Steve Roe Consulting

[James DiEugenio]

Steve Roe is really getting to be like your weird Uncle Sam who you place in the back room when you visit someone.

First, there is no Steve Roe Consulting.  He just made that up in order to give himself some form of distinction, since he has none.  If I am wrong on this, please show me how and why.

Roe is the guy who said JFK Revisited: Through he Looking Glass had failed to connect with the public.  Remember that, something about Sri Lanka?   LOL. ROTF.

The exact opposite is the case.  No JFK documentary in history has ever had the impact this one has had.  And that is what he is upset about.  If you combine the figures from Quebec, with the ones accumulated prior to that, beginning at Cannes, Stone's film has reached a potential audience of 40 million. That is not me talking, that is the PR companies that distributor Altitude hired,  numbers from You Tube, numbers from Coast to Coast, and Joe Rogan, and Channel 9 and three national newspapers from Australia, Paris Match etc. 

Roe and his partner Litwin could not put a dent in that progress.  And that is what they are mad about.

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

This is the latest issue, the citing of Oswald at a training camp in La.

William Bishop was interviewed by Dick Russell, referred to by Gary Shaw.  On page 328 of the revised edition of The Man Who Knew too Much, Russell lists the written documents that were provided by William Bishop, including FBI files.

The idea that somehow the man who originally knew William Bishop, Bob Morrow, should be the reasons to disregard him is nutty in the face of this. But it misses the point.  If you never talked to Morrow, then what does that prove?  And here is my point:  Gus Russo is Mr. Warren Report. Right?  After he spent hours with Morrow, he was convinced he was contract agent for the CIA. He might deny that now, but back in the nineties that is what he said.

Now, did Roe or Litwin talk to Gary Shaw?  Please show me where.

Now, did Roe or Litwin talk to Dick Russell?  Please show me where.

And this is a problem with their methodology. Anyone can sit in their office or living room and say, "I don't like this guy." And then make up stuff dissing the witness. The people I respect are those who actually get on a plane and go and talk to someone.  That is what is hard.  But that is what is valuable, as one can see from my interview in the book with McGehee. (pp. 414-20)

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, William Bishop was my secondary source for the camp.

My primary source was Bob Tanenbaum.  He actually saw the film. And I have talked to him about it on more than one occasion.

Roe can call Bob. Anyone can get his number.  He talks to anyone.  He has never gone back on this film issue.  Even before the ARRB.

Parnell's attempt at the other issue, with Phillips, proves nothing.  I talked to Bob about that.  See Sprague had interviewed Phillips prior to Bob. Without the document.

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Roe is almost funny in his desperation to go after the book.

The issue of the mail to Chicago is not whether a plane can fly to Chicago in one day from Dallas.  Duh.  It is: could the mail go though a sorting process, and not just one but two, in less than 24 hours.  The first would come at the main Chicago post office, and then the tributary offices in the area of Klein's.  From there it would go to a carrier on foot to be delivered to Klein's.  

At Klein's, they went through another sorting practice involving different forms of currency, and also in state and out of state.  Then it was carried over to the bank.

 I  do not believe Roe was not aware of this. Therefore, if you think all of that took less than a day, then this is why I have no respect for you. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

 Roe brought up the other issue about Oswald's payment schedule, as if that settles anything.

It does not.  Both sources say that there were no SS deductions in the final quarter.

If you compare the prior Marine payment records with the last one, you will see a quite notable difference. Ben Cole indicated it.  Any idiot can see it, and it is key. And I do not believe that they were not aware of it.

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, William Bishop was my secondary source for the camp.

My primary source was Bob Tanenbaum.  He actually saw the film. And I have talked to him about it on more than one occasion.

Roe can call Bob. Anyone can get his number.  He talks to anyone.  He has never gone back on this film issue.  Even before the ARRB.

Parnell's attempt at the other issue, with Phillips, proves nothing.  I talked to Bob about that.  See Sprague had interviewed Phillips prior to Bob.

 

See my latest comment in that thread.  Litwin’s claims about the training camp, which he footnoted with an apparently bogus citation, have less evidentiary support than Oswald being there. And that is a very generous way to put it. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Tom Gram

[James DiEugenio]

Nice way of putting it.  But Litwin does not deserve a lot of generosity.

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let us turn to the Hunt/Mantik ET issue.

This appears to be an error, and I asked my editor if he could include an errata in the book.  It was too late.

I have someone going to NARA to check on this in person.  And will address this in Dallas if it turns out to be the case.

I truly wish I had caught this in advance.  You know why?

Because I would have taken it out of the script and placed in there the Thompson/ Thomas stuff about the projectile being found on the wrong stretcher. And also the interview by Wallace Milam with Wright's widow saying they were finding several bullets that day.  In other words, the plotters were determined to try and get the right stretcher one way or another.

To me that is in some ways even worse than ET. It utterly killed chain of custody, which we already did anyway, without ET.

[James DiEugenio]

Now why can i address this honest error honestly?

Because our side is after a factual record.  Unlike their side which is obsessed with a mythological record.

Secondly, as noted above, we have an almost endless supply of exculpatory evidence.

In fact, personally, I think the strongest evidence for conspiracy in the film, especially the long version, is the material on Kennedy's brain. Those pictures, and the Ida Dox illustration, cannot be of Kennedy's brain. When you have a neurologist saying that on camera, i mean that is high cotton.  Don't think its ever been done before.

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, why would that be necessary?

To cover up a brain that showed too much damage for one shot, or actual evidence of shots from two directions. I thought Henry Lee was  good on this.  (See JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, pp. 367-68) So was Gary Aguilar.  (See, pp. 289-90)

In addition, the film, especially the long version, proves shots from the front. And we do it with their evidence, namely Sturdivan's. (ibid, pp. 284-85)

 

[James DiEugenio]

With that out of the way, let me address the issue of what I call The Coward's Club.

See, its one thing to sit in front of a computer and toss out this junk.  Its another to actually address the guy you are talking about in person on a stage in front of hundreds of people, or on a podcast or broadcast.

Many, many years ago, back in the nineties, I was set to do a debate with Gerald Posner up in, IIRC, Portland on the radio.  Two days before the debate, I got word that it was cancelled, by Posner, for whatever reason.

Last year, another podcaster was setting up a debate with me and Litwin, J G Michaels. On Parallax Views.  I looked forward to it.

About a day or two before, Litwin backed out.  So the host interviewed us separately.  If you listen to it, you will see why Fred backed out.  

Now, when JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass started making waves, Posner tried to advertise his book as the kryptonite for the film.  LOL, a book written before the ARRB.  So I challenged him to a debate.  He never replied.  

I then said, OK, how about you and James Kirchick--who was attacking the film at Air Mail,--plus you can have Willens, Griffin, and Slawson. Know what Kirchick did when I tried to deliver the invite to him?  He blocked me!  

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, here is the clincher.  I then told Posner, you can have all the revenue the event generates.  I only ask that i get to pick one partner, your advantage 5-2. I said you can also have in addition to the gate, any podcast or broadcast fees the event generates.  I was sure we could fill up Royce Hall at UCLA.  Again, no reply.

So you know what happened next? Posner teamed up with Litwin.  He now said he would debate me with Litwin, as long as I was teamed with Oliver and Oliver got us on Rogan!

LOL.

In other words, the chickens want to pick both the participants and the venue! A non starter.

What this meant was that Posner simply wanted no part of me.  And I don't blame him.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let me address the utter hypocrisy of this idea of them choosing witnesses.

The WC is largely built around three witnesses: Brennan, Markham, Marina. (And Ruth Paine, who Max Good did  a nice job on.)

Guess what? The Commission did not buy the three. Joe Ball thought Markham was an utter screwball.  She was talking to Tippit after he was dead for starters. (Edward Epstein, The Assassination Chronicles, pp. 142-43) She also claimed she was the only witness on the scene: utterly false. Even though Ball and Liebeler knew she was worthless, Redlich included her as a probative witness in the TIppit case. How did he defend that? "The Commission wants to believe Mrs. Markham and that's all there is to it." (ibid, p. 143).

Roe should stamp that on his forehead.

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Ball did not buy Brennan either.  The only eyewitness who claimed he saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor.  Brennan denied the ID of LHO both at the line up and to the FBI. (p. 143). But he did positively ID before the WC.

Ball discovered that when he did a reconstruction with Brennan, the man appeared to have a vision problem.  Brennan then said he saw the gunman standing up.  That was it for Ball. Redlich said Brennan was accurate and in excellent position.  Really?  Then why did he refuse to be interviewed by the HSCA?  In fact he swore he would fight any subpoena. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)

I don't even want to talk about Marina.  I mean first she says LHO is not in Mexico City. Then she says he was.  First it was the wrong rifle, then it was the right one.  I mean, she even threw in that LHO was going to murder Nixon!  Not even the WC bought that one. Redlich said in February, "Marina Oswald has lied to the secret Service, the FBI and this commission...."  (ibid, 143-44) But Redlich used her anyway. I don't need to add how fiercely LIebeler attacked some of these points in his famous memorandum.

So how do Roe and Litwin justify this huge double standard that Larry Schnapf pointed out?  Its a problem of necessity.  If you admit these people are XXXXX, what does that say about the WR? And you.

If you eliminate them from the matter, you have some problems in presenting the case against Oswald. So its a matter of expediency and escapability.  That is not the way a legal proceeding should work.

Edited July 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I just got a chance to look at Tom's work on the camps.

Very nice job Tom.  👏