Fred Litwins New Podcast

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/7/2024 at 8:08 AM, Denny Zartman said:

On 8/7/2024 at 6:18 AM, Gil Jesus said:

IMO, the Lone Nutters aren't here because they believe the official story. They're here because they hate conspiracy theorists. And they come from all over the world to disrupt forums like this one.

I can't dispute any of this.

On 8/7/2024 at 6:18 AM, Gil Jesus said:

You can show them all of this and they simply ignore it. Why ?

What makes a reasonable and prudent person completely ignore evidence of prosecutory corruption in framing an innocent man for crimes he did not commit ?

It's a great question, worthy of discussion.

For example, if Litwin genuinely did not know Oswald was not the only building employee unaccounted for, that's okay. It's sort of a big error by someone trying to represent themselves as an expert on the subject, but whatever. Everyone makes mistakes.

Litwin's refusal to acknowledge and correct it is another matter. As a result, it appears that his is less a quest for truth and more about pushing an agenda despite what the evidence shows.

 

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

Amen

[Steve Roe]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Steve will be happy to know that's what I was trying to do by replying to Jean's question in a PM, where to find what he was looking for, that I didn't want to stir the pot on the open forum further.  

But Steve says it won't go away.  Ok.

Steve is still likely upset for me waring him, including a two-day suspension from posting for calling Jim DiEugenio's work that of a whacky/crackpot.

When he got back, he formally reported Jim over his hang our heads comment on behalf of Litwin.  Mark happened to look in on the forum and agreed with Steve giving Jim a 10-point warning/one day suspension.  Which he seems to have gotten over.  Mark did the same to Brian Kelly for calling Litwin a nitwit. He says mea culpa.

Steve seems to be gloating over Mark suspending Jim and Brian.  Prodding, aggressive, provocative maybe a little hostile himself as he suggested such.  Willy nilly?  Is that stalking, taunting, harassing a member/moderator?  Treating an admin disrespectfully?  

Ok thanks Ron, all I was looking for was a clarification and you now explained it. 

I'm not gloating over DiEugenio's 1-day suspension and Brian did apologize (which he was honest about). All I'm asking is fairness, and Mr. Knight dealt with it. 

[Bill Brown]

On 8/6/2024 at 6:18 AM, Denny Zartman said:

As I see it, it could also be reasonably asked why any Lone Nut theorist stays on this forum. According to LN's, the case was solved in an hour, sixty years ago. Solved by cops that couldn't even correctly identify a rifle they held in their own hands.

There was no formal roll call, but LN's would like you to believe it was so. Oswald was not the only building employee unaccounted for after the assassination, but LN's would like you to believe it was so.

 

 

"Solved by cops that couldn't even correctly identify a rifle they held in their own hands."

 

Nonsense.  J.C. Day (certainly a "cop") immediately noted that the rifle was "6.5 Made Italy".

 

[Robert Morrow]

One of the best things Fred Litwin does is to absolve Clay Shaw of the murder of John Kennedy.

Jim Garrison's case against Shaw was absolutely ridiculous and it is a real scar on Jim Garrison to take such an extremely weak murder case to trial. Garrison should be castigated for doing that; the proper way to handle it was to drop charges against Clay Shaw, then keep investigating to see if you could legitimately find any shred of evidence that Shaw killed JFK.

Clay Shaw tried to GET A LAWYER FOR OSWALD - right off the bat that absolves him of the JFK assassination because the murderers of JFK wanted the patsy Oswald dead dead dead and soon soon soon soon.

Just because Jim Garrison was right about a high level conspiracy to murder JFK, it does to noteexcuse what he did to Clay Shaw. CIA and FBI subverting the Garrison investigation also is no proof that Clay Shaw killed JFK. And just because Clay Shaw lied about his CIA connections it does not mean that he murdered JFK.

I want to tip my hat to Fred Litwin, or really get down in my knees and grovel at his feet in gratitude for helping to disabuse the COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED NOTION that Clay Shaw was part of the plot to murder JFK.

FURTHERMORE, I spoke with JFK investigator Joan Mellen recently and asked her (within the past month) did Clay Shaw help to kill JFK and Joan Mellen (summer 2024) said "No, he did not." [Mellen said this to me on 6/16/2024]

Edited Thursday at 04:48 AM by Robert Morrow

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

One of the best things Fred Litwin does is to absolve Clay Shaw of the murder of John Kennedy.

Jim Garrison's case against Shaw was absolutely ridiculous and it is a real scar on Jim Garrison to take such an extremely weak murder case to trial. Garrison should be castigated for doing that; the proper way to handle it was to drop charges against Clay Shaw, then keep investigating to see if you could legitimately find any shred of evidence that Shaw killed JFK.

Clay Shaw tried to GET A LAWYER FOR OSWALD - right off the bat that absolves him of the JFK assassination because the murderers of JFK wanted the patsy Oswald dead dead dead and soon soon soon soon.

Just because Jim Garrison was right about a high level conspiracy to murder JFK, it does to excuse what he did to Clay Shaw. CIA and FBI subverting the Garrison investigation also is no proof that Clay Shaw killed JFK. And just because Clay Shaw lied about his CIA connections it does not mean that he murdered JFK.

I want to tip my hat to Fred Litwin, or really get down in my knees and grovel at his feet in gratitude for helping to disabuse the COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED NOTION that Clay Shaw was part of the plot to murder JFK.

FURTHERMORE, I spoke with JFK investigator Joan Mellen recently and asked her (within the past month) did Clay Shaw help to kill JFK and Joan Mellen (summer 2024) said "No, he did not."

But, Robert, isn't it evident that Clay Shaw knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

Ergo, he was an accessory to a murder.

He associated with Oswald, Ferrie, and Bannister in the summer of '63, and they discussed the assassination plot.

Also, Litwin has been writing sales copy since 2018 ridiculing the fact that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Should we give him a medal?

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

But, Robert, isn't it evident that Clay Shaw knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

Ergo, he was an accessory to a murder.

He associated with Oswald, Ferrie, and Bannister in the summer of '63, and they discussed the assassination plot.

Also, Litwin has been writing sales copy since 2018 ridiculing the fact that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Should we give him a medal?

W., there is only ONE claim to support Clay Shaw having foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and that is the Perry Russo claim that Ferrie was talking assassination at a party and Clay Shaw was present. That’s IT. Do you consider Russo’s uncorroborated testimony as to (a) ferries talk that night to be a concrete specific actionable assassination plot and not general anti-jfk ranting; and (b) airtight on the Clay Shaw identification at that party claimed by Russo? And (c) airtight that Clay Shaw, if he was there, knew what Ferrie was saying was a concrete plot (that they all were so careless to allow Russo to overhear)?

The witness of Russo on that is so weak that not even DiEugenio will consider that a hill to die on. But you do so consider that Russo testimony of that strength?

So no, it is not at all evident that Clay Shaw had advance knowledge of the JFK assassination in Dallas.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Banister discussed any JFK assassination plot. Name it. There isn’t any. 

There is NO evidence Oswald discussed any JFK assassination plot with Banister. Name it. There isn’t any. There is NO evidence Oswald discussed a JFK assassination plot with Ferrie and Clay UNLESS you buy the Perry Russo ID of the guy with the beard at the Ferrie party as Oswald, which nobody now does, DiEugenio certainly does not. But you do? Please say. 

Nothing of what I have just said involves Litwin. It involves the evidence. 

 

Edited Thursday at 12:55 AM by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Let me close with some new information as to why Shaw was probably grinning while reading Meagher’s letters. Doug Caddy is an attorney in Houston. He has a strong interest in the JFK case. He noted online that he had a friend who lives in Houston who had told him for years about a meeting he had with Shaw. His name is Phil Dyer, and at that time—late 1972—he would regularly visit an acquaintance of his in New Orleans who was an interior designer. It was usually on weekends. The reader must comprehend that, at this time, Garrison’s case had been thrown out of court. Shaw had now gone on the offensive and filed a civil suit against Garrison. Therefore, Shaw was in the clear as far as any legal liability went. Because of the two (phony) tax cases the Justice Department had filed against him, Garrison was not going to be DA much longer. In fact, in several months, he would be voted out of office.

Phil and his friend had a mutual female companion, who was a gynecologist. On the weekend under discussion, they were staying with her. Phil planned on leaving on Sunday after they had brunch. His friend had arranged for them to meet an acquaintance of his named Clay Shaw for that brunch. Since at this stage of his life Shaw was restoring homes and turning them over for nice profits, that relationship would make sense.

Shaw was impeccably dressed and had sharp blue eyes. He was accompanied by an older woman. Phil recalled the Shaw trial and he came from a family who practiced hunting. So, during the conversation, and over some drinks, he asked Shaw if he knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Shaw replied that yes he did, he knew him fairly well. Phil asked him what kind of a person he was. Shaw said that he knew him to be pretty active in the French Quarter, but he was always kind of quiet around him. Phil now asked his last question about Oswald. He told Shaw that he did not think that Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did, getting off those precise shots in that time sequence. Shaw said quite coolly that Phil had to understand. Oswald was just a patsy. He was also a double agent. When I told Phil that Shaw had denied knowing Oswald on the witness stand, he replied with words to the effect: if you were in his position would you have admitted knowing him? In other words, everything Shaw’s defense presented in court was false. And Shaw knew it was false. (Interview with the author on August 8, 2020)

In retrospect, how Sylvia Meagher could equate Oswald with Clay Shaw is both baffling and shocking.

[James DiEugenio]

Litwin tries to explain the above away by saying Shaw had a civil case against Garrison and therefore would not have said this.

What he does not say is what Alecia Long wrote in her book: Shaw did not think his lawyers believed in it or would pursue that case.

My question:  how many instances of perjury does one have to commit in order for the observer to see consciousness of guilt?

Is there anything that Shaw told the truth about?

Do I really have to list all the BS this guy said, a lot of it under oath?

There are very few people one can make a better case against than Shaw.

Because not only was he prevaricating, he had everyone else doing so, including his own lawyers. And they were doing so 30 years later.

[W. Niederhut]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin tries to explain the above away by saying Shaw had a civil case against Garrison and therefore would not have said this.

What he does not say is what Alecia Long wrote in her book: Shaw did not think his lawyers believed in it or would pursue that case.

My question:  how many instances of perjury does one have to commit in order for the observer to see consciousness of guilt?

Is there anything that Shaw told the truth about?

Do I really have to list all the BS this guy said, a lot of it under oath?

There are very few people one can make a better case against than Shaw.

Because not only was he prevaricating, he had everyone else doing so, including his own lawyers. And they were doing so 30 years later.

Jim,

    What is your opinion about Clay Shaw's possible foreknowledge of the JFK assassination plot?

     I'm embarrassed to say that I never read, On the Trail of the Assassins.

Edited Thursday at 02:38 AM by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Well, you should read that book.

The interesting thing about that question is Shaw's story about that weekend.

First he said that he was traveling by train to SF at the time of the assassination..

Garrison later discovered he was already in SF at the time in the company of Monroe Sullivan, the director of the ITM there.

After his arrest Shaw now changed his story to him being at the St. Francis Hotel at the time of the assassination.

At his trial he said he was there at the request of Sullivan to make a speech.

Except Sullivan always disputed this. He said that Shaw called him several weeks earlier and asked him to put together a luncheon.  Further, that Shaw would pay for it all, and they exchanged letters about this. Sullivan said Shaw arrived in SF mid morning on the 22nd. They were talking when the news of the murder came in.  Sullivan was shocked, but Shaw was somehow nonplussed. Sullivan asked Shaw if he wanted to continue with the luncheon and surprisingly Shaw said he would. (Bill Davy, Let Justice Be Done, pp. 63-64)

Now, if this was all prearranged then I think the answer to your question would be yes.

But although I think the evidence above would be preponderant, it would not be beyond a reasonable doubt.  So i would have to say I do not know.

[Jean Ceulemans]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me close with some new information as to why Shaw was probably grinning while reading Meagher’s letters. Doug Caddy is an attorney in Houston. He has a strong interest in the JFK case. He noted online that he had a friend who lives in Houston who had told him for years about a meeting he had with Shaw. His name is Phil Dyer, and at that time—late 1972—he would regularly visit an acquaintance of his in New Orleans who was an interior designer. It was usually on weekends. The reader must comprehend that, at this time, Garrison’s case had been thrown out of court. Shaw had now gone on the offensive and filed a civil suit against Garrison. Therefore, Shaw was in the clear as far as any legal liability went. Because of the two (phony) tax cases the Justice Department had filed against him, Garrison was not going to be DA much longer. In fact, in several months, he would be voted out of office.

Phil and his friend had a mutual female companion, who was a gynecologist. On the weekend under discussion, they were staying with her. Phil planned on leaving on Sunday after they had brunch. His friend had arranged for them to meet an acquaintance of his named Clay Shaw for that brunch. Since at this stage of his life Shaw was restoring homes and turning them over for nice profits, that relationship would make sense.

Shaw was impeccably dressed and had sharp blue eyes. He was accompanied by an older woman. Phil recalled the Shaw trial and he came from a family who practiced hunting. So, during the conversation, and over some drinks, he asked Shaw if he knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Shaw replied that yes he did, he knew him fairly well. Phil asked him what kind of a person he was. Shaw said that he knew him to be pretty active in the French Quarter, but he was always kind of quiet around him. Phil now asked his last question about Oswald. He told Shaw that he did not think that Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did, getting off those precise shots in that time sequence. Shaw said quite coolly that Phil had to understand. Oswald was just a patsy. He was also a double agent. When I told Phil that Shaw had denied knowing Oswald on the witness stand, he replied with words to the effect: if you were in his position would you have admitted knowing him? In other words, everything Shaw’s defense presented in court was false. And Shaw knew it was false. (Interview with the author on August 8, 2020)

In retrospect, how Sylvia Meagher could equate Oswald with Clay Shaw is both baffling and shocking.

@Douglas Caddy this is the first time I noticed this story, interesting, feel free to elaborate if possible and unless that is the complete story.

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

W., there is only ONE claim to support Clay Shaw having foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and that is the Perry Russo claim that Ferrie was talking assassination at a party and Clay Shaw was present. That’s IT. Do you consider Russo’s uncorroborated testimony as to (a) ferries talk that night to be a concrete specific actionable assassination plot and not general anti-jfk ranting; and (b) airtight on the Clay Shaw identification at that party claimed by Russo? And (c) airtight that Clay Shaw, if he was there, knew what Ferrie was saying was a concrete plot (that they all were so careless to allow Russo to overhear)?

The witness of Russo on that is so weak that not even DiEugenio will consider that a hill to die on. But you do so consider that Russo testimony of that strength?

So no, it is not at all evident that Clay Shaw had advance knowledge of the JFK assassination in Dallas.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Banister discussed any JFK assassination plot. Name it. There isn’t any. 

There is NO evidence Oswald discussed any JFK assassination plot with Banister. Name it. There isn’t any. There is NO evidence Oswald discussed a JFK assassination plot with Ferrie and Clay UNLESS you buy the Perry Russo ID of the guy with the beard at the Ferrie party as Oswald, which nobody now does, DiEugenio certainly does not. But you do? Please say. 

Nothing of what I have just said involves Litwin. It involves the evidence. 

 

Greg,

     Why were the CIA and FBI so deeply concerned about Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw?

      Why did they infiltrate and sabotage the investigation, and use their media assets to defame and discredit Garrison?

       Nothing to see here?  Move along now?

[Pat Speer]

52 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

     Why were the CIA and FBI so deeply concerned about Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw?

      Why did they infiltrate and sabotage the investigation, and use their media assets to defame and discredit Garrison?

       Nothing to see here?  Move along now?

If muckety-mucks tasked with defending the government concluded the actions of a local politician were damaging the reputation of the president and Federal Government in general, and were under the belief this person was doing this for his own selfish reasons, and was perhaps under the influence of a foreign government, would these muckety-mucks be inclined to act? Regardless of the truth of the allegations? 

To me it's obvious the Johnson Administration from top to bottom viewed anyone stirring up doubts about the Kennedy assassination a public menace, who needed to be stifled. 

That's why Epstein is so important. He was essentially a college kid, asking questions about the functioning of a government panel. He was not seen as a trouble-maker, and was thereby granted access. Only...gadzooks...the members of the commission and staff who spoke to him did not realize that admitting the commission had a bias and was essentially determined to pin it on the Oswald that this would puncture the myth previously reported...and open the door to people like Lane and Weisberg receiving attention as more than conmen or cranks. 

I worked in the record business. I was one of the top buyers of independent music in the country, but I knew many of the top salesman from the major labels as well. And when discussing new music, with me, someone who was not gonna help with their bottom line, they would almost always hype the very artists their labels were pushing. 

In a similar vein, I've read that some law schools randomly select students for the different sides of mock trials, and that the students have been quizzed afterwards. And that the vast majority of students whose grades(and future) depended on their successfully arguing one side of a case came away convinced their case was the winning case. IOW, they immediately sided with a "truth" that was picked out for them in a random manner.

So it should not be surprising that agencies tasked with defending this country and given the power to infiltrate etc would do so when they think someone is up to no good...even if that "no good" is in search of the truth. 

[James DiEugenio]

Greg D is a dyed in the wool Paul Hochian on the issue. Hoch is about as worthy on this subject as was James Kirkwood.

Look, there was so much suspicion about Clay Shaw in the wake of the assassination that the FBI had to lie about it.  And if it had not been for the ARRB, we would have never known about it. When Ramsey Clark said that Shaw had been investigated, he had to take that back--not because it was false, but because it was true. But the FBI would know that the obvious next question  would be : why was Shaw investigated?  And they did not want to reply to that, for good reason.

On March 2, 1967, DeLoach wrote a memo to Tolson saying:

"The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw.  I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." (my emphasis)

In other words, within a week of the assassination, the FBI had something like 6-7 leads coming in about Shaw and the assassination. Who else can we say that about? The only person who comes close is Ferrie.

And by the way, under oath at Shaw's trial, Regis Kennedy said that he was looking for Clay Bertrand as part of that FBI investigation.  Once he admitted that, AG John Mitchell told him not to answer any other questions.

I wonder why?