Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Blog Article-Fred Litwin's Follies


Recommended Posts

Habighorst was the Police Patrolman in the Bureau of Identification who stated that Shaw freely admitted using the alias Clay Bertrand.

Habighorst rolls up to the Clay Shaw trial;

Q: Officer Habighorst, do you generally wear dark glasses?

A: I don't generally wear dark glasses. I was involved in a hit-and-run accident yesterday, and this is the only glasses I have until they are able to be repaired.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tony:

Its worse than that.

I talked to his wife.  She said that by this time, Garrison was so worried about what was happening to his witnesses that he had protection for them.  In this particular case, JG decided that with just a day to go before the cop's appearance, he would take it off. 

Well, right after that happened, a  vehicle--I think she said a pick up truck--raced out of an alley and side swiped Hagibhorst. He got out of the way just in time.

When I heard that story, I realized just how extensive the surveillance was on Garrison's office and witnesses.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add to that last point.

I think Malcolm Blunt may have solved that riddle of surveillance on both JG and his witnesses.

Malcolm found a cover sheet labeled "Black Tape". and the subject was the Garrison inquiry.  

The dates were from September of 1967 to March of 1969.  Those dates encompass the start up of the Garrison Group until the end of Shaw''s trial.   Problem:  all that Malcolm could find is this cover sheet.  But there are two pieces of information on it that are really interesting.  First, the materials that are missing contain 24 folders. But here is the capper, on the cover sheet it says that it is to remain classified until 2017, and then released only with the approval of CI unit of the Agency.  Which is where it originated.

When i asked Malcolm, what does a Black Tape operation mean?   He said it is something that is very closely held at HQ and does not go out to the field offices. It is strictly on a need to know basis. I suspect that this contained a lot of the surveillance operation, and counter intelligence program against Garrison. Recall, it was Angleton who was running background checks on the jurors.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 6:40 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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)

Maybe you have "reading comprehension" problems like me, Tracy. DiEugenio says he did address this, and I can't read. Here it is, and obviously no answer. It's obviously a mistake to say that Gerdes saw Oswald, as interviewed by Garrison's investigator. But I guess I will be put on "ignore" because DiEugenio apparently says he did address this......but where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Maybe you have "reading comprehension" problems like me, Tracy. DiEugenio says he did address this, and I can't read. Here it is, and obviously no answer. It's obviously a mistake to say that Gerdes saw Oswald, as interviewed by Garrison's investigator. But I guess I will be put on "ignore" because DiEugenio apparently says he did address this......but where?

He didn't because he can't. BTW, good piece just out by Fred on Garrison's nutty theories regarding Larry Crafard:

Jim Garrison Names the Grassy Knoll Gunman! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The reason I have the reputation I do is because when I review something I read the entire work.  I then criticize the work in detail and on many planes: What is the author's intent? How does he attempt to achieve that goal? What are the sources he uses?  How does he use them? Does he reveal all about those sources, and what does he hide if he does not?  

In Freddie's case he largely used people like David Chandler, Dick Billings, Rosemary James, Bill Stuckey, and if you can believe it, Shaw's lawyers. And he does not reveal necessary information about any of them.

Chandler was a TIme Life stringer, who was used by them to smear JG with the Mafia.  That all turned out to be a bunch of baloney, as Bill Davy proved in his book.  Well Fred used Chandler to say JG personally picked his grand juries.  I exposed this in detail in my review as to be more Litwinian BS.

Billings was used in the CIA sponsored Bayo Pawley raid against Castro, ostensibly in order to cause a provocation with Cuba.  Billings was also the co author of the Chandler article which made up all that rubbish about JG and the Mafia. Two sources, four strikes against Fred..

Rosemary James said on a local TV show in New Orleans that Clay Shaw was dropped by the wealthy Stern family once he was indicted by JG.  More garbage.  And anyone can detect it by reading Kirkwood's book.  The Sterns had dinners for incoming reporters to wine and dine them for Shaw's cause after indictment. Sheridan also used the Stern station WDSU for his hatchet job on Garrison for NBC. (If you are counting, that is six strikes against Fred.  Do they play baseball in Canada? Because Fred would have been retired twice already.  Parnell must be the umpire.)  Yet Freddie used her book to say that JG arrested someone for buying liquor on the grounds he was a homosexual.  But at least James revealed her sorry source: STUCKEY!  Yep, the FBI CIA asset who sponsored the Butler/Oswald "debate" in which Stuckey called the FBI first to get background on Oswald. And Stuckey had been calling the FBI since 1962 on this according to Malcolm Blunt.  Freddie cut all that out.  Which is why he has no credibility as an author, he is really more like a circus clown. But somehow, Parnell did not notice any of this in his non review "review."

As per my credibility, I read everything Freddie Boy wrote.  Many years ago I exposed Shaw's lawyers as being who they really were. They actually worked with Guy Banister since the late fifties, something else that Freddie does not tell the reader.  They were begging for help from the CIA almost from the beginning, in 1967.  Ed Wegmann was writing letters to Allen Dulles. One reason being that Shaw would not tell them the truth about his association with the Agency.  And every communication that they sent to the DOJ went to Larry Houston at CIA. Another fact Freddie does not reveal. By the end of that year, they were working hand in hand with the Helms' Garrison Group. That is the CIA was supplying lawyers for the witnesses that were being intimidated by Sheridan to turn on Garrison.  And Dymond was supplying them with bond and lawyers.

This, and much more, was all in my two part article from the late nineties which is up at K and K. Big difference between me and Fred.  I used ARRB declassified files from the CIA, FBI, and DOJ--which they did not want you to read. I did not go around to the private papers of say Irvin Dymond, which he did want you to see. In other words I exposed the covert side that was hidden by Fred's sources.  Its all there as I wrote it.  If you do not read it, that is your (predictable) problem.Yawn. Same with Angleton's Black Tape operation. (Yawn says Parnell.)

Tracy does not want you to know all this because it exposes his "review" of Litwin as the piece of literary pap that it is.  Somehow Parnell could not find one problem in LItwin's over 300 pages of crud. Which, in 50 annotated pages, I proved  was a sick joke that wants to take us back to the days of Kirkwood, Shaw's ghost writer. That won't fly anymore Freddie.  I have exposed Tracy's buddy as the Culture Warrior he is. Litwin has no interest  in the declassified record or the truth of the JFK case. And the worst part of his whole fairy tale is that he insists he once did except, get this: he can produce no evidence for that. And somehow Parnell sidesteps that issue. In other words, an author misrepresents himself IN THE TITLE OF HIS BOOK, and that is  OK with Parnell! 

That is all one needs to know about the quality of Parnell's "criticism". Which is not criticism.  Its cheerleading.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is all one needs to know about the quality of Parnell's "criticism". Which is not criticism.  Its cheerleading.

Perhaps Jim already has me on ignore. I have previously stated that my review was never intended to be "criticism" of Fred's work. It was intended to promote what I feel is a good book that exposes Garrison's nonsensical investigative techniques. 

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...