Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Blog Article-Fred Litwin's Follies


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will just point out one of the utter absurdities in this blog post and how Parnell does not notice it.

The way Litwin parses what Stringer said under oath to Gunn is an absolute marvel of diversion.

In my review of Horne's book I summarized the several pages he spent on this issue, since he was in the room.  Read this and compare it with what Fredde Boy writes:

The other problem is that photographer John Stringer said the brain was sectioned. (ibid) He said he recalled this since he photographed it. The problem is that under examination by the ARRB Stringer just about wrecked the thesis that it was he who took any archival pictures of the brain. First, as mentioned in Part 1, Stringer said he took no basilar views of the brain – but there are such underneath shots in the archives. He also said there were identification tags used in such shots. There are none in these photographs. (Horne, p. 806) Jeremy Gunn then asked him if based on those facts would he be able to identify the photographs before him as photographs of the brain of President Kennedy? Stringer said, "No, I couldn't say that they were President Kennedy's ... All I know is, I gave everything to Jim Humes, and he gave them to Admiral Burkley." (ibid.)

It then got worse. Stringer had identified to Gunn the types of film he used for both black and white and color pictures. The type of film used in the brain photos is Ansco. Stringer was genuinely puzzled when he discovered this because not only was it the wrong film, but it was used in a photographic technique called a press pack, which he did not use. This was betrayed by a series number in the pictures, something which Stringer was almost stunned to see. (Horne, pp. 807-08) Stringer also did not recognize the film used in the color shots of the brain either. (ibid, p. 809) And, of course, there were no photos of the brain as being sectioned. What is most puzzling about this last is that Stringer remembered photographing the sections using a light box. (p. 810)

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words,  Litwin does not mention the following points:

1. Stringer said the brain was sectioned since he photographed it using a light  box.  There is no evidence of this at all today.

2. Stringer then says that he did not use Ansco film. 

3. Stringer  did not use Press pack technique. According to Horne, when he said these things he was right up on the pictures.

4. Something I left out of the above.  Stringer recalled a damaged cerebellum.  When Gunn asked him about the one in the picture, he said this was undamaged. 

In other words, par for the course,  Freddie Boy leaves out the most important parts. Here is my question to Freddie: How does one put a brain back together after its sectioned and cerebellum back together after its damaged? Does one use super glue?  Industrial strength transparent tape? Or did someone just construct a fake brain?  One that looked so real that it fooled everyone?

This is the kind of work Litwin does and only Tracy Parnell would post it without qualifications. And I could do the same thing with the whole blog post.

 

PS Let me add one other point.  By doing the sorcery he does on this issue, Freddie Boy achieves two aims.  First, he disguises the key importance of what Stinger said under oath with the pictures in front of him. Secondly, by doing this, he fulfills his other design, which is to somehow maintain that there were no bombshells unearthed by the ARRB.  Excuse me, if Stringer says he took pics of a sectioned brain, and those pics are not in the record and the only pics we have are of a more of less intact brain, which were done with film and technique he did not use, replete with an intact cerebellum he did not see, then that is of the utmost evidentiary importance.   

Can you imagine the impact of his testimony at trial?  BTW, look for it in the WC volumes.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I just provided a link to the article. If Fred wants to respond here (or elsewhere) he will. BTW, if you read Fred's piece he notes that there are many things that Jim is ignoring.

I've read it....and you're right. Of course, the big question....maybe Mr. DiEugenio, the Garrison expert, can answer this. What in the Sam Hill was Clay Shaw's role in getting the President assassinated? What did he actually do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the whole New Orleans aspect, I wrote a 400 page book on this with 2000 footnotes.

Unlike Litwin, I used the declassification process of the ARRB.  I did not seek out the files of a hack reporter like DIck Billings, a hack writer like James Kirkwood, a CIA/FBI asset like Hugh Aynseworth, and one of the worst DA's in modern history Harry Connick. And I did not use the files of Shaw's lawyers, who were in bed with not just these  guys, but the Cuban exiles, and Washington DC.

I used things that the CIA, FBI, and DOJ were hiding for 30 years.  Why were they hiding it?  Because it proved that 1.) The WC was a monstrous cover up, and 2.) Ferrie, Shaw and Banister were all lying and the FBI went along with those lies.

As Allard Lowenstein, the Yale educated lawyer said:  In my experience as an attorney, people with nothing to hide, don't hide things.  People hide things in criminal cases because their exposure would hurt their case. For instance, why was the FBI investigating Shaw in the wake of the assassination?  And why did the FBI lie about this? Litwin conceals this and following that cue, Roe acts like it does not exist.  It does exist. Cartha DeLoach wrote the memo. (BIll Davy, Let Justice be Done, p. 192)

What happened in New Orleans that summer was very important in the overall scheme of things.  Having Oswald work as part of the CIA/FBI campaign against the FPCC allowed him to pick up a lot of publicity--pictures, films, newspaper notices, radio--much of which was deliberately created by Oswald or the people around him e.g. Butler and Bringuier.  This had a colossal impact in the 48 hour period following Kennedy's assassination.  The idea being stamped out was that Oswald was a communist, and this provided his motivation for killing Kennedy.  It is impossible to overstate the influence this had for the public, in the media, and in setting up a political paradigm for the Warren Commission. And someone like David Phillips, who was part of the anti FPCC crusade and took part in the overthrow of Arbenz, would understand that. 

To use just one example: prior to Oswald leafleting in front of Shaw's ITM, Carlos Quiroga--an associate of Sergio Arcacha Smith and Bringuier--visited Oswald's apartment. His landlady said that, unlike what Quiroga stated, the Cuban had a pile of leaflets with him that he dropped off. And when Quiroga was asked if he knew the whole FPCC posing  by LHO was a charade, he replied in the negative, and the polygraph indicated he was lying.  How did this incident attract the attention of the media?  Shaw's assistant, Jesse Core, alerted them in advance. (Ibid, pp. 38-39. BTW, Core also alerted the FBI that Oswald had placed Banister's office address on a previous leafleting incident.)

The above is just one example among many indicating how important New Orleans was in the overall design of the plot. Try and find it in Litwin's pile of rubbish. Then recall what Lowenstein said.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

What in the Sam Hill was Clay Shaw's role in getting the President assassinated? What did he actually do? 

Clay Shaw was allowed to get away with lying and claiming he wasn't Clay Bertrand, and thus we were unable to learn exactly what his relationship to Lee Oswald was.

Maybe you're ok with that, but I sure as hell am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To show you who Freddie Boy really is, he thinks that somehow he was the first person who had access to Shaw's lawyers files.

False.

I wrote two long articles on the Wegmann files for Probe magazine back in the late nineties.  What is notable about Litwin is the stuff he leaves out.  Consider what Shaw's defense team knew:

1.  G. Wray Gill's secretary had seen a photo of Shaw with Ferrie. (Shaw denied under oath he knew Ferrie. So Shaw's lawyers knew he was lying. )

2.  Ferrie had introduced Jack Martin to Oswald at Banister's office, with Sergio Arcacha Smith there. 

3. Albert Fowler was a friend of Shaw's. He said that Garrison was on to something big, high level persons were in on the Kennedy assassination plot. Shaw felt confident since he knew these people would have to defend him.  (This strongly indicates consciousness of guilt.)

4. Wackenhut, the Wegmanns' chief investigative agency, determined Gordon Novel was a CIA agent, and Shaw was tied into military intelligence.

5.Vernon Gerdes, who used to work for Banister, said he had seen Oswald with Ferrie and Banister.

In 1995, the CIA was forced to declassify a document which said that Bill Wegmann had written up the incorporation papers for Banister's detective agency. In other words, the Wegmanns knew Garrison was correct on this key aspect of the case.

Again, check and see if any of this rather important information is in Litwin's book.  For my article, which is now posted at K and K, I went through hundreds of pages of Wegmann papers.  But I also used scores of declassified files from the DOJ, CIA and FBI to go even further than that would take me.  It turned out the Wegmann papers were partly sanitized. Another point Litwin does not bring up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following was posted here back in 2011;

Carlos Bringuier is quoted in the New York Times THE DAY AFTER the assassination that he thought Oswald was working for the CIA. It's on the front page. I have a copy of that paper sitting in a plastic wrapper in my closet. I've always felt that it showed how anyone could figure out the basics of what happened almost immediately. I'm sure a few intelligence folks in Washington freaked out.

 

Okay, here it is. I pulled it out of the closet and took it out of the plastic cover. Yes, it's the New York Times for Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. "Leftist Accused" is the headline on the top half of the front page. The reporter is Gladwin Hilll. 

The quote from Bringuier appears in that article -- but further in the paper where the article continues from the front page onto page 4. 

Amazing, huh? Next day, complete "leftist" profile with Bringuier making the intelligence connection.

Yes, I've seen that on-line version of the story and was not surprised to see the Bringuier paragraphs removed. I have no doubt that later editions of the story were hastily edited to remove his references to the FBI and CIA...most likely because they were accurate assessments. 

I assure you it's there in the original NY Times paper edition, which I've returned to its plastic bag and safe spot. I'd be delighted to show my old yellowed copy to anyone interested.

Anyone have an original hard copy of this article to confirm this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Clay Shaw was allowed to get away with lying and claiming he wasn't Clay Bertrand, and thus we were unable to learn exactly what his relationship to Lee Oswald was.

Maybe you're ok with that, but I sure as hell am not.

Of course that's your speculation, that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were one in the same. It's complete nonsense. Clay Shaw had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination. The name "Clay/Clem Bertrand" came out in the Warren Commission. So, answer this please.....if Clay Shaw was a sinister conspirator in killing the President, why was he running around New Orleans using the same "Clay Bertrand" alias YEARS after the Warren Commission Report???? Like the extremely dubious Eastern Airlines VIP lounge incident? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not speculation.  Shaw was Bertrand. Period.  End of story.

The FBI and Garrison had upwards of ten sources on this, including WR loyalist Larry Schiller. In fact, even Ed Guthman knew, and he told Liebeler.

As I noted, Litwin disguises this in his book with a bit of trickery that reminds me of Jerry Posner, and  I pointed out in my review precisely how he did it.

But let me quote the FBI document itself. "On February 24, 1967, we received information from Aaron Kohn and from NO 1309-C that Clay Shaw is identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand...."  In the body of the document, the FBI actually printed the name of Clay Bertrand under the first paragraph where they described Shaw's arrest. Repeat if Roe did not notice: the FBI sources said Shaw and Bertrand are identical. And there are two of them in the same document.  One being Aaron Kohn.  Who worked for Shaw's lawyers. In other words Shaw's own defense knew he was lying.

What is interesting about this document is that the FBI was informed of Shaw being Bertrand  BEFORE Garrison arrested him.  Kohn had worked for the FBI for a number of years, I think about seven.  He and the other source had to know that Garrison was going to arrest Shaw or why tell them about it in advance? As Richard Booth noted, the way Litwin tries to explain away this document is pure, high octane BS. Sort of like him saying Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963. Or did Roe forget about that howler?

As per the one about Gerdes, neither you nor he knows how to read.  The source was Wackenhut.  And it says that in my article.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...