Jump to content
The Education Forum

Destiny Betrayed 2022


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Al.

1. LeMay misrepresented where he was that day.

2. He would not reply to his aide de camp, Dorman, as he was coming in to Washington.

3. And he broke orders and flew into National instead of Andrews.

Why, why and why?

Concerning the second, if you recall, this was cut out of the original AF 1 tape.

Concerning the last, I can think of two reasons.  There would be no cameras at National since the media was all at Andrews, and as John Newman pointed out to me, its closer to Bethesda.

This may be a dumb question, but do you think he was in Dallas?  Was he actually running the operation from wherever he was?  Is this what the big mystery of where LeMay was, is all about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For my two cents on this Paul: I have always thought the cover up was planned with the conspiracy.  That is, like minded people in the CIA and the Pentagon cooperated on the overall design in planning it.

The CIA guys could not be effective at Bethesda. On the other hand, they would be better at setting up Oswald.

That autopsy was utterly essential for the cover up. The lack of dissection of either wound should have been a dead giveaway. (Which is why Finck's testimony at the Shaw trial was suppressed.)

Finally, IMO, the Martin Steadman evidence is really important, in that they called Perry that night, and he confirmed it.  They were determined to get him to change his story.  They threatened to strip him of his license.  I really do not think that Humes and Boswell would do that on their own. 

For LeMay, it would be kind of easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim.  So, if he wasn't running the show in Dallas, he was most probably running the show at Bethesda.  I've just been curious about all the tweeks and adjustments that were made in Dallas after JFK was killed--mostly having to do with the Tippet case, but DPD actions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LeMay Part Two of Litwin sure reads convincing to me that LeMay was not there at the autopsy. The most convincing point to me, apart from the weakness of the claim of the only witness to put him there, O'Connor, who according to William Kelly told Kelly he wasn't sure it was LeMay (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/10724-curtis-lemay-and-john-f-kennedy/page/5/#comment-165361 "I talked to Paul about that, over a beer at the hotel bar in Dallas and then again on the phone at length. Paul said he remembers a four star general in the room with a cigar, and one of the doctors telling an aide to have whoever is smoking a cigar removed from the room, but when told who it was negated that order. Paul was suspicious that it was LeMay but wasn't sure.") . . . is that a listing of names present at the autopsy in the Sibert and O'Neill report does not include LeMay (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=3&search="ARRB_MD 44"), and that LeMay would easily have been recognizable to most others in the room but no one else put him there. Litwin cites this interview of O'Neill from William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2015):

Law: I've been told that there were officers of high rank in the autopsy room that night. Is that true?

O'Neill: There was the commanding officer of the hospital. There was a rear admiral. There was General Godfrey McHugh, who was on the airplane with Kennedy and was his military attaché; he was a one-star general. And there was a Major General Wehle who tried to enter and I kicked him out and he came back in and told me he was there to get another casket because the other one was broken. There was no one else.

It is a little like a single witness saying he thought he saw Elvis at a dinner party but wasn't sure and no one else noticed Elvis there--how likely is it Elvis was there. Litwin has got this one right--this story of LeMay at the autopsy puffing away on a cigar gloating at his slain nemesis makes a great story but looks like an urban legend. How it looks to me. 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

& I go with Greg's comments above.  Whatever LeMay was up to on 22nd Nov. '63 in Canada or later in D.C. was a mystery then & remains a mystery.  The testimonies, as evidence, are inconclusive.  I like Jeremy Gunn's quote:-

The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have, is what I will call is the profound - underscore profound - unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony.

As for O'Connor, his recall of events at Bethesda do not sync with Jenkins' recall & I do not accept his shipping casket tale!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The LeMay Part Two of Litwin sure reads convincing to me that LeMay was not there at the autopsy. The most convincing point to me, apart from the weakness of the claim of the only witness to put him there, O'Connor, who according to William Kelly told Kelly he wasn't sure it was LeMay (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/10724-curtis-lemay-and-john-f-kennedy/page/5/#comment-165361 "I talked to Paul about that, over a beer at the hotel bar in Dallas and then again on the phone at length. Paul said he remembers a four star general in the room with a cigar, and one of the doctors telling an aide to have whoever is smoking a cigar removed from the room, but when told who it was negated that order. Paul was suspicious that it was LeMay but wasn't sure.") . . . is that a listing of names present at the autopsy in the Sibert and O'Neill report does not include LeMay (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=3&search="ARRB_MD 44"), and that LeMay would easily have been recognizable to most others in the room but no one else put him there. Litwin cites this interview of O'Neill from William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2015):

Law: I've been told that there were officers of high rank in the autopsy room that night. Is that true?

O'Neill: There was the commanding officer of the hospital. There was a rear admiral. There was General Godfrey McHugh, who was on the airplane with Kennedy and was his military attaché; he was a one-star general. And there was a Major General Wehle who tried to enter and I kicked him out and he came back in and told me he was there to get another casket because the other one was broken. There was no one else.

It is a little like a single witness saying he thought he saw Elvis at a dinner party but wasn't sure and no one else noticed Elvis there--how likely is it Elvis was there. Litwin has got this one right--this story of LeMay at the autopsy puffing away on a cigar gloating at his slain nemesis makes a great story but looks like an urban legend. How it looks to me. 

I agree. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and the meat from the crap. And the LeMay story is the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone signed the list, and Sibert admitted this.

Secondly, what was Lemay doing  coming into Washington at all?

Why was he lying about where he was?  

Are you going to say that the AF One Tapes are wrong?  Just why would LeMay not reply to Dorman then?  Maybe it was because it would confirm by his own voice he was coming into Washington that afternoon? And why was that segment cut out of the first version of the AF One Tapes?  And does no one here recall the impact when that cut segment was found and made public? It made  the cable talk shows.

Why would LeMay land at the wrong air field?  Because it just happened to be closer to the morgue? And also because there would be no cameras to betray his presence?

This all denotes, as prosecutors term it: "Consciousness of guilt".

Our side  considers the totality of the evidence.  We don't cherry pick. One should not ignore the other tangible and provable elements of the evidentiary trail that support the eyewitness testimony.

And when Paul O. told me about this, it was just the other way around. And I was one of the first, if not the first he told it to.

BTW, I  expect Greg D. to say any day now, "Hey CE 399 is genuine, Litwin says so. Therefore Oswald did it."  

Which is why I have Greg on ignore.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question that I think should be asked is : why the heck did it take so long to uncover all of this? 

Doug Horne found out about Lemay and his suspicious travel schedule while on the ARRB.

But the segment on the AF One Tapes was not revealed until many years after the ARRB.  The Board did not find that one.

I think that says something about the quality of the investigations into the JFK case.

And let me add one more point about this matter.  Very few people have seen The Parkland Doctors.

You had to be at the Houston mock trial to do so.  But I saw it when Tanenbaum showed it to me in preparation for Oliver's pre production.  In that film, it is revealed that as Perry was leaving the press conference, a man in suit and tie touched him on the arm and told him words to the effect: Don't ever say that again.  This was about one hour and 15 minutes after JFK is declared dead.  When I saw this, I turned to Tanenbaum and said: that was a bit after 2 PM.  He said, "Jim, they knew within the hour."

And we know the SS lied about not having a transcript of this conference.  But when I saw that, I wondered: was this why Lemay was coming into Washington that day?  At the very least it suggests some kind of coordination between Dallas and Washington.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Not everyone signed the list, and Sibert admitted this.

Secondly, what was Lemay doing  coming into Washington at all?

Why was he lying about where he was?  

Are you going to say that the AF One Tapes are wrong?  Just why would LeMay not reply to Dorman then?  Maybe it was because it would confirm by his own voice he was coming into Washington that afternoon? And why was that segment cut out of the first version of the AF One Tapes?  And does no one here recall the impact when that cut segment was found and made public? It made  the cable talk shows.

Why would LeMay land at the wrong air field?  Because it just happened to be closer to the morgue? And also because there would be no cameras to betray his presence?

This all denotes, as prosecutors term it: "Consciousness of guilt".

Our side  considers the totality of the evidence.  We don't cherry pick. One should not ignore the other tangible and provable elements of the evidentiary trail that support the eyewitness testimony.

And when Paul O. told me about this, it was just the other way around. And I was one of the first, if not the first he told it to.

BTW, I  expect Greg D. to say any day now, "Hey CE 399 is genuine, Litwin says so. Therefore Oswald did it."  

Which is why I have Greg on ignore.

 

 

It's just weak sauce, IMO. There's some confusion about the whereabouts of a certain right wing general on the night of the shooting. And someone thought he saw someone who may have been him at the autopsy. That's just not enough to say he was at the autopsy, let alone running the autopsy or whatever. 

As I recall, the general "in charge" of the autopsy was General Wehle. If memory serves Wehle was in charge of the military district of the Washington area, including Arlington. He thereby had jurisdiction over the body. In any event, it seems clear he was the voice from the crowd proclaiming he was in charge of the autopsy.

It would not be surprising, moreover, if he smoked cigars. I believe Richard Lipsey, Wehle's assistant, is still alive. Perhaps someone should contact him and find out if Wehle smoked cigars before they continue pushing that a man no one ID'ed as being at the autopsy was actually running the autopsy. 

Now, as far as LeMay... The secrecy and/or confusion about his whereabouts may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. The assumption among many was that the U.S. was under attack. As a consequence his travel plans may have been disguised and/or withheld under the belief he was in danger should his plans be known. We'll probably never know. But the leap to thinking he was really at the autopsy telling the doctors what to do is just silly, IMO. I mean, if he was part of a coup, his talents would have been better spent elsewhere, preparing the military for a takeover, whatever, than telling doctors what to dissect etc. That would have been Burkley's job, if anyone's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make one last comment on this:  anyone who takes Fred Litwin seriously on the JFK case should not be taken seriously themselves.  Its very clear that Litwin has hooked up with Roe.  And this is an extension of their positions on the JFK case. Since Oliver's films have garnered much attention, and are still doing so,  their unifying concept is to go after  them on any grounds, it does not matter what the evidence is.  I have explained why I don't read Roe anymore, three strikes and you are out.  What he did with Latona 's testimony would get him kicked out of any legal seminar.

Litwin is clearly becoming the new John McAdams.  Like McAdams, he begins his arguments from a predicted position, namely that the Commission was right on each matter of substance and the critics are wrong.  It does not matter what the facts or what the exhibits are, they were correct in their conclusion.

The problem is Fred has been torn limb from limb so many times that he is like a guy who has been knocked out who does not know he has been knocked out. And its not just me who has proven that, it is Matt Douthit and Dave Mantik.  They both reviewed his piece of crud first book on the Commission and left it without a leg to stand on.  This is why I do not reply to Litwin at all, since every one of his books has been proven to be not worth reading.

Contrary to popular belief, the best critics do not work from a predisposed position. They have to be convinced of something.  Let us take this instance.  When Paul told me about Lemay, I did not believe him. And I told Jerry Policoff this.

So what happened?

When I read Finck's testimony I realized that 1.) Something illicit was going on in the morgue that night, and 2.) There were some really heavy hitters there.  I called up Jerry as this really surprised me.  He said, do you believe Paul now?  I said I was about halfway there.

When i learned about Horne's work on what Lemay was doing that day and how he lied about it, and broke orders, that raised my antenna even more.  Why land at National?

When I heard the AF One Tapes and what had been cut out of them concerning Dorman and Lemay, that is what convinced me the weight of the evidence was in Paul's favor.  The old adage is of course: people with nothing to hide, don't hide things.  Both Lemay and whoever was diddling with those tapes were hiding something. Is it just a coincidence that it was about Lemay coming into Washington and his aide de camp not getting a reply?  When that part of the story broke, as I wrote, it was all over the cable TV networks, I mean even Chris Matthews did a show about it with Douglas Brinkley.  Brinkley was there to supple the background on Lemay and his disputes with Kennedy. Matthews, the denier, thought it was a big story.

What Paul told me,  coincides with what he told Doug.  No differences.  What Litwin produces is the outlier.  But he is such an alchemist that he does not tell you that.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...