James DiEugenio

Glenn:

You weren't aware that Davey runs a KFC in, I think its Mooresville, Indianna.

That is what I was referring to.

BTW, VInce was caught between a rock and a hard place on Hoover. He did not want to admit all the awful things attributed to the man today. He knew that would seriously compromise the WC's performance. So what he does is soft-pedal--and that is being kind --his whole portrait of Hoover and what he did for the WC.

In Reclaiming Parkland, I strongly criticize Vince for this. For example, Vince does not print what some of the Commissioners themselves said about Hoover e.g. Hale Boggs. Therefore, I had to correct this lack of candor. In my chapter on Vince's treatment of the FBI and Hoover I subhead one of the sections, "The Horrendous History of an Ogre"; and I go ahead and inform the reader of the godawful things Hoover did which, for political and polemical reasons, Vince did not want to tell his readers about.

I interviewed former FBI agent Bill Turner on this issue. Let me quote what he said to me from RP (p. 219):

"The thing that struck Turner as being so bad about Hoover's JFK investigation was that individual leads were not followed to their ultimate conclusion. As he described it, there were three main steps in any FBI inquiry: 1.) Collection of all pertinent leads 2.) the following out of all leads to their ultimate end 3.) Collating of all information garnered into a complete and accurate report.

Turner said that without the second phase, the third phase was not really possible. And that is what he found so appalling about the FBI report on JFK. To him, it was so apparent that step two had been systematically and rigorously circumvented that there had to have been interference from above. FBI agents just did not proceed like that unless they were advised to do so."

This was later certified by the late FBI agent Don Adams in his book. After watching the Zapruder film in Dallas, he told his fellow FBI agents: well its obvious he was hit from two directions. They told him, heck we know that but that is not what HQ wants us to write about.

LOL, ha ha.

Davey has not even read the Warren Report. That is how rudderless he is. So he just walks into punch after punch, sort of like Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke.

In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963 the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews..and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous, only in the pages of RH could it exist. We know the senior counsel did little and most left early since they were losing money. How many JC were there, maybe seven? The rest were staffers who barely left the building. And that little group was going to equal the scores of agents Hoover had on this case?

Tell me another one.

VB added that in his book for one reason. By the time he started work on the volume, it had become common knowledge that Hoover was a public embarrassment. And VInce's former writing partner, Curt Gentry, had written one of the most coruscating exposes on the blackmailing adder, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets. Which I am sure that in his prodigious research on this case, DVP has had to have read and taken copious notes on.

Therefore, Vince--and the WC guys he interviewed-- understood that to admit that Hoover had done the vast majority of investigative work for them would be sort of like shooting themselves in the foot. Because, not only has Hoover's staunch civil servant image been leveled, but his hatred of the Kennedys had also been well publicized. As was his closeness with LBJ.

So connect the dots.

Then add in the evidence that surfaced later that Oswald was an FBI informant.

Now what proves this out of course is this: Back in 1964, before all the exposes had become public knowledge, the WC advertised how close they were to the FBI, the work they did, and they invited Hoover to testify before them. Today, with all this info out there, they run from it.

As does Davey.

Davey,

Maybe you also forgot about the meeting Ball had with Redlich as related in Inquest?

Some of the staff were a little wiser than you. (Which isn't hard to be.)

They did not want to use witnesses as bad as Brennan, Marina, and Markham. (Which is what Liebeler also objected to in his memo. You have read that, have you not?)

Same thing happened here as what happened to Liebeler. They got overruled. That's the real world Davey. I mean do you let the employees run your KFC? Do they set the prices and policies?

BTW, Redlich, who actually wrote a large part of the final report, actually said to Liebeler, "I work for the Commission and they want it in."

Now, who was the Commission? It was the Troika plus Warren. Because Willens in his dairy related a story about getting the opinion from Dulles and Warren on an issue, and then writing that he had to now get the opinion of the "other two commissioners." Two, Howard? Should that not have been five?

He gave the game away. Its like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, With Warren for window dressing. That is who Redlich was working for. And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work. Some line up eh?

Davey, please quit or I am going to call the referee over to stop it.

DVP: And Jimmy says that even though he knows that several of the WC lawyers said exactly the OPPOSITE,

Davey, do you really know nothing about the WC?

​The junior counsel, and even the senior counsel were nothing. They had no power at all. I mean you saw what happened when Liebeler wrote his famous memo right? Pointing out the problems in the report?

​Let me educate you on that one: He was called in by Rankin and Redlich. He was asked by the HSCA as to what happened when he tried to defend his memo? Well, recall, Liebeler was a UCLA Bruin prof. And recall this was back in 1964 when USC was beginning to produce a powerhouse team with Mike Garrett etc. Wesley replied with words to the effect: it was sort of like a UCLA/ USC football game from the mid sixties, I got steam rolled.

I guess Davey didn't know how power works in a bureaucracy. That is how it works Davey. From the horse's mouth.

Before Davey jumps on and says:

"Oh, the great Jim DIEugenio left out the HSCA acceptance."

Everyone, including Davey, knows what happened to the HSCA. It started as a really populist movement inspired by the revelations of the Church Committee, the publicity surrounding the Hosty note, and the ABC show on the Z film.

With Downing there, it looked like it was actually going to find out what really happened.

It quickly went awry when Downing left and Gonzalez took charge and got into that nutty brouhaha with Sprague. First Gonzalez left, then Sprague left, then Tanenbaum left, then Al Lewis left.

And then, what made it worse, is after everyone saw what happened to Sprague, no one wanted the Chief Counsel job. For good reason. Sprague was a legendary prosecutor who had a sterling reputation. As Joe Rauh, a famous Democratic lobbyist said, "You know, I never thought the Kennedy case was a conspiracy until now. But if they can do that to DIck Sprague, it must have been."

Well Chris Dodd, who Tanenbaum makes into an utterly sly and sinister character in his roman a clef, Corruption of Blood, somehow came up with Blakey. Blakey got the message from what happened to Sprague. "We are going to write a report." And the other line was "You have to get your conspiracy smaller." Or as his assistant said in one of the most notorious, but accurate, quotes ever made in this case: "No, no, no. You don't have to do that. Like I said, that's the real world. That's irrelevant."

Talk about demoralizing. The staffers now went out and made T shirts saying, "Reality is irrelevant." That was it. As Bud Fensterwald later wrote, "The HSCA sure went to hell in a hand basket didn't it?"

This is all in Fonzi's absolutely first class book The Last Investigation. You have read it have you not Davey? Or too busy reading letters from Blaine.

You know, Davey is so enamored of this, and yet he does not understand what this has all been about.

Lawyers are advocates.

The WC were advocates for the prosecution of Oswald. We all know that nine ways to Sunday.

Now, the adversary system only works if along with the prosecution in place there are two other things in place:

1. The defense

2. A judge to make sure the rules of evidence are followed.

The WC lacked either one. Therefore, it was a runaway prosecution. No controls. A travesty.

And when you throw in what Hoover did, its kind of sick.

That is why they accepted the bogus CE 399.

In any real legal proceeding, forget it. The WC was a joke.

That is why that New Orleans judge almost fell out of his chair when Shaw's lawyers wanted to try and admit it.

I didn't know about the last one.

And Bugliosi said that the critics signed autographs for money at their seminars.

Geez.

wait.

DVP has written a book?

a stunner, sold 8 copies... enough for Mel Ayton to retire to Caan.

LOL

Wow, you really did not read anything he said did you?

Its like Blaine sent you some talking points and you recycle them.

That is your idea of research.

DVP: How would you know that, Vince?

Because Torina completely contradicts what you are saying.

So therefore, you have to explain it or concede that these guys are confabulating.

I mean they do have a great deal to cover up don't they? Like partying until four am the night before, with hard liquor and leaving the president protected by firemen who they rented out. Is that OK with you Davey?

BTW, why did Boring lie about not begin in Dallas that day?

No Davey, someone should tell you what the legal standards are before you place one of them as the title of your book.

And then you backtrack inside the book since you know the title is a complete bait and switch.

Wow Davey, this is bad even for you.

Didn't you read what he wrote and the links?

What are you saying? You know more than he does about this subject?

That was excellent Vince.

DVP used an alias, Weldon Hartford?

And he got this trick from John McAdams?

And its all a bunch of BS.

Wow, what a surprise. Bad day for Davey.

Thanks Vince.

Can we get back to the point?

Is McCabe to be taken seriously?

Why is it, from what I can see, that he is the odd man out?

I was actually a bit stunned at all the research Seamus did on this series.

I had never even heard of all these writers and/or incidents.

Its a mini subculture in the UFO community to try and blame the JFK case on this phenomenon.

David Josephs will also be commenting on the BYP for CTKA in his upcoming review of the so called Rifle and Handgun purchase.

Buckle your seat belts.

From Part 3:

Section 6. Fifteen Indicators of an Occipital Origin for HF [90]

"At least fifteen indicators argue for a large occipital defect: (1) witnesses to a large posterior defect (i.e., a hole in the occiput), (2) the three Dallas pathologists described HF as occipital, (3) Boswell’s sketches at the autopsy and for the ARRB, (4) the original catalog description of F8 as a posterior view, (5) Humes’s selected entry site while before the ARRB, (6) intrinsic features of HF, (7) the ill-matched appositional bone borders for metallic exit debris on two different bones, (8) small, visible dark areas on the AP X-ray (confirmed by OD data), (9) the missing medial lambdoid sutures on the AP X-ray, (10) an abrupt change in OD at the back of the skull on the lateral X-ray (consistent with the HF defect), (11) the dubious fit of HF into the parietal defect, (12) Dr. Cairns’s suspicion of an entry near the metallic smear and also his description of vascular grooves near the “base of the skull,” (13) the location of the metallic smear on the outside of HF, (14) the presence of fat pads (from the Y-incision) in the upper left corner of F8, and (15) the visibility of cerebellum via the posterior skull defect."

More from Mantik's essay:

"Because its precise site of origin (within the skull) can point strongly; either toward or away from conspiracy; the Harper fragment (HF) has triggered many hot debates.[6] To date, no consensus has been reached on its site of origin. The bone itself disappeared (after Burkley signed for it), so all subsequent discussion has focused on the photographs and, more recently, on the HF X-ray.[7] My goals here are to review the major clues to this puzzle (I list fifteen of these in Section 6; all consistent with one another) and to identify the site of origin of HF within the skull.

The original identification (of HF as occipital) was made by three Dallas pathologists; Jack C. Harper, Gerard Noteboom, and A. B. Cairns (chief of pathology for Methodist Hospital). Their photographs of the bone are shown in Figure 1. In reaching their occipital conclusion, of course, they had no access to JFK's skull; nor to skull X-rays, nor likely to any eyewitnesses, nor to any Dealey Plaza photographs. And they certainly did not see any autopsy photographs (either original or extant), so they did not know where JFK's skull defects or injuries were. On the other hand, Dr. Harper's nephew had told him about the discovery site in Dealey Plaza; despite this knowledge, the pathologists still clearly affirmed an occipital origin."

This is by Jeff Carter.

Jeff is the guy who worked with Len Osanic on the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series for BOR.

I especially like Part 2, and there are two more parts to come.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP1-3.html

Please read this series, its the best thing Seamus Coogan ever wrote. Even better than his essay on John Hankey.

It actually got him a paying, professional reporting job.

http://ctka.net/2011/MJ-12_Preamble_I.html

I think its one of the most important things CTKA ever published.

BTW, from the link I made at No. 26 above, that series on the Warren Commission, this is one I really like:

9. When senior lawyers started leaving, Howard Willens hired law school graduates to finish the job.

As noted in Point 8, Howard Willens hired most of the counselors for the Commission. Surprisingly, many of these lawyers were not criminal attorneys. They had a business background or education e.g. David Belin, Melvin Eisenberg, Wesley Liebeler. But beyond that, by the summer of 1964, many of the senior counselors started to leave. Mainly because they were losing money being away from private practice. To replace them, Willens did a rather odd thing. He began to hire newly minted law school graduates. In other words, lawyers who had no experience in any kind of practice at all. In fact, one of these men, Murray Lauchlicht, had not even graduated from law school when Willens enlisted him. (Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act, p. 404) His field of specialty was trusts and estates. When he got to the Commission's offices, Lauchlicht was assigned to complete the biography of Jack Ruby. Another recent law school graduate who had clerked for one year was Lloyd Weinreb. The 24 year old Weinreb was given the job of completing the biography of Oswald. (ibid, p. 405)

Needless to say, these two aspects of the report, the biographies of Oswald and Ruby have come to be suspect since they leave so much pertinent material out. In fact, Burt Griffin told the House Select Committee on Assassinations, that senior counsel Leon Hubert left because he did not feel he was getting any support from the Commission administrators, or the intelligence agencies, to understand who Ruby really was. (HSCA, Volume XI, pgs. 268-83) Obviously, someone who had not even graduated law school would not have those kinds of compunctions. Willens probably knew that.

Isn't that rich? That is what Willens thought of the Warren Commission. And the death of President Kennedy.

BTW, let me add, I could say certain things I believe actually happened.

In other words, how the plot was formulated and when, and how it was then handed down, and then how it was planned and then executed.

Anyone who knows me would understand that I think MC was crucial.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/Introduction.html

But i would have to label that as being simply my belief as to what happened. For the simple reason that the WC screwed up the evidence so much. I mean, for example, what they did on MC was simply a disgrace.

Then, when the HSCA did actually investigate MC, that report was sealed for about another fifteen years.

I mean it was not until the ARRB, over 30 years later, that the evidentiary record was largely declassified.

LOL, nice one Dave

Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.

It was the job of the WC to prove their case against Oswald.

They did not do that. By any legal standard.

Our side does not have to prove what actually happened. They always say we should. But its simply not in the rule book.

What our side has to do is to show that their case is simply not credible.

Which we have done. A zillion times over. In every aspect.

http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_00.html

That is only the beginning of the problems with CE 399.

I mean, if I am a defense lawyer, I want the prosecutor to admit that exhibit since it would be the beginning of the end of his case. I would not even call a 402 hearing. Since I think it would be harder to prove the people's case with it than without it. In fact, if the prosecution tried to prove the case without it, I would then enter it myself.

Because not only would you prove it's bogus, you prove the whole unreliability of the handling of evidence in the state's case. Which is a very important plateau to cross. Once you have done that, its an uphill climb with the jury.

Tanenbaum once mentioned this to me. He said, once you lose the jury's trust in the efficacy of the people's case, then they begin to look at your case as not really factual, but theorizing.

Which, of course, is the giant problem with the Warren Commission. Its one big theory. (Which makes it so bizarrely ironic that DVP calls us conspiracy theorists.) The WR doesn't prove anything. Even Jesse Curry admitted that the DPD could never put Oswald in the window with that rifle. And then when you add in Vickie Adams?

In the last couple of years, I have tried to stress that the WC is an object lesson in what happens to our judiciary if the adversarial procedure breaks down. Oswald was not allowed a defense. And the guy sent by the ABA did not do his job at all. Since the rules of evidence were not even acknowledged, let alone followed. As Chris Sharrett once said, the Nazis at Nuremberg got a better defense than Oswald. I mean, does it get worse than that?

And with Dulles, McCloy and Ford running the show, the fix was in. I mean, Ford even admitted this later to the president of France.

http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html