Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim DiEugenio vs Fred Litwin


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What has Hoch ever written in the last 30 years of any value to the critical community?

To answer Jim’s question, let’s take a trip back to the 1993 Chicago Symposium which fits the 30-year criteria. Hoch commented on his experience at that gathering in his newsletter, Echoes of Conspiracy Vol. 15 #1. Hoch first commented on the diversity of the WC critics. He also praised a “new group” Jim D’s own CTKA and mentioned their newsletter Probe which he said contained a “surprising amount of news.” Hoch also mentioned AARC, John Judge, and the Lopez Report.

Hoch discussed Peter Dale Scott’s work on Mexico City. He also mentions Scott’s review of Case Closed and offered his own extensive and detailed criticisms of the book. “The book’s biggest distortion,” he wrote, “is implicitly placing the blame for the controversy on the critics rather than the evidence.” Hoch also called Posner’s treatment of Hartogs, “indefensible.” Additionally, Hoch Reviewed Scott’s Deep Politics and said he, “may be the only the only researcher who can pursue this type of analysis and come even close to persuasiveness.”

Hoch made his own presentation at the symposium. In his remarks, Hoch noted that he was “not very active” as a researcher at that time but his mission was to “help other researchers.” In that spirt, Hoch offered some excellent advice to his fellow scholars.

Hoch’s first category of advice was regarding documents. “Keep an eye out for the innocent explanation; then test it,” Hoch advised. As an example, Hoch pointed to the case of Igor Vaganov who he noted was “involved in shady activities in Dallas that probably had nothing to do with the assassination.” Hoch concluded, “most of the apparent evidence will turn out not to be true, even if it is not obviously false.”

Under the heading of physical evidence, Hoch advised, “The single bullet theory is not a joke. Despite its well-known flaws, the Warren Commission/House Committee reconstruction may be in better shape than any other single detailed reconstruction. At least, it has to be taken seriously.”

Hoch also cautioned the attendees on potential pitfalls. “Watch out for allegations which look too good to throw out, for example because they seem to make the connection between Kennedy's enemies and the assassination — that is, to provide the closure everyone hopes to find. For example, some people latched on to the FBI document mentioning George Bush of the CIA without considering if the George Bush would be referred to in that fashion, and whether the contact described was that important or sinister anyhow.”

Sort of like Jim D. attaching major significance to a unverified statement by an individual that claims to have seen a document connecting Oswald and Ruby. Perhaps Jim missed that particular presentation by Hoch.

These are just a few of the highlights of Hoch’s presentation. If you would like to read more, the original newsletter may be found here:

Item 01.pdf (hood.edu)

It is clear that Hoch’s “value to the critical community” was his advice to be skeptical not only of the WC but of unsupported or poorly supported claims of conspiracy. I think that often unheeded advice was priceless.

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

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In keeping with William N, I have Parnell and Roe on ignore.

After that witless farrago about Kauffmann/Hoover, what else can one do?

Sources do not matter, and you are supposed to link to places you cannot link to.  Probe Magazine is not on line.

But stay tuned.  I have more on Litwin's bud, Paul Hoch coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As I noted in my review of Litwin's "book" on Garrison, he revealed there something important about Paul Hoch.

Whenever Hoch is confronted with this weird duality, the critic who doesn't criticize--and when he talks he sounds like Belin--he will say something like, I give help to everyone.  In other  words, he is only extending academic aid to people who call him and ask him for it. And, as far as I know, this is accurate up to a point. He does do this.

But what Litwin revealed is something different.  As I noted in my review, Hoch served as an editor on the book.  In other words, according to Fred, Paul Hoch read the entire manuscript. Which included the references.  Fred then says that Paul made numerous helpful suggestions.

That is not extending academic aid.  That is serving as an editor for someone you knew from the start had an agenda a mile wide.

To me, this is all quite fitting for what Hoch has become.  He was also a favorite of the late John McAdams.  When Burt Griffin spoke in Chicago back in 1993, he mentioned Hoch appreciatively. In the rough edit of Max Good's film about Ruth Paine, Hoch's contribution is pretty much indistinguishable from Max Holland's.

Hoch has a role to play today, and has been doing it for about three decades.  He is the guy the other side likes to hold up as a responsible critic--except he isn't a functioning critic. And that is why they hold him up as such.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now, let us imagine if Hoch was really a responsible, careful critic and he was editing Litwin's Garrison book as such. In other words to be as factually based and fair to the record as possible. If such were the case, would he not have brought up some of these points? In fact this would have been a good memo for Paul to write.

1. Fred, in your acknowledgements you are saying that getting to know Hugh Aynseworth was a blessing of working on the book.   Fred, you know he has been outed as a secret FBI informant don't you?  And you are calling him a great reporter? The implication would be then that you condone journalists being in bed with the FBI. Is that not a problem for you?

2. The back bone of your book is not ARRB released documents about New Orleans.  Its archival stuff that anyone could have gotten years ago from the files of Dick Billings, James Kirkwood and Shaw's lawyers.  No one used this before because they knew it would have little or no value because of its high degree of prejudice. I mean Billings was on the Bayo/Pawley raid, you do know what that was don't you?  

3. Fred, the FBI did bug Garrison's office.  

4. There are laws that govern the formation of grand juries, you can look at up in a law journal.  And you are going to say that Garrison hand picked his grand juries in spite of that?  And  you are going to base that on David Chandler?  Fred, Chandler was Billings' good buddy in New Orleans.

5. My God, you have Garrison looking for Bertrand in 1963, and you have it written down here twice!  How could he be looking for Bertrand if the Warren Report and the volumes were not published yet? Why would you write something like that? Don't you realize what that says about your credibility? 

6. Fred, you do know about the Ramsey Clark faux pas of 1967 don't you?  He admitted that the FBI had investigated Shaw back in 1963. And you know the ARRB declassified documents showing this was accurate and then Clark had to lie about it. So if you are trying to say that: 1) Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963, that is false. 2.) If you are trying to say that the FBI was and could not find him, that is dubious also.

7.  If you are going to say that Ferrie did not deny he knew Oswald in the CAP, why don't you actually print that part of the FBI memo about his interview? Oh, I see, because he does deny it.  And that is why you do not want to include all those instances of Ferrie tracking down evidence right after the assassination. Because that would then prove he committed perjury.  And that would show what prosecutors call consciousness of guilt. And you want to keep that from the reader. 

8.  I see here that you have written a chapter on Shaw's trial.  But you do not review the testimony of Pierre FInck?  Fred, you know that many people consider that testimony one of the most important pieces of evidence from the trial.  In fact they consider it one of the key evidentiary points in the JFK case.  Oh, you know that and you don't want to inform the reader that Finck said they were ordered  by the brass there not to dissect the back wound. OK. That would be a dead giveaway of a cover up.

9. You know in Boswell's ARRB interview he revealed how upset the DOJ was about Finck's testimony. And he said they sent him to New Orleans to caricature Pierre as an odd man because his testimony was so damaging to the official story. Oh, you want to keep that form the reader also? Because, as Jeremy Gunn said, it reveals interference from Washington in a local trial. 

10. Fred, what are you doing with that disclosure by Andrews to Weisberg and then what Harold told Mellen? Its clear in her book that those are two separate references one by Andrews and one by Harold. Oh, I see, you want to conceal the fact that Andrews knew Shaw was Bertrand.

Fred, so many problems. There will have to be a part two.  I am tuckered out.

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fred,

I needed to get a rest since making all those corrections was kind of difficult..  But  I read the rest and here are more of my suggestions.

11.  No mention of Sheriff Manchester executive session with HSCA. Manchester went to Washington and testified under oath that when he approached the car in Jackson, he asked for the driver name and ID.  Shaw said his name, which matched the DL.  That plus the photo, plus the the 12 witnesses pretty much certifies the incident happened. If you don't include this people will accuse you of whitewashing Shaw.

12.  What makes this worse is that Aynseworth went up to Jackson with Manchester's statement and tried to bribe him not to testify. This proves that Hugh had infiltrators in Garrison's office, which you deny.   And between being an FBI stoolie and bribing witnesses I don't know you can call him a "great reporter". That is laughable by any objective measure.

13. I also see you did not include the Legaspi memo for the ARRB. Manny was their guy on  CIA records. After going back and forth with them he concluded they had pretty much blasted Shaw's 201 file to smithereens.  He based this on finding so many cross references to things that should he there and are not.  If you do not include this, again, you will be accused of whitewashing Shaw.

14. Fred, everyone knows the way Lifton is about Garrison.  And everyone knows how he was tied into Thornley early and wrote that ghastly piece about Garrison. Which has not held up well at all.  So what forensic value  is it for you to use Lifton against Garrison?

15 A very good example of you setting yourself up in this regard is this:  you do not include any of the five witnesses that Garrison had to prove Thornley committed perjury. Not just before the New Orleans grand jury but in front of the Commission. He did meet with Oswald in New Orleans that summer.  He told two other witnesses he knew Oswald was not a communist. But he still went on TV and to the papers to say he was. Again, you will be accused of a whitewash.

16. If you do not mention Bill Boxley, his association with the CIA, all the things he did to undermine Garrison, how he knew there was a Garrison desk at CIA in 1981,  his phone calls with Ivon refusing to show up, and his renting a room where he did not live at, then you will be accused of writing a deliberate whitewash of the CIA effort to infiltrate and undermine Garrison. By now, I know its what you are trying to do but this was pretty blatant.

17. Related to this, you try and intimate that there was no harassment or surveillance of Garrison's witnesses. But its proven that from the summer of 1967 this did happen.  First with NBC , for example, Marlene Mancuso, Novel's estranged wife. It went all the way up to the trial, e.g. Nagell had a grenade thrown at him. Habighorst was side swiped by a pickup truck. Again, you will be accused of a whitewash.

18. Fred, I would advise against putting Harry Connick's picture in your book and saying he is a reference for Garrison. Living abroad, you may not know this but Connick became notorious as being a terrible DA. The Supreme Court called him out twice for violations of Brady. When he was alerted to the CInel child abuse scandal he failed to act. He is the reason we do not have many of Garrison's files. He admitted to burning many of them.

19. You write that the HSCA concluded that there was no frontal shot to JFK.  But you do not note that they classified the fact of 20 witnesses seeing an avulsive blow out wound to the back of his skull. Gary Aguilar has shown this to be the case with their own concealed evidence. Again, you will be accused of participating in both a cover up and a whitewash.

20. As with Lifton, what is the point of using Sylvia Meagher's critique of Garrison's early book?  She ended up being wrong about the change to the motorcade route.  Palamara has proved this in his book Survivor's Guilt through four witnesses. I know it makes Garrison look good, and you want to trash him, but still its out there and its accurate information because it comes from people involved with the change.

Fred, again, I got tired from looking all this up.  I have to rest.  I will conclude tomorrow, I need to sleep.

Paul

TO BE CONTINUED

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fred:

This is my last installment about your manuscript. 

1.  You are saying that there was no substantive change between Kennedy and LBJ on Vietnam.  This is a difficult stance to support in light of the ARRB declassifications.  So its wise for you to ignore them.  But others will not, in fact not even the NY Times did. So anyone who knows anything about it will be on a good basis to disagree with you. We also have LBJ on tape saying he disagreed with the Kennedy/McNamara plan to withdraw.. You ignore that also.  Want to warn you: you are going to get it at both ends because of those declassifications.

2. You also try and label Kennedy a Cold Warrior. Fred, have you read the more recent book on this e.g. Poulgrain, Rakove, Muelhenbeck?  How about  Mahoney from three decades back?  They combine to make a pretty solid case that Kennedy was not a Cold Warrior as president, and was not one as senator.  Have you read the Algeria speech? Did you know he helped get the film of The Ugly American made?  Did you know he favored Nasser in the Middle East, Sukarno in Indonesia, wanted to restore Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, and favored Lumumba in Congo?  You know that, along with VIetnam,  LBJ altered every one of those policies, don't you?  Again, you do not mention this, but other people are going to know it.

3. I know you have to disrespect Metta's book, but he does establish clear ties between Permindex and P2. I mean P2 was the worst of the worst when it came to secret societies.  I mean the whole Vatican Bank collapse, murders of bankers and journalists.  Even John Newman acknowledges the importance of this link today. But I know, you want to cover for Shaw.

4.  Which is why you do not mention any of the proven perjuries he committed under oath, or his lies in public.  Even though these are provable today in black and white and declassified evidence. Shaw did work for the CIA, and you can rewrite documents all you want, as you do in your manuscript, but people are going to call you on it. David Chandler's son even admitted that Shaw knew Ferrie .I have already mentioned the Manchester deposition. So again, you will have problems on this one.

5. Fred, you have next to nothing about Mexico CIty.  But Garrison was the first critic to note that something was really off about the WC scenario. In fact he was the first person to suggest Oswald might not have been there. I am sure you are aware that this looks like it was the case today.  Are you just going to ignore that whole key area? Many people think its central.

 

As you can see Fred, I have spent a lot of time going over your manuscript.  To me, I cannot with a clear conscience give you the blurb you want.  I have noted many  areas with the book that are really questionable.I think the basic problem with it is that you used sources that many people will doubt: Chandler, Hugh A, Phelan, Billings, Kirkwood, Shaw's lawyers, Rosemary James.  I mean everyone knows that I like these people since I despise Garrison as much as you do.  And everyone knows it; heck my wife is sick of it.  But the point is, the book will not convince anyone if you use untrustworthy source after untrustworthy source. Many of these people are proven XXXXX. Phelan always denied he was an informant. Turns out he was, with the FBI and FDA. Hugh did the same.  I mean how do you promise someone a job with the CIA if you are not tied in with the CIA? I know you are trying to conceal all of this, which is why you do not reveal the fact that Dymond was meeting with Hunter Leake by 1968 in the CIA office.  Or that Dymond had access to CIA lawyers in 1967 when Sheridan was flipping witnesses and suspects. DiEugenio really blindsided me with that one in Chicago back in 1993.  You also do not reveal that BIll Wegmann was working with Banister in the late fifties. Again, that is OK for you to do, but someone will bring it up to question your honesty and credibility.

See, I have the reputation of being a critic,  not a culture warrior. And I think that is what you are, or that is what your book is really about.  I am supposed to be data based and info driven.  I sometimes do this with the critics--argue the data with them --so I have to do it with you.  So, sorry, I cannot give you that blurb. Hope you understand.

I spent a week on this, but you don't have to pay me. As I said, I detest Garrison as much as you do, maybe more. So I enjoyed the tall tales, even if they were't credible. My wife could tell I was at it again. I took out that picture of Garrison and stomped on it every morning for a week.  Good luck. Tony Summers might sign on to your effort. Need his address?

Best wishes 

Paul

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As you can see Fred, I have spent a lot of time going over your manuscript. 

Jim D. is evidently not aware that Fred has already discussed many of the topics at his blog that he mentions here in this fantasy monologue by “Paul Hoch.” Some examples:

Manchester

Was Jim Garrison Interested in the Truth about Clinton? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Ferrie and the CAP

Did David Ferrie Know Lee Harvey Oswald? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Harold Weisberg and Dean Andrews

Did Dean Andrews admit that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Were Garrison’s witnesses harassed?

Were Garrison's Witnesses Surveilled, Harassed, Attacked and Intimidated? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Interested parties should check in at Fred’s site often as he post new material every week.

BTW Jim, keep your day job. I don't think (attempted) comedy is a strong point for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course, the above is meant satirically.

Because all the indications are that Hoch did no such thing.  In fact he let Litwin get away with everything I noted above, all the errors of commission and omission, all the lousy BS sources, and then gave him his blurb.

Why? Because none of the above mattered to Hoch.  That Litwin was writing a hatchet job was fine with Paul.  That he was using sources with no credibility was cool.  The end justified the means.  In other words, even though Litwin was doing the opposite  of what real research and scholarship was about--ignoring or discounting the ARRB releases--it was cool with Hoch. In fact, I can imagine kind of a Folie a deux work process going on.  Which resulted in this equation: the worse the better.

Now, with this established, let us mention some other points of interest with Paul, "the responsible critic": Some mentioned previously, some not.

1.  In Chicago, 1993 Paul thought Lattimer/Lundberg won out over MIlam/Aguilar on the medical evidence debate.

2. At that conference Paul preferred Burt Griffin's speech over Bob Tanenbaum's.

3. At the conclusion of the HSCA, in the AIB's Clandestine America journal, Paul thought Blakey's approach was preferable to Sprague's.

4. At a conference in Washington, Paul suggested to Lisa Pease that she read Bringuier's Red Friday as a good book. (Hoch tried to deny this, but Lisa told me about it right after it happened.) 

 5. The scientist, Paul Hoch, was pushing the hoaxes of Canning and Guinn many years after the HSCA closed down.

6.  Like the MSM, he attacked the film JFK  before it was released.  

7. He worked closely with Fred knowing he still was pushing the completely discredited WC conclusion, since that is what Fred did in his first book.

In the face of all this, and much more, how can anyone call Hoch a critic?  He is not a WR critic, and has not been for over three decades.  He is used by the other side kind  like a shell or a front to say, why can't you guys be like Paul Hoch? 

Well, the above is why we cannot.  Because then there would be no critical community at all. Which is what people like McAdams wanted.  And its the same reason Freddie Boy used him. And hid -or didn't know--almost all the above. And this is why I said at the end of my review of Litwin's crud book on Garrison, I will never be in the same room with Hoch again.  And I told Gary Aguilar, if you ever have another salon, and Hoch is invited, don't invite me.  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, am having fun on FB shooting down Fred's blog posts.

Its almost too easy. He always leaves out key information.

Of courses he leaves out key information. In fact, he don't read books

Edited by Calvin Ye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just did it again today.  Funny, I am getting many more likes and followers for this than Fred is.

I don't so much think its the books Calvin.

See, I did not really understand Fred until I went back and read his first book, Conservative Confidential.  That book was released in 2015.  I was kind of shocked when I read it.  Whatever Fred says about it, its real intent is to cover up the disastrous invasion of Iraq by W.  And also to conceal W's role in it. Fred does not mention, let alone print, either the Downing Street Memo or the Manning Memo, the second of which is even more incriminating of W than the first. After you read those, you will see that it was the White House that egged on that disastrous invasion.. Fred does not want his readers to know that.  He wants to blame it on faulty intel.  Yet that is not what the memos say; they actually say the intel will be fixed.  And then excuses will be made up for the invasion. And of course, Fred never talks about the utterly horrendous results of the invasion. Talk about blowback. Not to mention the 650,000 innocent civilians who were killed  over nothing.

Therefore, when Fred got to the JFK case, he was already practiced in how to distract the reader from key facts about epochal political events.  Fred is a neocon.  That is the only way one can explain that first book of his. Personally, I think that W's invasion of Iraq was the worst American foreign policy debacle since LBJ invaded Vietnam in 1965. And its interesting what Fred does with both events.  As I said, he tries to essentially avoid the results of the first and then blame it on the intelligence; in the second he says that there really was no crucial difference between LBJ and JFK on Indochina.  Well,  if you avoid all the declassified evidence that the ARRB produced on the latter issue, you can say that.  But, to see how bad Fred is, one only has to note that even the NY Times printed an article back in 1997 saying that this new evidence proved that Kennedy had a plan to get out of Vietnam at the time of his death. I mean, when you are worse than the Times  about JFK, what does that say about you?

So this is the way I look at Fred. As a political hatchet man.  As you can imagine, the neocons have no use for Kennedy.  So the covering up of the circumstances of his death are part and parcel of covering up what he was really about.  In fact, I have concluded that the latter has been done more deliberately and assiduously than the former. 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just did it again today.  Funny, I am getting many more likes and followers for this than Fred is.

I don't so much think its the books Calvin.

See, I did not really understand Fred until I went back and read his first book, Conservative Confidential.  That book was released in 2015.  I was kind of shocked when I read it.  Whatever Fred says about it, its real intent is to cover up the disastrous invasion of Iraq by W.  And also to conceal W's role in it. Fred does not mention, let alone print, either the Downing Street Memo or the Manning Memo, the second of which is even more incriminating of W than the first. After you read those, you will see that it was the White House that egged on that disastrous invasion.. Fred does not want his readers to know that.  He wants to blame it on faulty intel.  Yet that is not what the memos say; they actually say the intel will be fixed.  And then excuses will be made up for the invasion. And of course, Fred never talks about the utterly horrendous results of the invasion. Talk about blowback. Not to mention the 650,000 innocent civilians who were killed  over nothing.

Therefore, when Fred got to the JFK case, he was already practiced in how to distract the reader from key facts about epochal political events.  Fred is a neocon.  That is the only way one can explain that first book of his. Personally, I think that W's invasion of Iraq was the worst American foreign policy debacle since LBJ invaded Vietnam in 1965. And its interesting what Fred does with both events.  As I said, he tries to essentially avoid the results of the first and then blame it on the intelligence; in the second he says that there really was no crucial difference between LBJ and JFK on Indochina.  Well,  if you avoid all the declassified evidence that the ARRB produced on the latter issue, you can say that.  But, to see how bad Fred is, one only has to note that even the NY Times printed an article back in 1997 saying that this new evidence proved that Kennedy had a plan to get out of Vietnam at the time of his death. I mean, when you are worse than the Times  about JFK, what does that say about you?

So this is the way I look at Fred. As a political hatchet man.  As you can imagine, the neocons have no use for Kennedy.  So the covering up of the circumstances of his death are part and parcel of covering up what he was really about.  In fact, I have concluded that the latter has been done more deliberately and assiduously than the former. 

 

 

I debate Fred on FB and informed him that I  wouldn't be posting evidence on there

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...