James DiEugenio

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.

Let us take a look at another of Davey's heroes, or in this case, a heroine: Jean Davison. She published a book called Oswald's Game in 1983. Davey was so enamored with her and the book that, decades later, he wrote a mash note to her thanking her profusely for her efforts. (You can see it at the head of the first article below.) Now, today, this book is an ancient relic from the past. Because of superseding work by people like Phil Melanson, John Newman and John Armstrong. These books--and others-- have all made Davison's book the equivalent of a Model T Ford. But, my point below is to show how, even in 1983, Davison was very selective about the info she used in the book. And beyond that, its pretty obvious that she did next to nothing as far as original research went. In fact, there is no evidence in her notes that she either 1.) Went anywhere, or 2.) Called anyone. Which, as I note below, is incredible. I mean why write a bio of Oswald 20 years after his death and not do any legwork, or even phone work? I supply the answer below. But please read part 2. See, Jean made a faux pas in her book. She implied Oswald learned Russian in the service. Somebody, like say McAdams, clued her in and told her, "Hey, that hints he was getting intel training." So Jean then changed her mind. She said that Oswald now learned Russian from his--get this-- tourist guide in the USSR. And Arnold Schwarzenegger never used steroids. Anyway, this is the kind of writing that Davey admires. An author who tells only half the story. But its the half Davey wants to hear. http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html http://www.ctka.net/2014/Davison%20update.html

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred. In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way. Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90) Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four. He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night. Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up: CE 2003 details the line ups and the witnesses, no mention of Brennan Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan. Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan. Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan. Some witness eh? The invisible man.

Yep he did Glenn, this was at Amazon. BTW. I can only slap my knee and giggle at DVP's post above. Wrong bullet: no problem. Wrong rifle: no problem. I failed to add Stringer on the brain, but I know what he would say: no problem. BTW, his reply to Stringer's ARRB deposition was priceless Von Pein. When I posted parts of his depo, which said that he did not take those photos because he never used that film or technical process, you know what "What me worry?" Davey said? Stringer had a bad memory. Yep. This would be like asking me what book I taught out of for something like 29 years in my American History class. And me not being able to recognize it when you showed it to me. Keep it up Davey. No one leads with his chin like you do.

Very nice post Glenn. Pointed and logical.

That isn't what I said Davey. What I said was: Why aren't you out TRYING to sell the book. Do you really think you are going to sell copies on this site? Secondly, as I have said, I liked Vince. And I liked some of the books he did. But if you are going to write about a subject, then you should do some background work on him. I did so for Reclaiming Parkland. If I did not include the bad with the good, then I would not have been honest would I? Vince had a quite combative personality. Only such a person could have used such an overload of invective and insults, which he heaped on the critical community throughout RP. Much of it unwarranted. I didn't hear you complain about that did I? Not one bit. Now, my point was about you and Ayton and Garrison. Much of the stuff you wrote about JG in your book was pure mythology, which Martin Hay pointed out. But yet, on the one hand you censored unflattering stuff about Vince, which was true, but had no trouble passing on the myths about JG, which were mostly false. This portrays a serious double standard on your part. (So what else is new?)

I can't believe Davey brought up the Dallas Police office as part of a frame up. This is like a boxer leading with his chin. Which by the way is what Bugliosi does throughout his book In Reclaiming Parkland, I called this "Bugliosi's perfect Bad Timing". "In 2006 Dallas elected Craig Watkins, its first black DA.....let's use Watkins own words to describe what preceded him: There was a cowboy kind of mentality and the reality is that kind of approach is archaic, racist, elitist, and arrogant. Therefore once in office he was free to go ahead and review many of his cases with an independent eye. What was the result? No other county in America--and almost no state, for that matter--has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986. Watkins has said that many of the cases won under Wade "were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored, and defense lawyers were kept in the dark." (RP, p. 172) I go onfor three pages on this subject. Watkins has freed well over thirty people from Wade's regime. And the last I heard, its not over. The Dallas Police and DA's office, on this evidence, was the most corrupt and unethical in the country at the time. Allen Dulles--who's brains i respect as little as I do the uses to which he put them-- knew what he was doing with these guys. He relied on them, and they came through with flying colors.

Two points Ken: 1.) I am glad you noted how slippery the authors are. See the legal standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. Not, by the preponderance of evidence. Did they really think nobody would notice that? 2.) The Commission did have the autopsy materials. But that fact appears to have been kept from the staffers. In one of the declassfiied executive session hearings McCloy asks Rankin about this and Rankin said they did have them in a special room.

Let us return to Harry Holmes. And how much the WC needed him. Holmes told the WC that the money order had been issued early on the morning of March 12, 1963. (WC Vol. 7 p. 295) There is no indication on the money order that such was the case. It was stamped on that day. But how could one determine what time of day it was stamped? But the envelope had a postmark from that morning. So Holmes came through again for the WC. Guess what: Belin never asked Holmes how he knew the time of day of the issuance of the money order. Yawn.

Another indication that the money order was created after the fact is this: The total deposits for that day came to $13, 827.98. When Belin was examining Waldman he asked him to point out the 21.45 deposit on the deposit slip. And there is such a notation there. But it appears under the first column, which is headed "Checks other Chicago Banks". The problem is: Oswald sent a money order, and it was not from a Chicago bank. That particular 21.45 deposit in the ONLY deposit for that amount in the four page summary. And this First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip is dated 2/15/63.