JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Paul May on April 07, 2020, 10:07:41 PM
-
I know David Lifton.
David Lifton is a friend of mine.
Jim DiEugenio, a consummate fabricator is no David Lifton.
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
** ** **
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
-
The first half of the OP is exactly the same as the bottom half...
-
The first half of the OP is exactly the same as the bottom half...
Posted twice. My bad.
-
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26441-dieugenio-cranor-and-the-mole-my-mole-33120/?do=findComment&comment=417830
Matt Allison Posted yesterday at 02:50 AM
On 4/6/2020 at 1:15 AM, David Lifton said:
Jim DiEugenio falsely claimed that I did not originate the theory of body alteration.
No idea if he did that, but if so, sounds to me like he was doing you a favor...
-
If I had to pick or choose between Lifton and DiEugenio, I'd go with Jim. Dave Lifton is a flake. He got lucky 40 years ago when he wrote Best Evidence. There were a lot of saps who fell for his crazy and outlandish story. Yes, I read it it, too, as a 17-year-old kid back then. I've matured since then but unfortunately, there are saps out there of all ages who still believe in Lifton's garbage.
To whit, we're expected to believe that the bad guys somehow squirreled away the body en route from Parkland to the plane, threw the body down into the cargo hold, and then in front of bright TV lights at Andrews, was snuck out the back of the plane and whisked off in a thrumming helicopter while Jackie kept her hand on an empty coffin in front of TV cameras.
The thrumming copter lands, the body is snuck into an unknown location where mad doctors with scalpels at the ready did all manner of "alterations" to the body to cover up some kind of evidence that there was a conspiracy. That is the gist of the story and it's ridiculous and Lifton should be ashamed of himself for coming up with a crazy story like this.
Even more so, he should be ashamed of his new book that's supposed to come out. The gist of this one is even worst - that Dr. Malcolm Perry, who actually worked on Kennedy at Parkland, did not cut into the throat wound proving body alteration. Lifton has a way of asking leading and misleading questions to people to get them to say what he wants so he can then spin his yarns.
M. Cranor is no better. She came up with this ridiculous article about the trail seen in the Z film showing it's some kind of vapor and it leads from the left side of the railroad tracks. She also believes there's some kind of floating never-before-seen Z film that was shown in the early 60's to a select few. Ridiculous.
The main negative with Jim is he publishes people on his website who are flakes and never offers any pushback at all to them on forums. People who believe in other ridiculous stuff like the Oswald clone tale. He just opens the door and publishes them on his site and never says a single word of critique to them when they say sloping shoulders and grayscale levels prove Oswald had a clone that was found in Europe 10 years before Dallas.
So you met Lifton in person and are a friend of his. Big deal! It means absolutely nothing when someone writes a book full of lies and garbage about the assassination.
-
If I had to pick or choose between Lifton and DiEugenio, I'd go with Jim. Dave Lifton is a flake. He got lucky 40 years ago when he wrote Best Evidence. There were a lot of saps who fell for his crazy and outlandish story. Yes, I read it it, too, as a 17-year-old kid back then. I've matured since then but unfortunately, there are saps out there of all ages who still believe in Lifton's garbage.
To whit, we're expected to believe that the bad guys somehow squirreled away the body en route from Parkland to the plane, threw the body down into the cargo hold, and then in front of bright TV lights at Andrews, was snuck out the back of the plane and whisked off in a thrumming helicopter while Jackie kept her hand on an empty coffin in front of TV cameras.
The thrumming copter lands, the body is snuck into an unknown location where mad doctors with scalpels at the ready did all manner of "alterations" to the body to cover up some kind of evidence that there was a conspiracy. That is the gist of the story and it's ridiculous and Lifton should be ashamed of himself for coming up with a crazy story like this.
Even more so, he should be ashamed of his new book that's supposed to come out. The gist of this one is even worst - that Dr. Malcolm Perry, who actually worked on Kennedy at Parkland, did not cut into the throat wound proving body alteration. Lifton has a way of asking leading and misleading questions to people to get them to say what he wants so he can then spin his yarns.
M. Cranor is no better. She came up with this ridiculous article about the trail seen in the Z film showing it's some kind of vapor and it leads from the left side of the railroad tracks. She also believes there's some kind of floating never-before-seen Z film that was shown in the early 60's to a select few. Ridiculous.
The main negative with Jim is he publishes people on his website who are flakes and never offers any pushback at all to them on forums. People who believe in other ridiculous stuff like the Oswald clone tale. He just opens the door and publishes them on his site and never says a single word of critique to them when they say sloping shoulders and grayscale levels prove Oswald had a clone that was found in Europe 10 years before Dallas.
So you met Lifton in person and are a friend of his. Big deal! It means absolutely nothing when someone writes a book full of lies and garbage about the assassination.
Difference between Lifton and DiEugenio is simple. I don’t agree with Lifton’s analysis in any respect. That being said, he does and he’s spent 50 years of his life pursuing “his truth”. I respect that. DiEugenio however is a dark, deeply paranoid individual with no social skills, limited knowledge of the actual facts of the case as we know them and is a conman/hustler. Disagree with DiEugenio and he will attack you personally in all forms of ways. No doubt the most unpleasant researcher I’ve encountered in 50+ years.
-
Difference between Lifton and DiEugenio is simple. I don’t agree with Lifton’s analysis in any respect. That being said, he does and he’s spent 50 years of his life pursuing “his truth”. I respect that. DiEugenio however is a dark, deeply paranoid individual with no social skills, limited knowledge of the actual facts of the case as we know them and is a conman/hustler. Disagree with DiEugenio and he will attack you personally in all forms of ways. No doubt the most unpleasant researcher I’ve encountered in 50+ years.
The point of the following presentation is that every author, in my experience, has reacted pretty much uniformly to facts justifed criticism, except Dr. John McAdams. Maybe this is because McAdams has more
"book larnin'"....Harvard PhD, and all, and is more detached, or because he is better conditioned to criticism, receiving an outsized amount, and rightly, many would agree.
Paul, I am not telling you something that surprises you, this is a tough "business". If you are outspoken it does not matter if the facts are on your side. In response to publicly bringing verifiable facts to the attention of John Simkin, Peter Janney, HP Albarelli, Jr., David Lifton, and Jim DiEugenio, for example, the responses are indistinguishable except for the degree of intensity. Janney described (dismissed my facts) me in the second edition of his book, "Mary's Mosaic" as a "DiEugenio Protege". Later, Jim DiEugenio accused me of falling under the influence of Max Holland!
Paul, David Lifton is a New York Times, best seller author. Would you not agree this accomplishment makes him a public figure, compared to Priscilla Johnson Macmillan researchers and critics, Peter Whitmey and Tom Scully? I'm not claiming Mr. Lifton mistreated me. I was on "my turf" at the time of this encounter I am using as an example, as Mr. Lifton certainly pointed out.
David Lifton motivated me to do a "deep dive" into Priscilla's background and connections because of the manner in which he responded to Peter Whitmey's facts. Mr. Lifton made it personal with Mr. Whitmey, on McAdams's newsgroup.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20222-david-lifton-i-have-never-understood-why-so-much-suspicion-is-focused-on-priscilla-johnson-mcmillan/?tab=comments#comment-275141
Tom Scully - Posted June 7, 2013 (edited)
David, I thought it more appropriate to reply to this, here on this thread.
On 6/6/2013 at 4:10 PM, David Lifton said:...........
If you have not claimed since at least 2003 that there is little or no basis to question the claims of PJM the details in her background running counter to the notion she has long been a witting and an operational intelligence agency asset, I will apologize to you for mistaking you for someone who has made such claims.
If you have made the claims then I do not know what you are talking about.
You attempt to make this a situation that is not about a man of some visibility being challenged to put up or shut up. Support your claims, indicate you read contrary information and consider according to its weight, and alter your own claims if they are eroded by undeniable facts. Tom Scully is a presenter in possession of information running counter to statements you, David Lifton, have made and still stick by. Scully is persistent and patient from a belief in the weight of information running counter to your statements.
Information I have had to work through your objections to present to you invalidates your defense of PJM. This counter information consists of statements of PJM to HSCA and articles published in the NY Times, FBI reports, Princeton Alumni Weekly, Santa Fe New Mexican, and Sam Ballen's book.
It is not about Tom Scully. Your statement and your reply posts are your responsibility. Information from the above sources contradict PJM and your statements in defense of her. Read and consider the counter information. Respond to it. If you have not said what you have said since 2003 your opinions about Priscilla Johnson McMillan would not need defending.
Edited June 7, 2013 by Tom Scully
Less than a week after the exchange above, John Simkin abruptly showed me the door, ending that particular "go round" with David Lifton. Simkin claimed he had "failed to protect," his friend, author Peter Janney, from me, one of his Ed Forum moderators. Simkin booted Jim DiEugenio and I because Mr. Albarelli had complained to Mr. Simkin that DiEugenio and I were too aggressive with book authors who actually were not participating on Simkin's forum. Author Albarelli was a contributor to Peter Janney's book. The prior August, (2012) I had embarrassed Janney and his friends by presenting verfiable facts.
Doug Horne, in an August, 2012 comment posted below my Amazon review of Peter Janney's book, Mary's Mosaic.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyHorneReacts.jpg)
From the second edition of "Mary's Mosaic" by Peter Janney:
......
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyDiEugenioProtegeCrop.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1sZWsJmNKeY/Uk0oVb2psHI/AAAAAAAABXY/LgTUfkfNtPQ/s1280/Albarelli_1.jpg)
Simkin himself, however, had treated authors Mel Ayton and Nina Burleigh in an abusive way. The difference was the absence of facts justifying the delivery, as is always the difference between "business" and making it personal.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3602&p=33420
John Simkin Posted 15 July 2005 - 12:04 PM
Mel Ayton, on Jul 15 2005, 09:35 AM, said:
Mel Ayton wrote:
As to the Mary Meyer murder :here's an excerpt from my book "Questions Of Controversy" (2001)
Did you actually get this book published? How did they let this thing through? Was it a vanity publisher?
John Simkin AKA "Mr. Hyde". Contrast the following, with his "hospitality" to Ms. Burleigh and Mr. Ayton.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5219-discussions-with-authors/?tab=comments#comment-42841
Jim Simkin - Posted October 23, 2005
.....As always, you are clearly wrong with every one of your points. You make judgements without having any evidence to support what you have to stay.
I have asked Michael Kurtz several times and he has yet to answer my emails.
I have asked Gerald Posner four times. He always sends the same reply. He says he will but he is very busy with a book, article, etc. that he is currently writing.
Joe Trento uses the same strategy. He has been asked several questions and so far has only replied to one. I will email him again today with the unanswered questions (see the thread on the Secret History of the CIA). The problem for Joe Trento is that his book relies to much on James Angleton, a man who has been completely discredited over the last few years. The same goes for Edward Epstein. I am sure that is the main reason why he refuses to answer my questions.
Dave Perry, Dave Reitzes and John McAdams have also refused to answer my questions on the Forum.
So far Gus Russo and Dale Myers have not replied to my emails. However, I live in hope.
As you can see, there is a pattern here. Those authors who believe in the lone gunman or the Castro/KGB theory prefer one way communication. This is understandable given the intellectual battering that people like Mel Ayton and yourself have received on this Forum.
I have not been able to contact Tony Summers. I would indeed love to have him on the Forum answering questions about his research. Please let me know if you have his email address.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19058-questions-for-peter-janney-on-his-book-mary’s-mosaic/page/7/
Tom Scully - Posted August 21, 2012 (edited)
.....
I don't see that I've influenced John Simkin to post that Nina Burleigh's book was a "CIA limited hangout"
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18326-mary-pinchot-meyer-case-said-to-be-solved/?tab=comments#comment-237509
or Doug Horne to "deduce" that a Professor Emeritus at California State, East Bay (formerly Cal. State Hayward) was operating in 1964 as, or was a 25 years long cover for a CIA assassin because Leo Damore left word that he was, and Peter Janney published it as fact.
........
No one writes frankly about the $$$ influence of Oliver Curme on the "leading lights" of JFK Assassination research. The only one involved who has not seemed to benefit financially (been compromised by, or exhibited the appearance of being compromised by....) from Curme's curious (troubling) largesse is Larry Hancock. The list of those benefiting from Curme's generosity is long, author Lifton seems to be in the top ten, but a loooong way down from Mary Ferrell's family.
This is certainly a sensitive topic, those with any ambition electing to self censor any inclination to publicly plumb its depths!
......I have a bigger mouth than most because I have no rep. or commercial interest or salary from that millionaire, to protect, first and foremost. Once in awhile, I help Mom change the sheets on my wellworn bed!.....
Who the hell is Curme, really? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oliver+curme+marijuana&t=h_&ia=web
This may come as a surprise to some, but Dr. John McAdams has actually reacted to the bluntest criticism I have directed towards anyone in the JFK research community, with the least personal pushback.
-
Dylan should have titled his song "Murder Most Fowl." These two are birds of a feather. A couple of cuckoos. Lifton's body alteration nonsense would make UFO abductees blush. It is outlandish bull. His intent may be more pure and not derived from mental illness but he arrives at the same destination. Kooktown.
-
.....
Paul, I am not telling you something that surprises you, this is a tough "business". If you are outspoken it does not matter if the facts are on your side. In response to publicly bringing verifiable facts to the attention of John Simkin, Peter Janney, HP Albarelli, Jr., David Lifton, and Jim DiEugenio, for example, the responses are indistinguishable except for the degree of intensity. Janney described (dismissed my facts) me in the second edition of his book, "Mary's Mosaic" as a "DiEugenio Protege". Later, Jim DiEugenio accused me of falling under the influence of Max Holland!
.....
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
.......
.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/thread-15982-post-124219.html#pid124219
Jim DiEugenio #408-12-2018, 11:09 PM
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.
.....
https://variety.com/2019/tv/global/agc-television-picks-up-worldwide-oliver-stones-jfk-destiny-betrayed-1203368818/
AGC Television Picks up Worldwide on Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK: Destiny Betrayed’
By John Hopewell
Comments
.....
Tom Scully October 15, 2019 at 6:53 am
I like Jim DiEugenio personally, and I think he usually does good work,
but in this instance, Jim is actually protecting Nicholas B. Lemann,
author of the 1992 article published in GQ Magazine attacking, Garrison
and co-screenplay writers of “JFK the Movie, Oliver Stone and Zachary
Sklar. Sklar also served as editor of Garrison’s autobiography. Garrison
failed to reveal to Sklar or to author Joan Mellen a detail Clay Shaw had
learned in March, 1967, from former CIA agent and Shaw Trademart employee,
David G. Baldwin, III, that Garrison’s wife, “Liz” Ziegler Garrison, was
first cousin of Baldwin and his brother, Edward, and godchild of David.
David G. Baldwin’s wife was step-sister of WDSU outside counsel Garrison
informed the FCC in a June, 1967, letter, was distributing Central
Intelligence Agency funds to attorneys representing subjects of interest
in Garrison’s investigation.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.
Politics By Nicholas Lemann
February 6, 1974
ONE OF THE OLDEST saws about Southern politics runs something like this: If only a politician in the South could run with the united support of blacks and blue-collar whites, he would be unbeatable. And since he wouldn't be tied to the rich whites who control the South, he could really change things. Only a very few Southern politicians have been able to put together this mythical coalition, but Jim Garrison, the six-and-a-half foot tall New Orleans district attorney who lost his third reelection campaign in December, remained politically powerful in New Orleans for years with a loyal black and blue-collar white constituency.
But because his career has been so bizarre, it's not likely that anyone will ever herald Garrison as a champion of New South politics. ....
http://blog.donaldhcarpenter.com/2016/09/
September 2016 - Don's Blogblog.donaldhcarpenter.com › 2016/09
Sep 7, 2016 - Steve M. Galbraith wrote in with a comment back a few months ago and it was never forwarded directly to me. My apologies, Steve! Actually ..
.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)
From Kerry Thornley's Grand Jury testimony: Clint Bolton, Thornley's "mentor" Jesse Core, and David Baldwin all spent time in India, Baldwin and Bolton as "journalists"...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreThornley.jpg)
1968: Kerry Thornley describes Clint Bolton...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreThornleyBoltonSpring1963.jpg)
Edwin Walker's future landlord:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Walker4011StuartArthurJesseCore.jpg)
Mary's description is only half right....
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/marysdb.php?id=2345&search=stephen%20lemaNN
home/ resources / mary ferrell's database / index: c / entry 2345
A Record from Mary's Database
Record: CIA, IN NEW ORLEANS
Sources:
Gaudet files; New Orleans Directories
Mary's
Comments:
See: Wm. P. Burke, Jr; Hunter C. Leake, III; Stephen B. Lemann (resident CIA Chief in New Orleans - with Law Firm: Monroe & Lemann). See Lloyd A. Ray.
From Joan Mellen's book:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonCoreShoeLeather.jpg)
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
Tom S. - April 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm
.....
Although I am credited as a contributor to Ms. Mellen’s book, “Our Man in Haiti,” my entire body of research results influence me to share an opinion that the description of Joan Mellen in this article is overdone….
She first met Jim Garrison just months after the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 and described interviewing more than 1200 people before publishing her book on Jim Garrison, “Farewell to Justice.”
More than 30 years after she first met Jim Garrison and in addition to much other research and interviewing 1200 people, this was the crux and the emphasis of Joan Mellen’s presentation on the best supported CIA influences/interference on Garrison’s investigation and his prosecution of Clay Shaw.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –
JOAN: – when Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people….
....
David Baldwin's brother and former Garrison associate under District Attorney and WC Asst. Counsel, Leon D Hubert
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinEdwardGurvichJimsGotAfamily_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinEdwardGurvichJimsGotAfamily_2of2.jpg)
https://charlierose.com/guests/11110
ENTERTAINMENT, HISTORYAir Date 12/30/1991
Nicholas Lemann, David Denby, and Zachary Sklar debate Oliver Stone's movie "JFK."
https://journalism.columbia.edu/faculty/nicholas-lemann
Nicholas Lemann | Dean Emeritus Columbia Journalism School
Nicholas Lemann. Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism; Dean Emeritus; Director, Columbia World Projects. Expertise: Ethics ...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonCoreThornleyWeisberg.jpg)
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851438
Tom S. January 20, 2016
.....
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921409806FSupp603_11312/RUSSO%20v.%20CONDE%20NAST%20PUBLICATIONS
Perry RUSSO v. CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS d/b/a Gentlemen’s Quarterly.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
November 17, 1992
……
UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In its January, 1992 issue, GQ Magazine published an article entitled “The Case Against Jim Garrison” (hereafter the “GQ article”). The GQ article was written by Nicholas B. Lemann, a New Orleans native and winner of numerous awards for his books and articles. The GQ article was a personal memoir1 of Lemann’s recollections of growing up in New Orleans during District Attorney Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw for allegedly conspiring to assassinate JFK.
The 1991 movie release, JFK sparked renewed interest in the assassination as well as the prosecution itself of Clay Shaw. The film was purportedly based on Garrison’s book, On the Trail of Assassins, and sympathetically portrayed Garrison.
The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw’s prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.2 The thrust of Lemann’s article was his opinion countering that expressed by Stone in his film release JFK, to wit:
(See Letters to GQ, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Stone%20Oliver%20JFK%20Movie/Gentleman's%20Quarterly/Item%2002.pdf
An excerpt from the introduction to Lemann’s lengthy response.:
…Printing both sides of the story has never been a
fundamental rule of magazine journalism.
Magazines are supposed to be feisty and opin-
ionated. So it’s with a sense of futility that I
rebut Sklar’s points….
Is Dr. McAdams’s opinion of authors Mellen and DiEugenio, vs. his lack of concern with regard to Nicholas
Lemann’s well timed Garrison “hit piece” and Lemann more generally, reasonable, considering the facts?
.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/opinion/chernobyl-hbo-lies-trump.html
.....But there’s one striking parallel. “Chernobyl” isn’t just an account of an environmental catastrophe, or the personal heroics that prevented it from becoming even worse. It illustrates what happens to societies corrupted by the institutionalization of lies and the concomitant destruction of trust.
That’s the real story of the real Chernobyl, where for once the basic truths of the natural world — of chemistry and particle physics — overwhelmed the enforced truths of Soviet orthodoxy and propaganda.
In scene after scene, party officials decree that the seriousness of the accident isn’t so bad. Or that the extent of the fallout isn’t so wide. Or that the reach of the blame isn’t so deep. They lie to the West. They lie to their people. They lie up the chain of command and down it. Why? Because they can.
“Do you think the right question will get you the truth?” Anatoly Dyatlov (played by Paul Ritter), the engineer who oversaw the safety test that led to the disaster and later became the regime’s designated fall guy, says to a scientist trying to find out what happened the night of the accident. “There is no truth. Ask the bosses whatever you want and you will get the lie. And I will get the bullet.”
In fact, Dyatlov got 10 years (and served three). But the line captures the essence of a system in which every official lie is a noble one and truth is whatever happens to serve the party at a particular moment in time. And it works — until it doesn’t.
“Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth,” Valery Legasov (Jared Harris), the hero of the drama, says....
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/30/obituaries/valery-legasov-51-chernobyl-investigator.html
just before committing suicide. “Sooner or later that debt is paid.”.....
-
Crickets....
We certainly, almost to a man, closely guard and maintain our belief systems, reflexively circling the wagons around those who have misled us, even sometimes intentionally.
I didn't warch "JFK, the Movie" until 2013. Am I missing something, or are you? A "tell" here is DiEugenio is acting like a typical Trump supporter. He refuses to even consider what I have presented since 2016, and responds with his own version of. "you have TDS, Scully!" LOL...
Let's look, "under the hood" to consider the history behind author Lifton's latest "eruption" !
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrisn2.txt
David Lifton TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702 FROM: Lisa Pease, ... having accused his good friend Kerry Thornley of involvement as an Oswald double. ... had to call you up and tell you that if you didn't cut it out, he was going to file a lawsuit.....
….
TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702
FROM: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com
DATE: 08/06/95, 11:52 am CDT
Re: Re: Sunday's News Sat. (8/5)
On 6 Aug 1995, David S. Lifton wrote:
> Gary:
>
> Jim Garrison was one of the biggest frauds that ever came down the pike. He
> prosecuted innocent people, did an enormous disservice to the movement, and
> when the jury acquitted Shaw, it was "good riddance."
It seems Lifton has a hate for Garrison based on Garrison's having accused his
good friend Kerry Thornley of involvement as an Oswald double. But what is
hilarious is that in Thornley's book, THE IDLE WARRIOR, to which Lifton wrote
his obligatory Garrison bashing intro, Thornley has a more generous
perspective:
(Lisa, quoting from Thornley...) ...Why
was I introduced to Clay Shaw a week or two before the assassination? Why - at
about the time but on a separate occasion - did my friend Clint Bolton take me
into the International Trade Mart, of which Shaw was director? Why was my
landlord at the time of the assassination also one of Clay Shaw's best friends?
Why, shortly after my 1961 arrival in New Orleans, was I introduced to Guy
Banister? And why was Banister so interested in the book I was writing?
"On top of that, I have figured out since testifying to the contrary before
Garrison's grand jury that I also once met David Ferrie, besides meeting David
Chandler as well. Both were high on Garrison's suspect list.
"More recently, I find reason to believe that Gordon Novel - another of
Garrison's suspects - may have been one of my pledge brothers, known to me as
Goardy, in Delta Sigma Phi at the University of Southern California....
"Such nagging considerations finally helped me discover the horrifying truth
about my own involvement in the assassination conspiracy, which I began
unraveling in 1975 because of the Watergate revelations....
"Contrary to Garrison's theories, I was not one of those who took part in
*directly* framing Oswald. [emphasis added] But Lifton's assumption that I was
not involved at all is wider of the mark."
In another book which I do not have on me, Thornley wrote what amounted to an
apology to Garrison, and told how he had tried to approach Garrison at one
point expressing this, but Garrison rebuked him.
Here is a man calling Garrison dishonest, yet admitting that the people
Garrison was interested in were involved in an "assassination conspiracy",
admitting he knew many of the people involved, and admitting he committed
perjury before the grand jury.....
This is what I know of Clint Bolton, that you may not.... and I cannot find any proof he ever attended Princeton Univ., but US Census records do support his description of his New Jersey roots.
I learned from this that Bolton once reported from India for the AP, earlier than the simultaneous, early 1950s postings in the country of Jesse Core @ State and David Baldwin @ CIA
https://anncavittfisher.com/2016/02/25/to-miss-new-orleans/
...The city winds in and out of my consciousness, a strong part of who I am.
I know the map of the French Quarter like the palm of my hand. I should. A master taught me.
Clint Bolton seduced me when I was fourteen. No, not in that way. But I did fall in love with him, and along with him, his New Orleans.
I met Clint Bolton at the Pendennis Club in New Orleans in August of 1979. My father belonged to Pendennis, and my parents had dragged me to a cocktail party there.
Yes, I said cocktail party. I was fourteen, it was New Orleans, and yes, I was drinking. Not a whole lot, mind you, but yes. Bored out of my mind, I expressed my desire to leave to my mother, and I said, “There is only one interesting person in the whole place — and he’s sitting over there.” I pointed to an old man sitting in a wheelchair having a dramatic conversation with the people gathered around him.....
I believe Nicholas B Lemann could fill in many gaps but has no incentive to do so. In response to Zachary Sklar's criticism of Lemann's December, 1991 GQ Magazine article perfectly timed to "kneecap" Stone's and Sklar's about to be released film, JFK, Lemann declared he had not written as a journalist.
Point me to another with only a batchelor's degree who experienced an "elevation" similar to Lemann's....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann
Nicholas Berthelot Lemann is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Faculty of Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[1] He has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999.[2]....
There were three agents in the NOLA CIA domestic contacts office in 1967. One, Dorothy Brandao, happened to be a NOLA native who was educated in Jim Garrison's home state of Iowa, and was the ex-sister-in-law of Garrison's mentor, Eberhard Deutch's co-counsel at Standard Fruit, Augusto P Miceli. As inside counsel, Miceli likely influential in hiring outside counsel, Deutsch.
Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. v. Hampton, 233 F.2d 782 ...
https://casetext.com/case/standard-fruit-and-steamship-co-v-hampton
... Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan Stiles, New Orleans, La., Eberhard P. Deutsch, Augusto P. Miceli, ... S. Paul Weiss, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonDeutschDorothyBrandaoWed.jpg)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=338769850&width=557&height=636&crop=3014_236_1666_1939&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1586454290&h=bbaa2e7bce7d76a9f6d3334b5cc5479f)
https://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comment-880768
Tom S. - June 6, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Part II of II
Oliver Stone protested :
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/03/opinion/l-warren-panel-findings-should-stir-outrage-381592.html
Published: February 3, 1992
To the Editor:
Anthony Lewis’s Jan. 9 column is only one in a series of attacks in The Times on me and the movie “J.F.K.” and, in fact, on anything that questions the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President Kennedy…..
….. Inaccuracies aside, I find Mr. Lewis’s charade of civil libertarian concern far more disturbing. Mr. Lewis asserts that Jim Garrison “bribed witnesses to prosecute an innocent man.” The “bribed” witnesses all signed affidavits denying the allegations, and Clay Shaw — the “innocent man” — won an acquittal. I do not question that verdict. While Mr. Lewis and you excoriate Jim Garrison for taking a man to trial (after several hearings on the evidence), neither shows remorse in calling Oswald “Kennedy’s assassin,” though he was never tried, convicted or even allowed legal representation in Dallas.
In 1964, Mr. Lewis wrote of the Warren Report: “Few who loved John Kennedy, or this country, will be able to read it without emotion.” For some, like myself, the emotion is outrage. For Mr. Lewis and The Times, it’s complacency. OLIVER STONE Los Angeles, Jan. 9, 1992
Here is the link to Nicholas Lemann and Zachary Sklar trading letters in GQ, after the Lemann’s Jan., 1992 article was published…..
Lemann responds on pg. 2, to Sklar’s letter which begins on pg 1.:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Stone%20Oliver%20JFK%20Movie/Gentleman's%20Quarterly/Item%2002.pdf
No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=%22Evidently+GQ+has+forgotten+one+of*%22&source=bl&ots=b02QHvBpVD&sig=iEO3sbtiMZy8BxRg-I5wOALTuEI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLjo-yhJXNAhUI8CYKHXHADjQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Evidently%20GQ%20has%20forgotten%20one%20of*%22&f=false
JFK: The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay
By Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar
“…..Evidently GQ has forgotten one of the fundamental rules of American journalism: Give the readers both sides of the story. The case for Jim Garrison is not to be found in your pages. Lemann’s glib charges are so sweeping that it’s impossible to respond to all of them in a letter. I suggest anyone interested in Garrison’s case read On the Trail of the Assassins, the former New Orleans district attorney’s own account of his investigation. As the editor of this book, and co-screenwriter of Oliver Stone’s JFK, I take issue with several of Lemann’s unfounded assertions…..”
Stone claims “JFK, the movie” cost $41 million, yet he seems as out of the loop as Joan Mellen, and Jim DiEugenio….
I’ll end with pointing out that Harold Weisberg was also “taken in” by David Baldwin’s close friend and his successor as PR man at the trade mart, Jesse R. Cole, III.:
https://jfkfacts.org/memories-parkland-doctor/#comment-879343
Tom S. May 30, 2016 at 8:59 pm
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Core%20Jesse/Item%2012.pdf
Harold Weisberg befriends Jesse Core. I find no mention of David Baldwin in the Weisberg archives.
-
To whit, we're expected to believe that the bad guys somehow squirreled away the body en route from Parkland to the plane, threw the body down into the cargo hold, and then in front of bright TV lights at Andrews, was snuck out the back of the plane and whisked off in a thrumming helicopter while Jackie kept her hand on an empty coffin in front of TV cameras.
I haven't read Best Evidence. And what you just said is the reason why.
-
Crickets....
We certainly, almost to a man, closely guard and maintain our belief systems, reflexively circling the wagons around those who have misled us, even sometimes intentionally.
I didn't warch "JFK, the Movie" until 2013. Am I missing something, or are you? A "tell" here is DiEugenio is acting like a typical Trump supporter. He refuses to even consider what I have presented since 2016, and responds with his own version of. "you have TDS, Scully!" LOL...
Let's look, "under the hood" to consider the history behind author Lifton's latest "eruption" !
This is what I know of Clint Bolton, that you may not.... and I cannot find any proof he ever attended Princeton Univ., but US Census records do support his description of his New Jersey roots.
I learned from this that Bolton once reported from India for the AP, earlier than the simultaneous, early 1950s postings in the country of Jesse Core @ State and David Baldwin @ CIA
I believe Nicholas B Lemann could fill in many gaps but has no incentive to do so. In response to Zachary Sklar's criticism of Lemann's December, 1991 GQ Magazine article perfectly timed to "kneecap" Stone's and Sklar's about to be released film, JFK, Lemann declared he had not written as a journalist.
Point me to another with only a batchelor's degree who experienced an "elevation" similar to Lemann's....
There were three agents in the NOLA CIA domestic contacts office in 1967. One, Dorothy Brandao, happened to be a NOLA native who was educated in Jim Garrison's home state of Iowa, and was the ex-sister-in-law of Garrison's mentor, Eberhard Deutch's co-counsel at Standard Fruit, Augusto P Miceli. As inside counsel, Miceli likely influential in hiring outside counsel, Deutsch.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonDeutschDorothyBrandaoWed.jpg)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=338769850&width=557&height=636&crop=3014_236_1666_1939&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1586454290&h=bbaa2e7bce7d76a9f6d3334b5cc5479f)
DiEugenio is a Trump supporter
-
I didn't warch "JFK, the Movie" until 2013. Am I missing something, or are you?
Wow that's quiet an achievement whether you agree or disagree with the way that movie was made. Were you not curious to watch it sooner?
-
Crickets....
We certainly, almost to a man, closely guard and maintain our belief systems, reflexively circling the wagons around those who have misled us, even sometimes intentionally.
I didn't warch "JFK, the Movie" until 2013. Am I missing something, or are you? A "tell" here is DiEugenio is acting like a typical Trump supporter. He refuses to even consider what I have presented since 2016, and responds with his own version of. "you have TDS, Scully!" LOL...
Let's look, "under the hood" to consider the history behind author Lifton's latest "eruption" !
This is what I know of Clint Bolton, that you may not.... and I cannot find any proof he ever attended Princeton Univ., but US Census records do support his description of his New Jersey roots.
I learned from this that Bolton once reported from India for the AP, earlier than the simultaneous, early 1950s postings in the country of Jesse Core @ State and David Baldwin @ CIA
I believe Nicholas B Lemann could fill in many gaps but has no incentive to do so. In response to Zachary Sklar's criticism of Lemann's December, 1991 GQ Magazine article perfectly timed to "kneecap" Stone's and Sklar's about to be released film, JFK, Lemann declared he had not written as a journalist.
Point me to another with only a batchelor's degree who experienced an "elevation" similar to Lemann's....
There were three agents in the NOLA CIA domestic contacts office in 1967. One, Dorothy Brandao, happened to be a NOLA native who was educated in Jim Garrison's home state of Iowa, and was the ex-sister-in-law of Garrison's mentor, Eberhard Deutch's co-counsel at Standard Fruit, Augusto P Miceli. As inside counsel, Miceli likely influential in hiring outside counsel, Deutsch.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonDeutschDorothyBrandaoWed.jpg)
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=338769850&width=557&height=636&crop=3014_236_1666_1939&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1586454290&h=bbaa2e7bce7d76a9f6d3334b5cc5479f)
Well......
-
I know David Lifton.
David Lifton is a friend of mine.
Jim DiEugenio, a consummate fabricator is no David Lifton.
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
** ** **
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
Wow. Lifton is delusional. Nothing new there.
Dylan's song references Lifton? Gee, where?
-
Wow. Lifton is delusional. Nothing new there.
Dylan's song references Lifton? Gee, where?
“They mutilated his body, and they took out his brain
What more could they do?
They piled on the pain”
-
“They mutilated his body, and they took out his brain
What more could they do?
They piled on the pain”
Isn't removal of the brain rather common in autopsies?