Lois Liggett: Challenge to Jim Di Eugenio

[Joe Bauer]

David, what percent of the content and claims in those last 3 episodes are questionable or from impugnable sources in your opinion ... 33 %, 65%, 90%?  If those testimonies reveal even 50 % of the truth...those episodes are invaluable.

When police are investigating a crime, they want to hear as much about it even if it is from sources who may be less than stellar law abiding citizens.

Investigators are looking for anything that can help fit as many pieces of the truth puzzle together as they can find no matter where and from whom it comes from. And honestly, many times bad characters give them more of these than good ones. 

Judyth Vary Baker, Madeline Brown, and some others may very well not be 100% credible or even 25% credible.  But let us hear them out and see if anything in their stories adds to or corroborates other testimony from other sources.

There are incredibly important aspects of the entire JFK event to consider when someone like May Newman tells us that she had first hand contact and conversation with Virginia Murchison family driver Jule Fieffer ( spelling? )  as well as the main Murchison family cook, that told of picking up J.Edgar Hoover at an airport to take him to a meeting at the Murchison house attended by LBJ the night before JFK was killed and that Hoover was indeed at this house for dinner at the Murchison house that evening.

The importance of this story is obvious...and all detractors can do is somehow say Newman is lying ( not for money that is for sure) or downplay or ignore her story and hope that very few ever see Newman's interview or understand it's potential importance.

Colonel Dan Marvin tells us of David Vanick and William Bruce Pister, whose suspicious death is also corroborated in some areas by Dennis David.

If true, My God, how important is this story?

Barr McClellan enlightens us to the relationship between Ed Clark and LBJ and the incredible power and corruption of those two and their mutual benefit activities. This is really important information as it gives us a "true" picture of the Texas power cabal and how they operated.

Include Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker and the murders of Henry Marshall and others who were serious threat obstacles to LBJ and those who he represented.

If it wasn't for Nigel Turner producing and publishing these documentary episode stories and testimonies...would we ever had heard of many of them from any other source?  There is so much important information about the JFK event and the main characters who benefited from it that comes along with the credibility questioned aspects of TMWKK. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

David:

Thanks.  The whole series was so riddled with nonsense and questionable information that has since been pretty much discredited that to me Nigel Turner stands as a beacon in the night as to what not to do if you have the opportunity.  To put experts like Gary Aguilar and Dave Mantik in the middle of people like Brown, Liggett and the Murchison party, and then to use McClellan and Baker, to me there is no excuse for doing something like that. None.  Period.

And BTW, that is still not the whole story about Liggett, who appears to have originated from none other than Billy Sol Estes.  If you buy this story and also David LIfton, then you had two body reconstructions in the JFK case.

Edited July 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

Lois was pretty clear about what she knew, didn't know, what she saw and what was speculation on her part.

Her belief that John had a hand in body alteration and that he went to Washington was speculation and she says so.

What she states as fact is the following points:

- John was called away from a family funeral immediately after the assassination.

- He disappeared for twenty four hours.

- He came home after 24 hours, stressed, disheveled and exhausted.

- He took the whole family south, saying that they needed to "let the whole thing blow over".

-' They went to Corpus Christie, to a hotel.

- They stayed in a hotel, with John stressed-out, watching TV on Sunday.

- They watched LHO get shot and then John said it's all ok now, and they returned home.

I am not interested in the body alteration stuff, the info above is interesiting enough for me.

John is interesting to me because his actions compare well with the Carouse crew, including Crafard, Ruby, Senator

 

[David Andrews]

Joe:  I have to say that Barr McClellan's books didn't enlighten me one bit, so innocent of detail were they.  He should have called the first one Anticlimax.  I am grateful for public libraries.

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm with you regarding Lois Liggett, Michael. Her story is very simple. She doesn't know or say much. She tells only what she knows. She gets nothing for telling her story. And part of her story is corroborated by her brother in law (the part that doesn't affect him).

Compare her story to JVB's and Howard Hunt's. They know EVERYTHING, it seems. Jim made the comment the other day that JVB seems to know EVERYBODY. That she knows so much is one thing that makes me suspicious of her.

As for Howard Hunt, I doubt he knew very much if anything about the assassination before it happened. Because of compartmentalization. I think he picked up a lot of suppositions and theories from his professional acquaintances afterward, from which he built his list of accomplices. (Isn't it true that he revealed only names, but no details on what anybody actually did?)

 

[James DiEugenio]

On July 26, 2017 at 3:05 PM, David Andrews said:

Joe:  I have to say that Barr McClellan's books didn't enlighten me one bit, so innocent of detail were they.  He should have called the first one Anticlimax.  I am grateful for public libraries.

 

David, very funny.  That Nigel Turner went with this stuff on his final go round was an utter disgrace on his part.  There was so much better material out there at that time.  But Turner seems to me to have a penchant for sensationalism.  Which you really do not need in this case.  I really hope the guy never comes back.  

[Michael Clark]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm with you regarding Lois Liggett, Michael. Her story is very simple. She doesn't know or say much. She tells only what she knows. She gets nothing for telling her story. And part of her story is corroborated by her brother in law (the part that doesn't affect him).

Compare her story to JVB's and Howard Hunt's. They know EVERYTHING, it seems. Jim made the comment the other day that JVB seems to know EVERYBODY. That she knows so much is one thing that makes me suspicious of her.

As for Howard Hunt, I doubt he knew very much if anything about the assassination before it happened. Because of compartmentalization. I think he picked up a lot of suppositions and theories from his professional acquaintances afterward, from which he built his list of accomplices. (Isn't it true that he revealed only names, but no details on what anybody actually did?)

 

I agree. I think Jim was stating his feelings about the Turner series in general. I was just focused on Lois Liggett. He didn't really want to say anything about just that. Since posting this, I have thought about it somewhat and I think that is kind of what Jim does, he focuses on researchers, authors and books and is not focused on the low level stuff. I am sure Jim will find fault with what I am trying to say, but I hope you get me drift, even if you don't necessarily agree. The best example of what I am getting at is that Jim, I believe, had nothing  to say about Lois and her story, which was the focus of this challenge.

(Back after putting some coffee-on)

To be sure,  I respect that researcher authors have to be more careful and circumspect, Larry reminds us of that frequently. That comes from experience. I appreciate that and Larry will often say what his objections are, in critical terms.

As an example, I was, in large part, drawn back into this whole JFK case with Wynn Johnson's story. I did believe that it was possible and he seemed credible. When he posted his fourth video, all the characters came from back stage, surrounding him (David Ferrie, Loy Factor, David Atlee Phillips (again)) and he has not been back since, even to answer reasonable, friendly questions. So, I get it now, having gone through the process.

Lois is a credible witness to what she experienced and I believe her. She does not make more out of what she saw. Her daughter backs her up and is, likewise, credible. I have doubts about whether Lois saw John in Vegas, but she even told the story in such a way as to be clear that she was not 100% certain.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Andrews]

On 7/29/2017 at 3:32 AM, James DiEugenio said:

 

David, very funny.  That Nigel Turner went with this stuff on his final go round was an utter disgrace on his part.  There was so much better material out there at that time.  But Turner seems to me to have a penchant for sensationalism.  Which you really do not need in this case.  I really hope the guy never comes back.  

Actually, I do agree somewhat with Joe.  Before its last three, notorious episodes, TMWKK was a nice, atmospheric compendium of footage on different theories of the assassination, but you had to have the knowledge to separate the useful stuff from the stuff that was merely entertaining and provocative.  I understand, though, your complaint about mixing reliable experts with unreliable "witnesses." 

At the time of release (which was when Bill O'Reilly was arguably a liberal and an investigative journalist), those original episodes seemed above any other JFK reporting on TV.  TMWKK brought Gordon Arnold out of the shadows so that everybody could judge his story, and exposed people to Tom Wilson's graphics analysis.  If I'm not mistaken, TMWKK  was the show that got Dr. Evalea Glanges to go on camera about seeing the frontal bullet hole in the windshield.   However, it was lightweight in CIA, JSOC, and the anti-Castro Cubans. 

At least (as far as I remember) it didn't stoop to rubbing James Files and his outlandish cast of characters in our faces - or am I remembering incorrectly?  If I'm wrong, and Files and Dankbaar and Chauncey Holt were skulking around the project, then TMWKK slips another few notches.

We could also credit TMWKK with providing high-visibility support to Oliver Stone's JFK, in the years when most US assassination documentaries were intent on tearing Stone down a la Garrison.

Edited July 30, 2017 by David Andrews

[Michael Clark]

Doug Weldon, a JFKA researcher, was featured in the same episode of TMWKK ( episode 7, The Smoking Guns), Doug was a EF member and many good things were said about him and his research on this forum when he passed. I almost feel the need to defend, individually, researchers and witnesses who are unjustly cought on the crossfire of the disparagement of Turner and his series.

 

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/6294-doug-weldon/

[Michael Clark]

Dr. David Mantik is also featured in TMWKK, episode 7. Also an (inactive) EF member, he was spoken well-of by Jim D., who was the only one who tried to remain on-topic in this thread. It seems obligatory to go off-topic in medical evidence threads.

 

[Michael Clark]

Vince Palmera, an active EF Forum member, and author, specializing in the Secret Service, is also featured in this same TMWKK episode (episode 7).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/5718-vince-palamara/

[Joe Bauer]

On 7/29/2017 at 4:26 AM, Michael Clark said:

 

To be sure,  I respect that researcher authors have to be more careful and circumspect, Larry reminds us of that frequently. That comes from experience. I appreciate that and Larry will often say what his objections are, in critical terms.

As an example, I was, in large part, drawn back into this whole JFK case with Wynn Johnson's story. I did believe that it was possible and he seemed credible. When he posted his fourth video, all the characters came from back stage, surrounding him (David Ferrie, Loy Factor, David Atlee Phillips (again)) and he has not been back since, even to answer reasonable, friendly questions. So, I get it now, having gone through the process.

Lois is a credible witness to what she experienced and I believe her. She does not make more out of what she saw. Her daughter backs her up and is, likewise, credible. I have doubts about whether Lois saw John in Vegas, but she even told the story in such a way as to be clear that she was not 100% certain.

Michael, could you explain what your point was regarding Wynn Johnson and his fourth video? 

Yes, Lois does seem credible. She is clearly not a highly practiced and experienced xxxx like so many of the main characters involved in this story ... mainly high level politicians and agency people and those journalists who tow their lines.

Same with May Newman. These are average working class people.  The kind who seem to not even know how to lie well.

Absolutely agree regards your take on research authors and I feel total respect for everything they publish. That is another realm and has everything to do with hard evidence integrity and honesty and the years of digging and talented analyzing it takes to find and coherently categorize and make sense of it all.

I never even try to debate or counter that given reality, as I  never will make it 2 steps up that 20 rung ladder of work and research effort.

I sometimes throw my 2 cents worth of "average Joe" contemplating thoughts into threads that I find compelling not to counter the higher plane research facts ( as I academically can't) as much as feeling that there is still some validity, worthiness and room for the occasional simple common sense, honest working person gut feeling sharing in these JFK truth seeking postings.

I always remember and appreciate that Mark Lane interview of the weathered, stoic, man of few words, cowboy looking, over-pass witness "rail road man" Richard C Dodd who gave that elegant honest working man assessment of what he thought of Ruby killing Oswald.  

Something like ... " well, when a mans get shot handcuffed to two policemens why...somethin' else's goin on besides what should be." 

That short and simple honest working man statement says as much to me in regards to the common sense truth as more educated sounding ones in this whole affair. 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[David Andrews]

13 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Vince Palmera, an active EF Forum member, and author, specializing in the Secret Service, is also featured in this same TMWKK episode (episode 7).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/5718-vince-palamara/

 

It was what it was, buddy.  I enjoyed the parts what was worthwhile.

[Michael Clark]

27 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Michael, could you explain what your point was regarding Wynn Johnson and his fourth video? 

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

That short and simple honest working man statement says more to me in regards to the common sense truth than most of the supposedly more educated sounding ones in this whole affair. 

 

Sure thing Joe, My point was in response to the criticism of Nigel Turner's series. That criticism was that he included people such as Judyth Vary Baker being included in the series. I understand that she is much maligned and discredited. Part of that criticism is that her story expands and is altered when problems are pointed-out in her story. Regarding Wynn, I don't know what to say, really, being as he is a forum member and his story has not really been vetted by real researchers. 

He has had time to respond to quite a few reasonable questions but has chosen not to do so. If you see his 4th video, you will find that it includes his having encountered David Atlee Phillips (a second time) and John Liggett. It includes his friend, Vickie, having attempted to meet a woman in Dallas (Mrs. Ruth), while Wynn waited in the car. This woman was somehow connected to the RFK assassination. He also made a claim connecting his story to Loy Factor, Mac Wallace and some other characters, all shooting JFK from the TSBD. He also said that it may have been David Ferrie whom he saw drive LHO to the Southland Center.

The above is an incomplete cast of characters and circumstances in Wynn's story. I am sure I am missing something and may have something incorrect in the above recollections.

The point being is that I feel that Wynn's story "Jumped the Shark" and I can no longer believe any of it. So my experience is similar to someone who at one time believed someone like JVB, wasted a lot of time with her story, and no longer believes her.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

13 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

 

It was what it was, buddy.  I enjoyed the parts what was worthwhile.

Yes, I am just raising the "baby with the bath water" scenario. A fair criticism of Nigel Turner is not a fair criticism of Lois Liggett.