Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

[David Josephs]

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Yes, it's implicit.  

Since the CIA high command started a Mole Hunt, this proves that they had NO IDEA who Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

That proves IMHO that the Impersonator was a CIA Rogue who was working in a Civilian plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No Paul.. it does nothing of the sort.

your use of pronouns is also a bit weary....   who is "they" ?

As for PROOF... you still have yet to offer any.  all we ever get is your "humble" opinions.

When do we get the meat that supports the opinions?

[David Josephs]

And thanks B.A. for remaining one of the most thoughtful of posters...

You in the same thread as PT is...  IMHO  ...  an example of the absolute extremes in on-line posting...

 

Aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know

[Michael Clark]

17 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

I could read this stuff all day, every day...it makes 99% of these television spy dramas a disney kids show. Thanks for the elaboration with sources Dave.

Mike I found this relevant to your comment:

 

(source: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter6.html) 

Thanks so much Mr. Copeland. I may actually read Simpich's book. Do you know if Simpich mentions James McCord Jr. In relation to the FPCC?

Thanks for this and all of your posts and input.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited November 14, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Lifton]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Brendan:

We all know that Duran has always insisted that the man she encountered was a short blonde guy.

Eddie Lopez was very critical of the way Cornwell conducted that examination of Duran, and in fact, he called it "crappy".  Why would Azcue be worthless?  Are you saying the Cubans killed JFK? What about Contreras?  Was that part of the Cuban plot also?  Will you now extend Castro's plot to the informants in the Cuban embassy?  Were they double agents employed by Castro since they did not see Oswald either?

From the day after the assassination, the first CIA check to Langley for the  entire time period was that the results were negative for any photo of Oswald at either embassy.  And that is the way it has always remained. 

Let me add why I think this is so important.

The whole first part of the Lopez Report is really dull going.  Because Danny and Eddie spend dozens of pages describing the cameras in use, especially on the Cuban Embassy.  They spend a long time on the pulse camera, the one that is actually air activated, that is changes in air pressure cause it to take a picture, like when a door opens. They also expose all the BS excuses that the CIA, and Phillips especially, used to try and say that the cameras were not in use the days Oswald was there.  They show these are false.  (In fact, the CIA would not give Eddie the names of the camera operators in MC at  the time.  Do you know who he got the names from?  Castro! Hate so see what Brendan does with that.)  And by combining that info with the fact that the coverage was so extensive and complete, they imply this fact: Its not credible they would not have a whole set of photos of Oswald.   And the fact they make these excuses up shows consciousness of guilt.  That is: they know they should have ten of them but they have none.  

In 54 years the CIA has not been able to produce a photo.  Excuse me if I do not find it credible if a couple of CIA officers later say well, we did see one pic from a funny angle.  Yeah, and I saw Santa Claus on Xmas eve too, but it was from a side angle, more like 3/4. But I forgot to take his picture.

Now, in the newly declassified  documents it is finally exposed that Win Scott was a part of this subterfuge. When Slawson, Willens, and Coleman--the three blind mice--went to MC they asked to see a  photo of Oswald. Scott lied his head off about this issue, trying every way to explain that they did not have one because of lighting problems, money problems etc.  (Maybe Brendan thinks Scott was a double agent also?) 

But when I read that, it occurred to me that this was likely the reason Angleton hightailed it down there after Scott died.  Because the voice Scott  played on the tapes was the same one that the FBI heard and said was not LHO.  To me its simple.  If there is no picture of the real LHO, then there can be no tape of his voice..

 

"

QUOTING FROM YOUR POST ABOVE::

Brendan:

We all know that Duran has always insisted that the man she encountered was a short blonde guy.  UNQUOTE

Typical DiEugenio bluster and baloney.

"We all know"?

What is that?  The doctrine of "Collective Reliance" as promulgated by James DiEugenio?

J.D. please note: Duran's  original identification, and it was published in the Mexico City media, within a day, was that she identified the man arrested in Dallas and whose picture was on TV as the man she saw. 

As Brandon quoted in his post, its right there in her HSCA testimony.

CORNWELL: Then, the next morning you saw a newspaper.

TIRADO:  Yes.

CORNWELL: Were you sure at at time that that was the man?

TIRADO:  Yes.

* * *

Try getting your facts straight before you misinform those reading this forum.

DSL

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by David Lifton

[Craig Carvalho]

[James DiEugenio]

David:

Sometimes I do not know how to take you.  If you want to be taken seriously, then act and write like a serious person instead of a kid blowing a pea shooter during recess.

As I said, Eddie Lopez was really upset with that HSCA interrogation.  He told me that after it was over he asked Duran how tall the guy she saw as Oswald was.  She replied that he was about as tall as Gary Cornwell.  If you have ever see Gary, you will note his diminutive stature, probably about five foot six.

Now, if you turn to page 194, in the Lopez Report you will see that she said this to the authors:  Oswald was about five foot six, thinning blonde hair and slight, about 125 lbs.

She also called him short to Shenon, you can read that in his book.  And I can name other sources.

It is hard for me, and I think others, to think that you have been working on a book about Oswald for over 20 years, and you are not familiar with this information.  Either you do not know this information, or you have an agenda for your book.  Now, I  would think that Brendan did not talk to Eddie. I have. I have conversed with  Eddie on more than one occasion about this matter.  I also visited him at his home in Rochester, New York a long time ago after the Lopez Report was released.  If you did not talk to him, fine. But you should read the Lopez Report if your book is to have credibility.

For now, I am a bit tired of doing your research for you about Oswald.  You seem more interested in the Z film anyway.  Maybe that  explains it. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Craig Carvalho]

The photo at the top of my last post was given to CBS reporter Ed Rable in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. Azcue claims the photo was taken inside the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and shows the man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald.

I have taken the liberty to flip the photo to give those of you interested a better profile to match against the Oswald photo taken while in DPD custody.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Craig Carvalho said:

The photo at the top of my last post was given to CBS reporter Ed Rable in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. Azcue claims the photo was taken inside the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and shows the man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald.

I have taken the liberty to flip the photo to give those of you interested a better profile to match against the Oswald photo taken while in DPD custody.

Craig,

I have to admit, I had never seen that before, and I had to pause and compare the two photos carefully.

The chins linedup.  The mouths lined up.  The noses lined up.   This was spooky.  

Then, the eyes lined up -- but then, Oswald's eye had been smashed and bleeding from the Texas Theater scuffle.

Then, the ears did NOT line up.  The ears of the Russian are somewhat higher than Oswald's ears.  That is, the Russians ears go down only as far as his nose -- but Oswald's ears go down almost to the upper lip.. 

Also, Oswald's forehead is quite a bit higher.

Now -- if one argues that: (1) the camera angle explains the ears; (2) Oswald went to the Mexico City Cuba Consulate wearing eye make-up; and (3) Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate in a blonde wig..

Then have to look at the two photos again -- real hard.  

Finally -- the only remaining issue would be the Duran/Azcue testimony (after the late Duran beatings by Mexico City police) that Oswald was 5'3" tall.

To shrink 7 inches -- that is impossible by any form of theatrical make-up.

But the two profiles are striking, Craig.  If it turns out you really have something there, I won't be very surprised!

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 14, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

Sometimes I do not know how to take you.  If you want to be taken seriously, then act and write like a serious person instead of a kid blowing a pea shooter during recess.

As I said, Eddie Lopez was really upset with that HSCA interrogation.  He told me that after it was over he asked Duran how tall the guy she saw as Oswald was.  She replied that he was about as tall as Gary Cornwell.  If you have ever see Gary, you will note his diminutive stature, probably about five foot six.

Now, if you turn to page 194, in the Lopez Report you will see that she said this to the authors:  Oswald was about five foot six, thinning blonde hair and slight, about 125 lbs.

She also called him short to Shenon, you can read that in his book.  And I can name other sources.

It is hard for me, and I think others, to think that you have been working on a book about Oswald for over 20 years, and you are not familiar with this information.  Either you do not know this information, or you have an agenda for your book.  Now, I  would think that Brendan did not talk to Eddie. I have. I have conversed with  Eddie on more than one occasion about this matter.  I also visited him at his home in Rochester, New York a long time ago after the Lopez Report was released.  If you did not talk to him, fine. But you should read the Lopez Report if your book is to have credibility.

For now, I am a bit tired of doing your research for you about Oswald.  You seem more interested in the Z film anyway.  Maybe that  explains it. 

James,

Clearly, you're still living in the 1990's -- when Probe Magazine was still impressive.  Those days are GONE.

YOU are that "kid blowing a pea shooter during recess."

Of course Edwin Lopez was upset with the HSCA, because they had no teeth -- they could demand FBI and CIA records, and these US agencies would only laugh at them.

As for the height of Lee Harvey Oswald, there are reports that he was 5'3", 5'6", 5'9", 5'10" and the guesswork goes on.  There is a game in many carnivals where somebody tries to guess your height and weight.  It's not that he's well'trained, but there are trick signposts around his tent to help with the height.  Based on that, the weight is easier to guess.   But the average person only GUESSES.

Also, Sylvia Duran's description of Oswald depends on the time she was asked -- before the Mexico City Police beatings -- or after the Mexico City Police beatings.  

You call this "information" James, but the rest of us call it GUESSWORK.  Yet we already know that you cherry-pick to keep your old, 1990's JFK CT -- as outdated as it is.

Also, the fact that you personally spoke with Edwin Lopez hardly matters, James, if you misunderstood what he told you.  You told this Forum that Edwin Lopez told you personally that he was UNCERTAIN whether Oswald was in Mexico City in September 1963.  Yet we have Edwin Lopez under oath and on video, testifying that he was CERTAIN that Oswald was in Mexico City in September, 1963.  So, interview or no interview, you didn't understand what Lopez told you.

You're the one who doesn't know the Lopez Report, James (yet perhaps you've read parts of it in the past year, since I've been riding you about it).  If you read it fully, you would know without any question of a doubt that Oswald was in Mexico City during September 1963.

Your insults toward David Lifton -- whose shoelaces you are unworthy to untie -- make me laugh so hard my sides ache.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

P.S. David, I'm not defending you.  You can defend yourself.  I'm just speaking from the heart here.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

For the record:  Oswald was reportedly 5' 9 1/2".

When Duran was asked by Ed Lopez of  the HSCA, how tall the man was who she talked to in the Consulate, he asked her if he was as tall as Gary Cornwell.  I have met Gary and I know how tall he is.  He is about 5 foot six. But she actually went a bit beyond that and said he was about her height which is a little shorter than that.

Now, in addition, if the guy had blonde hair and weighed about 125 lbs, all that together is not a guessing game.  For any objective observer, that is a different person.  And in her notes, that is the description she made.  (Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, p. 289)

Now,  go ahead and add that to Contreras, who spent a good deal of time with this guy at that same time.  He said the same thing, that the guy was short and light haired. (ibid, p. 290)  Contreras' testimony was so corroborative and compelling that the CIA deliberately kept him away from Danny and Eddie.  (Hardway interview at the 2014 AARC Conference.)

Eddie and Danny both think that Oswald may have gone to MC, but they do not think he did what the CIA said he did and what the WC repeated.

IMO, they may think this because they never really examined the evidence about the trip down and the trip back up.  As I have said, David Josephs has done a very good job on that.  And  I have linked to his work.  His work, added to the newly declassified documents, indicate that the CIA was desperate to find anything to place LHO in MC.  They eventually turned to Secretary of Interior Echeverria and his assistant Ibanez to do this job.  Echeverria was a close friend of Win Scott, and as I have noted Scott went along with the cover up about having no pics of LHO.  The FBI did not enter in any real way until February.  And when they went through what Echevarria had done, it turned out to be a horror show.  And Mr. Josephs has done a good job explaining  that. But instead of exposing this they went along with it, as did the WC. 

IMO,  we should not cherry pick one or two things in any aspect of this case.  That is what the WC did.  Our job, as Sylvia Meagher pointed out, is to weigh the totality of the evidence in each aspect.  That is the model I follow.

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Lifton]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

Clearly, you're still living in the 1990's -- when Probe Magazine was still impressive.  Those days are GONE.

YOU are that "kid blowing a pea shooter during recess."

Of course Edwin Lopez was upset with the HSCA, because they had no teeth -- they could demand FBI and CIA records, and these US agencies would only laugh at them.

As for the height of Lee Harvey Oswald, there are reports that he was 5'3", 5'6", 5'9", 5'10" and the guesswork goes on.  There is a game in many carnivals where somebody tries to guess your height and weight.  It's not that he's well'trained, but there are trick signposts around his tent to help with the height.  Based on that, the weight is easier to guess.   But the average person only GUESSES.

Also, Sylvia Duran's description of Oswald depends on the time she was asked -- before the Mexico City Police beatings -- or after the Mexico City Police beatings.  

You call this "information" James, but the rest of us call it GUESSWORK.  Yet we already know that you cherry-pick to keep your old, 1990's JFK CT -- as outdated as it is.

Also, the fact that you personally spoke with Edwin Lopez hardly matters, James, if you misunderstood what he told you.  You told this Forum that Edwin Lopez told you personally that he was UNCERTAIN whether Oswald was in Mexico City in September 1963.  Yet we have Edwin Lopez under oath and on video, testifying that he was CERTAIN that Oswald was in Mexico City in September, 1963.  So, interview or no interview, you didn't understand what Lopez told you.

You're the one who doesn't know the Lopez Report, James (yet perhaps you've read parts of it in the past year, since I've been riding you about it).  If you read it fully, you would know without any question of a doubt that Oswald was in Mexico City during September 1963.

Your insults toward David Lifton -- whose shoelaces you are unworthy to untie -- make me laugh so hard my sides ache.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

P.S. David, I'm not defending you.  You can defend yourself.  I'm just speaking from the heart here.

Thanks for the compliments.

Some people—and DiEugenio is a classic example—apparently forget that in evaluating a witness’ statement, it is vital to know when the statement was made.  This is true whether investigating a murder, LHO in Mexico City, or anything else (e.g., something relatively as simple as an automobile accident).

The Concept of “earliest recorded recollection”. . . being the more reliable evidence

If you have an accident on Friday afternoon, and tell the investigating officer one thing, but then on Monday, say something different, it is the earlier account which will be believed, and you have much “explaining” to do, for the latter statement to have credibility.  When the time scale is not three days, but a week, or a month, or a years, the situation borders on the absurd.

As you have pointed out in this case (that of Duran), there was  not just “pressure” but physical beatings.

The Soviet Intelligence Officers Who Met With Oswald on Saturday, 9/28

And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met.  (This is all described in Passport to Assassination, by Nechiporenko). Back around 1993, John Newman and I met with one or two of these gentlemen, at the ASK conference, and I don’t believe there was any question about their credibility.  Completely aside from whether the photo record was falsified—and obviously, something serious took place in that area—these three are witnesses to the fact that Oswald was definitely in Mexico City.

Its amazing to me that DiEugenio has the gall to bring up his own visit to HSCA staffer  Eddie Lopez at his Rochester residence, some fifteen years later, as evidence of anything.

Fall 1978 – My Own Conversation(s) With Lopez (and Purdy)

On that subject (and in the spirit of “FWIW”), I spoke to Ed Lopez multiple times back in the fall of 1978, when he was on the staff of the HSCA.  I spoke to him for over 2-1/2 hours , as I reported in Best Evidence. (Chapter 24; p.562, Hardcover edition, or Carroll & Graf).  A very nice guy, to be sure, but neither he nor Blakey nor Andy Purdy (or others), were taking autopsy falsification seriously.  And autopsy falsification is at the heart of the issue of whether Oswald was a shooter, or just a patsy, as he claimed. As I reported in B.E., after I spent considerable time and effort explaining the evidence (remember: this almost three years before publication) and after Lopez had spoken at length with Purdy, he (Lopez), projecting considerable good humor (and certainly not spoken with any malice), relayed to me how Purdy had reacted:  “Now that’s what I call a conspiracy!” he had exclaimed. (Same B.E. cite as before).

But back to DiEugenio:

DiEugenio on Black Ops  (precise date [and number of Black Ops show] to be added)

Pat Valentino and I have had highly problematic experiences with DiEugenio, because of the superficial way he deals with evidence. Going back, now, to multiple appearances DiEug made on Black Ops Radio, he proudly announced that
"I refuse to (or "will not") debate Lifton, or Valentino, about his book.” Pat (who accompanied me on many of my 1989 filmed interviews of the Dallas doctors and nurses) prepared audio excerpts (using the Best Evidence Research Video, now available on line) to demonstrate to the radio audience that –according to Paul O’Connor (and Dennis David)—the body arrived in a shipping casket, and not the expensive bronze "Dallas casket".   So that the body did not arrive in the same casket as it left Dallas. Replied DiEugenio (and this is approximate): “Well, sometime on the ride in the naval ambulance, from Air Force One to Bethesda, there may have been a stop.”

“May have been a stop?” 

What was that for, asked Pat. .  “For coffee, perhaps?”

 DiEugenio and “Reclaiming Parkland” (vs the Liebeler Memorandum of November 1966)

Very recently, and for the first time, I obtained a copy of DiEugenio’s “Reclaiming Parkland,” published in 2013, which is supposedly focused on the medical evidence.  In The Modern Researcher, by Barzun and Graf (a classic about the raft of research and writing), the authors stress the obligation of an author , when writing about any subject, to begin with the existing record. (And DiEugenio was a high school history teacher.)

Somehow, this particular  author, who apparently fancies himself to be a research genius, managed to write an entire book, supposedly focused on “Parkland,” (which, supposedly, he seeks to “Reclaim”) without mentioning autopsy falsification via body alteration at all.  Not one word.    You will not find anything about Sibert, or O’Neill in the context of autopsy falsification,  or Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag in which JFK’s body was delivered to Bethesda) or Dennis David (whose account is Chapter 25 in B.E., and who testified before the ARRB); or Sgt. Boyajian (whose receipt, unearthed by the ARRB, establishes that the body arrived at Bethesda 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin); nothing about the copious evidence that the body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, and not a word about my work (on video)or my book, Best Evidence, which was published by four publishers, was a best seller, was a Book of the Month Club Selection.  Finally, DiEug mentions nothing about the fact that in November 1966, and based on my research at that point in time, UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler wrote a 12 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren (and all other members of the WC) about the autopsy, focusing on the issue of body alteration, and the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery, and recommending  a limited re-opening of the investigation, with additional testimony to be taken under oath. 

Professor Liebeler sent a copy of that memo to the Warren Commission and its alumni, but to Robert Kennedy (via his attorney) and to Lyndon Johnson.  All of that is spelled out in Chapter 10 of B.E., but not a peep from DiEugenio.

After all, he’s just “reclaiming Parkland.”  Huh?

The art of "bibliography" - DiEugenio Style  (the art of "selective omission")

DiEugenio manages to write “Reclaiming Parkland” without mentioning any of that, and then—in compiling his “bibliography’—makes no mention of Best Evidence!  I mention this not because I demand complete agreement with my views (I don’t) but because it shows the utter carelessness and disregard for “the record” that an author who behaves this way exhibits, in his public writing to the “research community.”  Stalin liked to erase the existence of political opponents--in the realm of history--by simply altering photographs.  If Stalin  was concerned with published writings, perhaps he could have used someone with that sort of skill, at editing political bibliographies.

Anyway, its for  these reasons that neither Pat V or I hardly read anything at his website.   Why bother?

So I thoroughly agree with the gist of your post.

I never agreed with his hero worship of Garrison, but disagreement about Garrison is one thing, the callous (and careless) disregard about a whole body or important research about the autopsy, while writing a book titled “Reclaiming Parkland” is quite another.

It really takes chutzpah to write a book titled "Reclaiming Parkland" and ignore the most important issue of all--the profane behavior of plotters who messed with the President's body to alter the story of how he died.

But I guess DiEugenio thinks that erasing me from the record--or at least, the limited record that he created, i.e., his book) -- will perhaps eliminate the many important  issues I have raised, in Best Evidence, from public discussion and debate.

I have news for Jim DiEugenio: that's not going to happen.

DSL

11/14/2017 – 2:30 a.m. PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited November 14, 2017 by David Lifton
Numerous corrections required.

[David Lifton]

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Bill did an amazing job...  Like Armstrong, filled with info and sources to make one's own mind up...

With a million different ways to put the puzzle together, is it no surprise the finished image looks so different in everyone's individual mind's eye?

David,

Please send me your email.

I believe that the map that you published ("part 2, the Trip Down") is seriously incorrect, and I'd like to correspond with you about it.

Please use: dsl74@Cornell.edu

Thanks.

DSL

[James DiEugenio]

I won't be corresponding with Mr. Lifton anymore.

In his long message above, he does not even seem to know that my book RP is a detailed and comprehensive reply to Bugliosi's tome Reclaiming History. Hint: the film that came from that book is called Parkland.

I have also become convinced over time that he employs certain techniques--accusing people of misleading the forum etc--  in order to provoke a reply to gain information.

This makes no sense to me..  If you work on a book for over twenty years and have a rather large research budget into the six figures, you should not have to do that.

So sayonara.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I won't be corresponding with Mr. Lifton anymore.

In his long message above, he does not even seem to know that my book RP is a detailed and comprehensive reply to Bugliosi's tome Reclaiming History. Hint: the film that came from that book is called Parkland.

I have also become convinced over time that he employs certain techniques--accusing people of misleading the forum etc--  in order to provoke a reply to gain information.

This makes no sense to me..  If you work on a book for over twenty years and have a rather large research budget into the six figures, you should not have to do that.

So sayonara.

 

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Thanks for the compliments.

Some people—and DiEugenio is a classic example—apparently forget that in evaluating a witness’ statement, it is vital to know when the statement was made.  This is true whether investigating a murder, LHO in Mexico City, or anything else (e.g., something relatively as simple as an automobile accident).

The Concept of “earliest recorded recollection”. . . being the more reliable evidence

If you have an accident on Friday afternoon, and tell the investigating officer one thing, but then on Monday, say something different, it is the earlier account which will be believed, and you have much “explaining” to do, for the latter statement to have credibility.  When the time scale is not three days, but a week, or a month, or a years, the situation borders on the absurd.

As you have pointed out in this case (that of Duran), there was  not just “pressure” but physical beatings.

The Soviet Intelligence Officers Who Met With Oswald on Saturday, 9/28

And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met.  (This is all described in Passport to Assassination, by Nechiporenko). Back around 1993, John Newman and I met with one or two of these gentlemen, at the ASK conference, and I don’t believe there was any question about their credibility.  Completely aside from whether the photo record was falsified—and obviously, something serious took place in that area—these three are witnesses to the fact that Oswald was definitely in Mexico City.

Its amazing to me that DiEugenio has the gall to bring up his own visit to HSCA staffer  Eddie Lopez at his Rochester residence, some fifteen years later, as evidence of anything.

Fall 1978 – My Own Conversation(s) With Lopez (and Purdy)

On that subject (and in the spirit of “FWIW”), I spoke to Ed Lopez multiple times back in the fall of 1978, when he was on the staff of the HSCA.  I spoke to him for over 2-1/2 hours , as I reported in Best Evidence. (Chapter 24; p.562, Hardcover edition, or Carroll & Graf).  A very nice guy, to be sure, but neither he nor Blakey nor Andy Purdy (or others), were taking autopsy falsification seriously.  And autopsy falsification is at the heart of the issue of whether Oswald was a shooter, or just a patsy, as he claimed. As I reported in B.E., after I spent considerable time and effort explaining the evidence (remember: this almost three years before publication) and after Lopez had spoken at length with Purdy, he (Lopez), projecting considerable good humor (and certainly not spoken with any malice), relayed to me how Purdy had reacted:  “Now that’s what I call a conspiracy!” he had exclaimed. (Same B.E. cite as before).

But back to DiEugenio:

DiEugenio on Black Ops  (precise date [and number of Black Ops show] to be added)

Pat Valentino and I have had highly problematic experiences with DiEugenio, because of the superficial way he deals with evidence. Going back, now, to multiple appearances DiEug made on Black Ops Radio, he proudly announced that
"I refuse to (or "will not") debate Lifton, or Valentino, about his book.” Pat (who accompanied me on many of my 1989 filmed interviews of the Dallas doctors and nurses) prepared audio excerpts (using the Best Evidence Research Video, now available on line) to demonstrate to the radio audience that –according to Paul O’Connor (and Dennis David)—the body arrived in a shipping casket, and not the expensive bronze "Dallas casket".   So that the body did not arrive in the same casket as it left Dallas. Replied DiEugenio (and this is approximate): “Well, sometime on the ride in the naval ambulance, from Air Force One to Bethesda, there may have been a stop.”

“May have been a stop?” 

What was that for, asked Pat. .  “For coffee, perhaps?”

 DiEugenio and “Reclaiming Parkland” (vs the Liebeler Memorandum of November 1966)

Very recently, and for the first time, I obtained a copy of DiEugenio’s “Reclaiming Parkland,” published in 2013, which is supposedly focused on the medical evidence.  In The Modern Researcher, by Barzun and Graf (a classic about the raft of research and writing), the authors stress the obligation of an author , when writing about any subject, to begin with the existing record. (And DiEugenio was a high school history teacher.)

Somehow, this particular  author, who apparently fancies himself to be a research genius, managed to write an entire book, supposedly focused on “Parkland,” (which, supposedly, he seeks to “Reclaim”) without mentioning autopsy falsification via body alteration at all.  Not one word.    You will not find anything about Sibert, or O’Neill in the context of autopsy falsification,  or Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag in which JFK’s body was delivered to Bethesda) or Dennis David (whose account is Chapter 25 in B.E., and who testified before the ARRB); or Sgt. Boyajian (whose receipt, unearthed by the ARRB, establishes that the body arrived at Bethesda 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin); nothing about the copious evidence that the body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, and not a word about my work (on video)or my book, Best Evidence, which was published by four publishers, was a best seller, was a Book of the Month Club Selection.  Finally, DiEug mentions nothing about the fact that in November 1966, and based on my research at that point in time, UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler wrote a 12 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren (and all other members of the WC) about the autopsy, focusing on the issue of body alteration, and the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery, and recommending  a limited re-opening of the investigation, with additional testimony to be taken under oath. 

Professor Liebeler sent a copy of that memo to the Warren Commission and its alumni, but to Robert Kennedy (via his attorney) and to Lyndon Johnson.  All of that is spelled out in Chapter 10 of B.E., but not a peep from DiEugenio.

After all, he’s just “reclaiming Parkland.”  Huh?

The art of "bibliography" - DiEugenio Style  (the art of "selective omission")

DiEugenio manages to write “Reclaiming Parkland” without mentioning any of that, and then—in compiling his “bibliography’—makes no mention of Best Evidence!  I mention this not because I demand complete agreement with my views (I don’t) but because it shows the utter carelessness and disregard for “the record” that an author who behaves this way exhibits, in his public writing to the “research community.”  Stalin liked to erase the existence of political opponents--in the realm of history--by simply altering photographs.  If Stalin  was concerned with published writings, perhaps he could have used someone with that sort of skill, at editing political bibliographies.

Anyway, its for  these reasons that neither Pat V or I hardly read anything at his website.   Why bother?

So I thoroughly agree with the gist of your post.

I never agreed with his hero worship of Garrison, but disagreement about Garrison is one thing, the callous (and careless) disregard about a whole body or important research about the autopsy, while writing a book titled “Reclaiming Parkland” is quite another.

It really takes chutzpah to write a book titled "Reclaiming Parkland" and ignore the most important issue of all--the profane behavior of plotters who messed with the President's body to alter the story of how he died.

But I guess DiEugenio thinks that erasing me from the record--or at least, the limited record that he created, i.e., his book) -- will perhaps eliminate the many important  issues I have raised, in Best Evidence, from public discussion and debate.

I have news for Jim DiEugenio: that's not going to happen.

DSL

11/14/2017 – 2:30 a.m. PST

Los Angeles, California

David - I'm not going to take sides in your dispute Jim. I don't know enough to engage in that. But I have another question for you regarding Paul Trejo. His theory of the assassination is that the Dallas Ultra right handled the assassination. Do you think, given your expertise in what you call the profane alteration of the body of JFK in order to falsify the autopsy record, that the people who ran that coverup were separate from the people who ran the assassination itself? How were the decisions to alter the body made, and by whom?