Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

What I am saying is this: Criticism, if it has any value, has to be formalistic.  That means it has to analyze the book from the outside, and then measure what it says against certain qualitative standards.  By this I mean one has to test and discuss the statements and sources used in the book.  If not, then the critic is reduced to being nothing but a messenger for the book, sort of what the MSM did with the Warren Report.

Paul actually just summarized each chapter of Caufield's book on this site--with no such outside informed analysis at all.  Period.  He just more or less synopsized the contents and dumped it out here, and we were supposed to accept it.

That is not criticism.  It is stenography.  There was simply no discussion or review of what he was writing--he just accepted whatever it is Caufield wrote.  No matter how flawed, no matter how absurd, no matter how wrong on the facts, no matter how illogical.

That is not criticism.  You can buy or not buy my review of the book.  But in my review I tell you where I am coming from.  So if we disagree, there is a basis for that. You cannot do that with Paul's completely unweighed and unmeasured summary.  Since he was simply not going to show any of the myriad flaws in the 700 page book.  

Edited December 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn

This is one example of what I pointed out but Trejo had no problem with:

Let me conclude this section of the review by noting a memo that Caufield repeats at least three times throughout the volume. (Repetition, and inclusion of extraneous material, are two methods by which Caufield inflates his page count.) The memo is from Hubert Badeaux, a New Orleans police intelligence officer, to state senator William Rainach (p. 273, 791) In this letter, the following two sentences appear in paragraph five:

“I have been in contact with an out-of-town person whom I have been grooming to come here to take over the establishment of infiltration into the university and intellectual groups. I will tell you in detail about this when I see you in person.”

Caufield actually tries to make the argument that Badeaux here is referring to Oswald. But Oswald was not out of town at the time, April of 1957. He was out of the state. He was in Jacksonville, Florida, being trained in avionics to become a radar operator. Five months later he would be out of the country and on another continent. He was shipped to the Far East, stationed at the giant CIA base at Atsugi, Japan, home of the U-2. Are we to think that both Badeaux—and Caufield—were unaware of this? Or that Badeaux did not know that Oswald had contracted with the service until December of 1959? Was Badeaux going to tell Rainach when he saw him that he had a prospect they had to wait for until 1960, over two and half years in the future, to cultivate? And then, in 1960, he would presumably tell the senator, well we have to wait another two and half years, since he’s going to Russia. But, hey Mr. Senator, that’s OK, because his fluency in Russian is going to help him infiltrate those integrationist groups in Louisiana, which used that language.

This all strikes me as nonsense. It shows how desperate the author is to place Oswald in this rightwing milieu as an operative. Which parallels his desperation to make Oswald into a Nazi. But that doesn’t stop Caufield from going even further in this regard. He actually tries to say that state senator Rainach took his own life in January of 1978 because he may have feared having to testify before the HSCA! (Caufield, p. 697) If anyone can show me where there was any imminent move inside the HSCA to call Rainach as a witness, I would love to see it. I would be willing to wager that almost no one on the committee even knew who he was. And for good reason.

 

To spew out literally thousands of words about Caufield's rather long book and never to tell the reader that it is studded with baloney like this, that is not criticism.  It is cheerleading.  And if there is one thing we do not need on this case anymore, its cheerleading.

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...Paul actually just summarized each chapter of Caufield's book on this site--with no such outside informed analysis at all.  Period.  He just more or less synopsized the contents and dumped it out here, and we were supposed to accept it.

That is not criticism.  It is stenography.  There was simply no discussion or review of what he was writing--he just accepted whatever it is Caufield wrote.  No matter how flawed, no matter how absurd, no matter how wrong on the facts, no matter how illogical.

That is not criticism.  You can buy or not buy my review of the book.  But in my review I tell you where I am coming from.  So if we disagree, there is a basis for that. You cannot do that with Paul's completely unweighed and unmeasured summary.  Since he was simply not going to show any of the myriad flaws in the 700 page book.  

James,

That's not accurate and you know it.  I presented a summary of the first 14 chapters of Caufield's book as an introduction to his book -- with no expectation that people would "just accept it."   Your defensiveness only shows that you fear Caufield's result -- that the Radical Right killed JFK -- because it contradicts your all your literature which claims that the CIA killed JFK.

Jeff Caufield is a direct antidote to the CTKA poppy seeds.

The followers of CTKA in this FORUM are numerous and boisterous -- they often shout that Ruth Paine "must have been" a CIA agent, because they've read the CTKA tabloid, Probe Magazine, in the 1990's.  

This uncritical repetition of Jim Garrison's failed case against Clay Shaw captured the American imagination after Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, in 1992.  However, since the turn of the 21st century, readers have become more demanding -- more discerning.  The CIA-did-it CT has been losing readership -- and with good reason.

It's been 50 years and the CIA-did-it theory is on the ropes.  By attacking Dr. Jeff Caufield's alternative CT -- nit-picking this or that minor tidbit -- the CTKA is only showing their own weakness.

By merely repeating the Probe Magazine nonsense about Ruth Paine in your own book, Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition (2012), you have shown the weakness of your entire position.

I did not attempt to sell Jeff Caufield.  I only summarized the first half of his book briefly for interested readers.  The power of Caufield's research speaks for itself -- and we can actually hear the CIA-did-it CT crackling and crumbling from below.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn

This is one example of what I pointed out but Trejo had no problem with:

Let me conclude this section of the review by noting a memo that Caufield repeats at least three times throughout the volume. (Repetition, and inclusion of extraneous material, are two methods by which Caufield inflates his page count.) The memo is from Hubert Badeaux, a New Orleans police intelligence officer, to state senator William Rainach (p. 273, 791) In this letter, the following two sentences appear in paragraph five:

“I have been in contact with an out-of-town person whom I have been grooming to come here to take over the establishment of infiltration into the university and intellectual groups. I will tell you in detail about this when I see you in person.”

Caufield actually tries to make the argument that Badeaux here is referring to Oswald. But Oswald was not out of town at the time, April of 1957. He was out of the state. He was in Jacksonville, Florida, being trained in avionics to become a radar operator. Five months later he would be out of the country and on another continent. He was shipped to the Far East, stationed at the giant CIA base at Atsugi, Japan, home of the U-2. Are we to think that both Badeaux—and Caufield—were unaware of this? Or that Badeaux did not know that Oswald had contracted with the service until December of 1959? Was Badeaux going to tell Rainach when he saw him that he had a prospect they had to wait for until 1960, over two and half years in the future, to cultivate? And then, in 1960, he would presumably tell the senator, well we have to wait another two and half years, since he’s going to Russia. But, hey Mr. Senator, that’s OK, because his fluency in Russian is going to help him infiltrate those integrationist groups in Louisiana, which used that language.

This all strikes me as nonsense. It shows how desperate the author is to place Oswald in this rightwing milieu as an operative. Which parallels his desperation to make Oswald into a Nazi. But that doesn’t stop Caufield from going even further in this regard. He actually tries to say that state senator Rainach took his own life in January of 1978 because he may have feared having to testify before the HSCA! (Caufield, p. 697) If anyone can show me where there was any imminent move inside the HSCA to call Rainach as a witness, I would love to see it. I would be willing to wager that almost no one on the committee even knew who he was. And for good reason.

 

To spew out literally thousands of words about Caufield's rather long book and never to tell the reader that it is studded with baloney like this, that is not criticism.  It is cheerleading.  And if there is one thing we do not need on this case anymore, its cheerleading.

I think you missed my point, James.

or maybe not. I'm not sure.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Paul, here is the crucial difference between your theory and mine - and many others, for that matter - my thoughts on what may have happened and what probably didn't happen leave room for particulars of others'.

your theory does not.

Like an Alabama Church of Christ credo, everyone else is just wrong.

[Paul Brancato]

Glenn - you hit the nail on the head. 

[James DiEugenio]

OK, Paul here is another problem with Caufield's book that somehow you overlooked.  I call it the Pere Marquette conspiracy.  Its a real doozy.  And it shows that Caufield did not read the best work on Braden before he wrote about him.

Caufield states Jim Braden had an office in the Pere Marquette Building in New Orleans. G. Wray Gill, an attorney who David Ferrie did some work for, also had an office in that building. Braden was a former east coast criminal who was out on parole and was now in the oil business. Gill was one of several lawyers that Marcello employed. Caufield tries to make something out of the Pere Marquette connection. And the fact that Braden had a visit with Lamar Hunt scheduled while he was in Dallas the weekend of the assassination.

To a leaping exegete like Caufield, “this is evidence of conspiracy between the Hunts, Braden, and Milteer...” (Caufield, p. 303) To the not-so-leaping, as with the Badeaux memo, it was another Chaplinesque cannon moment. Recall, the tramp loads up the cannon, he lights the fuse, he plugs his ears: but the cannon does not go off, while the cannonball rolls out a few inches from the mouth of the cannon.

First of all, if Caufield had read Bill Kelly’s fine work on Braden, he would know that Braden did not actually have an office at the Pere Marquette Building. A man he worked with, oil geologist Vernon Main, had an office in that rather large office building. (Kelly, JFK Countercoup, post of 12/19/09) Braden had a legitimate reason to be in Dallas and talking to Hunt. He owned two oil companies, and his partner, Roger Bowman, lived in Dallas. Braden told his parole officer about his business trip and checked in with the probation office in Dallas on November 21st. He was actually part of a group of five men who were proceeding to Houston on more oil business after they met with Hunt. (ibid) As Kelly notes, Braden said he did not know Gill.

How does Caufield fit Milteer into his Pere Marquette circle of conspiracy? He says that the business card of G. Wray Gill’s son was in Milteer’s belongings when he died. I’m not kidding; this is what he says constitutes “evidence of conspiracy”. (Caufield, pp. 302-04)

 

Glenn, I was not doing this for just you.  I want to show just how lacking in critical distance Paul is on this subject.  He is in the worst sense, a cheerleader.

Now, watch how instead of admitting his error or the problems with Caufield's book, he will try and shift the subject elsewhere.

[Paul Trejo]

It is absurd for anybody to claim to have the skills of literary criticism in the JFK assassination, when they continue to repeat the Probe Magazine nonsense from the 1990's.

For example, take the case of Ruth Paine.  James DiEugnio's book, Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition (2012) merely repeats word for word the charges against Ruth Paine voiced in Probe Magazine in the 1990's.   Here are just two of many examples I can share:

(1) Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later turned out to be a lover of Allen Dulles -- therefore Ruth Paine must be a CIA agent.

(2) Ruth and Michael Paine met George and Jeanne DeMohrnenshildt for dinner in 1968, in preparation for the Jim Garrison hearings, so therefore Ruth lied when she told the Warren Commission in 1964 that she never saw the DeMohrenshildts anytime in her life before or after February 22, 1963. 

These flaws in logic show a decided lack of critical ability.

James DiEugenio has little right to accuse anybody of lacking critical skills.  His melodramatics in his CIA-did-it CT are world-famous.  No logical person accepts them anymore.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

Paul, here is the crucial difference between your theory and mine - and many others, for that matter - my thoughts on what may have happened and what probably didn't happen leave room for particulars of others'.

your theory does not.

Like an Alabama Church of Christ credo, everyone else is just wrong.

Glenn,

I surely do leave room for other views.   The problem I have is that the Walker-did-it CT is so new, and so unfamiliar to readers, who have been overwhelmed by CIA-did-it literature for the past half-century, that my theory doesn't get a fair hearing.  

We see that on this very thread.  One of the leaders of the CIA-did-it CT is here trying to attack Caufield's Walker-did-it CT, in order to defend his  own weak and crumbling CIA-did-it CT.   

That's all that's happening here.  I don't want to be dogmatic -- I just want a fair hearing for this brand new theory -- and I'm finally tired of the old, 50-year old theory that just repeats itself and never attains closure.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

29 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

It is absurd for anybody to claim to have the skills of literary criticism in the JFK assassination, when they continue to repeat the Probe Magazine nonsense from the 1990's.

For example, take the case of Ruth Paine.  James DiEugnio's book, Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition (2012) merely repeats word for word the charges against Ruth Paine voiced in Probe Magazine in the 1990's.   Here are just two of many examples I can share:

(1) Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later turned out to be a lover of Allen Dulles -- therefore Ruth Paine must be a CIA agent.

(2) Ruth and Michael Paine met George and Jeanne DeMohrnenshildt for dinner in 1968, in preparation for the Jim Garrison hearings, so therefore Ruth lied when she told the Warren Commission in 1964 that she never saw the DeMohrenshildts anytime in her life before or after February 22, 1963. 

These flaws in logic show a decided lack of critical ability.

James DiEugenio has little right to accuse anybody of lacking critical skills.  His melodramatics in his CIA-did-it CT are world-famous.  No logical person accepts them anymore.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul.

your convenient oversimplifications of Jame's claims and of the Paines' suspected "connections" are wrong.

Michael Paine had more than one relative connected to United Fruit and the CIA, and more than one connection outside of his family to the CIA.

As did Ruth Hyde Paine have several more than one connection to the CIA. Ruth Forbes Paine's relationship with Ms Bancroft requires a little more description than "childhood friend" once you actually read some things about its longevity and particulars.

"Ruth lied."

Oh God, then the case is lost. Your honor, I'm sorry I brought such a flimsy case before the court. I could never have foreseen that the defendant actually told a lie. Please accept my apologies and please do exonerate her of all suspicion.

I've been drawing up an "outline" of these (and only about a thousand other) exasperatingly convoluted interrelationships for over a year. The Paine's curious interconnectedness with the agency cannot be ignored - but neither do I stake my house on the supposition that they were CIA. You're right - there's no real evidence that Ruth or Michael was a spy, but for the numerous people they hung out with, a fact that goes way beyond coincidence. 

For most people.

Moreover, your steadfast antithesis to all things "CIA connected" might leave some people to wonder why "thou protesteth too much..." Or else wonder about your research techniques.

Also, you misspelled de Mohrenschildt (or even DeMohrenschildt) twice in a row.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Glenn Nall
i misspelled a word. :)

[Glenn Nall]

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

I surely do leave room for other views.   The problem I have is that the Walker-did-it CT is so new, and so unfamiliar to readers, who have been overwhelmed by CIA-did-it literature for the past half-century, that my theory doesn't get a fair hearing.  

We see that on this very thread.  One of the leaders of the CIA-did-it CT is here trying to attack Caufield's Walker-did-it CT, in order to defend his  own weak and crumbling CIA-did-it CT.   

That's all that's happening here.  I don't want to be dogmatic -- I just want a fair hearing for this brand new theory -- and I'm finally tired of the old, 50-year old theory that just repeats itself and never attains closure.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

your views don't get a fair hearing because of the way you present them, the frequency with which you present them, the dogma and sanctimony with which you present them, and the logic and reasoning you've used to arrive at them and with which you vilify the others.

that's why they don't get a fair hearing.

[Glenn Nall]

and what the hell is a "CIA-did-it" theory anyway, Paul? I've mentioned this once before.

I don't think there IS a CIA-did-it theory, Paul. I've never really heard one.

Please explain to me (us) what that means.

Or the "Mafia-did-it." 

These are not theories, and these are not presented by people who can think. There's a little more to most of these well pursued and long invested theories the good people in this forum offer. (key word being "offer," not "cram," or "shove").

can you expound a bit on what is meant by these particularly irresponsible phrases?

Edited December 13, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

As I predicted, Paul tried to change the subject.  He then says this is nit picking, and then says this is "literary criticism", which it is not. Recall this quote: "By this I mean one has to test and discuss the statements and sources used in the book.  If not, then the critic is reduced to being nothing but a messenger for the book, sort of what the MSM did with the Warren Report."

Let us proceed further with the book Paul said set a new paradigm in the JFK case.  Look at what Caufield did with Loran Hall:

"Since Hall said he met with Walker once, and because some of the Texas people he met with knew Walker, this gives Caufield another “Chaplin’s cannon” opportunity. He now says that, because of his meetings with these Texas people, Hall’s false claim of being at Odio’s was given at the request of Walker’s group in order to conceal the validity of Odio’s allegations. (p. 446)

Again, I have never seen this anywhere. Let us examine it. Caufield says that there is no evidentiary trail to trace how the FBI got to Hall, Seymour and Howard in the first place. That might be true, but it is fairly obvious that Hoover was looking for someone in the anti-Castro underground who was traveling in Texas at around the time of the Odio incident, which was late September of 1963. Both Hall and Howard were Hispanic, and Seymour was Caucasian, so there was a superficial match to the Odio story. In addition, Hall had been to Dallas twice that fall. He had been arrested for possession of drugs (actually pep pills). And he had met with both an FBI agent, and a CIA agent while he was incarcerated. (Hall’s HSCA deposition of 10/5/77, pp. 123-24) He had also been involved with the preparations for the infamous Bayo-Pawley raid into Cuba which had CIA support. (ibid, pp. 114-119) Therefore, it is rather easy to see how the FBI would have known about him.

Very significantly, Caufield also ignores the above-cited HSCA executive session testimony of Hall on the subject. (HSCA Vol. 10, p. 19) Dated October 5, 1977, it is quite revealing of what actually happened in this whole affair. Hall said that the FBI visited him in the autumn of 1964. The agent asked him if he recalled a Mrs. Odio. Hall said he did not. He did recall a male professor with the last name of Odio. Hall said it was possible he may have visited the woman but he did not recall it. He further said that he asked the agent for a photo of Sylvia Odio, but he did not have one! Further, when he was in Dallas in September of 1963, he was with Howard, but not Seymour. Hall testified under oath that he never told the FBI that he was in Dallas with Howard and Seymour. He then said the FBI report that the HSCA gave to him was simply false and contradictory as to what happened when he was interviewed in 1964.

In other words, the idea that Caufield is conveying, about somehow Walker’s group being involved in Hall’s perjury for the FBI, is simply not supported by the record. For if one looks at the testimony by Howard and Seymour, they back up Hall. What becomes clear from Gaeton Fonzi’s fine work on this topic—both for the Church Committee and the HSCA—is that the Warren Commission and the FBI cooperated in an effort to try to undermine Odio’s fascinating evidence. And we have this from the direct testimony of the people involved: Odio, Hall, Seymour, and Howard. This effort went as far as Wesley Liebeler telling Odio that he had orders from Chief Justice Earl Warren to cover up any leads indicating a conspiracy, and then trying to seduce the woman in his hotel room. (DiEugenio, p. 352) Again, why Caufield would ignore all of this direct evidence, and instead make another of his unjustified and unsound leaps is quite puzzling."

Edited December 13, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

dead horses, James.

wearisome battles.

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

OK, Paul here is another problem with Caufield's book that somehow you overlooked.  I call it the Pere Marquette conspiracy.  Its a real doozy.  And it shows that Caufield did not read the best work on Braden before he wrote about him.

Caufield states Jim Braden had an office in the Pere Marquette Building in New Orleans. G. Wray Gill, an attorney who David Ferrie did some work for, also had an office in that building. Braden was a former east coast criminal who was out on parole and was now in the oil business. Gill was one of several lawyers that Marcello employed. Caufield tries to make something out of the Pere Marquette connection. And the fact that Braden had a visit with Lamar Hunt scheduled while he was in Dallas the weekend of the assassination.

To a leaping exegete like Caufield, “this is evidence of conspiracy between the Hunts, Braden, and Milteer...” (Caufield, p. 303) To the not-so-leaping, as with the Badeaux memo, it was another Chaplinesque cannon moment. Recall, the tramp loads up the cannon, he lights the fuse, he plugs his ears: but the cannon does not go off, while the cannonball rolls out a few inches from the mouth of the cannon.

First of all, if Caufield had read Bill Kelly’s fine work on Braden, he would know that Braden did not actually have an office at the Pere Marquette Building. A man he worked with, oil geologist Vernon Main, had an office in that rather large office building. (Kelly, JFK Countercoup, post of 12/19/09) Braden had a legitimate reason to be in Dallas and talking to Hunt. He owned two oil companies, and his partner, Roger Bowman, lived in Dallas. Braden told his parole officer about his business trip and checked in with the probation office in Dallas on November 21st. He was actually part of a group of five men who were proceeding to Houston on more oil business after they met with Hunt. (ibid) As Kelly notes, Braden said he did not know Gill.

How does Caufield fit Milteer into his Pere Marquette circle of conspiracy? He says that the business card of G. Wray Gill’s son was in Milteer’s belongings when he died. I’m not kidding; this is what he says constitutes “evidence of conspiracy”. (Caufield, pp. 302-04)

 Now, watch how instead of admitting his error or the problems with Caufield's book, he will try and shift the subject elsewhere.

OMG, James DiEugenio is actually trying to bait me with trivial details inside Jeff Caufield's recent and brilliant book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

James is actually daring me to challenge his paper-thin, so-called "criticism" of Caufield's brilliant book.

For those newbies who are unaware, let me give a one-sentence overview of Caufield's book, so that the debate is clear to everybody.  Jeff Caufield says that his recent exploration of FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents confirms the account of Willie Somersett, that Joseph Milteer played a decisive role in the JFK assassination; and Caufield links Milteer with Walker.  This confirms the claims of the late FBI agent, Don Adams and his 21st century books.   Caufield's 900-page book shatters the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.

James DiEugenio has constructed his literary career on the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.  So, James is jealous, and pretends to challenge the "facts" of Caufield's theory.  Notice that James does not go after the central core of the Caufield theory, i.e. the credibility of Willie Somersett about Joseph Milteer -- instead, James nit-picks and side issues of little or no consequence.

For example, the sidelines of what James calls the "Pere Marquette conspiracy."   James calls it a "doozy."  It's actually quite trivial.

The linkage of Jim Braden with David Ferrie's pal, G. Wray Gill, is recognized by everybody, but James wants to nit-pick about it, and wants to make jokes and show his comedic writing skills.  It doesn't work.

The whole speculation about Jim Braden -- pioneered by Jim Garrison -- is clearly tangential to Caufield's main theory -- that Willie Somersett offered the best clues to the JFK assassination by naming Joseph Milteer.  Then, Caufield goes further than any other CT writer in the past 50 years, and shows direct linkages between Joseph Milteer and General Walker.

James avoids the big issues, and dwells on the incidentals.  That's because that's all that James has anymore.  The CIA-did-it CT is officially toast.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo