Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Denny, I think there is a misunderstanding. When I said "no evidence" that Rose Cherami (Melba Marcades)'s story of working for Ruby was confirmed, I meant evidence that a researcher can look at and verify. You are citing claims of Fruge and Dischler (Dischler getting that from Fruge) that such confirmation existed, with absolutely nothing ever produced or known to us or publicly known to anyone of what that is. I knew about that. I saw that in the 2020 second edition of Dr. Marcades' book about his mother, on p. 328 ("In 2006, Ann Dishler [sic], Fruge's investigatory partner, confirmed Fruge had sources to this claim who wished to remain unidentified"). 

That is not confirmation or evidence, it is hearsay--someone claiming that there was confirmation but you will never be able to know the source, the nature of the source and how the source was in a position to know, or what specifically was confirmed, or look at it.

So with Fruge as the sole--sole--source (including to Dischler) of the unverified claim that it was verified, here is Fruge's earliest known statement about verification, to HSCA in the late 1970s:

 

325b1c_9c37225324cc43f489b05694feb93b8e~mv2.webp

 
He "thinks that this might have been checked later"? 
 
Doesn't he know?
 
In the late 1970s, he "thinks that this might have been checked later"?
 
By who? 
 
He "thinks this might have been checked later"! 
 
Anne Drischler apparently says in 2006--forty-three years after the event and 28 years after HSCA--that Fruge himself had checked but could not speak of it because  . . . "confidential sources"! That explains why Fruge apparently never in his life disclosed what specifics this alleged checking, if it ever happened, confirmed of Melba Marcades' Ruby story? 
 
That is what I meant by "no evidence"--evidence existing in the form of an accessible witness statement, document, testimony, police report ... the usual understanding of meaning of evidence. 
 
Then you have as part of the Marcades' story, the ludicrous claim of her knowing that Oswald and Ruby were long-term bedmates, and the new--new information, the 1957 newspaper article brought to light in past days by Steve Roe--that Melba Marcades had a known track record of total fabrication of stories putting herself in the midst of high-profile criminal cases in the news. And convincing law enforcement officers.
 
Sounds almost like a different version of Judyth Baker, though for some reason Melba Marcades has more sympathy from me.
 
Judyth Baker also has plenty of claims that confirmations existed for her stories which you cannot see today.
 
Here is a moral question: suppose, hypothetically, that the story of Rose Cherami was very effective in persuading members of the public that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Then suppose, hypothetically, the Rose Cherami story collapsed, proven to be of no different genre than a Judyth Baker claim, i.e. baseless, without evidence and appearance of fabrication. What would be the right thing to do, in that case? 
 
Plato talked of "noble lies"--lies which prove useful, known by insiders not to be true, but good for the public to believe because serves good ends. I don't believe in noble lies, I detest the notion of noble lies, and I am not too enamored with Plato either (morally, as distinguished from intellectually in which he was utterly brilliant). 
 
Is the Rose Cherami story something that, it does not matter if it is true, it works--it was the opening scene in Oliver Stone's "JFK" and look how effective that first scene was . . . 
 
But is it true? Are the claims that have been made re Rose Cherami backed up in terms of accurate assessment of underlying evidence? 
Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Greg:

You know, your alleged "moral" ground sometimes sounds like the Christian right.  Smoke and Mirrors to cover up a simple and direct point.

Rose Cherami predicted that Kennedy was going to be killed two days in advance of the assassination.

And that was only the first time she said it.  She said it three more times while at the hospital.  No one took her seriously.

When it actually happened, people were pulverized.  To the point that Weiss tried to disguise what had really happened. That should tell you something right there. Sort of like Odio fainting when she saw Oswald on TV.

He tried to say she did not really say it to him.  But she did. And that was exposed later due to some ground work by people actually interviewing the particulars.  Which you and Roe, and Parnell do not do very much of. 

Owens heard her say it also.  But they tried to shut him up when Garrison discovered the story. They succeeded in doing so. Garrison could not talk to him. But right after it happened Owens had told McGehee, the local barber.  Another interview that the three blind mice--Parnell, you and Roe--somehow missed. 

She also said it in the TV room in the hospital right before it happened.  (Mellen, pp. 206,222)

Now, I would like to ask a question, because what I detect here is the Bugliosi syndrome. One of the big problems I had with Reclaiming History was this: There was no evidence that Vince ever left his office to write that book. He never went anywhere, stayed in a hotel, and did what detectives call a field investigation.  There is no evidence that Litwin did one either.  All he did was visit the archives of hit men like Billings and Kirkwood who spent their careers covering up what really happened in New Orleans.  Billings and his Carlos Marcello killed Kennedy mythos; and if you want to read something funny, read Kirkwood's book about the Z film at the Shaw trial. Or try and find the name of Gordon Novel in that book.  Fred never figured out that Clay Shaw commissioned that book.  I did because I went to Mississippi and talked to James Leo Herlihy's college roommate. Who Fred probably never even heard about. But should that not tell you something about American Grotesque and Kirkwood? 

You cannot even begin to understand New Orleans unless you actually go there and do a ground investigation.  One in which, one lead goes to another and you finally come up with something you never expected.  I have been there five times.  And I still do not know everything. Joan Mellen actually took a hotel room in St. Francisville and drove to CLINTON/ JACKSON FOR OVER TWO WEEKS!  That is called on the ground research.  Understand?

So here is my question to Parnell, Roe, and Greg:  how many times have you visited New Orleans for research purposes and driven to the Clinton/Jackson area? 

Should be an easy question to reply to right?  I await your answers.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Should be an easy question to reply to right?  I await your answers.

You don't have long to wait Jim. I have never been to Clinton/Jackson and I never will. I have absolutely zero interest in the subject since I don't find the claims regarding Shaw, Oswald etc. having been there to be credible. I believe that when researchers do spend time and money on a subject there is a natural human tendency to believe that they have "paid their dues" and it is then ok to speculate which is unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

When I said "no evidence" that Rose Cherami (Melba Marcades)'s story of working for Ruby was confirmed, I meant evidence that a researcher can look at and verify. You are citing claims of Fruge and Dischler (Dischler getting that from Fruge) that such confirmation existed, with absolutely nothing ever produced or known to us or publicly known to anyone of what that is. I knew about that. I saw that in the 2020 second edition of Dr. Marcades' book about his mother, on p. 328 ("In 2006, Ann Dishler [sic], Fruge's investigatory partner, confirmed Fruge had sources to this claim who wished to remain unidentified"). 

Hi Greg. I studied to be a paralegal in college. While I try to never overestimate my intelligence, I do hope that I can say with some confidence that I might possibly have a remedial understanding of evidence and hearsay.

And you are correct. I cited that same page in my earlier post, and I acknowledged that I personally have no other evidence that I can provide other than Fruge and Dischler's claims that the allegation was verified. If you and others want to use that as a basis for dismissing everything about Marcades, please be my guest. Using that logic, one would also want to dismiss any and all testimony about JFK's brain, since I can't produce that either.

Fruge said it was verified. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that Marcades' was ever actually employed by Ruby. The only two pieces of evidence is that Fruge reported in 1967 that it had been verified and that Dischler apparently reported in 2006 that Fruge had multiple unidentified sources who confirmed Marcades worked for Ruby. Fruge could have been making it all up. But I think it's a mistake to assume that he was making things up.

As I tried to make clear in my earlier post, the JFK case is absolutely filled with missing pieces of evidence and witness statements that for one reason or another cannot be independently verified. There's also decades of intentional disinformation to sift through on top of that. It's up to the individual researcher to use their own judgement, to try and consider the evidence in context with other evidence, and to evaluate it all the best they can.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

here is Fruge's earliest known statement about verification, to HSCA in the late 1970s:

It seems you are citing the HSCA interview, dated April 7, 1978.

If you have "Rose Cheramie: Gathering Fallen Petals" Second Edition, you should see on page 339 a retyped report on Marcades' death dated April 4, 1967, written in Fruge's own words, reportedly signed by Fruge, in which Fruge unequivocally states that Marcades' employment with Ruby was verified.

I'm going to trust 1. the document reportedly signed by Fruge in 1967 and 2. the statement that Dischler said in 2006 that Fruge verified Marcades' employment over one ambiguous "thinks that this might have been checked later" written by a third party in 1978 because I have read stories of other witnesses who have claimed that their statements in the printed record did not accurately reflect their actual statements to authorities.

I'm going to go with the two statements by the two principals that say it was verified and believe that it was verified. It seems that you and others would rather ignore those two statements that say it was verified, and instead rely on one ambiguous statement by a third party that says it MAY or MAY NOT have been verified as absolute PROOF that it was NEVER verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Denny, you are right. On p. 339 of the Marcades 2nd edition is a Fruge document of April 4, 1967 that states that between Nov. 21-28 "she stated that she once worked for Jack Ruby as a stripper, which was verified".

He does not make clear that he personally verified it. The first claim that Fruge himself was the verifier seems to be 2006 Anne Dischler saying that. Now Fruge is dead, nobody has any idea who or how the verification happened, what club, or when. But you are right, there is a 1967 claim from Fruge of verification.

Jim D., I have never been to New Orleans or Clinton/Jackson related to JFK. How many times have you been to Big Sandy to do Rose Cherami research? Not a serious question, does not matter. On the foreknowledge, I am sure you are aware the question is whether the claims of foreknowledge are true or later after the fact. It is now known, thanks to Steve Roe, that Rose Cherami fabricated personal involvement in a high-profile murder case in Arizona in 1957. The claims of foreknowledge and participation in a car of JFK assassins in 1963 is a second similar claim in a second high-profile murder case. Since she made it up the first time and it was not true (but sounded convincing), the question is whether she made it up and it is not true the second time too (even though it sounds convincing). I would be interested in you engaging Steve Roe on substantive matters of fact on this. Steve Roe appears to have studied the Rose Cherami case extensively. Why not have a civil discussion of issues of fact, details of evidence, etc. with Steve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Greg:

I am sure you are aware that Rose was still being used by the FBI in the sixties, or did Steve Roe not tell you that? If not then see Marcades, Chapter 10. That would indicate to me that the FBI valued her more than they did not.  She was also an informant for the Houston PD.

First Freddie Boy tries to say that Fruge was lying.  But then what about Weiss and all the other witnesses at the Hospital?

So if that does not work then Rose was hallucinating. But as Dr William N says heroin withdrawal does not cause that.

In other words, plain and simple, she predicted JFK would be killed--- and he was.  

BTW, she is not the only one, there was also Nagell and Martino.  One of the great failures of the WR--a pretty long list at that-was they missed this part of the story entirely.  How did three people working in the Cuban exile/CIA underworld all know this in advance?  Three is not a coincidence.  It was going to happen. 

And that leaves out Chicago.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Greg:

In case you do not know this, Jackson State hospital is in the Clinton/Jackson radius. That is where she was taken to. Its the main place of employment in Jackson.  Like the court house and voting registrar is the main one in Clinton.  Everyone in the town knows about Oswald being there to try and register to vote.  Just walk into the  office.

Jackson was where Oswald was trying to get a job at.  Although its been completely renovated today, McGehee's barber shop was right on a main street, that is how he met Owens.

Until I did my first research trips up there, everyone in the community referred to it as the Clinton incident. That was a wrong assumption.  It took place over two areas in two distinct hamlets separated by about ten miles.  This is why the fruity Posner was so utterly wrong in his book--he never went there, so he thought it was all enacted in one place.

OK, so you have never been there, or to New Orleans. And neither has Parnell.

Waiting for SR. Someone emailed me yesterday to remind me how he warned me of SR a while back. I guess he was right, I mean teaming up with Freddie?  Whew.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg:

In case you do not know this, Jackson State hospital is in the Clinton/Jackson radius. That is where she was taken to. Its the main place of employment in Jackson.  Like the court house and voting registrar is the main one in Clinton.  Everyone in the town knows about Oswald being there to try and register to vote.  Just walk into the  office.

Jackson was where Oswald was trying to get a job at.  Although its been completely renovated today, McGehee's barber shop was right on a main street, that is how he met Owens.

Until I did my first research trips up there, everyone in the community referred to it as the Clinton incident. That was a wrong assumption.  It took place over two areas in two distinct hamlets separated by about ten miles.  This is why the fruity Posner was so utterly wrong in his book--he never went there, so he thought it was all enacted in one place.

OK, so you have never been there, or to New Orleans. And neither has Parnell.

Waiting for SR. Someone emailed me yesterday to remind me how he warned me of SR a while back. I guess he was right, I mean teaming up with Freddie?  Whew.

 

This thread is like a tag team All Star Wrestling match where the Litwin tag team keeps getting body-slammed.

They keep staggering back into the ring, but the refs probably need to call the fight to prevent further brain damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

This thread is like a tag team All Star Wrestling match where the Litwin tag team keeps getting body-slammed.

They keep staggering back into the ring, but the refs probably need to call the fight to prevent further brain damage.

Good one William.

Ron, I agree.  On FB I said Fred is getting really desperate.  Sounds like McAdams after our debate, talking to me on the phone after I called him out for making things up.  He was so incoherent I had to hang up on him.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So here is my question to Parnell, Roe, and Greg:  how many times have you visited New Orleans for research purposes and driven to the Clinton/Jackson area? 

Should be an easy question to reply to right?  I await your answers.

 

I guess Mr. DiEugenio has been waiting on my answer. So I will address it honestly.

Most likely Mr. DiEugenio, you have been to New Orleans more than I have. So if I remember correctly, way back in the 90's, I've been to New Orleans  approximately 8-10 times. All of my visits to N.O. were on business as we had an office down there, I believe on Poydras street, near Exxon's headquarters. 

I didn't do any JFK related research at all back in that time frame. 

Regarding Clinton/Jackson, I've never been there, as I had no business reason to go. 

I did travel other locales, mainly in South Louisiana (south of I-10) to Lafayette, Crowley, Cameron, Fourchon and Metairie (business associates). Later in the 2000's, I made trips to Shreveport, Alexandria and Monroe. 

I will repeat, I did not do any JFK related research on my various trips into Louisiana. At that time, I still believed in a JFK conspiracy from 1963 to around 2010 and it never crossed my mind to investigate conspiracy matters in Louisiana, as I still believed conspiracy book authors were telling the truth about Shaw, Clinton, Banister, Ferrie, etc. 

And boy, was I wrong!

There's my honest answer. 

 

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...