The 3 Editions of “Crime Of The Century”

[Gerry Down]

There are three versions of this book by Michael Kurtz:

• 1982: 1^st Edition
• 1993: 2^nd Edition
• 2013: 3^rd Edition

The issue that interests me about Michael Kurtz is his assertion that he saw Oswald with Banister in May 1963 giving lectures at a nearby university. Has Mr. Kurtz always stood by this assertion and is it something he continued to include in both the 2^nd and 3^rd editions of his book?

[Larry Hancock]

Not a specific answer to your topic/question but several of us have had an issue with Kurtz for some time and that is with the source material he has referenced in some of his more sensational claims....including remarks about a massive file on Lee Oswald.  Of course many of us do believe files there were Oswald files in New Orleans that were either suppressed, or destroyed ,but Kurtz maintained that he had proof of that in specific interviews and records of same. 

From a professional university historian that's a serious claim.  The problem is that he stated he would make those materials available in a donation to his University library and when my friend Stu Wexler pursued that the was told by their archivist that no such donation had been made nor was there any agreement in place.  For some of us that keeps certain of Kurtz's claims in question until his source material question is resolved - perhaps it has been by now.

If anyone has further information on Kurtz's source materials, including notes and actual tapes of interviews, I would very much like to hear about it. If anyone is in touch with him it would be good to ask about the state and disclosure of his research materials.

 

[Stu Wexler]

It would definitely be worth following up to see if he has since deposited the records.

To add to what Larry is saying. I did a lot of follow up with this, notably with Kurtz's colleagues-- who knew both Hunter Leake and Kurtz. They were pretty strong in their convictions that Leake may well have told Kurtz what Kurtz noted in his later book--  because they swore by Kurtz's integrity. On the other hand, they did not have nearly as much faith in Leake. Eg they suggested Leake was trolling Kurtz.

I do have questions myself about Kurtz's integrity and it goes to the chronology laid out in the original post. Compare how Kurtz's positions or assertions evolved to when he is supposed to have had these revelatory interviews with people like Leake and Helms. He makes  assertions or dismisses CIA duplicity in pre-2013 books. Those assertions are at best bad faith if not outright deceptions if he had the kind of revelations from Leake and Helms (and others) in the early 80s. In other words, you can't mimimize CIA connections to the assassination if Hunter Leake told you he and Bannister were running LHO as a paid operative, among other things. But he dates those interviews before the earlier editions of his book. That is what he has to explain, imo.

 

Stu

Edited March 13, 2023 by Stu Wexler

[Gerry Down]

6 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

It would definitely be worth following up to see if he has since deposited the records.

To add to what Larry is saying. I did a lot of follow up with this, notably with Kurtz's colleagues-- who knew both Hunter Leake and Kurtz. They were pretty strong in their convictions that Leake may well have told Kurtz what Kurtz noted in his later book--  because they swore by Kurtz's integrity. On the other hand, they did not have nearly as much faith in Leake. Eg they suggested Leake was trolling Kurtz.

I do have questions myself about Kurtz's integrity and it goes to the chronology laid out in the original post. Compare how Kurtz's positions or assertions evolved to when he is supposed to have had these revelatory interviews with people like Leake and Helms. He makes  assertions or dismisses CIA duplicity in pre-2013 books. Those assertions are at best bad faith if not outright deceptions if he had the kind of revelations from Leake and Helms (and others) in the early 80s. In other words, you can't mimimize CIA connections to the assassination if Hunter Leake told you he and Bannister were running LHO as a paid operative, among other things. But he dates those interviews before the earlier editions of his book. That is what he has to explain, imo.

 

Stu

So if one was to buy his book, it would be the 2013 edition as that contains the most info? And nothing in the 2013 edition inherently contradicts anything in the previous two editions? 

I guess it could be a matter of opinion regarding Banister and the CIA. Some people might not view Banister in a CIA light but view him more as an independent right-winger whom the CIA interacted with the odd time, like lots of other organizations did such as the FBI. Personally I don't view Banister as a CIA character but more of an independent guy.

I didn't realize Kurtz interviewed Helms. It would be worth getting the book alone for that interview.

 

[Gerry Down]

8 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Not a specific answer to your topic/question but several of us have had an issue with Kurtz for some time and that is with the source material he has referenced in some of his more sensational claims....including remarks about a massive file on Lee Oswald.  Of course many of us do believe files there were Oswald files in New Orleans that were either suppressed, or destroyed ,but Kurtz maintained that he had proof of that in specific interviews and records of same. 

From a professional university historian that's a serious claim.  The problem is that he stated he would make those materials available in a donation to his University library and when my friend Stu Wexler pursued that the was told by their archivist that no such donation had been made nor was there any agreement in place.  For some of us that keeps certain of Kurtz's claims in question until his source material question is resolved - perhaps it has been by now.

If anyone has further information on Kurtz's source materials, including notes and actual tapes of interviews, I would very much like to hear about it. If anyone is in touch with him it would be good to ask about the state and disclosure of his research materials.

 

Kurtz is not helping his own credibility by not providing those files.

As a result, and because of what Stu Wexler said, his book has to be treated with caution.

I dont believe for a second that Oswald and Banister were together giving lectures in May 1963 - perhaps Kurtz mis-identified someone else that looked like Oswald with Banister. And maybe Kurtz was being mis-lead by Hunter Leake and Kurtz suspected this. Such issues might account for Kurtz not coming across as the most credible guy even though he might well be trying his best to help the JFK research community.

[Tom Gram]

Didn’t Kurtz claim that he interviewed several people after they were dead? I haven’t read this in a while but I don’t think it’s very flattering: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19d-lost-in-the-jungle-with-kurtz

[Greg Doudna]

When I read the Pat Speer chapter (linked by Tom Gram above) I could hardly believe what I was seeing, it goes beyond an academic cutting corners or sloppiness (more common than one would like to think). This is an issue of up or down outright witting fraud, with a lot of cognitive dissonance in that (a) he is a professional historian, academic; and (b) the above-mentioned cites by Stu Wexler of his colleagues vouching for his integrity on a personal level. 

Sometimes in issues such as this, a few examples I have seen over the years, there is actually a "third path" of making sense of something of this nature: unacknowledged ghostwriters or student researchers who do the drudge work for the Great Man who has his name on it and gets all the credit. Then, with unsung students or hired help or graduate students who do the actual work, the digging up of footnotes and the writing, its not their baby, what do they care, just crib or copy or whatever. This can later be caught by peers and embarrass the Great Man who has claimed it was all his work. What is he going to do? Deny he did the work (only put his name on it), and throw his uncredited staff under the bus? (The Ron Paul approach to his old newsletters in his name having some objectionable racist things in them: "I never saw what went out in my name"). I believe something of this nature happened with Ambrose Bierce and some plagiarism accusations. It was really some underlings who did the copy and paste (just like some students do pressed for time on term papers). But it was under Bierce's name so he was (justly of course, since it was under his name) hammered for it. But not all cases of demonstrated plagiarism in the published work of famous authors are necessarily witting personal plagiarism, is my point. Some are cases of plagiarism done by the underling whose work was utilized. The big-name author would not knowingly do plagiarism in some of these cases but are now stuck with it since they claimed credit for the authorship.  

This falls into a context that it is way underreported, how much of published Great Man academics' work traditionally has been produced by graduate assistants. This is not the case with everyone or necessarily a majority, but it is a statistically high incidence historically. The old idea was that graduate students labor at low pay for years as "apprentices", doing the actual research and writing for the Great Man advisor whose name goes on the published work, as quid pro quo for the degree, the training, and job recommendations and placement where at last they can find their own voice and be on their own. 

I do not know whether any form of this "third path" of explanation could apply or not to what has been noticed and brought out re Kurtz. If Kurtz is still living and in command of his faculties I can only urge urgently that he get the matter cleaned up, make any corrections called for with explanations of what happened, and make his papers and records available in the interests of history. 

[Stu Wexler]

13 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

So if one was to buy his book, it would be the 2013 edition as that contains the most info? And nothing in the 2013 edition inherently contradicts anything in the previous two editions? 

I guess it could be a matter of opinion regarding Banister and the CIA. Some people might not view Banister in a CIA light but view him more as an independent right-winger whom the CIA interacted with the odd time, like lots of other organizations did such as the FBI. Personally I don't view Banister as a CIA character but more of an independent guy.

I didn't realize Kurtz interviewed Helms. It would be worth getting the book alone for that interview.

 

Oh I would argue it comes pretty damn close to contradicting the earlier editions.  The earlier editions suggest Oswald may have been working for Castro and offer very little in the way of support for the idea that Oswald was intelligence connected. They are not friendly to Jim Garrison. The 2013 edition has interviews with Leake, Helms and Gaudet that, if true, would make Jim Garrison blush. No way you can write what he wrote in the earlier editions if you obtained the revelations he supposedly did in the early 80s. Not without a damn good explanation that no one has been able to get.

[Gerry Down]

16 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:

Oh I would argue it comes pretty damn close to contradicting the earlier editions.  The earlier editions suggest Oswald may have been working for Castro and offer very little in the way of support for the idea that Oswald was intelligence connected. They are not friendly to Jim Garrison. The 2013 edition has interviews with Leake, Helms and Gaudet that, if true, would make Jim Garrison blush. No way you can write what he wrote in the earlier editions if you obtained the revelations he supposedly did in the early 80s. Not without a damn good explanation that no one has been able to get.

Thanks. This info is really helpful.

I guess its up to Kurtz to be explaining himself and building his own credibility, not for me or anyone else to be wondering why he wrote his books in a certain fashion and why he hasn't provided the source material. 

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Thanks. This info is really helpful.

I guess its up to Kurtz to be explaining himself and building his own credibility, not for me or anyone else to be wondering why he wrote his books in a certain fashion and why he hasn't provided the source material. 

I discuss Kurtz on my website to demonstrate why this case has been such a mystery. 

A lot of what has passed as research has been questionable--or outright deception. in Kurtz's case he ended up grabbing for attention with outlandish claims supposedly backed up by interviews--that were almost certainly fabricated. As a consequence, everything he wrote should be tossed in the trash, and would be tossed in the trash by CTs if they didn't just find Kurtz's bs so enticing. It's like when someone says something you want to believe, and you say "maybe", when his eyes are glazed and he's drooling, and he's got crap dripping down his leg. Walk away. 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I discuss Kurtz on my website to demonstrate why this case has been such a mystery. 

I've been making my way through your page on his work. Its helped me alot so far. 

[Greg Doudna]

That Kurtz or anyone on behalf of Kurtz never responded to what Pat Speer wrote--compelling and damning what Pat put together--is itself rather damning. And I can hardly see any logical contortions how it was not witting (as if Kurtz had ghostwriters produce all his books and did not know what the ghostwriters were publishing in his name all those years...). For an academic if that had been shown in a formal complaint to a professional society or to his university that could have gotten him fired or publicly discredited by his peers which is equivalent to career-ending for an academic. But nothing formal was done and he incurred no consequences. And to this day offers no explanation. It is a shame formal charges were not registered for that would have produced a compelled response from Kurtz, which does not now exist. 

That Kurtz's books have large-scale prevarications in them which are incapable of being interpreted as the result of careless errors can hardly be disputed in the wake of Pat Speer. The unanswered question is "why?" The question of why Kurtz suffered no professional consequences is explicable: nobody proactively initiated making it an issue in a professional society or in his university setting; an accident. But "why" did Kurtz do that? Prof. Kurtz could answer that question, or perhaps one or more who knew Kurtz as colleagues, or family, could explain. That is what one wants to know: "why?"  

But never mind, neither explanation nor his papers may ever be forthcoming. Pat is right, "just walk away" from any citation or influence or use of anything in Kurtz.

[Pat Speer]

21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

That Kurtz or anyone on behalf of Kurtz never responded to what Pat Speer wrote--compelling and damning what Pat put together--is itself rather damning. And I can hardly see any logical contortions how it was not witting (as if Kurtz had ghostwriters produce all his books and did not know what the ghostwriters were publishing in his name all those years...). For an academic if that had been shown in a formal complaint to a professional society or to his university that could have gotten him fired or publicly discredited by his peers which is equivalent to career-ending for an academic. But nothing formal was done and he incurred no consequences. And to this day offers no explanation. It is a shame formal charges were not registered for that would have produced a compelled response from Kurtz, which does not now exist. 

That Kurtz's books have large-scale prevarications in them which are incapable of being interpreted as the result of careless errors can hardly be disputed in the wake of Pat Speer. The unanswered question is "why?" The question of why Kurtz suffered no professional consequences is explicable: nobody proactively initiated making it an issue in a professional society or in his university setting; an accident. But "why" did Kurtz do that? Prof. Kurtz could answer that question, or perhaps one or more who knew Kurtz as colleagues, or family, could explain. That is what one wants to know: "why?"  

But never mind, neither explanation nor his papers may ever be forthcoming. Pat is right, "just walk away" from any citation or influence or use of anything in Kurtz.

Shortly after writing that chapter, I became Facebook friends with the writer David Cay Johnston, who'd had an article in Newsweek on a similar situation, on which Jim D and I vociferously agreed. The author David Heymann had made numerous claims about the Kennedy family in a series of books, which were clearly made up to sell books. He would write a book about RFK and claim some stuff, and then put out a book about Jackie that claimed some stuff, and then regurgitate this material, with new and improved claims about them having an affair, where his sources were all well-known gossips like Truman Capote, and very very dead. It was obvious he was just making it up. If he had notes from Capote at the time of the first book, he would have used them, instead of waiting 20 years or whatever.

Even before this time, I'd had some exchanges with an historian named Jon Weiner, who'd written a book on plagiarism. He assured me that none of the top publishers did a lick of fact-checking--and that they considered the authors 100% responsible for the accuracy of the footnotes. So it's the Wild West. If you wanna print lies you just create a footnote saying you had a talk with someone who may or may not exist and may or may not have been dead at the time of the supposed interview. It doesn't matter. The publishers consider themselves protected by the footnote. The truth be damned. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Pat Speer