Litwin Responds to DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim D. has been posting all sorts of things recently about Fred Litwin and his supporters. On Facebook, He posted a list of questions for Litwin and Alecia Long that they susposedly refuse to answer. Fred just posting a great article answering many of these questions and debunking various DiEugenio claims. This post by Fred also features a handy index of previous articles debunking claims by DiEugenio. With the release of the Stone "documentary" everyone should bookmark this.

The Scholarship of James DiEugenio (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[Anthony Thorne]

I read the article. It's mainly a long whinge by Litwin complaining about how mean Jim DiEuenio has been to him on Facebook, followed by a bunch of links to earlier articles Fred has written about Jim.

I guess people can write whatever they want, but I expected more, and after a long stretch of text that calls Jim D. a conspiracy theorist (or a 'post modernist conspiracy theorist') but which doesn't do much else, we get the links to Litwin's earlier stuff. So this is basically just Litwin ranting a bit on the subject of Jim. Fine. Maybe Jim got under Fred's skin to a degree, and Fred was upset and wanted to complain about it.

I was surprised to see Fred writing something like this though, I've bolded the parts that are in bold.

Quote

The German QUICK magazine published an article, supposedly written by Jim Garrison, about a homosexual conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The article was probably written by a reporter who was a confidant of Garrison, inappropriately using his first-person voice but apparently reflecting his views fairly. Here is the entire article with a translation into English.

Did Garrison usually farm out his articles and books to reporters to write them for him, or just that one? It's an article that Garrison didn't write, the adoption of Garrison's voice is 'inappropriate', Litwin isn't completely sure who wrote it, and he isn't totally clear either as to whether it reflects Garrison's thoughts. This is a big shrug of a paragraph that most researchers would be embarrassed to write, let alone link to on a blog.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Anthony Thorne

[David Andrews]

Deleted.  I misread one of Litwin's shoddy pronouncements.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

Anthony anyone who can read that Quick article and say Garrison wrote it needs an intervention. 

Ferrie ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald?

The FBI ordered Garrison to question Ferrie?

I could go on and on.  Its nothing but a pulp magazine type article that Garrison would never write himself. Only Paul Hoch and Fred would think so.

 

[David Andrews]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

That was a quote from Oliver Stone, not Litwin.

I know.  Duh.  I amended my post above, but not as swiftly as I should have.  I'm an auto-didact, after all.  Cousin to a duck-billed platypus.

I'm reminded of an Art History course I took, where a student asked, "Why did the Greeks and Romans like their statues all busted up?"

Edited November 8, 2021 by David Andrews

[W. Tracy Parnell]

43 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Anthony anyone who can read that Quick article and say Garrison wrote it needs an intervention. 

Ferrie ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald?

The FBI ordered Garrison to question Ferrie?

I could go on and on.  Its nothing but a pulp magazine type article that Garrison would never write himself. Only Paul Hoch and Fred would think so.

 

There goes Jim D. again misrepresenting what Fred Litwin says. Here is a quote from a blog post:

"While Garrison disavowed the [Quick] article, it is quite clear that much of the content had to have originated from his office."

Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Oswald and Ruby were Homosexuals... (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

It is much different to say the content "originated from his office" than to say he himself wrote it which neither Litwin or Hoch do.

See the link in my first post for a list of articles by Fred regarding Garrison and the homosexual angle he persued for a time.

Edited November 8, 2021 by W. Tracy Parnell

[James DiEugenio]

The Quick article referred to above is a piece of pulp.  Now let us enumerate the nutty statements in it that somehow Parnell missed:

1. Ferrie ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald.

2. The FBI ordered Garrison to question Ferrie.

3. Oswald had a love affair with Ferrie.

4. Marina's cold feeling drove her husband to the homosexuals.

5. In the spring of 1962, Shaw and Ferrie had already decided to assassinate the president.

6. Ferrie told Oswald about the forthcoming murder and Oswald agreed to take part.  He was supposed to distract the police with his shots.

7. Garrison: When I stopped hearing from the FBI, I became curious and continued my own research.

8. Garrison: I suspect that Clay Shaw had given his role to the unfortunate Oswald, because he was jealous of Oswald.  After all, Oswald had taken his male friend Ferrie away from him.

 

No responsible author could possibly associate this article with Garrison. And the fact that Hoch egged on Litwin to do so shows just how far gone Hoch is.  There is no evidence in Garrison's files that matches up with this stuff. Secondly, what Garrison is going to say in his Playboy interview is so far away from this, that it renders it null and void. 

But see, this is what Fred is about.  That kind of evidence does not matter to him.  But to most logical thinking people, it would and should matter. To me, this article is about as credible as the NY Times reports about yellowcake.  Or the Confidential magazine article written by Joel Palmer. Fred tried to say this was written by someone on Garrison's staff.  It was written by a magazine writer who hung out with CIA agent Bill Boxley. 

But again, that does not matter to Fred or Paul Hoch. Like cheapjack cardsharps, they want to confuse the issue and they will use any trick in the book to do that. All of this to hide the fact that what Garrison said, oh so many years ago, turned out to be--to large effect--accurate. It wasn't Garrison who was wrong, it was Paul Hoch who was wrong.  And this is why, in a purely Orwellian sense, Fred uses Hoch as a model for what researchers should be. Hoch doesn't believe in any conspiracy.  He recommended Bringuier's Red Friday to Lisa Pease in the nineties. Can you imagine doing such a thing at that late date? Hoch denies this of course.  The problem is Lisa told me about it right after it happened. Hoch could not see through that whole stage play in New Orleans between the DRE and the so called FPCC, of which Oswald was the only member, and which Oswald wrote about before it happened. 

But here is really my point:

Litwin and Long ignore not only this, but all the work that Newman and Morley have done on this since!!!   

And Hoch is still fine with that. BTW, Paul Bleau is writing another installment on this New Orleans FPCC episode. This one is based on Garrison's files. He told me that what Garrison had on this was even better than what is at the MFF. He also added that the handwritten notations Garrison wrote in the margins are really helpful.

That is research. It leads somewhere, since the DRE was CIA sponsored and the Agency was out to destroy the FPCC. As I have written, Oswald thought he was doing one thing, but the people above him had something else in store.  And we have that from William Kent of JM/WAVE. He said Oswald served as a useful idiot. Was that quite incriminating quote in Long's book? What about Fred's? 

In the large scheme of things, considering all the ARRB excavated, what Fred and Long are doing is dumpster diving. He's the Kirkwood of the new century. Long is Rosemary James.

 

PS: Paul Hoch was pushing Kirkwood in 1991!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Quick article referred to above is a piece of pulp.  Now let us enumerate the nutty statements in it that somehow Parnell missed:

Litwin says "much of the content" originiated with Garrison's office-not all of it.

[James DiEugenio]

I just announced on Facebook that my last post on Fred was my last post to him period.

When I looked through that Quick magazine article, and I thought back to how much he made out of it.  It really sickened me.

The idea that Garrison could have written it, that could only have been offered by someone as far gone on New Orleans as Paul Hoch.  Then they kept on going--duh who else could it be?- just to keep the piece of trash article going.

Something like that is simply beyond the pale of writing or journalism.  And it proves that Fred is neither one. He's a nutty neo con, and that infuses everything he does on this case.

The other point that drove me to this decision was when he tried to reply to my question as to why neither him nor Alecia Long reviewed the testimony of Pierre Finck at the Shaw trial.  Even though they both spent many pages on that trial. 

Please sit down: Fred said that their books were not about that. 😂🙁🥵😚

Finck's testimony was so powerful as to what happened in this case that it rocked the Justice Department.  Carl Belcher and Carl Eardley were running the autopsy cover up there.  Eardley called up Boswell and said: Pierre is lousing everything up!  Translated, this means: that SOB is telling the truth! And he was so panic stricken that he sent Boswell to New Orleans to discredit Finck. Boswell was met there by Fred's buddy Harry Connick. Carl had second thoughts, probably because FInck actually was a forensic pathologist and Boswell really was not. And Garrison would have pointed that out.

What Finck's testimony proved was that:

1.) The autopsy was a fake one.  Controlled by the military brass in the gallery who did not let them do best practices.  Like weighing the brain or dissecting the back wound.  It was so godawful that to this day we really do not know what happened to JFK.  For example, did the back wound transit? How many shots were to the head?

2.) The cover up was planned with the conspiracy.  When you see the film and listen to Doug Horne talk about Lemay, you will understand what I mean.

If their books are not about what happened to President Kennedy, then what are they about?  The fact he replied like this removed all pretense from Fred and Alecia.

So that is it for me. I reached my saturation point with the carnival barker.

Edited November 9, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Bringing up the autopsy would be cheating. Better to just let the discussion focus on how suspicious the New Orleans connection is.

[James DiEugenio]

Finck was Clay Shaw's witness. Not Garrison's.

How is that cheating?