Morley Revelant Story

[Robert Morrow]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To any objective person, which eliminates LItwin, a very important aspect of Efron's writing is that he is funneling this to Egerter. That is really revealing.

As John Newman has shown, she was Angleton's girl friday on the Oswald file.  She was so hot that the HSCA disguised her name on interviews.

And Efron knew this.

 

That Parnell and Litwin leave this out tells you all you need to know about their work.

Info on Ann Egerter:

Jim DiEugenio on Lee Harvey Oswald as US intelligence: a late CIA 201 file for someone giving up U.S. military secrets

Jim is reviewing "Oswald and the CIA" by John Newman: http://www.amazon.com/Oswald-CIA-Documented-Relationship-Government/dp/1602392536/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304908957&sr=1-1

"Right after this U-2 episode, Newman notes another oddity. The CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald for over a year after his defection, on 12/8/60. (p. 47).This gap seriously puzzled the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Investigator Dan Hardway called CI officer Ann Egerter about it. It was a short conversation. She didn't want to discuss it. (p. 48) The HSCA tried to neuter the issue by studying other defector cases. But as Newman notes: defection is legal but espionage, like giving up the secrets to the U-2, is not. (pgs 49-50) So the comparison was faulty. In fact, when Egerter finally opened Oswald's 201 file, the defection was noted, but his knowledge of the U-2 wasn't. This delay in opening the 201 file was so unusual that the HSCA asked former CIA Director Richard Helms about it. His reply was vintage Helms: "I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn't? ... .I can't explain that." (p. 51) When the HSCA asked where the documents were prior to the opening of the 201 file, the CIA replied they were never classified higher than confidential and therefore were no longer in existence. Newman notes that this is a lie. Many were classified as "Secret" and he found most of them, so they were not destroyed. Further, the ones that were classified as confidential are still around also." (p. 52)

This is simply inexplicable to anyone. And Helms had to cover up the fact that he could not explain it. Something is seriously wrong here.

But the cover up now gets worse:

"And this is where one of the most fascinating discoveries in the book is revealed. Although no 201 file was opened on Oswald until December of 1960, he was put on the Watch List in November of 1959. This list was part of the CIA's illegal HT/LINGUAL mail intercept program-only about 300 people were on it. Recall, this is at a time when Oswald's file is in the so-called Black Hole. It was not possible to find a paper trail on him until the next month. How could he, at the same time, be so inconsequential as to have no file opened, yet so important as to be on the quite exclusive Watch List? This defies comprehension. In fact, Newman is forced to conclude, "The absence of a 201 file was a deliberate act, not an oversight." (p. 54) Clearly, someone at the CIA knew who Oswald was and thought it was important enough to intercept his mail. Long ago, when I asked Newman to explain this paradox in light of the fact that his first file would be opened at CI/SIG, he replied that one possibility was Oswald was being run as an off the books agent by Angleton. In light of the other factors mentioned in this section, i.e. concerning the U-2 secrets, the "black hole" delay, plus what we will discover later, I know of no better way to explain this dichotomy."

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Fred can deny it all he wants.

He changed the wording on that document.

This is part of his deliberate and extensive  whitewash of Clay Shaw.

BTW, Garrison assistant Bill Alford told me that whenever there were doubters on the staff--due to the huge concealment of Shaw's true CIA status by the MSM--Garrison would always say, Clay Shaw is CIA all the way. The reason he told me that was when I showed him Shaw's declassified covert security clearance document.

BTW, in this regard, Manny Legaspi, who ran the CIA records declassification said that the CIA had tampered with Shaw's 201 file to such an extensive degree, that it was pretty much destroyed.

Those are his words in an internal ARRB document.

One of the things that Gordon Novel learned after the was hired by Allen Dulles was just how deep the cover up about Shaw went inside the CIA.  According to Gordon it was out of the Office of Security and being supervised by Howard Osborne.  They purposefully kept the facts about Shaw's CIA career from Rankin, Garrison and the HSCA.

That internal cover up matches what the ARRB finally uncovered about Shaw and his career.  Shaw even lied to his own lawyers about this matter.  The CIA was kind of schocked about this. And Shaw of course committed perjury several times on the stand, in interviews, and after the trial.

There were some slip ups, when he pronounced Oswald's name as Harvey Lee Oswald, and when he admitted he knew Oswald to that visiting postal worker.

Edited Saturday at 04:16 PM by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

More on community inflltraton in this time frame 1966-67-68.

Let us take up Epstein.

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas of 1966, there was a debate arranged in Boston about the Warren Report. Epstein was invited to be a participant, but he declined the invitation. Vince Salandria did participate and his main opponent was a young scholar named Jacob Cohen. Cohen had presented an article defending the Commission in the July 11, 1966 issue of The Nation. To say this was an interesting event does not begin to describe its importance. John Kelin does a nice job summarizing its aspects in his fine book. I will only focus on this odd fact: although Epstein declined to participate, he did show up. During a break, he approached the stage and addressed Salandria. (Kelin, p. 334) The following exchange took place:

Epstein: What are you doing in Boston?

Salandria: I’m telling the truth to the people. What are you up to Ed?

E: I’ve changed Vince.

S: You mean you made a deal? That’s OK Ed. You made a deal, that’s alright. But if you get up before a TV camera again and pretend you’re a critic, I’ll tell all about you, Ed Epstein.

E: You know what happened.

After that, Epstein went over to the other side of the stage and talked to Salandria’s opponents. Less than two months later, a young journalist named Joe McGinnis came to a lecture that Salandria gave in Philadelphia. Afterwards, he interviewed him at his home. He then published a smear job on Salandria in The Philadelphia Inquirer. (Kelin, pp. 336-39)

I leave it up to the reader to decide if the two events were related.

From John Kelin's Praise From for a Future Generation.

[James DiEugenio]

The Curious Case of Sylvia Meagher.

One of the odd things about Meagher’s reaction to Garrison’s probe is she never noted any of this. And when I write “never,” I mean never. Until the day she died, she never acknowledged these attacks as an extension, an expansion, and diversification of the techniques that had been used against the critical community already. For a person noted as being careful in her research and objective in her analysis, this makes for a jarring dissonance in any examination of her record in this regard. Because, as has been demonstrated convincingly, what Sheridan and NBC were doing was interfering with and obstructing a state sanctioned murder inquiry. And they were using a variety of illicit methods to do so, up to and including bribery and physical intimidation. (For a brief description, click here)

As authors like Ray Marcus noted, in all of her writings and letters on the JFK case, Meagher wrote not a single sentence on any of these disruptive techniques. (Letter from Marcus to Meagher of January 18, 1968) This included physical attacks on Garrison’s witnesses. And these attacks went all the way up to and took place during the trial of Clay Shaw. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 294)

 

More on Meagher:  

Without ever visiting New Orleans, without ever looking at any of Garrison’s files, without ever doing any ground work of her own in the Crescent City, Meagher had closed the book on anything and everything that would ever come out of Garrison’s inquiry. The date of that letter to Weisberg was June 1, 1967. Garrison’s investigation would continue for over a year and a half. His investigatory files would fill several four-drawer filing cabinets. Garrison would discover things that the Warren Commission either lied about, covered up, or never contemplated. But as far as Sylvia Meagher was concerned, as of June 1, 1967, Jim Garrison was now the Anti-Christ.

 

Meagher plays the fool for Shaw.

 

The late Jerry Policoff was a friend and follower of Sylvia Meagher. He attended her funeral in New York in 1989, but even he had to admit that Meagher was simply “irrational” about Jim Garrison. He told me that she actually donated money to Shaw’s defense. On top of that, she even offered him unsolicited legal advice. In an exchange of letters they had in July of 1968, she advised Shaw that his lawyers should not introduce the Warren Report into evidence. He replied on July 8^th defending the report. She promptly replied to this two days later. I think it’s necessary to cite the closing of her letter:

"You, more than any man in this country, know that it is possible for a wholly innocent man to be accused by high officials of conspiracy to murder the President. Perhaps in time and with tranquility, you will come to agree that Oswald too, was falsely accused. In closing, I should like to reiterate my confidence in your complete exoneration and my good wishes."

Shaw must have had a good chuckle over this. Because as he knew, ten months earlier, his attorneys had arranged a deal in Washington. In meetings with the Justice Department, they had made a loose agreement to support the Commission. In return, they eventually got voluminous aid and support from Justice, the FBI, and the CIA. What makes this even worse is that, as noted above in the PowerPoint presentation, the FBI knew Shaw was lying his head off. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 269ff)

Edited Saturday at 10:41 AM by James DiEugenio

[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.

(The notes for this essay from John Kelin’s book were from the E-book version of Praise from a Future Generation)

[James DiEugenio]

Litwin's silly excuse for Phil's very credible meeting was that Shaw still had a civil suit ongoing.  So he would not say that stuff.

What Litwin does not say is that Shaw had lost faith in the suit and his lawyer's belief in it.  And that info is in Teresa Wright's book, a Litwin ally, just as loyal to Shaw as LItwin. Of course no one could be that bad though.

Edited Saturday at 04:20 PM by James DiEugenio

[David Boylan]

Oswald and 544 Camp St per the HSCA - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=127

 

[Fred Litwin]

Every time I post the link about Mr. DiEugenio using a fake handbill in his documentary series, he floods the board with posts to bury mine.

544 Camp Street was only stamped on a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets. It was not stamped on any of the handbills that Oswald handed out.

Why did Mr. DiEugenio use a fake handbill in his documentary series?

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills

An analysis of the handbill used in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-two

An examination of where the fake handbill came from.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-three

A look at James DiEugenio's use of the fake handbill.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-four

Jefferson Morley is the latest researcher to use a fake Oswald handbill.

[Stu Wexler]

Fred:  what is your issue with 461, 462, 463 in the screen print of the HSCA report Dave B posted?

[Fred Litwin]

The handbill that Mr. DiEugenio used in his documentary series was fake, as I demonstrate in my blog posts.

No one has produced a handbill with 544 Camp Street. No one. Th HSCA mentions 544 Camp Street but that was only stamped on a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets. They call it a pamphlet and not a handbill.

Two questions:

1.  Why doesn't Mr. DiEugenio explain his use of a fake handbill?

2. If you think Oswald stamped 544 Camp Street on his handbills, then please produce one.

fred

[Larry Hancock]

Irrespective of the handbill vs. pamphlet issue, the more fundamental point would seem to be that Oswald was aware of that specific Camp street address and that it had some particular meaning or connection for him if even for a short period of time.

[Fred Litwin]

And that begs the question. Why use a fake handbill in a JFK documentary?

[Robert Morrow]

52 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

The handbill that Mr. DiEugenio used in his documentary series was fake, as I demonstrate in my blog posts.

No one has produced a handbill with 544 Camp Street. No one. Th HSCA mentions 544 Camp Street but that was only stamped on a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets. They call it a pamphlet and not a handbill.

Two questions:

1.  Why doesn't Mr. DiEugenio explain his use of a fake handbill?

2. If you think Oswald stamped 544 Camp Street on his handbills, then please produce one.

fred

Could you show us a picture of 544 Camp Street stamped on a Corliss Lamont pamphlet? I think you probably have one handy.

[Robert Morrow]

57 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

The handbill that Mr. DiEugenio used in his documentary series was fake, as I demonstrate in my blog posts.

No one has produced a handbill with 544 Camp Street. No one. Th HSCA mentions 544 Camp Street but that was only stamped on a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets. They call it a pamphlet and not a handbill.

Two questions:

1.  Why doesn't Mr. DiEugenio explain his use of a fake handbill?

2. If you think Oswald stamped 544 Camp Street on his handbills, then please produce one.

fred

Jim DiEugenio on Oswald and Fair Play for Cuba

 

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16339&pid=250161&st=135&#entry250161

 QUOTE

 RC: He [Oswald] supported Fair Play for Cuba and like many people he was an admirer of JFK.

He supported the FPCC?

Oh really?

By being the only member of the committee in a southern conservative city like New Orleans?

By leafleting on busy streets like Canal, and outside the International Trade Mart? (Which, BTW, is where he purchased his ticket on a freighter to Europe.)

By having a room at 544 Camp Street.

By stupidly putting down that address, home of Guy Banister, on his Corliss Lamont flyer.

Thereby sending Banister into a rage when he learned of it.

By calling the FBI once he was arrested for leafleting for FPCC and getting into a tussle with DRE agent Bringuier.

By doing a 2 hour interview with FBI agent Quigley, after he called for DeBrueys originally.

During which the Lamont flyer was confiscated and placed in the WC.

Which reveals that Oswald had the first edition of the flyer which sold out in a couple of months upon its original publication--which occurred WHEN OSWALD WAS IN RUSSIA! It had gone thought at least five more printings since. But we know the CIA had the first edition since they ordered 15 copies from Lamont when it first came out.

And as John Newman reveals, the CIA started a campaign against the FPCC in 1961. It was run by McCord and Phillips and consisted of surveillance and infiltration.

The FPCC collapsed in December of 1963 after the JFK assassination.

Think that was just a coincidence Ray? Or did Phillips kill two birds with one stone?

Some support of the FPCC.

You are with Dennis Ford all the way. 

UNQUOTE

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills