Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book by Fred Litwin on Garrison

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

It was never on the roster, Steve (and "everyone here"). Rob offered me the show and I passed. As I said, I'm not really trying to give the mainstream more coverage. Rob is a great host. He hosts or co-hosts two of the best podcasts around. He's kind enough to do a quarterly guest host spot on MWN. He offered me the Litwin episode, I passed, and he gave MWN another one instead. I explained the reasons above. I assure you that it was never on the roster at all. Rob can attest to this. I like to give time to the alternatives. I respect everyone's right to a belief, whether I agree or not, but I am pretty adamant about airing the alternative to the mainstream on the show. Thank you.


Ok, thanks ST.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 10/15/2020 at 6:57 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Clay Shaw eloquently makes the case for LHO as lone assassin in a letter to Sylvia Meagher:


That is the argument for the non-conspiracy case.

Three propositions in response:

(1) A definitive solution to the bullets and wounds, the medical and shots fired, is possible--a modified Sibert and O'Neill--establishing four shots were fired heard as four at Elm and Houston but due to close-together and sound-travel times heard as three closer to the presidential limousine, with one shot coming from the front/side. The directions and timing including the near-simultaneity of two of those shots would definitively establish more than one shooter.

(2) A definitive total exculpation of Oswald in the JFK and Tippit killings, and reasonable grounds to reject intent to murder in the Walker shot, is conceivable and possible (positive establishment of framing and innocence in the JFK and Tippit killings, and reasonable grounds of no murderous intent in the Walker).

I mean in a published form that is convincing beyond reasonable doubt to nearly everyone, including academics, mainstream historians, and informed lay persons. Set to one side whether published forms of argument establishing #1 and #2 presently exist. Clearly, in terms of convincing reader-response from a majority of thinking laypersons and academics, and in terms of consensus among researchers themselves, this has not taken place). But consider that both #1 and #2 are in principle conceivable using existing publicly-available information.

For purposes of argument, assume published arguments were set forth not only establishing #1 and #2, but in a form that convinced mainstream expert and informed public opinion and resolved most of the major debates concerning these issues internal to serious researchers. What happens then?  

Well, what happens then is it opens the obvious question wide-open: if Oswald did not do it, who did? Here is the third proposition:

(3) Although there is plenty of suspicion, and plenty of published arguments with tantalizing cases for suspicion based on means, motive, opportunity, and coverup arguments, NO published argument exists establishing a definitive solution to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Referring here to shooters, order-givers, named-person guilt for the killing. NO published evidence rises to the level of hard evidence, or circumstantial evidence "beyond reasonable doubt", sufficient to morally justify going into court and charging, and legally sufficient to obtain a conviction of, ANY named person past or present except through possible travesty in the legal system. Garrison had suspicion but no concrete evidence of guilt in the assassination of JFK of any person in any instance; not any of Garrison's findings from his investigation justified legal criminal charges of involvement in the murder of JFK against a named person in even a single case. Nor is it clear that any publication of evidence in existence does. This does not take a position on whether any of the targets of suspicion, whether of Garrison or of any researcher who has published, may in fact be guilty based on a correct hunch or suspicion—that may or may not be the case, only that there is no case in which there has been published known, on-the-record evidence sufficient to go into court against any named person, past or present, nailing that down airtight, or beyond reasonable doubt. There is no smoking gun, no verified confession ... nothing beyond proffered clues, suspicion, circumstantial argument, guilt-from-association argument and/or witchhunt argument. Nothing that is so powerfully convincing with respect to any specific named person that serious researchers, mainstream academics and informed lay readers are agreed in judging it is established beyond reasonable doubt.    

Establishment of #1 and #2, if for purposes of argument that were done, combined with a lack of solution of #3, would be extremely uncomfortable with a huge level of cognitive dissonance. Normally in such cases it is almost overwhelming to pick the most suspicious person or persons at the top of a short list of suspects, take the evidence such as it does exist and stitch up conjectures to fill in the blanks and conclude "case solved".

As for #3, I think voices in elite sectors thought and voiced "something should be done" about JFK, and somewhere, somehow, some way, something was done, with hardly anyone knowing exactly how or who (“it happened so quickly, so quick, by surprise, right there in front of everyone’s eyes”). I think any culpability for the assassination from any foreign government power can be simply excluded, with claims of such from individual researchers being mistaken, and any U.S.-agency sponsored serious claims of such being purposeful disinformation. But, it is easier to say who did not do it, than to nail down who did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the advantage of graduating from law school, although I'm not a practicing attorney. Still, I remember my criminal law professor claiming that most practicing prosecutors in America could indict a ham sandwich for just about anything.

I also notice many researchers stumbling on the cold and ruthless legalism that dead people have no rights. In other words, once LHO was dead, he no longer had a right to due process of law (including valid chains of evidence, cross examination of witnesses, facing accusers, let alone proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"). 


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Rob Clark interviewed Fred Litwin on The Lone Gunman Podcast. As usual, Litwin is selective about what he says about the case. He mentioned CMC in Rome but omits the fact that there were many neo-facist people connected to that company, which make that company suspect. For more info about this see my review of Michele Metta's book about CMC. Litwin also said that he is working on another book.

Contacted Rob and asked him if he will have another show where someone will tell Garrison's side of the story.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Allen, that was always really interesting way back in the early nineties when I first heard about it.  Rosemary James always tried to disguise that issue.

The evidence that Shaw knew Oswald is now pretty much overwhelming. 

I am reviewing a book right now and I should be done with that today or tomorrow,.  I will then begin  my article "On the Trail of Fred Litwin".  BTW, I have to say, in reading the intro to his latest, and the blurbs, I have  a couple of serious problems with the book already, which I bet Tracy Parnell did not mention.

First, what stature is given an anti-Garrison book, or for that matter a pro WC book (like his first one was), by quoting Paul Hoch either in the text or as a blurb?  What has Paul Hoch done for this case in the last 30 years? Nothing as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the evidence in the case has gone forward like a Japanese bullet train  with the declassifications of the ARRB.... with Paul sitting on a  corner in San Francisco waiting for a horse and buggy.

The other thing is this:  Litwin has a picture of, I am no tkidding, Harry Connick Sr. in his intro.  Connick is holding Litwin's first book.

Wow, that is shameless. And I really mean it.

I will mention just two words in that regard: Dino Cinel.



Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was aware of that Allen.  Though not that particular article on the subject.

Connick was simply a disaster as DA.  It took three DA's after Connick to deal with all the problems that guy caused. He was simply a horror, especially in regards to the Brady Rule.  There was also the time when his assistant DA's were found out making a video which caricatured African American defendants.

None of this ever occurred under Garrison.  Who turned around the DA's office once he was elected.  Cannot wait to see how Litwin explains this one. Or if he even tries.

BTW, I hope you have noticed what Freddy Boy is doing. He is going around to all the alternative podcast sites and trying to get on.  The obvious idea is to splinter the JFK community with his book. Wait until my review comes out. 

Mantik is on BOR tomorrow night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other guy Freddy Boy uses in his introduction is David Chandler.

Chandler was the guy who wrote that article in Life magazine accusing Garrison of being in bed with the Mob. And that started that whole meme used by the likes of John Davis.

Bill Davy and I blasted each one of those accusations out of the water and showed them all to be false.

There is a lot more to be said about Chandler, and I will in my review.

But to begin a book on Jim Garrison in this day and age with Connick and Chandler?  

Wow.   This tells me that Freddy Boy is going to redefine the term "hatchet job".

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

That Tracy, what a sense of humor.🙂

Gerald Posner, open minded. 🤐. Quillette of all sources.

In my review of Litwin's follies I will show how , when Connick was getting wrecked in the press, Gerald Posner tried to salvage him by cooperating with the DA on an easily exposable deception.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...