too many questions, like over a hundred. I mean the test lasted over four hours. These were serious violations. For example, the panel noted that when one gets asked too many questions, liars become test tired, therefore the physiological indications don't show up. If there are too many people in the room, it could lead to false readings, since one can be surprised by a tap on the shoulder. But the worst part was this, Bell turned down the GSR machine. GSR means Galvanic Skin Response. Its a very sensitive machine and is one of the three key measurements in the test, the other two being breathing pattern and blood pressure. Herndon turned the machine to only a quarter of its power at the start and then TURNED IT DOWN! This is the opposite of what should have been done. The panel thought this reading was so bad that the machine was defective. They thought Herndon should have had a back up and should have used it. Now let me quote the killer part of the report as I use it in Reclaiming Parkland to impeach Bugliosi, since he does not mention this part, but had to know about it since he read the report: "The strongest indication that Herndon's violations were deliberate was in his use of a faulty control question to map out a patterned response. When Ruby was asked, "Have you ever been arrested?" Herndon testified that the response resulted in a "noticeable rise in blood pressure." The panel disagreed with this because the rise was seven seconds after the answer. Which is at least three times longer than a normal reaction. They believed the reaction was due to a physical movement at the seven second point, which Herndon had actually recorded. The panel then applied the clincher. They wrote that Ruby's reaction to the preceding question--"Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?" to which he replied in the negative--recorded the largest valid GSR reaction in the first test series. Plus there was a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in the blood pressure at the time." (pgs. 245-46, emphasis added) That makes six.

What about the Commission tricking its own members and falsifying their own executive session transcript? That is what the controlling members and Rankin--what I call the Troika-- did to Cooper, Boggs and Russell, what I call the Southern Wing, at the last meeting. They knew Russell wanted to get into the record his objections to the Single Bullet Fantasy. So they tricked him. They placed a female secretary there and made it look like she was recording things. But she was not from the stenographic agency they had hired. That contract had run out the previous week. So when Russell objected, his objections were not in the record as he thought they were. In fact, he told LBJ that he did get them in. But he did not. They aren't there since there is no stenographic record of this meeting. And btw, Cooper also thought it was in the record. Several years later he talked about it in a British documentary. He said, yep there were disagreements about the Magic Bullet. He specifically said, "I heard Connally testify he was not struck by the same bullet. I could not convince myself the same bullet struck both of them." (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs 258-59) They were tricked by their own colleagues. The record was eliminated. Does it get any worse than that? That makes five.

How about the myth of Oswald in Mexico City. As most of us know today, the CIA sent a tape up to the Texas border. They said it was Oswald in MC. This was listened to by FBI agents in Dallas who had interviewed Oswald in detention. The wrote a memo that was forwarded to Washington saying the tapes were not of Oswald. And Hoover communicated this to the White House. After this, on the 25th, the cover up about this serious problem began. The CIA began a BS story that the tapes had been destroyed prior to the assassination. This appears to have been started by David Phillips' Girl Friday Anne Goodpasture. This is all baloney of course, as several sources heard the tape in addition to the FBI agents in Dallas. And I name three of them in Destiny Betrayed. (p. 358) Let us not forget, Hoover understood it was BS also. As he wrote in the marginalia of a memo, "OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA, nor the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealing." (RP, p. 242-43, isn't it great when the lying gets so bad and they turn on each other?) That makes four.

Here is a third instance. "Not long after the assassination, New Orleans special agent Harry Maynor drafted a message that was changed before it arrived at FBI HQ. This message was directed to Director Hoover, Scratched out, but still visible were the words, "Several Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets contained the address 544 Camp Street." " (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition p. 102) Does anyone think that something like that kind of evidence alteration could happen unless the word came down from above that it was OK to do it? The FBI rigorously tried not to use the 544 Camp Street address in its inquiry and what it gave to the WC. (ibid) In other words, they mislead the Commission on this point so as not to connect the pamphlets and Oswald to 544 Camp Street.

Hey nice footnote Greg, you actually reproduced the book. Bob, I agree. Its very hard to understand why the FBI did not know about the rifle shipment way back in March or April. Why did they have to scramble around in Chicago, and why did Holmes have to do all the skullduggery?

The second thing I submitted was Humes's sworn testimony to the ARRB, to Jeremy Gunn specifically. There, Humes looked at one of the extant X-rays. He noted that his autopsy report, written back in 1963, based on the X-ray he saw in 1963, did not match what was in the x ray today. What does Davey say? Well, see in that case you go with what the x ray says today. As I quoted back to him, no that is not what you do in a legal proceeding. Which is why Gunn, a very good lawyer, asked him to compare what he wrote about his observations in 1963 to what was in NARA today. Its called certification of the evidence. Humes' testimony and his autopsy report would supersede the X-ray. So this makes two instances. Everyone contribute one good example to this thread. I have no real preference: it can be witness testimony being altered, it can be documents being altered etc. I know there are literally dozens of instances of this happening in this case. Hey maybe we can convert Davey? Stranger things have happened.

Davey says the above did not happen. I have already submitted two things that demonstrate it did. 1.) Hoover fabricates a story to say it was really Hall, Seymour and Howard at Odio's doorstep. When both he and the FBI knew it was not. Davey dismiss this as being unimportant. It was very important for more than one reason. And the WC knew it. This is why Liebeler was sent down to try and talk her out of her story. For one, her dates conflict with the WC schedule of the Mexico City trip. Instant alibi, Oswald cannot be in two places at once. If the evidence is credible for both then there is an imposter involved. Which implies a conspiracy. This is unimportant? To me, and I have said it before, this aspect of the story is the key. And Syliva Meagher thought so also. And the WC knew it. Which is why they needed help from the FBI to cover it up. Soon, I will post my MC essays to demonstrate just why this is so crucial. Unimportant?!

Wow, I mean wow. This is just plain nuts. Davey does not know the first thing about the court room. Does he? As any number of Law Dictionaries or compendiums will show, a visual exhibit like a photo or X ray, has to be certified. Let me quote McCormick on Evidence: The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams...a photograph is viewed merely as graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness. Now see, this is how screwy DVP's valuation of evidence is. Its completely the opposite of what the rules of evidence say it should be. Now, in this case, the autopsy evidence is an absolute disaster. I doubt if any of the exhibits would be admitted. The three autopsy pathologists would not admit the x rays, as noted above. And Stringer would negate the brain photos. He said under oath he did not take them. You have about 40 witnesses who would impeach the back of the head photo. And on and on. (I mean that got so bad the HSCA lied about it.) Can you imagine the cumulative impact this would have on a jury? They would not trust anything the prosecution put on after this fiasco.

Again, nice one. When you get their own witnesses cornered and they finally have to admit it. I miss Jeremy Gunn.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Really nice Martin.

I love this. You prove he is wrong and he says it does not matter. The FBI lied Davey. And the WC bought the lie. OK. But Davey likes leading with his chin, right? The following is from Reclaiming Parkland, p. 128 This exchange was on 2/13/96 between counsel Jeremy Gunn and James Humes for the ARRB. Gunn had the X-rays for Humes in front of him. Q: Do you recall having seen an X ray previously that had fragments corresponding to a small occipital wound? A: Well I reported that I did, so I must have. But I don't see them now. Again, I could not find this exchange in Reclaiming History. Yet it is surely one of the most gripping and important revelations of the ARRB. Humes is here denying his own autopsy report and what he himself saw during the autopsy of President Kennedy. When Gunn pressed him ever so slightly on this, Humes became visibly frustrated. Humes had written that a trail of metal fragments connected the low shot at the rear of the skull to the higher region in the head. But yet, today, no such trail exists in the x rays. What do you think happened to them Davey? Was Humes hallucinating when he wrote about them back in 1963? Let's get physical.

DVP is so enamored by Reclaiming History that he now imitates its author. He thinks that with sheer verbosity and diversion he answers my query. And he also thinks no one will notice that he has not. Repeat: Where are the errors in Martin's review? (BTW its absolutely a crack up that you would use the autopsy face sheet. For two reasons. First, that face sheet has caused the official story so much trouble its not funny. Second, its not the original one. You probably don't know that since you don't do any original research.)