Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Blog Article-Fred Litwin's Follies


Recommended Posts

To those who do not know about the Litwin  school boy howler I referred to above,  let me quote from my review of Litwin's howler of a book:

 On page 39 he writes that the FBI and Jim Garrison were trying to find Clay Bertrand in late 1963. He then repeats this on page 41. The obvious question is: How could Garrison be looking for Bertrand in 1963 if he did not know about him? As noted above, Garrison had not studied the Commission volumes at that time, for the good reason that they would not be published until a year later. 

Anyone who could write such a thing in the first place has an agenda about the size and scope of Yellowstone National Park.  But here is the capper.  Paul Hoch edited this book. I'm not kidding.  Litwin says Hoch read the text and references and made suggestions. Hoch is so nutty about Garrison, that somehow he did not notice this incredible anachronism.  To me, to condone something like that is shocking. To normal thinking people, it would eliminate Litwin as a source.  But Roe, Parnell and Hoch are not normal thinking people. 

BTW, if Roe keeps this up, I will sign off.  First, he is simply wrong and will not admit it because of his bias.

Second, this technique is similar to what Von Pein used to do.  He would take my posts here and the gist of my arguments, and then twist them around on his site to fit his purposes.  Obviously, the unsuspecting newbie reading his site would take what he did at face value. What Roe is doing is serving as the connection for Litwin to do what Von Pein did. 

No go.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To normal thinking people, it would eliminate Litwin as a source.  But Roe, Parnell and Hoch are not normal thinking people. 

BTW, if Roe keeps this up, I will sign off.  First, he is simply wrong and will not admit it because of his bias.

Mr. DiEugenio, I would ask you to kindly refrain from personal insults that Tracy Parnell and I (members of this forum) are not "normal thinking people". If I have to abide by the rules of this forum, don't you think you should as well?

Now, back to your #5 point on "Gerdes seeing Oswald". Lester Otillio, Garrison investigator interviewed Gerdes and it specifically states that he never saw Oswald in Banister's office. If you want to ignore this primary document memo to Jim Garrison, then go right ahead.

For those that want to see it, just click this link. Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Now Mr. DiEugenio, if you want to comment on this  "Otillio to Garrison document", feel free to respond. This is a debate forum and you can choose to or not. Perhaps you never have seen it, and that's OK. Now that you have, then it's your decision to debate it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Mr. DiEugenio, I would ask you to kindly refrain from personal insults that Tracy Parnell and I (members of this forum) are not "normal thinking people". If I have to abide by the rules of this forum, don't you think you should as well?

Yes, it sounds like one of those ad hominem attacks that John McAdams allegedly made but that they presumably are above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an insult at all.  Just an observation of an error that would be so huge that its utterly stunning that Paul Hoch would miss it.

This reveals an incredible bias, one that is really overweening.  Let me repeat it so there is no misunderstanding.

Litwin wrote on, not one, but two pages of his book that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963. Not possible, because the WC was not published yet. That was late in 1964.

Now, did Hoch, who helped edit  the book, correct this? Did Parnell note it in his  18 page "review".  No to the first, and  no to the second. 18 pages and Parnell did not notice this schoolboy howler by his buddy Litwin.  Why?

I can explain why.  Because with Hoch and Parnell it really did not matter what Litwin wrote.  What mattered is that it was anti Garrison. Period.  This is why Parnell's review is not in any way a piece of criticism.  At its best, criticism implies a set of standards that should be met.  In the non fiction field it also implies a sense of fairness, knowledge and objectivity. Anyone who is so anti Garrison that they did not notice the above simply is lacking in that.  Parnell's "review" is not a review.  Its really a press release for Litwin. There is no central--or even supporting-- tenet of the book that Parnell questions.  Now compare that to my three part review in which I blow apart the entire book.  Big difference, my review is annotated.  In other words I understood the game Litwin (and Hoch) were playing. Its really kind of mildewed by now.  You just go to Garrison's critics, and those who attacked him--David Chandler, DIck Billings, JIm Kirkwood--and you put together the same ancient omelette. But then Litwin added Shaw's lawyers.

OMG!  He does this while he reveals nothing about any of the following: Guy Johnson and his ONI network with Shaw and Banister, the Johnson/Wegmann clearing of Banister's projects in advance, Wegmann doing the articles of incorporation for Banister's law firm, Dymond meeting with Hunter Leake at the CIA station in New Orleans.  Now, why are these all in my two articles from way back, but not in Litwin's book?  Are they important? Yes.  But you will not find them in the sources Litwin uses will you? Because those sources were determined never to reveal any of this information because it showed how in bed Shaw's lawyers were with Banister and the CIA. Parnell never noted this in his 18 page "review".  So therefore how insightful, now critical can it be? 

This reminds me of my interview with Dymond in his office.  He denied any kind of cleared lawyers panel in New Orleans. LOL.  Dymond actually was a part of this in 1967. In my article I reveal that after Sheridan would intimidate and flip a witness, he would send him to Dymond.  Dymond would tell the guy not to worry because he could supply him with a lawyer for free and pay his bond if Garrison should charge him. He then would give the person his card and tell him to call him any time of the day or night. When I showed Dymond a different document about the panel, he denied it.  Even though the guy who was applying to Helms was a partner of a lawyer who represented both Sheridan and Kerry Thornley!  Dymond also denied that Garrison tried any criminal cases while previously in the DA's office.  More baloney.  Garrison handled all kinds of criminal cases and Mellen describes the cases in her book. So, if you read my two articles, you will see why Shaw's lawyers are not credible sources. They were never going to admit to all this subterfuge.  Because the obvious question then, is this: why would Shaw need all this aid in the first place?

Which leads us back to: why was the FBI investigating Shaw in 1963?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, to show now accepting Parnell was in his review. It was not just the whole baloney about Garrison looking for Bertrand in 1963.

Parnell actually used the whole Litwin/David Chandler baloney about Garrison rigging the grand jury.

Any critic could just look up how grand juries are formed in that state.  Just consult a law journal or law code.  They are chosen from voter registration lists.

Secondly, Garrison did not run his grand juries.  His assistants did on a rotating basis.  You could have found that out just by interviewing one. Like I did Bill Alford.

That is what criticism is about. Especially when one is dealing with non fiction. You do some homework.

BTW, you know who the first person to extend his congrat to Parnell was on his non review review? Roe.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin wrote on, not one, but two pages of his book that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963.

That is not correct. By my reading, the second reference you mention is regarding the 66-67 investigation. As for the first reference, yes, Fred thinks that Garrison probably knew about Bertrand in '63 since the FBI and the Secret Service did:

The Search for Clay Bertrand (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why Parnell's review is not in any way a piece of criticism.

I will admit that it is not a critical review. Fred is a friend who I wanted to help. The purpose of the review was to call attention to what I consider a good book and give the reader an idea about what they can expect if they but it. If someone wants to to write a critical review (as you did) fine.

As for Hoch, I know you have a history with him, but he is unquestionably one of the foremost experts and I don't think your criticism of him is warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the text on one page, and in the caption on the next page Litwin wrote that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963.

The reader can go to Amazon and see the preview and read it himself.

Garrison did not know about Bertrand in 1963.  There is simply no evidence for that anyplace I have seen. This is another "Fred Litwin thinks" he knows.  (Sort of like Bo Jackson Knows?)

 

PS In the current issue of garrison, the paper zine Fred likes to trash, there is an excellent article about Assange by Jonathan Cook.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, you don't know how to read Roe.  And I am sorry, I don't think you are that obtuse.  I think you are doing it for effect.

Which is like Parnell saying Litwin did not write twice that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963 twice. When he did, and anyone can see that for free at Amazon. BTW, I have little doubt Litwin relayed this false "correction" to Parnell, and Parnell printed it without looking.

If Litwin wants to come on and debate his cruddy book with me, fine.  As I said, I will not let you two serve as his messengers so he can Von Pein me.

As for Roe's credibility.  Just remember, as I pointed out, he was the first person to leave a congrat for Parnell's non review review of Litwin's crud.  Where, in 18 pages, he could not find one single thing to criticize.  Including the truly nutty idea that somehow Garrison handpicked his own grand juries. And should I add, Litwin also actually wrote that Garrison's office was not being electronically surveiled.  When in fact, there are two--not one-- declassified sources which say he was.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is who Litwin found credible:  Just remember, I wrote all this based on declassified files from the late nineties.  Somehow, Litwin could not find any of it, even though he says he looked through the Wegmann files.  I then supplemented it with CIA, DOJ and FBI declassifications. Which Litwin somehow could not find. What Litwin does with the latter is truly astonishing.  Its almost like him saying I did not have any files or witnesses as to the impossible trail of CE 399. Utter and pure poppycock, which I proved and warned him about.

Anyhow, the story below tells the tale that somehow Litiwn could not find. Probably because it shows what prevaricators Shaw's lawyers were.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/fred-litwin-smooches-clay-shaw-s-lawyers

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/inside-clay-shaw-s-defense-team-the-wegmann-files

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bill-and-ed-s-washington-adventure

I will await Fred'a arrival.  He didn't do very well last time. So for now, adios to the non critic critic Parnell, and his cheerleader Roe. I will wager, they avoid everything in these three pieces.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 3:53 PM, Steve Roe said:

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? 

Mr Roe, I am not an expert on the assassination but Jim DiEugenio has pointed out the error in your thinking that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were not one and the same person. The record shows they were, I don't think Tracey Parnell would dispute that. Are you re-thinking that error? You seem to have jumped past it and moved on to some knockabout. Its quite important to the case and might make you reconsider your position. In terms of making a contribution to this site, and learning from the contributors you can fact check people, but you do need to check the record. If you jump past corrections to your thinking it makes you look like a QAnon follower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Not an insult at all.  Just an observation of an error that would be so huge that its utterly stunning that Paul Hoch would miss it.

Just to clarify, this was an "insult" or more accurately an ad hominem attack. Here it is:

On 4/21/2021 at 3:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

But Roe, Parnell and Hoch are not normal thinking people. 

That is an attack on the individuals not on the idea. Now, it doesn't bother me and I understand that Jim D. will get away with it since this is his "home field." But I just want to make sure everyone knows about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin wrote on, not one, but two pages of his book that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963. Not possible, because the WC was not published yet. That was late in 1964.

I think we may be into semantics here. Fred explains his position on the issue this way in a blog piece:

Quote

The FBI, the Secret Service, and the New Orleans Police Department were actively looking for Bertrand. In the process, they contacted their confidential informants, the New Orleans Police Department, Tulane University, the Narcotics Squad, the Vice Squad and even the New Orleans Retailers’ Credit Bureau. Dean Andrews contacted Raymond Comstock who worked for Garrison – and he was then in touch with the FBI. It’s certainly conceivable that Garrison did not know about the search for Clay Bertrand, but given his knowledge and interest in David Ferrie, and given that one of his own key investigators was involved in the search, I find it unlikely.

More, including the documentation, here:

Fred Litwin's Follies! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/20/2021 at 3:21 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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

What is your source for this statement? Fred has a source that says something different:

Q: Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald?

A: No, not in connection with Banister. He lived a few doors from my wife's grandmother.

In a follow-up interview, Gerdes again said that he had never seen LHO at Banister's office or 544 Camp.

Why is Jim refusing to answer this?

Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
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...