Lois Liggett: Challenge to Jim Di Eugenio

[Michael Clark]

What Part of her story is ""Boloney"?

----------------

Jom Di Eugenio wrote;

-----------

Michael:

The whole John Liggett story is a pile of baloney.  There was a lawsuit over this.  My sources say that Billy Sol Estes had a role in beginning it.

That should tell you something. Nigel Turner was never a good guy for our side.  Remember the whole Christian David story?  Which did not pan out to say the least.

Boy, when you go to work on this site, you alter about six threads and bring things up from eons ago.

--------------

lois Liggett speaks near the end of this video

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

Michael:

Do you know what his story is about, I mean in detail?

 

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Michael:

Do you know what his story is about, I mean in detail?

 

Jim, All I know is that "boloney" is far from a critical analysis that doesn't address anything the prior postings in this thread or any of the, say, 10 points that one might make about Lois' story.  I'm also left wondering why Turner is a bad guy. All I have is that Jim Di Eugenio says-so.

Was Lois John's wife?

Was he a mortician?

Was he a master mortician?

Was he called away from a family funeral on 11-22?

Did he disappear for the next 24 hours?

Did he grab the family and get out of Dodge for the next 24 hours?

Was he freaking out until he heard the LHO was killed?

Was Lois a xxxx?

Was her daughter a xxxx?

Was he arrested for murder?

Was he shot in the back by the DPD while trying to escape?

and on and on and on....

Is it all boloney, or just part of it?

Most of the story is directly from Lois and the daughter.

Where did Nigel Turner go wrong with this story?

 

Jim, you have quite a reputation. Burying everything these witnesses say with a blanket of boloney isn't good enough, especially when there is a lot of input from forum members, a click away.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

You did not answer my question Michael.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is the answer:

Vero Beach man sues A&E Networks over JFK program

Malcolm Liggett's lawsuit alleges the History Channel program "The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Smoking Guns" falsely portrays him and invades his privacy.

By James Kirley staff writer July 6, 2004

VERO BEACH -- Malcolm Liggett recalls dozing off in front of the television one night just before the 40th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination last November and waking to hear that he was part of a cover-up.

"At first I thought I dreamed it," said Liggett, a 74-year-old retired economics professor, labor economist and court mediator. "At that point, I woke up my wife. She was very dismissive. 'You were just having a dream,' she said."

But when Malcolm and Suzanne Liggett sat through a Nov. 21 rerun of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Smoking Guns" on The History Channel, it repeated what Malcolm Liggett had awoken to a few nights' earlier: A former wife of his deceased brother, John Liggett -- a Dallas, Texas, mortuary worker -- saying she thinks her ex-husband used his skills at preparing bodies to do something to JFK's corpse.

Mortuary worker John Liggett's widow is identified in the film as "Lois" who has since remarried and lives, "in a small town in Oklahoma." She further states her ex-husband met his older brother, Malcolm Liggett, in a Corpus Christi, Texas, motel two days after the assassination.

"Here again, they had conversations that made me feel like I didn't belong," she said in the documentary. "They knew something I didn't know."

Malcolm Liggett says he was nowhere near Corpus Christi that night. He has filed a lawsuit in federal court against A&E Television Networks. It alleges the program falsely portrayed him and invaded his privacy.

"Apparently, the producers of the program are intending to suggest that (Malcolm Liggett) is (in Corpus Christi) to help his younger brother, John, in a plot to cover up John's alleged role in the cover-up in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy," the lawsuit reads. "At the time of the depiction, (Malcolm Liggett) was in California, not Texas."

Another woman, identified in the documentary as Debra Godwin, Lois' daughter and John Liggett's stepdaughter, identifies a man and woman in a photograph as Malcolm and Suzanne Liggett. They appear to be standing next to Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby in the photo, taken sometime before Ruby murdered Oswald.

Malcolm Liggett says it's not him and his wife in the nightclub picture.

"This alleged photograph is apparently the only way that the producers of the program could find to link John Liggett to Jack Ruby," the lawsuit reads. "The program then clearly suggests that (Malcolm Liggett) is the link that brings together Jack Ruby and John Liggett."

Malcolm Liggett said he was "just flabbergasted that somebody would do that, take my name and drag it through that, to concoct their story."

He did confirm something the documentary detailed -- that his brother came to a bad end. Accused of beating a woman to near death in 1974, John Liggett was charged with attempted murder.

But in the documentary, John Liggett's ex-wife said Malcolm Liggett spoke to her at a park in Dallas while his brother was still incarcerated, telling her it would be best if she had no further contact with her ex-husband.

A short time later, John Liggett was shot and killed by guards at the Dallas County jail, reportedly while trying to escape.

Malcolm Liggett confirmed the circumstances of his brother's death. But his lawsuit says the meeting in the park never occurred.

"The program demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth and...continues to circumstantially allege that (Malcolm Liggett) was involved in some sort of conspiracy with John Liggett and others in the assassination of John F. Kennedy," the lawsuit reads.

Richard L. Brown, Malcolm Liggett's Vero Beach attorney, said a lawyer for A&E Television Network wrote him to say the documentary contained no defamatory statements. He declined to share a copy of the letter without the company's consent.

"We are not going to release the letter," said Lynn Gardner, director of communications for The History Channel in New York City. "We don't comment on legal matters in the press."

Brown said he was struck by Malcolm Liggett's telling him that nobody connected with the program ever contacted him.

"He's not a public figure," Brown said. "He shouldn't be exposed to that kind of public humiliation without it even being checked."

Malcolm Liggett's lawsuit involves one of nine episodes in a three-part series made over a 15-year period by British producer Nigel Turner.

Gardner said she was not aware of any lawsuits other than Malcolm Liggett's that have been a result of the series. Nevertheless, it has been controversial.

For example, one episode, "The Guilty Men," examined conspiracy theories that Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in Kennedy's murder. Besieged by friends and family of the late President Johnson, The History Channel apologized to Johnson's widow, stopped airing the segment and produced a one-hour program in which a trio of independent historians were, in the words of The History Channel's own press release, "highly critical of 'The Guilty Men' and The History Channel decision to air it."

[James DiEugenio]

In 2005, A and E Settled with Malcolm out of court.

The last three shows Turner produced were based on the Liggetts, Judy Baker, and Barr McClellan.  That trio may be fine with you, but its not at all fine with me.

Maybe this is why we get things like Tracking Oswald Today

Edited July 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

"Billy Sol Estes".   I've not read this in many years.

https://www.amazon.com/Texan-looks-Lyndon-Study-Illegitimate/dp/B0006BMF7O/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501048232&sr=1-1&keywords=a+texan+looks+at+lyndon

[Ron Bulman]

So did Judy Baker know Layton Martens?

[James DiEugenio]

There is hardly anyone that Judy Baker did not know.

Nigel Turner took a great opportunity and reduced it to a pile of poppycock.

[Larry Hancock]

Jim should be commended for his detailed response,  I second his evaluation. 

[Michael Clark]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In 2005, A and E Settled with Malcolm out of court.

The last three shows Turner produced were based on the Liggetts, Judy Baker, and Barr McClellan.  That trio may be fine with you, but its not at all fine with me.

Maybe this is why we get things like Tracking Oswald Today

Thanks Jim, but the "Smoking Guns" episode had more than just Lois Liggets story in it. It would also be of some importance to know the disposition of the lawsuit. 

Again thanks for providing more info, but I don't feel like the story has been debunked. The meat and potatoes are still there. 

More importantly, these shows go back to a time when some charachters, like Judith, were still being vetted and researchers were still sorting these things out. It's easy to make them look bad now for any of their failures.

 

[David Andrews]

Aside from Nigel Turner's fabrications, what is true in John Liggett's biography?  Is the murder-arson story, with Ligget's subsequent arrest and killing while trying to escape, true?  Does Malcolm Liggett have demonstrable Mob connections?

The Liggett saga reads like a chapter from a James Ellroy novel.  This would be remarkable were it not that so many sidebars to the assassination read like they were invented by James Ellroy.

On the whole, the last three episodes of TMWKK illustrate how far "survivors" and "witnesses" will go to distort history for very little reward indeed.  But con men always flatter themselves with rationalizations of teaching a moral lesson to the gullible.

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Andrews

[Michael Clark]

45 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Aside from Nigel Turner's fabrications, what is true in John Liggett's biography?  Is the murder-arson story, with Ligget's subsequent arrest and killing while trying to escape, true?

The Liggett saga reads like a chapter from a James Ellroy novel.  This would be remarkable were it not that so many sidebars to the assassination read like they were invented by James Ellroy.

Jim's post states that john Liggets brother confirms the story surrounding John's arrest and demise.

Malcolm really only denies his knowledge and participation, from Jim's post

Edited July 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Joe Bauer]

What I see with Nigel Turner and his TMWKK series is that he decided to film/record and publish many stories and testimonies that would clearly be seriously challenged for their veracity including lawsuits. 

Why take such risks?

My guess is that he figured why not place "everything" out there ( including these credibility questioned but provocative and compelling stories that had some ring of truth if even parts ) and let the controversy fire embers rise up and settle where they may.  That getting these more controversial JFK stories and testimonies out there was more important to him than leaving them completely out of the full narrative.

Turner's episode suggesting possible involvement of LBJ was attacked so aggressively and by people of such great power and influence it was banned here with public disclaimers issued. But I am glad that at least someone in this world with some media exposure clout got that story out there into the alternate historical record for us little people to at least know about and evaluate for ourselves as far as it's truths.

And E. Howard Hunt 's end of life testimonial echoing Turner's "Guilty Men" LBJ involvement episode deserves at least a little consideration in it's bolstering of that scenario.

Oliver Stone's "JFK"  took similar license, and I believe for these same reasons, but because commercial film is considered a creative art form no law suits could be filed as against Turner.  

Jim Garrison knew he'd never get a conviction of Clay Shaw (  Clay Bertrand )  but I also feel that his success was getting the case heard and recorded so that much of his years of research findings would get a world audience and permanently be in the public historical record.

Nobody will ever not acknowledge the massive important work in the JFK truth research effort that the pillars on this forum have and are still contributing nor consider most of their findings in any light but great respect.

Even so, there are times when I just feel a stronger compulsion to go with my life time experience gut in deciding whether there is something in a story that's more believable versus not. Considered to varying degrees of course. That take is not intellectually rational or credible to many people, but being human sometimes you just have to go  ( and a right to go ) with what you honestly feel and trust versus what others say no matter their standing. 

And when it comes to trusting and believing LBJ and his honesty versus average everyday working people, I seldom have a problem deciding who I  believe and trust more.

I  believe the following Nigel Turner subjects such as John Liggett's ex-wife's story more than not. Same with the Murchison maid May Newman, former special forces Dan Marvin,  Dennis David, and many others in Turner's pieces.

I appreciate Turner's docs as much as  I appreciate Oliver Stone's JFK and Jim Garrison's work and failed trial verdict of Clay Shaw.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[David Andrews]

Joe: The last three episodes of TMWKK are a mixed bag that unfortunately involves questionable or impugnable sources.

• Barr McClellan?  Got two books, lacking in any detail, out of a one-line anecdote about LBJ that he heard from Cliff Carter once.
• Madeline Brown?  Based on resemblance, I'm willing to believe her son Stephen is also LBJ's offspring.  But the Murchison meeting?
• John Liggett?  A great deal of unsubstantiated gruesomeness.  Unless you compare it with the unsolved gruesomeness of the Mary Sherman murder.
• Judyth Vary Baker ????!!!!

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Andrews