James DiEugenio

Gerry: What is your proof that Marina knew LHO had been to Mexico CIty? That is not what she said to the Secret Service in her first interview after the assassination.

Oh please Mike. This is getting ridiculous. There was no diary obtained by the LAPD. That is utter crap. And if you buy what Rothmiller says was in it, then I can also sell you a bridge in Arizona. We now know that for sure. It was found later in the Strasburg archive. And it was really kind of a journal and it had next to nothing in it about JFK. She had written down an answer to a journalist's question about what she felt about his policies. And that was it. And that whole thing about a press conference is even worse. Gary VItacco Robles interviewed the guy from her PR company and he said, nope. Not one word about it. This is what is called doing research for cross checking purposes. You obviously know nothing about Sidney G. Don McGovern spends a couple of pages on this guy. And talk about changing your story. This guy did a 180 degree turn, and that was in 1996! 34 years later. If you are not going to cross check any of the junk you post Mike and just take this hack writer at his word, you should not post at all. That is just the contrary to what real JFK researchers do, they always try and cross check if the info is valid. That is what Don McGovern does. And that is why he is credible and Rothmiller is not. Don has destroyed ever major tenet of his POS book. Fred Otash, of all people. I think Mike is being deliberately obtuse on this one since no one would buy his Vietnam baloney.

Does that mean you wash your hands of who you brought back?

BTW, if you look at that CBS poll, in the sub question, I think that is why Evans and Loomis did what they did. Too many people said the CIA did it, presumably taking their cue from Stone's film. Another CBS poll said that in 1993 81 per cent thought the official story was a cover up. Which was the highest in a 20 year range.

From 1993, this CBS poll went up around 11 points from the previous one in 1988 about if the public disbelieved the WC. And look how many thought it was the CIA. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/11/16/CBS-poll-Americans-believe-CIA-helped-assassinate-JFK/6101753426000/

We are using Will Fritz now? Tom Gram is correct on this issue and using those kinds of images to represent PM is really unfair to all sides. BTW, are we knocking a book that most of the people doing the attacking have not read yet? I hope not.

BTW, averaging polls is a common practice by experts in the field, 538 does it all the time. Let me add, if you were not around back then, the attack on Oliver Stone was unprecedented in film history. It actually began seven months before the film debuted. And this debate went on until the Academy Awards. When David Belin, in an anonymous letter to the trades, begged the Academy not to give any Oscars to JFK. In other words almost a year. Loomis and Evans knew that unless they did something, that debate would continue for the 30th and the critics would get a lot of time due to that controversy. So they arranged for Posner to be their counter. And his PR tour was simply incredible. How many Kennedy assassination books get an ad in the NY TImes, cover of US News and World Report and an ABC prime time spot in the first week? None that I can think of. And the first two are explained by Evans' influence and at ABC by Casey's gang. (It later came out that Evans himself wrote the text for the Times ad.) And that was just the beginning. Posner was everywhere for weeks on end. And this helped wipe out some good books that came out for the 30th like Fonzi's. I actually asked Gaeton about this and that is what he said. What Evans and Loomis did was plain and simple: a combination of termination and preemption. So if anyone tells you we are not in a war, call them on it. BTW, not only will Landis be in Pittsburgh, I hear Alec Baldwin will be also.

That last part is an understatement Robin. Until we reported it at K and K, there was nothing. And he had been dead almost two years.

Rothmiller used Fred Otash? Oh no, then that seals it. Otash was about as bad and amoral as they come. He made Spindel look like a decent guy. Wait until you see what I have on him in my upcoming article "Joyce Carol Oates, Brad Pitt and the Road to Blonde."

Sandy, thanks. The Gallup Poll is not the only one out there, not by a long shot. At the time of JFK, then in 1993, and as late as the 50th, there were many other polls out there. And many of those were in extreme for our side. One of the great disappointments on the JFK case has been cable TV and the liberal blogs. The so called experts on the former have been usually Shenon, Sabato and incredibly Posner. Try and find a good story about the JFK case at Huffpost or Josh Marshall, or Politico. In about 1994 according to that fine book, The CIA in Hollywood, they were complaining about how they did not reach out to Oliver Stone before his film JFK. And this is when they decided to place their own man out in the film biz. But they also said that through the office of public affairs, their attachments to media reps has gotten even stronger and they have turned some damaging stories into successes. I do not think there is any doubt that one later would include Gary Webb.

It is not Stanton. That is as far as I will go but its not Stanton.

This was probably off a bounce from his appearance on Daniel Jones. Glad I helped him on that one.

And let me also add this. Where was Tunheim in the media when Biden just went ahead and radically altered the JFK Act? Should he not have been in the news? He is the sole remaining member of that Board. The rest have passed on. If you can show me where he was and on what TV show he was featured I would like to see it. Since I missed it.

One of the most recent strophes to marginalize the good and honest JFK research based on the new files of the ARRB is to equate any kind of that work with QAnon. Steve GIllon, one of the worst of the new spokesmen for their side has tried to do this of late. This is how I replied to him. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/steven-gillon-mark-lane-equals-donald-trump So the strategy is twofold, minimize any exposure, and then compare and equate the critics with QAnon and/or the people who attacked the Capitol during the Insurrection. When, in fact, there is no comparison at all between those groups--none, nada, zero. Gillon is using the classic propaganda technique of false equivalence in order to do one simple thing: avoid the facts. I for one, think that the work of the ARRB was quite valuable. We discovered a lot of new things that the CIA and FBI were trying to conceal. Facts about Oswald, about Kennedy, about the forensic angles of the case. To take one example, the work of the HSCA's Betsy Wolf on the CIA file, that was of significant importance in any study of Oswald. It was clearly supposed to be hidden forever. Malcolm Blunt discovered it and we have it at K and K and I talked about it in Canada. And it will be in the new book I contributed to, The Chokeholds coming out in November. In my view that should have been in the media. As Tunheim said to Oliver, the Board must have issued about a hundred press releases. Yet the ARRB got very little notice at all. I mean how many people even know who Tunheim was or what the Board was up to? And yet that Board was made up of purely Establishment people. But the MSM did not like what they were doing. So with very few exceptions, the important things they did discover were all but ignored. The one major exception I can think of was the late George Lardner's story on the Gunn/Horne medical inquiry.

Because 2013-2017 was they heyday of the cable companies and their "recreations." inspired by Myers and ABC. Jim Marrs used to make fun of these at seminars. As per Wikipedia, we have an article about what happened there. from Jimmy Wales down. It became the NY TImes of the JFK case.

Thanks William. That whole story about the takeover of ABC by Casey's old company Cap Cities is really something that everyone should know about. It was that which, in all probability, led to 1.) the ABC purchase of the Hersh hatchet job book and then 2.) the horrendous ABC 2003 Jennings/Gus Russo Kennedy special. And I should also add, Oliver was fortunate to be picked up by Showtime. It was touch and go there for awhile about getting any of what they call "top tier" broadcast companies to carry us. But the distributor tried really hard and Oliver's relationship with them pulled it out. And it did well for them, and that is what got us onto so many streaming platforms afterwards, like 7 of them. And it became a best seller in DVD sales; amazingly we are still in the top ten. But guess what? Before our contract expired with Showtime, the top level of the corporation changed management of that division. Oliver's colleagues were replaced. Who knows about these things right?

In addition to this, there is a good interview coming up this week on BOR with lawyer Andrew Iler. It was conducted by both Len Osanic and myself with Andrew, who knows the JFK Act as well as anyone.

I was not going to comment on this originally since the thesis is so obtuse. But when I see someone I like and respect like Pat Speer falling for it, I almost have to. The number of people who did not buy the WC and thought it was a conspiracy went through the ceiling in the years 1991-92 due to the film JFK. The chart, if anything, underestimates that. There were polls that were about or close to 90 per cent against the Commission. And in fact, sub questions were highly in favor of a CIA plot. But what happened is the Powers that Be were not going to let that continue. Especially with the 30th coming up. So two powerful people, the late Harold Evans and Bob Loomis of Random House, timed their backing of Posner's book with that anniversary. Posner got a PR tour, the likes of which had never been seen before. (And since then the only one that came close was the one for Sy Hersh and his JFK hatchet job four years later.) That began a clamping down on anyone who was against the official story. We know this from Alec Baldwin and his experience at NBC. He wanted to pitch a program around the JFK case, but the executives knew what he had in mind and they said words to the effect, we have become settled in with the Warren Report. Now, in addition to that clamping down, there has been a large amount of media consolidation since 1991. This was begun under Clinton and his Communications Act which significantly altered the ownership limitations of broadcast and print media. Today, something like six companies own like 90 per cent of all broadcast media. When Oliver Stone came out with his film in late 1991, he was all over the major media. He was on Nightline twice, and he was on the Oprah Winfrey Show which was huge. There were several talk shows devoted only to the JFK assassination. There were independent producers who did specials on the subject with hosts like James Earl Jones and Robert Conrad. Our side was getting a lot of time with people like Jim Marrs and Cyril Wecht. It was really kind of unprecedented. Slowly but surely those avenues were closed off due to the Powers that Be and the media consolidation. I can tell you that is the case since I know it firsthand. How many major shows had Oliver on in 2021? None. And we had a pretty big PR firm working for us. They tried. We were deliberately vetoed, as with Alec Baldwin. I cannot go into the bloody details, but I can assure you that was the case. Now, further proof of this is that such was not the case abroad. We were well reviewed in Europe by a margin of 15-5 according to our clipping service. In the space of just a few weeks the following happened: 1. We were in 3 feature stories in the major Australian newspapers, and they interviewed me live on Channel Nine, the biggest broadcaster on the continent. 2. About a week after that, i got a call from Izvestia, one of the biggest broadcast/print media in Russia, and did a Zoom interview with them. 3. About a week after that, the Rome Film Festival flew Oliver into Italy since they showed both versions of the film on the same night, about a mile from each other One of the viewings, I do not recall which one, was so well attended they had it in an open air venue. Oliver and I were on the feature pages of the Rome dailies the next day. And I do not have to repeat what happened up in Quebec. Wall to wall interviews by Oliver and me, even some before we got there. Sold out attendance at all three venues, the last at 99 bucks a pop. For Oliver to get any kind of breakthrough at all in America he had to turn to the alternative media and do many, many of those in order to build some coverage. He did a lot of work, like 3-4 shows a day. So anyone who somehow tries to say this is a failing of the critical community, that is just in my view axe grinding for your own agenda. What has happened to the American big media in the last 30 some years is nothing less than a tragedy. Just look at the Bill Casey led takeover of ABC, that is a story that was so covered up it was kind of sick.

Adam: Scaduto wrote an article about MM and her death that got in a national magazine, I think Oui, and then he turned it into a book. Suggesting John Bates as a fabricator, when he was actually a pillar of the community, someone who you have never investigated or did any research on, while ignoring all the corroborating evidence that supports him? I mean, whew. So sixty years in and you are still waiting for a tape? When, in fact, they went through Bernie Spindel's tapes already and nothing showed up. How many people had MM's house wired? When in fact there was never any affair between her and RFK in the first place. To paraphrase from Don McGovern's upcoming article at K and K: there is not and has never been any credible evidence of any such affair. In fact the actual evidence says there was no such episode. This from a guy who has spent years researching the subject. And yes, Don McGovern did debunk Franklin. I think this will be it for me Adam. You are just thrashing about.

If you buy into those Rothmiller transcriptions about MM's diary, then you and I, and most others on this thread, have a big difference of what constitutes evidence and how to judge the credibility of an author. How many different ways does one have to show that Rothmiller is full of it? You just ignore all that. 25 Nembutals and MM stayed alive for hours after? Did you skip how Don McGovern demolished the Rothmiller story about MM and JFK having dinner during the second night of the 1960 Democratic Convention, when in fact she was not even in California! BTW here is a quote about that internal inquiry by OCID: "As with Capell, this lunacy was generally disregarded. But it also generated an internal investigation within the Los Angeles Police Department. Eventually, the department’s Organized Crime Investigation Division prepared a point-by-point refutation of Scaduto’s story, based on meticulous documentation and new interviews with Peter Lawford and Medical Examiner Thomas Noguchi. In an uncharacteristic literary smirk, the report turned a line from Scaduto against him: “The evidence is as thin as Depression-food-line soup.” Then you link to his older book. This is not about that book. As many prosecutors have said, they dream about a motion picture case e.g. RFK being in Gilroy. Well, the testimony of ten people, a series of pictures, and an FBI report, that is the kind of evidence they dream of. Your attempt to cast aspersions on John Bates and his family is, I think, unwarranted and underhanded. Oh yes, if somehow you cannot find either of the Carroll reports online, abracadabra, they do not exist. Is that what you are trying to say? Even though authors have read them and quoted from them? Please Adam.

Cory, We are waiting for you. You want to forget about that fine. Let us forget about it. Adam, to be frank, I do not not what you are trying to say. I have answered these questions. So has Don McGovern. You are wrong on both points.

This is why I do not look at Mike's posts. He never cross checks anything. What he does not say is that Murray changed her story, and she did it more than once. Her original story, which we should value, was that no one was there. But under constant pressure from people like Slatzer, who was very instrumental in influencing witnesses, she changed her tune. But as the evidence in GIlroy shows, this is false. And no she did not come into a lot of money. As per the first detective on the scene, is Mike for real? Don McGovern proved that Clemmons was not just a fabricator but he was indicted on libel charges and forced to leave LAPD. Don proved that everything Clemmons said about the scene was false. The lie about the washer dryer, thus making Murray into some kind of unwitting accomplice was really kind of sick. As was the lie about there being no glass in MM's bedroom and it being neat. All complete BS. OMG Pat Newcomb. Pat Newcomb was a former student of Pierre Salinger. She was heartbroken after MM's death since she left the house that day over an argument about whether or not MM should pose nude in Playboy. She was against it. She thought MM should get away from that kind of thing. She was so broken up after her death that she left her job as a PR person and Salinger got her a position. Newcomb was not any kind of informant since there was nothing to inform about while she was there. Don McGovern describes how MM was positioned on the bed by the first group of cops to arrive after Clemmons left. And its not how Doug describes it. Doug Thompson is an amateur. And his comments show it in spades. Anyone who reads one book on the MM case and relies on it is simply not to be trusted. As for Rothmiller, he has joined up in the MM mythology/scatology industry. He tells us utterly nothing about JFK, RFK or MM. What he does is create false smears of them, which people who do not know anything about the case think are credible. When, in fact, that is the last thing they are. Its part and parcel of something I once called the posthumous assassination syndrome

Adam: To not read the Carrol report, yet to characterize it as the Warren Report, I mean give us a break. That is just the kind of thing we are not supposed to do. To be frank, its a cheap shot. Rothmiller's previous book has next to nothing to do with his book on MM. The Kennedys attending church was in the papers up there. And you saw the pics of them leaving GIlroy. And you read the FBI report about it. And if you say Hoover was covering for RFK, I will throw up. So in other words, you have the testimony, the pictures and the FBI report and newspaper accounts. And BTW, Bates described the pictures before anyone saw them! Now let us take a look at Rothmiller's story: Bobby was in Brentwood not once, but twice that day! How, with the contravening evidence? Which as Don notes, Rothmiller all but ignores. RFK was desperate for the diary, which did not exist. Her actual journals--which included poems-- were discovered later in the Strasberg archives. And when one compares them with what Rothmiller wrote, things like "I'll never such another ---k." "Nekita has to be stopped." That should be enough to just throw Rothmiller's book up in the air or down a garbage disposal. But there is also the fact that Rothmiller's confection differs from Grandison's. And Don's examination of the Rothmiller death scenario and how the autopsy evidence undermines it, that is simply fatal to his tall tale. 25 Nembutals in a mixed drink. And she stayed alive for hours after. Sure Mike. But this is all nonsense anyway. Neither RFK nor Lawford were there. Unless you also think that in addition to three diaries (let us not forget Slatzer's), Lawford gave three different confessions. But for anyone to buy into David Heymann today--which is one of them-- after he has been exposed as a proven fraud, that is simply inexcusable. The truth is, as VItacco Robles writes, that Lawford did not leave his house or his guests. And the guests corroborate that. And he was always plagued by guilt about it since he thought if he had gone over there and driven her over, what happened would not have happened.

Adam: You likely do not know this. But the DA's office conducted a year long inquiry into these matters, including the charges made by people like Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen. Very similar to what Rothmiller comes up with more recently. DA Ronald Carrol wrote a 641 page report which refuted them specifically and in detail. The MM nuts only mention a 27 page report. But that was only the summary. Gary VItacco Robles petitioned the office for the full report. And he uses it in his book Icon. Which is how we know, in just one matter, that unlike Rothmiller states, that neither LAPD nor FBI , or Spindel taped her house. I would think 641 pages of inquiry would be enough to show that the mythological cum scatological stories produced by the likes of Slatzer and Speriglio were false. Don't you? I mean Don did a very good job taking apart Rothmiller's book on other crucial matters about where RFK was that day, and Rothmiller's false depiction on the specific cause of death. One thing Don left out. Lawford's confession to Rothmiller was his third one. Yessiree. One to Heymann, which changed over time--after Lawford died-- and another to his former wife, Patricia Seaton who he was married to for four months. Here is the zinger. The confessions are all different. LOL.🙃 And I hope you noticed the diary entries are different between Rothmiller and Grandison. And when see her actual journal writing? Completely different. How can this be--different confessions, different diaries. I think we know why. Because RFK was never near Brentwood that day. Don proves that with photos and testimony. And the pics were described many years before they first appeared also.

Posner I would love to debate in almost any milieu. I offered him the stage at UCLA, plus all the admission fees and any broadcast fees. Nope.