Tim Smith's book on the HSCA

[James DiEugenio]

Tim Smith has spent a long, long time studying the House Select Committee public hearings.

He found each witness who testified, and studied what they said.  I think this is pretty much unprecedented for a book.

Its really something how much of what they relied upon has been discredited.  Or at least brought into question.

And for whatever reason, Odio did not testify. Fonzi worked hard to get her to do so.  Was there a more important witness for the public to see?

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hidden-in-plain-sight-by-tim-smith

[Vince Palamara]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tim Smith has spent a long, long time studying the House Select Committee public hearings.

He found each witness who testified, and studied what they said.  I think this is pretty much unprecedented for a book.

Its really something how much of what they relied upon has been discredited.  Or at least brought into question.

And for whatever reason, Odio did not testify. Fonzi worked hard to get her to do so.  Was there a more important witness for the public to see?

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hidden-in-plain-sight-by-tim-smith

I have mixed feelings about Tim's book. I think he did a masterful job and it is a pretty unique angle (the study of the HSCA in detail). On the other hand, I found it somewhat "dry" and a slog to get through. I cannot imagine a non-researcher (some person off the street/ John Q. Citizen) enjoying the book, sadly. A seasoned researcher definitely would, if they can get past the "dry" text/style.

[Vince Palamara]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tim Smith has spent a long, long time studying the House Select Committee public hearings.

He found each witness who testified, and studied what they said.  I think this is pretty much unprecedented for a book.

Its really something how much of what they relied upon has been discredited.  Or at least brought into question.

And for whatever reason, Odio did not testify. Fonzi worked hard to get her to do so.  Was there a more important witness for the public to see?

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hidden-in-plain-sight-by-tim-smith

Still, great review and I do recommend Smith's book (to researchers).

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:

Still, great review and I do recommend Smith's book (to researchers).

Just curious. A lot of what we know about the behind the scenes goings on of the HSCA comes from John Hunt. Is he mentioned in the book? Or did Smith just read the testimony, and put his own spin on it, without making note of what others have discovered, including Hunt and myself? 

[James DiEugenio]

He  did not go behind the scenes to any great degree, but he did a little.

For instance on the whole Ida Dox controversy.

It was not just Baden who was involved in that, it was also Purdy and Flanagan.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add this about Purdy.

It was Purdy who actually was very important is getting the HSCA started.

He arranged to Groden to show the Z film to Downing.

And it was Downing who then took up the torch to get the HSCA passed.

But Ed Lopez told me that once Blakey came in Purdy got religion about the SBT.  He and Ed had some strong arguments about this. Ed would raise his arms in his dress shirt and say, "Andy, you cannot get a hole 5 .5 inches from the collar to go up that far!"

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add this about Purdy.

It was Purdy who actually was very important is getting the HSCA started.

He arranged to Groden to show the Z film to Downing.

And it was Downing who then took up the torch to get the HSCA passed.

But Ed Lopez told me that once Blakey came in Purdy got religion about the SBT.  He and Ed had some strong arguments about this. Ed would raise his arms in his dress shirt and say, "Andy, you cannot get a hole 5 .5 inches from the collar to go up that far!"

 

When I was looking into Guinn, I realized that Guinn coughed up his report supporting the SBT only days before the medical panel went to the archives and viewed the photos. I took from this that Blakey told Baden they had scientific proof supporting the SBT and that the panel should get on board. Lopez confirmed there was a meeting of some sort from which Purdy emerged claiming they were going with the SBT. I am fairly certain Guinn was the cause of this. 

But I've always hoped someone would pop up with a document proving this was the case.

Edited March 5 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But Ed Lopez told me that once Blakey came in Purdy got religion about the SBT.  He and Ed had some strong arguments about this. Ed would raise his arms in his dress shirt and say, "Andy, you cannot get a hole 5 .5 inches from the collar to go up that far!"

Bravo!  

Jim DiEugenio acknowledges the significance of the physical evidence in the JFKA — a moment to be celebrated!

That he failed to do so over 6 hours of Oliver Stone documentaries remains a mystery, however.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Bravo!  

Jim DiEugenio acknowledges the significance of the physical evidence in the JFKA — a moment to be celebrated!

That he failed to do so over 6 hours of Oliver Stone documentaries remains a mystery, however.

 

What? I could have sworn that, a year or two ago, you shouted out a big hallelujah because one of Jim's documentaries included the thing about the shirt/jacket holes being low, around T3.

Apparently I am mistaken.

Cliff, do you recall being pleased about Jim mentioning that somewhere else... perhaps in one of his articles? I'm just wondering how I got the impression he'd included it in one of the documentaries.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What? I could have sworn that, a year or two ago, you shouted out a big hallelujah because one of Jim's documentaries included the thing about the shirt/jacket holes being low, around T3.

I gave him a hallelujah for acknowledging the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound.  He didn’t cite the clothing evidence in his scripts for Oliver Stone.

The clothing evidence is rarely cited by the JFKA Critical Master Class — which is why I hold them in such contempt.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I take it, now, that I was mistaken.

Cliff, do you recall being pleased about Jim mentioning that somewhere... perhaps in one of his articles? I'm just wondering how I got the impression he'd included it in one of the documentaries.

 

He didn’t even mention the clothing evidence in his eulogy for Vincent Salandria.  Go figure.

[Paul Cummings]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Bravo!  

Jim DiEugenio acknowledges the significance of the physical evidence in the JFKA — a moment to be celebrated!

That he failed to do so over 6 hours of Oliver Stone documentaries remains a mystery, however.

He was the writer and not the director. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

He was the writer and not the director. 

What gave you the impression I said otherwise?

[Paul Cummings]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What gave you the impression I said otherwise?

"That he failed to do so over 6 hours of Oliver Stone documentaries remains a mystery"

[James DiEugenio]

Paul,

I was the writer and we did address this issue. More than once.

Pat, that actually sounds like its logical to me about Blakey's reliance on Guinn to influence Baden.

But its odd that Blakey still backs the SBT even though he admits today that Guinn was full of it.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul,

I was the writer and we did address this issue. More than once.

The clothing evidence?  I challenge that assertion.