James DiEugenio

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.)

DVP: Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists. ​From the WR: "[Hall} said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawernce Howard..and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald..." ​From Accessores after the Fact: "That FBI report indicates that only two days after the original locating of Loran Eugene Hall on September 16, 1964, an interview with William Seymour...elicited a denial that he was even in Dallas in September 1963 or had ever had any contacts with Sylvia Odio. " (p. 387) ​

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all. ​Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

Bob: No, I don't think he was on the Watch List at that time. Davey, see, I read and noted VB's book if you recall. And I did so much more thoroughly and extensively and critically than you did. VInce pulls one of his tricks in his discussion of Oswald and the CIA. He separates out the two facts that he was on the Watch List and did not have a 201 file yet. Because he does not want to address the paradox that this poses. And he does not note the Black Hole. Or the distinct indication that Angleton, at this early date, was controlling Oswald's file. Or else how did it end up in the super secret SIG? Vince knows he is walking on egg shells here. Because he only mentions Angleton's name four times in the entire book, and one appears to be a mistake by the indexer. To do that after the ARRB and after Newman's book is very puzzling. Especially in a book that states up front that it will face the arguments the critics made and face them as they want them made. Geez Davey, no comment on the lack of a security inquiry? Just bureaucratic bungling eh? After all the U2 was the number one asset the USA had at that time in the Cold War. Now, what is even odder about the missing 201 file is this: it was opened only after two queries by the State Department on the false defector program. These were sent to DIck Bissell at CIA. Otto Otepka was a State Department researcher and analyst. He noted the rising wave of "defectors" to the USSR at this time. And there certainly was such a rising wave, and it was soon to turn into a veritable tsunami. Which, by the way, is a definite trend which Vince does not note in his book. Wonder why? Anyway, Otepka--unlike Davey, who has to feign ignorance--understood what was happening. He wanted to know which of these guys was genuine and which of them was part of the fake defector program. Which was being supervised by, guess who? James Angleton. How do we know that? Two ways. First, when Newman asked Bob Bennerman how the Office of Security responded to Oswald's "defection", he replied with "Angleton was in on this." Secondly, Bissell passed the queries from State onto Angleton. About two weeks after the second query, the CIA opened a 201 file on Oswald. One has to wonder: was this done in reply to Otepka's queries? Or put it this way: If Otepka had not asked about the defector program at this time, would the CIA have opened a 201 file on Oswald even later? Or maybe never? Which would have been mind boggling to anyone-- except Davey of course. There is a third way we know this about Angleton. As Newman noted many of the CIA documents on Oswald at this time bear the rubric CI/OPS which means counter intelligence operations Which was Angleton's domain. Now, the 8th name on Otepka's defector list was Oswald. When the CIA finally began to reply to Otepka's request for info on the defectors, the analyst was told to work on some names, but not on others. Oswald was one of the "others". In fact, in the CIA reply to Otepka, Oswald's name was marked SECRET. But Otepka would not give up. He didn't understand, you did not mess with Angleton. Therefore, his career now began to slide downhill. Until it became a Kafkaesque nightmare. He was first removed from sensitive cases. Smear stories about him began to appear in the press. He was asked to accept a transfer but would not. He was called before Senate committees to explain his methods for issuing security passes. But he would not give up his inquiry into the fake defector program. Now, spies, phone taps, listening devices were placed into his office. His trash was gone through after hours and his house was surveilled. Otepka did not understand what was happening. He could only figure that someone did not want him to find out about who was real and who was not in the defector program. His study of that program was placed in his safe. After he was removed from his office, that safe was drilled into and it contents stolen. This occurred at about the same time he was removed from State: November of 1963. Interesting story isn't it? Now, in over 2400 pages, one would think Bugliosi would address it. After all, he said he would make the critics' cases as they would. Yet, for some puzzling reason, Otto Otepka is not in the index to Reclaiming History. In 20 years, Vince never encountered this info? Neither does Davison deal with him. These are the kinds of writers that Davey relies on for info on Oswald.

Davey: You don't know when to keep your mouth shut do you? As I said, you always lead with your chin. You know why? Because you never read anything of any value. You did not read Newman's book did you? He explains why its so strange. See, when the news came in that Oswald had defected to Russia, the FBI, State, ONI and Navy Dept. all opened files on the case. And the files were all stamped properly and filed properly. And the FBI put out the proper FLASH warning on the file. In other words, everything is handled clearly and routinely. But not at the CIA. When they got the news, it went into a Black Hole, undetectable for about a month. It then surfaced in Angleton's super secret SIG counter intel office. Which, as Newman notes, is kind of weird also. Because it should not have been there. It should have been in the Soviet Russia division. In other words, the black hole it went into kept it from going to where it should have gone. On top of that, there is no evidence that the CIA now did a security investigation to see what secrets Oswald could give to the USSR. I mean, as Newman writes, he was a radar operator and involved with the U2. In fact, Oswald was one of the few who knew the U2 was flying over China. But again, John says there is no evidence of any damage assessment inquiry in 1959. When the HSCA asked Helms about the delay in the opening of the 201 file, Helms replied "I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn't?...I can't explain that." The CIA then lied about about where the Oswald CIA docs went to before the 201 was opened. They said they were never filed higher than confidential, and were therefore destroyed. Well, John found them and they were not destroyed; because they were classified as secret. But further, the ones that were classified as confidential were still around also. (Hmm, trying to cover something up there fellas?) But here is the kicker as far as I am concerned. Although Oswald was so inconsequential as not to merit a 201 file, the most common file in the Agency; somehow he was important enough to be placed on the Watch List for mail interception. Which was one of the rarest programs the CIA had. Literally thousands of people had 201 files. About 300 were on this Watch List. Naturally, it was supervised by Angleton. And guess what? Oswald was on it when his file was in the Black Hole. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs 142-44)

Now, how did Hoover get away with what he did in this case? Because the WC was a runaway prosecution. There were no rules of evidence, no legal procedure, no defense for Oswald, almost no cross examination of witnesses. That only happened once with Marina toward the end. And the Troika did not show up for it: Ford, McCloy and Dulles. See, the rules of procedure and evidence have evolved over time just for this reason: to prevent the prosecution from going rogue and framing the defendant. Well, in this case, when the staffers had qualms about the credibility of some witnesses, like Brennan, they were overruled by the administration. When Liebeler wrote his memorandum warning about Markham and Oswald's marksmanship, he was called in by Redlich and Rankin and given a butt kicking. Do you really think guys like this were going to duke it out with Hoover? Heck no. I mean look at the Odio case. Liebeler goes down to scare her with a polygraph, tells her the fix is in anyway so it does not matter what she says, and then tries to get her into bed. When that did not work, Rankin gives the job to Hoover. He comes up with a pile of crap about Hall, Howard and Seymour. Which falls apart once the ink is dry on the page. The WC was travesty of justice. And Hoover knew it.

Incredible. How could Oswald be framed he asks? As if he missed the post I made about the DPD being the single most corrupt police department in America, and actually worse than several states. Over 30 men have been released from the evil Wade regime. And its still going on. And If Watkins had not been elected we would have never known about it. Geez Davy, you mean J. Edgar Hoover was so pure as the driven snow that he would never even think of prosecuting someone unjustly? HA HA HA HA Why don't you read about the victims of the Palmer Raids, over 7,000 of them that Hoover rounded up unjustly and denied them their rights and lawyers. Why not read about Emma Goldman? He actually made up stuff on that one to get her deported. What about all that info about commies in the State Department that he funneled to McCarthy? What about Harvey Matusow, the professional witness who Hoover paid to lie in court about people like Pete Seeger. What about the planted typewriter in the Hiss case. What about the COINTELPRO operations against people like King and the Black Panthers, in which Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed. What about the libel against Cong. Cornelius Gallagher, made up by breaking into his home and tapping his phone in order to say his wife died in the arms of a mobster. (Reclaiming Parkland pgs.213-16) Do you ever read a book about these men who ran the WC? I mean there are four really good biographies of Hoover, which is where I got all this stuff. Now, do I have to continue: I mean you do know the way Hoover felt about the Kennedys? And you do know how friendly he was with LBJ? Do I need to draw a picture now? Anything else you need tutoring on?

Ken, In McKnight's excellent book, he notes that the Commission had the photos and X-rays. (See p. 171) They did not want to make this public. And they did not tell the staffers. So Specter has Rydberg do the drawings from memory which was good for them since if they had the photos the trajectory would not have connected.

Glenn: i'll read your review (i'll read the book one day, but there's a line...) - that's how i first saw your name before, a review you wrote of some quack who had at first gained my trust - i thought, "who's this jerk DiEugenio, being so hateful to this guy..." but soon learned you were right, i think. something made me think you were an SBTer, but learned differently. Oh no. But see, at CTKA we are as hard on the pro conspiracy books as we are on the anti-conspiracy ones. I mean just read my current review of Prof. Souza's book, or especially my work on Waldron and Hartmann. You don't get a pass just because you don't buy the WC baloney. That's not good enough. Especially today after the ARRB declassification process.

Looks good Dave. Good digging. The problem with the WC was that it was a runaway prosecution. One that had no strictures on it, an they could therefore get away with just about anything.

Glenn: Here is the clip http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/11/maddow_iraq_mission_creep_an_eerie_echo_of_vietnam.html It actually was not bad. She is perhaps the first MSM TV host to say that Kennedy would not have expanded the war and his murder allowed LBJ and Nixon to do so. She also mentions Gordon Goldstein's fine book, Lessons in Disaster. Which is an important book concerning how LBJ turned around Kennedy's policies in Vietnam. If you don't want to read the book, read my review of it: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/virtual_jfk_3.html Bundy admitted here that he was wrong and JFK was right about Vietnam. And it was not until later that he saw how misguided LBJ was and then resigned. Is your quote from her of a different show at a different time?

RH only proves one thing: That Vince made a mistake and he then doubled down on it twice. The very fact of its length is testimony to its failure. VB tries to make an argument by 1) Sheer verbosity and 2.) By switchblade intimidation Neither worked. Because a book is long does not mean its good. It just means its long. And if Vince had the intellectual back up to dispel say, Sylvia Meagher and Dave Mantik and Gary Aguilar and John Newman, he would not have needed the invective he employed throughout. Which was very unbecoming of a celebrity attorney and author. Those 53 "proofs" of Oswald's guilt were well disposed of by Rodger Remington in Biting the Elephant. I myself then put together a list of 63 things that showed Oswald was innocent. But then I also showed here that Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted? Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.

In his book, which he co authored with Mel Ayton, Davey denies any relationship between Oswald and American intelligence. Which in my view, is simply a non starter today. Especially after the work of John Newman in Oswald and the CIA. In her book, Davison failed to note the puzzling fact that the CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald--until a year after he defected. ​When the HSCA interviewed some CIA people on this, they could not explain it, including Helms. Does Davey?

Very nice Dave. Your article should be a real hum dinger. Its amazing how long this rifle mythology was around. Its one of the things that the first generation critics accepted. PS Let me thank Brad, Jim and Jim. Very nice kudos. I sort of feel like Kirk Douglas in Spartacus when everyone says, "I am Spartacus."

Glenn: Ian Griggs wrote No Case to Answer. Which is a little known but valuable book. There are parts of it that are very good and original. Like his essay on Brennan. He also has written several articles for a British publication on the JFK case.