Author: James DiEugenio

---

As I have noted throughout, Litwin’s continual reliance on some of the most dubious-in some cases, scurrilous-sources in the literature seems to indicate what his objective was. Hugh Aynesworth has admitted his goal has always been to deny a conspiracy in the JFK case. (Click here for details) As one can see from that linked article, he openly threatened the Warren Commission in order to intimidate them into a lone gunman conclusion. This was months before the Commission’s 26 volumes of evidence were published!

Hugh wanted the Commission to portray Oswald as a homicidal maniac who was going to kill Richard Nixon. Through his friend and colleague Holland McCombs at Time-Life he learned about Garrison’s inquiry. As one can see, from the beginning, he secretly plotted to thwart the DA. He also became an FBI informant. We previously saw how he attempted to tamper with Clinton/Jackson witness John Manchester. Shaw’s lead lawyer, Irvin Dymond was very appreciative of the huge amount of work Aynesworth did for his client, which went as far as eliminating troublesome aspects to the point they did not surface at the trial.(Columbia Journalism Review, Spring 1969, pp. 38–41) In light of this sorry record, Litwin calls him a “great reporter”. That comment says much more about Litwin than it does the FBI informant who did not want his name revealed to the public.

Another Litwin source is Harry Connick Sr. Litwin features a picture of Connick in the Introduction to his book and says he was a source for how Jim Garrison operated as a DA. That is as far as the description goes. As with Aynesworth, its what Litwin leaves out that covers both his and Connick’s tail.

In 1973, in a close election, Harry Connick defeated Jim Garrison for DA. Over time, under Connick, New Orleans became “the city with the highest murder per capita ratio in the US.” (Probe Magazine Vol. 2 No. 5) But that’s not all. Gary Raymond, an investigator on his staff, was asked to check into the case of a local priest suspected of sodomizing children and young adults. Gary did so, and he accumulated evidence, including tapes and affidavits. The investigator recommended Connick prosecute the case. But nothing happened. Meanwhile Gary encountered one of the kids on the tapes. He asked him if he wanted to go on the record. The victim replied that his abuser had threatened his life. Raymond now wrote a three page memo outlining the case. This angered Connick because it created a paper trail. Raymond then encountered the DA at a St. Patrick’s day parade and asked him when the perpetrator would be indicted. Connick placed his finger in Gary’s chest and said, “He won’t be. Not as long as I am the DA. And you can’t do a thing about it.” Raymond had no choice but to go to the press. This began a series on what became the infamous Father Dino Cinel child abuse scandal. (Ibid, based on personal interview with Raymond)

For obvious reasons, as mentioned throughout, one would think that this sorry episode would be mentioned by the author. As with John McCloy’s failure to intercede with the Nazi extermination program against the Jews of Eastern Europe, you will not find it in the book.

But that’s not all. Connick was reproached by the US Supreme Court twice for violations of the Brady rule. (NY Times editorial of 2/16/2015; Slate, 4/1/2015, article by Dahia Lithwick) That rule maintains that the DA’s office must turn over any exculpatory materials it has to the defense. The cases were Connick vs. Thompson, and Smith vs Cain. (Click here for details) In the first case, the exculpatory material resulted in the defendant’s eventual acquittal. The ethical abuse in the second case was so bad that the conviction was reversed. Connick’s excuse for sending innocent people to prison for life was, “I stopped reading law books …when I became the DA.”

This record, and the fact that Connick served as the Washington liaison to the Shaw trial, is rather consistent. Because once he was in office, he went to work setting aflame the evidence Garrison had left behind. That is not figurative language. He carted it to the incinerator. When someone protested, Connick’s reply was “Burn this sonofabitch and burn it today.” (Op. Cit, Probe Magazine) Make no mistake, Connick literally wanted every single file left on the Kennedy case torched. This reviewer is certain of that. For when he visited Connick in 1994, the DA was shown an index to a file cabinet in his office made by the HSCA. Connick called in an assistant to check if it was still there. When he was told it was, his face took on a look of surprise and he said, “We still have that stuff?” Harry Connick is a major reason we have such an incomplete record of the Jim Garrison investigation into the JFK assassination. The excision of these key factors is another instance of Litwin’s plastic surgery practices.

I don’t know what is worse: if Litwin was ignorant of all the above, or if he knew it and decided not to tell the reader about it. In either case, Connick is in no position to tell any DA how to operate his office.

---

II

With that firmly established, the third part of the book deals with the HSCA, Oliver Stone, Permindex, and people like this reviewer. That is people who have written newer books on the Clay Shaw inquiry.

Litwin’s chapter on the HSCA is so sketchy that its almost embarrassing. For instance, he writes that the HSCA forensic pathology panel wrote that Kennedy was shot from behind. (Litwin, p. 238) Gary Aguilar, among others, has shown that this was again achieved by the HSCA classifying key information that indicated the contrary. As he has written, “…the HSCA misrepresented the statements of its own Bethesda autopsy witnesses on the location of JFK’s skull defect.” (Trauma Room One, by Charles Crenshaw, p. 209) In other words, with the information now declassified, both sets of witnesses-those who saw Kennedy’s body in Dallas, and those who examined it at Bethesda-were on the record as depicting a rather large blown out hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, strongly indicating a shot from the front. What makes this worse is that when Gary did some questioning of who was responsible for writing the contrary in the HSCA report, no one would admit to it. (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 37) This would include Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, the lead medical investigator Andy Purdy, and the chair of the pathology panel Michael Baden. (Aguilar interview for the documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed)

After slipping on this banana peel, Litwin now goes ahead and depicts the association of Garrison with the HSCA. He tries to impute this relationship as beginning under Blakey. Which shows he never interviewed Bob Tanenbaum, who was the first Kennedy Deputy Chief Counsel. Tanenbaum is still alive and talks to people on the phone about the JFK case. Apparently, Litwin did not think that step was historically important. This reviewer has talked to Tanenbaum many times. He was the one who approved the HSCA inquiry into New Orleans. It was he who assigned Jon Blackmer as the lead lawyer and Larry Delsa as the investigator. Delsa then recommended Bob Buras, another police detective, as his partner. They then decided to consult with Garrison, who shared what he had in his remaindered files with this team.

In this chapter, Litwin trots out an old chestnut originated by Jim Phelan many years ago and repeated by Patricia Lambert. Namely that Bertrand’s name was implanted into Perry Russo under truth serum. What Shaw’s defense had done—and Phelan was a part of that team—was mislabel the order of the sodium pentothal sessions. As Lisa Pease noted, when read in their proper order, it’s very clear that it was Russo who brought up the name of Bertrand on his own. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5) This reviewer has shown these transcripts to other researchers from other fields, and once shown them, they agree. (See DiEugenio, p. 413, footnote, 116)

Litwin concludes this chapter by using a book later written by Blakey and Billings to score Garrison. (Litwin p. 251) In other words, he passes over the origins of the HSCA New Orleans inquiry, skips over Tanenbaum, and then jumps to a “Mafia did it” book-without telling the reader it’s a Mafia did it book. Or that, in 1981, the original title of the volume was The Plot to Kill the President. If you talk to Blakey today he will tell you that there was a second shot from the front of Kennedy. This reviewer knows this since he was in email contact with him while proofreading American Values by Bobby Kennedy Jr.

In the updated 1992 version of the 1981 book, renamed Fatal Hour, Billings refers to an episode Garrison described in On the Trail of the Assassins. This depicted Billings, the Life reporter who had gone on the famous Pawley/Bayo raid to Cuba, questioning the DA about an organized crime figure in Covington. (Garrison, pp. 163–64) Garrison questioned people in his office and they did not know who the man was. Billings used this lack of knowledge as an excuse to portray Garrison as a lax crimefighter. When Fatal Hour came out, this was now revised to say the name Billings gave Garrison was Carlos Marcello. We are to assume then that somehow Garrison had never heard of Marcello. In the files released by the ARRB, this reviewer found Garrison’s notes to this conversation. The name was not Marcello, not even close. (Personal files given to Bill Davy for an update to his book)

What this points out is an utterly crucial issue: the sea change that took place with the HSCA after the first Chief Counsel, Dick Sprague, had been forced out. Litwin avoids this entire episode pretty much completely. Sprague and Tanenbaum were going to run a genuine homicide investigation. And both men were very experienced doing that: Sprague in Philadelphia and Tanenbaum in New York. As did Garrison, they both had quite positive records in court. (DiEugenio, pp. 173, 326) Respectively, neither the CIA, nor the FBI wanted this kind of real criminal inquiry into either the JFK case or the murder of Martin Luther King. (Personal interview with congressman Tom Downing, 1993, in Newport News) Therefore the MSM created a faux controversy over Sprague, and he was forced out in rather short order. Tanenbaum became the acting Chief Counsel.

But the problem was, after what happened to Sprague, no one wanted the job. Sprague’s forced resignation was clearly meant as a warning shot. Or as HSCA photographic consultant Chris Sharrett said to me, “It was Garrison all over again.” (DiEugenio and Pease, p. 59) As Chief of Homicide in New York, Tanenbaum said he understood how false the Warren Report was; and he had been alerted to this first by Senator Richard Schweiker who had worked on the Church Committee. (Speech by Tanenbaum, at Chicago Midwest Symposium in 1993) The three leaders of the first phase of the Kennedy side of the HSCA-Sprague, Tanenbaum and Al Lewis-were all experienced criminal attorneys. None of them bought the Warren Report. With his background as a DA, when Lewis inspected the autopsy materials in the JFK case, he was shocked. (DiEugenio and Pease, p. 57)

Dick Billings was not a criminal lawyer. Yet he helped write the Final Report of the HSCA concerning the JFK inquiry. In and of itself, that helps the reader understand what happened to that committee. This is the story that Litwin, almost by necessity, excludes from his book. Namely that Schweiker, Sprague, Tanenbaum, and Lewis were all on the same page. Garrison was correct, the JFK case was a conspiracy, we are now going to solve it. In fact, Schweiker told Tanenbaum that the CIA was involved in the assassination. (2019 interview with Tanenbaum by Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio) And, like Garrison, that effort was crushed. You won’t be able to unfold that rather sad saga if you don’t talk to anyone involved. And you certainly won’t find it in the papers of Sylvia Meagher or Patricia Lambert.

---

III

Litwin spends about 30 pages on the making of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. Again, I looked in his references for indications that he talked to anyone of importance in the making of the film. That is Oliver Stone, co-screenwriter Zach Sklar, any of the co-producers, or even an important consultant like John Newman. There was no evidence he did.

Litwin begins with the writing of Garrison’s book, the early drafts that eventually became On the Trail of the Assassins. He tells the shopworn story of how Sylvia Meagher was hired by a major book publisher to proof Garrison’s original manuscript for publication. She thought it was a worthy effort, but she then objected to his tenet that the motorcade route was changed. This formed a big part of the rejection of Garrison’s book by that publisher. (Litwin, pp. 259–60) As her lifelong fan, the late Jerry Policoff said, due to her innate bias, Sylvia should have never been handed that assignment. But once handed it, she should have never accepted it. (Click here for details)

Through the valuable work of Vince Palamara, we know today that Garrison was correct on this and Meagher was wrong. The motorcade route was altered. (Vince Palamara, Survivor’s Guilt, pp. 98–108) In fact, the Commission witness who Sylvia used to criticize Garrison, Forrest Sorrels, was one of the two men involved with the change—the other being Winston Lawson. It was then Lawson who stripped back the number of motorcycles riding in the motorcade, especially those bracketing either side. Further, the police were told to ride to the rear of the car. They were puzzled at this direction which was given to them at Love Field. (Palamara, pp. 131–38) As a result of Palamara’s work, the best one can say today about the Secret Service and their performance in Dallas is that it was extremely negligent. As time goes on, it more and more appears that Meagher’s expertise on the case was confined to the textual analysis of the Commission volumes

Getting to Stone’s film itself, taking out his dog whistle, Litwin calls it a depiction of a homosexual conspiracy. (Litwin, p. 254) Which, again I think is a bizarre statement. Because, after watching the film several times, I don’t see it as that. The plot that I see is based on a military and Power Elite objection to Kennedy’s policies in Vietnam and Cuba, in that order. And, in everything I have seen or read, Shaw and Ferrie were not concerned about Indochina. In fact, this is what Garrison thought. He also believed that what he had uncovered, topped by Guy Banister, was only the local New Orleans level of the plot. In a documentary first broadcast on Pacifica radio in 1988, he said as much. He added that the character he thought was the main hand behind it all was Allen Dulles.

Litwin must understand this because now he goes after the Stone/Garrison portrait of Kennedy not being a Cold Warrior. But not even that is enough. If the reader can believe it—and you sure as heck can by now—Litwin also says that Lyndon Johnson continued Kennedy’s policy in Vietnam! (Litwin, pp. 270–71) I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. But, since it was Litwin, I chuckled. The idea that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his death was announced, not just by Oliver Stone, but back in 1997 by the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Both papers had headlines on this ARRB created story: The former said “Kennedy Had a Plan for early exit in Vietnam.” The latter was “Papers support theory that Kennedy had plans for Vietnam pullout.” (Probe Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 3)

The occasion for this confirmation of the thesis supplied to Oliver Stone by Fletcher Prouty and John Newman was the declassification of the records of the May 1963, SecDef conference. At this meeting in Hawaii, all arms of the American presence in Vietnam-military, CIA, State-offered their withdrawal schedules to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who had previously requested them. When he had them in hand, he looked them over. He then looked up and said the schedules were too slow, they had to be speeded up. Kennedy had taken John Kenneth Galbraith’s advice and decided to leave Indochina. (Click here for details)

But what we have today is even stronger than that. Because again, through the ARRB, we now have Johnson’s opposition to JFK and McNamara: In his own words on tape. (Tape of 2/20/64 phone call):

I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statement about withdrawing. I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the president thought otherwise, and I just sat silent.

It then got worse for McNamara. Two weeks later, Johnson requested that McNamara take back what he said about a thousand man withdrawal plan in December of 1963 as being part of a complete withdrawal by the end of 1965. (Virtual JFK by James Blight, p. 310) I could go on, because it gets even worse. But the point is made. Not only did LBJ know he was breaking with Kennedy, he was trying to cover his tracks in doing so. That is, as lawyers term it, consciousness of guilt. Again, if Litwin did not know this, then he should not be writing about it. If he did know this and he deliberately concealed it then it points to the kind of writer he is and the quality of his book.

But ignoring this new evidence on Indochina is not enough for Litwin. Again, in defiance of the new work on Kennedy, he tries to say JFK was a Cold Warrior. This is as untenable as there being no breakage in policy on Vietnam. What Kennedy was trying to do in his overall foreign policy was get back to FDR: a modus vivendi with the Soviets and a policy of neutralism in the Third World. The newest research on this subject, by Robert Rakove, Greg Poulgrain and Philip Muehlenbeck has redrawn the map on this point. It has been done so effectively that this reviewer is now convinced that the attempt to cloud that particular issue was done more deliberately than the actual cover up of Kennedy’s assassination. (Click here and here and here for details) The last instance, Johnson changing policies in Indonesia, was proclaimed by Roger Hilsman back in 1967. (To Move A Nation, p. 409) Hilsman resigned the State Department over that alteration and Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War. We are supposed to think that Litwin was unaware of all this.

---

IV

Taking his lead from the late Robert Sam Anson’s hoary article for Esquire, printed back in November of 1991, Litwin goes ahead and assails Fletcher Prouty on just about every score that Anson, and later Edward Epstein, could think of. Including the ridiculous accusation that Prouty did not know that Leonard Lewin’s The Report from Iron Mountain was meant as a satire. With the help of Len Osanic, I have addressed all of these goofy charges as made by Epstein. (Click here and go to the last section for details)

Prouty was involved in the drafting of the McNamara/Taylor report in Washington. This was the plan that Kennedy was going to use to justify his withdrawal from Vietnam. Prouty’s revelations about this are bolstered by Howard Jones’ book, Death of a Generation. Except Jones states that this was done before the trip to Saigon. Jones writes that the departing party received large binders of material as they boarded the plane, “including a draft of the report they were to write afterward.” (Jones, p. 370) That material included the conclusions they were to present the president, along with statistics. This is a key piece of information. (My thanks to Paul Jolliffe for pointing this out to me.) Needless to say, Litwin does not list any of the new books about the issue of Kennedy, Johnson and Vietnam—either in his bibliography or his references. This makes sense since they rely on new documents and new interviews to further the case originally made by Prouty, Newman and Stone.

Litwin also uses Fletcher’s interview with the ARRB against him. (Litwin, pp. 271-72) He could have easily called Len Osanic about this matter. Osanic is the web master of the best Prouty web site there is. He knew Fletcher as well as anyone. He visited him at his home in Alexandria, Virginia. When I asked him about the perceived problems the ARRB had with Prouty, he informed me of the full context. (Click here for details) Fletcher had been interviewed by both the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee. He was not happy with either experience. In his interview with the former, dated May 5, 1975, its odd that when Prouty started getting into matters dealing with the CIA, the interviewer wanted to go off the record. (See page four of the interview)

When Fletcher went in for his pre-interview with the House Select Committee, he was rather surprised. The reason being that George Joannides was there. And it appeared that he was actually taking part in the investigation. Prouty was one of the few people who instantly understood what this meant. He decided he was only going to give a brief statement and not do the interview.

Which brings us to the ARRB appearance that Litwin likes to use against the man. Prouty understood from the first couple of questions what the agenda was. So he decided to play along and give them what they wanted. He then called Len and informed him about it. Let us just discuss two issues. The first will be the whole trip to the South Pole as depicted in the film JFK. The unusual aspect about that was that Ed Lansdale was the officer who sent in his name for the mission. Lansdale was not his commanding officer. That was Victor Krulak. So why did Lansdale offer his name?

The other point is about the lack of military protection for Kennedy in Dallas. When asked by the ARRB if he had any notes on this, Fletcher said he did not. (See page 6 of the ARRB summary of the interview) Fletcher did have the notes of the call. And Len Osanic has seen them. Prouty’s informant said that, as late as January 1964, when he reported to the 316th Field Detachment—which was very close to the 112th Military Intelligence Group in San Antonio—there were still arguments between the two commanders about why they were not detached to go to Dallas. (ARRB interview with Col. Bill McKinney 5/2/97) Especially since some of the officers there had been trained in presidential protection at Fort Holabird. McKinney called Prouty about it since Fletcher would likely have arranged the air transportation for the unit. After all, it’s a four drive from San Antonio to Dallas. Also, after the film was released, a daughter of one of the high level officers called Len. She told him that, over the assassination weekend, there was an argument at her home over this particular issue. Namely why there was no military protection forwarded to Dallas. (Interview with Osanic, 2/6/2021)

Fletcher Prouty was vividly played by Donald Sutherland in the film JFK. During that walk he took from the Lincoln Memorial with Costner/Garrison, for the first time, the American public was given loads of information about what the CIA was doing for decades in the name of spreading democracy abroad. It turned out they were not spreading democracy. They were actually overthrowing democratically elected republics e.g. Iran, Guatemala and Congo. And in the case of Congo, planning assassination plots. This information was all communicated with exceptional cinematic skill. The Powers That Be did not like the fact that Fletcher-an inside the beltway officer-was partaking in such an exercise. And not only was he telling the public that he knew Kennedy was exiting Vietnam, but he had worked on the plans. All one has to know about how valuable he was to the disclosure of the secret government is that James McCord despised him.

When Fletcher Prouty passed away, he was given full military honors. This included a band with a bugler playing Taps, a 21 gun salute, his body carried to chapel by caisson, and the flag folded up into a triangle and given to his widow. Like Kennedy, he was buried at Arlington. We are all lucky that a man with that standing gave so many insights to the general public. Because no one else at that level ever did.

---

V

Litwin’s book is designed to conceal who Clay Shaw really was. Therefore he does something I have never seen anyone do before; I don’t even recall Gerald Posner doing it. Right in front of the reader’s eyes he changes the spelling of a word—contract to contact—in a long hidden CIA document. He then alters the wording, concerning Shaw’s payments, to make it read as he wishes. (Litwin, p. 289) In other words, J. Kenneth McDonald, the Chief of the CIA’s History Staff, was writing a memo to CIA Director Robert Gates, and with the file in front of him, somehow he got it wrong—but Litwin got it right? (CIA Memorandum of 2/10/1992)

But it’s worse than that. What Litwin does not tell the reader is that the CIA was so desperate to hide their association with Shaw that, as previously mentioned, they tampered with his file. Bill Davy first discovered this, and then Manuel Legaspi of the ARRB confirmed it and furthered it. (Legaspi to Jeremy Gunn, 11/14/1996; Davy, p. 200) So from what is left of the CIA records we know that Shaw was a highly paid contract agent and he had a covert security clearance for Project QKENCHANT. (For the latter, see Davy, p. 195) All of this discovery has been made possible by the ARRB. In a letter from Gordon Novel to Mary Ferrell in 1977, he revealed that the CIA had been trying to cover up their relationship with Shaw for well over a decade. (Personal Files sent to Bill Davy)

Another of Shaw’s CIA associations is with the mysterious European entity, CMC/Permindex. This was first revealed back in the sixties, and Shaw actually admitted to it for his entry in Who’s Who in the Southwest for 1963–64. Yet, that was Shaw’s last entry in that rather illustrious series. For whatever reason, his name does not appear after the 1963-1964 edition.

As most people know, when this organization was announced in 1956 in Switzerland, it was later booted out of the country due to a crescendo of negative newspaper articles. One of the reasons for the adverse reception was the attempt to conceal the main financial backing of the project. The State Department intervened and did some investigatory work. They found out that the true principal funding was through J. Henry Schroder’s, a bank that was closely associated with Allen Dulles and the CIA. In fact, Dulles had worked for the bank as General Counsel. (Davy, pp. 96–97) As Maurice Philipps has revealed, Ferenc Nagy, one of the key organizers of the enterprise, was a cleared CIA source and his file contained several references to his association with the World Trade Center, that is Centro Mondial Commerciale, the parent for Permindex. (Click here for details)

The project stalled, but the State Department kept up its inquiry, now referring to it as the Permindex “scheme”. John Foster Dulles knew about the “scheme” and made no objections to it. (Michele Metta, CMC: The Italian Undercover CIA and Mossad Station, p. 114) In 1958, State now said that the model for the company was the New Orleans International Trade Mart. Further, that Shaw had shown interest in the project. (Cables of April 9, July 18, 1958) The enterprise then moved to Rome. Litwin makes reference to a 1959 CIA document saying that Nagy offered to place a CIA agent on the staff. He then says that since Shaw joined the board in 1958, the dates do not match. (Litwin, p. 293) First, placing someone on the staff is not the same as a member of the Board, and I have a hard time believing Litwin does not understand this. Secondly, we don’t know from the document when Nagy first wrote the CIA about the employment offer.

Phillips made two groundbreaking discoveries. First, as already mentioned, about Nagy and the CIA. Secondly by going through the Louis Bloomfield archives in Canada, he found out that corporate lawyer Bloomfield served as a legal representative of the company and was soliciting funds for Permindex. What made that even more fascinating was, in doing so, he was in contact with the wealthiest families in the world at that time e.g. the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. None of this had been previously disclosed.

When one adds in the work of Michele Metta, then the mix gets more bracing. Let me say this upfront: in my opinion, Metta’s book is one of the finest pieces of work I have ever read in English on the Italian political scene of the sixties and seventies. Metta discovered that Gershon Peres was on the Board of Permindex from 1967-70. (Metta, p.114; see also article by Paz Marverde, at Medium, 12/12/17) Peres was the brother of Shimon Peres, on and off the Prime Minister of Israel for three years, and then president of Israel from 2007-14. In what is probably the only positive contribution by Litwin in his entire book, he appears to clear Permindex member George Mandel of being in the Jewish refugee racket. (Litwin, pp. 295–97) The problem with this is that Metta shows that Mandel was working with the Israeli spy service for years and years. (Metta, p. 114)

I cannot begin to summarize all the quite relevant material in Metta’s book. But perhaps the most important, at least to me, is that another CMC member was instrumental in the rise of Licio Gelli, the infamous leader of the utterly fascist Propaganda Due (P2) lodge. But further, CMC and P2 shared the same office space! (Metta, p. 120, see also Marverde) Suffice it to say that with these kinds of revelations, Philip Willan, an expert on Operation Gladio, now entertains the possibility that P2 and Permindex may have been a part of that concealed “stay behind” NATO network. Which puts it above the level of the CIA.

How does Litwin counter these powerful revelations? First, he barely mentions Metta’s book. Second, he uses Max Holland’s article in Daily Beast to say that, somehow, the Permindex story was all part of a KGB propaganda plot, issued through communist leaning papers in Italy. Holland’s article was published at the height of Russiagate mania, which has now been exposed as being, to put it mildly, a false alarm, to put it bluntly, a hoax. Holland swam right into that wave. Secondly, nothing I have referred to above relies on that material. Obviously, Phillips did not. Metta’s book is well documented and in his discoveries about CMC, are largely original research. Third, the underlying basis for Holland is the Mitrokhin archives. The well paid Russian defector has turned out to be, well, kind of unreliable. Especially on the JFK case. (Click here for details)

The other way Litwin tries to distract from all of this is by picking up his second dog whistle. His first is homophobia; his second is anti-Semitism. Because Bloomfield was Jewish, he uses that to play the anti-Semite card. I was nauseated at Litwin’s shameless hypocrisy. As I noted in the very first part of this series, what John McCloy did on the Jewish/Nazi issue during and after World War II was unfathomable. Somehow, Litwin did not find any of that even notable. Just as Jim Garrison never said anything about Shaw being a homosexual during the two years of that being a live case, Garrison has never written anything about Bloomfield being Jewish. And although Litwin writes that Bloomfield was not in the OSS, John Kowalski, who has been through the Bloomfield archives, says he did see letters between the legendary World War II Canadian/British intelligence officer William Stephenson and Bloomfield.

---

VI

The last chapter of the book is entitled “Conclusion: The Attempt to Rehabilitate Jim Garrison”. Here, Litwin groups Bill Davy, Joan Mellen and myself under one rubric in order to belittle and attack respectively, Let Justice be Done (1995), A Farewell to Justice (2005) and Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition (2012).

First he says the three books are incestuous. My book has over 2000 footnotes to it. Less than 2% of the references are to Bill Davy’s prior book. And even less than that are to Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice. The Davy book has about 650 references to it, evens less of his notes apply to my work in any form e.g. including essays I wrote for publication in various journals, particularly Probe Magazine. It’s preposterous to do that same comparison to Mellen’s book. For the simple reason that she employed the superb archives researcher Peter Vea, who was the Malcolm Blunt of his day. Therefore the figures for her are even smaller.

What Litwin is trying to avoid is this: the three books are based on research, data and facts that became newly available through the ARRB. And how that unprecedented event led to more searches through phone and personal interviews, field investigation, and materials mining at other centers e.g. the AARC. This combined effort, by many more people than he lists, resulted in a plethora of new information on New Orleans. Enough to pen three books clocking in at about a thousand pages.

Therefore, the idea of “rehabilitation” is demonstrably false. What these volumes do is redefine New Orleans, Garrison’s inquiry and its suspects. To the point that they have made books like Kirkwood’s look like a museum exhibit. And it’s not just those three works. For instance, my book uses John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, which has important new material in it on New Orleans. It also uses Joe Biles’ work, In History’s Shadow, which did much to reopen the case of Kerry Thornley. In this particular review, I have utilized Michele Metta’s volume, which takes a quantum leap forward with Permindex/CMC. One of the main sources for my book was Probe Magazine, which I used far more than Bill Davy or Joan Mellen. That journal did many articles based upon new archival materials about New Orleans. I could go on, but my point is that Litwin’s attempt to narrow the field is simply not an accurate description as to how the database has been altered geometrically and exponentially on the subject.

His attempt to characterize the three books as being similar in subject and theme is also inaccurate. Let Justice be Done is narrowly focused on New Orleans and Clay Shaw. So when Litwin writes that all three deal with ending the Cold War, withdrawing from Vietnam and Kennedy ushering in “a new era of peace and prosperity”, that simply does not apply to the text of Davy’s book. (Litwin, p. 311, not numbered) It only relates to the Afterword by a different author, Robert Spiegelman. It was not part of Davy’s research, themes or his ultimate aim. Mellen’s book only deals with the subject of JFK and his policies in one half of one chapter (See Chapter 11) My book is the only one that assays this topic at any length or detail. But the concept that Lyndon Johnson drastically altered Kennedy’s foreign policy is today an established fact. And Litwin can only deny it by not mentioning scholars like Robert Rakove, Greg Poulgrain, Philip Muehlenbeck, Richard Mahoney, Brad Simpson, Gordon Goldstein, David Kaiser, and James Blight—among others. Again, if he knew of this work and did not tell the reader about it, then he is not being forthright. If he didn’t know, then he should not be writing about it.

In this final chapter, he also tries to deny, as he does throughout the book, that Shaw was Bertrand. As I have shown in the last installment, there is nothing to argue on this point anymore: Shaw was Bertrand. This is a fact. And in all probability Shaw’s defense team knew it. As we have seen, former FBI agent Aaron Kohn later made up one of his fables for the HSCA in order to disguise it. If the Bureau had been aiding Garrison, Shaw would have been decimated on the stand over this.

In quoting Jon Blackmer’s memo on his interview with Garrison about Shaw being a part of the conspiracy or a “cut out” to the plot, he writes that I did not place it in its proper context. He then adds that it’s not a part of the HSCA Final Report. (Litwin, p. 318)

This is another Litwin effort at a shell game. What I write about Blackmer’s memo is simple and straightforward, but it’s not part of Litwin’s agenda. And it explains why Blackmer’s work is not only absent from the Final Report, but why he was then absent from New Orleans. What I wrote is that Jon Blackmer did not matter once the leadership of the HSCA changed. (DiEugenio, p. 332) And anyone who knows this case understands that. As Gaeton Fonzi has written, once Sprague and Tanenbaum were gone, the focus shifted from the Cuban exiles and the CIA, to the Mafia. In fact, as Wallace Milam informed me back in the nineties, Blackmer was shifted out of New Orleans and his name was on a couple of autopsy memoranda. As Joan Mellen discovered when she approached him, Blackmer would not talk about his HSCA experience with her. Try and find any of this important material in Litwin’s book.

Another part of the story that Litwin wants to eliminate in this chapter is the massive interference with Garrison’s inquiry. To show how desperate he is, in the part of my book that deals with Louis Gurvich and his work for the CIA, he says I was writing about his brother, William. He then says my source was a JFK critic and he talked to Gurvich’s niece. (Litwin, p. 318) Again, these are both wrong. My source was a military veteran and he did not say he talked to Gurvich’s niece, and neither do I. (DiEugenio, p. 331) He then says there is no evidence that Gordon Novel was being used by Allen Dulles to spy on Garrison’s office. Anyone can read the sources I use for this in my book. One of them is Novel’s own deposition for his lawsuit against Playboy magazine. There he mentioned his many and long conversations with Allen Dulles. In that sworn deposition he also admitted he communicated by telegram with Richard Helms. (DiEugenio, p. 429) In my footnotes, I also source a police interview in which Gordon admitted he stole pieces of evidence from Garrison’s office.

Litwin also writes that the CIA did nothing to interfere with Garrison’s inquiry. (Litwin, p. 321) In my book I go into detail with declassified documents showing how the Agency planned and executed this interference. (DiEugenio, pp. 269–78)

Litwin has to do this because this massive interference-which came on the instructions of no less than Richard Helms-would suggest the Agency was worried about what Garrison would turn up to incriminate them. (DiEugenio, p. 270) I describe how the CIA then prevented subpoenas from being honored; they directed witnesses against Shaw be talked out of their stories; and how Bob Tanenbaum saw documents from Helms’ office that directed Garrison’s witnesses be surveilled and harassed. Which they were. (DiEugenio, pp. 271–98, 294)

Incredibly, Litwin tries to say that Shaw’s lawyers got no cooperation from either the CIA or the FBI. Perhaps Litwin did not know about the Angleton’s office “black tape” operation, revealed here for the first time. He he also leaves out the fact that Shaw’s lead lawyer, Irvin Dymond, met with the CIA station chief in New Orleans with approval from CIA HQ. (DiEugenio, p. 277) This was apparently done because in the fall of 1967 Ray Rocca, Jim Angleton’s point man on Garrison, predicted that Shaw would be convicted if all proceeded as it was. (DiEugenio, p. 270) After Dymond’s meeting, the CIA sent out memos about how they were now committed to this effort and task forces would be set up, including tasks to be done by the local New Orleans office. (DiEugenio, p. 277) The FBI joined in this by the aforementioned wiretapping of Garrison’s office. And on the eve of the Shaw trial they agreed to help the defense (DiEugenio, p.293) This covert aid is something that Shaw’s lawyers would not admit to. I know because Irvin Dymond lied to me about it in his office in 1994.

The way that Litwin frantically dodges this issue reminded of the old adage: if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it fall? Yes it did. And Litwin can deny it all he wants. But its right there for anyone with eyes and ears to witness.

At the end of this sorry book, if one knows what really happened in New Orleans, one has to ask: What kind of a mind and sensibility would go to such lengths to camouflage it all? Who today would trust people like Rosemary James or Shaw’s lawyers? What kind of a writer would go out of his way to use the political dog whistles of homophobia and anti-Semitism to the unprecedented extent Litwin does? When, in fact, Garrison never brought up the first, and there was no reason for him to bring up the second?

Those questions can only be answered by reviewing Litwin’s first book, which is about his political conversion. Looming in the background of that psychic transformation is the figure of David Horowitz. With the dropping of that name, I now understood that Litwin’s work is not meant to be data or research based. It is fundamentally political. Fred Litwin is a culture warrior.

---

As noted at the end of Part 1, the excisions Litwin makes to whitewash David Ferrie from accusations of perjury and suspicion in the JFK case extends to key information that implicates the FBI in the JFK cover-up. In my view, what he does to exculpate Clay Shaw from any suspicion, and to eliminate his perjury, might be even worse.

To show Litwin’s plastic surgery, let us take his treatment of Shaw’s trial. One would think that if anyone were to write about that proceeding today, two things would have to be paramount in the discussion. One would be the testimony of Pierre Finck. The prosecution’s medical expert, Dr. John Nichols, had done a good job using the Zapruder film to indicate a crossfire in Dealey Plaza. In fact, this part of the case was so effective that the defense decided to call in one of the three pathologists––Dr. Finck––who performed the very questionable autopsy on President Kennedy. The author quotes Sylvia Meagher as saying that Garrison was inept and ineffective in challenging the Warren Report at Shaw’s trial. (Litwin, p. 129) Which shows how out to lunch Meagher was on the subject of anything dealing with Jim Garrison. The reason he can include that embarrassing statement by Meagher is simple: in his entire chapter on Shaw’s trial there is no mention of Finck’s testimony. I wish I was kidding. I’m not.

Finck’s testimony alone burst open the Warren Report. All one has to do to understand that is to read the reaction to his testimony in Washington. As Doug Horne and others on the ARRB revealed, Finck’s testimony was so devastating to the official story it rocked the Justice Department back on its heels. As revealed by the ARRB, the two men in the Justice Department who were supervising the disguise over Kennedy’s criminally bad autopsy were Carl Belcher and Carl Eardley. In 1966, under the direction of Attorney General Ramsey Clark, they were responding to requests by Warren Commission lawyers David Slawson and Wesley Liebeler. Those two Commission counsels requested aid in order to somehow, some way, do something to counter the mounting criticism of the Warren Report. (“How Five Investigations Got It Wrong”, Part 2) The Justice Department seemed amenable. For instance, in a photographic inventory review in that year, Belcher knew that certain autopsy pictures were missing. He got two of the pathologists and the official autopsy photographer to sign a document in which they knowingly lied about this fact. He then had his own role erased from the charade by taking his name off the document. (Horne, Inside the ARRB, Vol. 1, pp. 146-47)

Realizing what the game was, upon hearing what Finck was saying on the stand in New Orleans, Eardley hit the panic button. In the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, I spend four pages describing some of Finck’s shocking disclosures at the Shaw trial. (pp. 300-03) One of the most compelling is that the pathologists were prohibited from dissecting President Kennedy’s back wound, since they were told by one of the many military higher ups in attendance not to. Because of that failure, no one will never know if that wound transited the body, or be certain what its trajectory was through Kennedy.

According to Dr. Thornton Boswell, when Eardley heard that Finck was actually telling the truth about what happened the night of JFK’s autopsy, he was really agitated. He called another of Kennedy’s pathologists, Boswell, into his office and said, “Pierre is testifying and he’s really lousing everything up.” (DiEugenio, p. 304) The idea was to send Boswell to the Shaw trial and have him discredit Finck as “ a strange man.” Boswell actually did fly to New Orleans. When ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn heard this testimony from Boswell, he asked: “What was the United States Department of Justice doing in relationship to a case between the district attorney of New Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?” Boswell replied that clearly, “the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the district attorney.” (ibid) As the reader will understand by now, this crucial part of the story is missing from this book. In fact, as we shall later see, Litwin is buddies with a man, Harry Connick, who was part of the hidden political machinery that arranged it.

Connick was the US Attorney in New Orleans at the time. At Eardley’s request, Connick reserved a hotel room for Boswell. Boswell was then escorted to Connick’s office and shown Finck’s disastrous two days of testimony. The doctor spent the evening studying it, but ultimately was not called. As Gary Aguilar has said, that was probably because Finck was better qualified in forensic pathology than Boswell, and Garrison would have pointed that out with both men under oath. (DiEugenio, p. 304)

---

II

The other point that is extremely relevant about Shaw’s trial today is the provable perjuries that Shaw recited under oath. Many of these corresponded to things he said to the press in the lead up to his trial. One was that he did not use the alias of Clay or Clem Bertrand. What Litwin does to help Shaw escape from this lie would be funny if it were not painful to read.

As Bill Davy, Joan Mellen and I myself have enumerated, not only did Jim Garrison have witnesses to show Shaw was Bertrand; so did the FBI. When combined together, the number is in the teens. For Garrison, and others, the interest in this came through the issuance of the Warren Commission volumes and the testimony of New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews. Andrews said Oswald had been in his office with some gay mexicanos. The latter had been sent to him by a man named Clay Bertrand. (WC Vol. 11, p. 326) He was then called on 11/23/63 by Bertrand to go to Dallas to defend Oswald.

Hoover and the FBI used every trick in the book to make this phone call go away. Even though these have been discredited, on cue, Litwin rolls them back out. As Bill Davy showed with hospital records, Andrews was not drugged at the time of the call. (Davy, p. 52). The call was also not imaginary, since three witnesses who Andrews talked to corroborated that he had told them about it. These witnesses not only said that Andrews seemed familiar with Bertrand, but Oswald had been in his office also. (Davy, pp. 51-52) Further, Andrews could not have been so familiar about details concerning Lee and Marina Oswald unless someone had told him about them. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pp. 375-76) It is true that Andrews changed his story about his description of Bertrand, once saying he was married with four kids, but this was clearly because of the pressure the FBI had placed on him, plus the fact his life had been threatened. (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 197) Andrews relayed that threat to both Mark Lane and Anthony Summers, in addition to Garrison. (Bill Turner, “The Inquest,” Ramparts 6/67: 24; Summers, Conspiracy, p. 340; Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 82). I don’t see how that repeated threat can be discounted. Because Andrews obviously did not.

But, beyond that, it appears the FBI was looking for Bertrand before their interview with Andrews. (Davy, p. 194) Further, in declassified FBI documents, the FBI has admitted that Shaw’s name came up in their original Kennedy inquiry back in December of 1963. That memo, written by Cartha DeLoach, said that several parties had furnished them information about Shaw at that time. (FBI Memorandum of March 2, 1967) Ricardo Davis, active in the Cuban exile community in New Orleans, told Harold Weisberg that the FBI had shown him a picture of Shaw the day after the assassination. (DiEugenio, p. 265) In a March 2, 1967 memo, the FBI admits that on February 24^th, they had gotten information from two sources that Shaw is identical with Bertrand. Larry Schiller, an FBI informant on Mark Lane, told the Bureau that he had gay sources in two cities––San Francisco and New Orleans––who said that Shaw used aliases, one of them being Bertrand. (FBI memo of March 22, 1967)

Harold Weisberg wrote an unpublished book in which he stated that Andrews told him that Shaw was Bertrand. But, consistent with the death threats, he swore him to secrecy about it. This is contained in the manuscript “Mailer’s Tales of the JFK Assassination.” (see Chapter 5, p. 13, available at the Hood College Weisberg archives) What Litwin does with this information is, even for him, bracing. He writes that Joan Mellen once wrote to Weisberg and the critic did not say this nearly as clearly as he wrote in his unpublished book. (Litwin, p. 313) What Litwin does not reveal is that one sentence later, Weisberg does make it clear. (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 197; see p. 551 for the separate references) Did Litwin stop reading before that one sentence? Mellen sources this to an interview she did with Weisberg on July 27, 2000, which Litwin ignores. I have not seen this kind of Rafael Nadal topspin since the days of Gerald Posner.

But in the Kennedy case, things are always worse than you think they are. And thanks to Malcolm Blunt, we now know the depths of dreadfulness that Shaw’s legal team was steeped in. There has long been available an FBI memo of March 2, 1967, referred to above, issued the day after Shaw was arrested. But it had only been released in redacted form. The memo was from William Branigan to Bill Sullivan. It contained a brief biography of Shaw and said the Bureau had information in their files about Shaw’s sexual tendencies, including sadism and masochism. What had been redacted was the following information: Aaron Kohn knew that Shaw was Bertrand! In fact, in this unredacted version of the memo the FBI handprinted below the first paragraph that Shaw was also known as Clay Bertrand.

This is startling in more than one way. First, as mentioned previously, the memo reveals that Kohn, along with another source, had told them Shaw was Bertrand on February 24, 1967. Did Kohn know that Shaw was going to be arrested? Secondly, this reveals that Shaw’s team had to know their client was lying. Because, as anyone who knows that case understands, Kohn was an integral part of that defense. It simply is not credible that he would not inform Shaw’s attorneys, the Wegmanns and Irvin Dymond, of this key fact. Third, this shows that, as I long suspected, Kohn created the whole Clem Sehrt mythology: that a lawyer Marguerite Oswald knew was known as Bertrand. He did this in consultation with the HSCA in order to detract from the fact that he himself knew Shaw was Bertrand. (see HSCA Vol. IX, pp. 99-101)

In other words, today it is a fact that Shaw was Bertrand. The problem with the classification of the information, the lying about it, and the threats to Andrews was that Garrison could not ask Shaw the key question: Why did you call Andrews and ask him to defend Oswald? Because of this new revelation I have a question for Litwin: Did he think he was going to find this crucial information in Aaron Kohn’s files?

---

III

I am not going to go through all the perjury that Shaw committed under oath. But I want to point out another instance of the HSCA trying to conceal key information about Shaw in order to bring Garrison into question. In the HSCA Final Report, the authors vouch for the Clinton/Jackson witnesses––that is, the people who saw Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw in those two villages in the late summer of 1963 about 115 miles northwest of New Orleans. Oswald first visited two persons in the area, Edwin McGehee and Reeves Morgan. He then was seen by numerous people in line to register to vote. He was then witnessed by at least four people inside the hospital at Jackson applying for a job there. This has all been established beyond a shadow of a doubt by Garrison’s inquiry, the HSCA’s further investigation, and by private interviews done by Bill Davy, Joan Mellen and myself.

But to show what the HSCA was up to, in that same report, a couple of pages later, out of the blue, they try and question whether it was really Shaw that was seen there. (HSCA Final Report, p. 145) That report was co-authored by Dick Billings, a man Litwin trusts and freely uses in his book. Originally, the HSCA secret files were classified until 2029. The furor around Oliver Stone’s film JFK opened them in the mid-nineties. What the HSCA report does not reveal is that the identification of Shaw was quite solid. And it is hard to comprehend how the authors of the report didn’t know it. This is due to a fact that, like other important evidentiary points, the HSCA decided to classify at the time. There was an HSCA executive session interview held with one of the key witnesses to the voter registration. Sheriff John Manchester testified that he approached the driver of the car and asked him to identify himself. The driver gave Manchester his license and told him he worked for the International Trade Mart. The license corresponded to the name the driver gave Manchester, which was Clay Shaw. (HSCA Executive Session of 3/14/78)

Litwin’s pal, Hugh Aynesworth––who worked for Shaw’s lawyers for two years––understood just how credible these witnesses were. Through his plants in Garrison’s office, he had a copy of Manchester’s statement to the DA. Hugh drove up to Clinton with his partner, FBI informant Jim Phelan. (DiEugenio, pp. 244-45; Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 235). They located Manchester. Litwin’s “great reporter” Mr. Aynesworth attempted to bribe the sheriff. He offered him a job as a CIA handler in Mexico for $38,000 per year, quite a ducal sum back then. That offer suggests who the “great reporter” was connected to. Manchester replied negatively in a rather terse and direct manner: “I advise you to leave the area. Otherwise I’ll cut you a new asshole.” (Mellen, p. 235)

Because the HSCA found the Clinton/Jackson incident so credible, Litwin tries to say such was not the case. Like Lambert, he has to find a way to question the picture Garrison investigator Anne Dischler found. This depicted a car in proximity to the voter registration office with the New Orleans crew in it. Like Lambert, he says it could have been used as a “powerful brainwashing tool.” (Litwin, p. 121) This is ridiculous. First, that picture had to have been taken by one of the bystanders at the time of the voter registration. Under those circumstances, how could it be termed a brainwashing tool? Second, the Clinton/Jackson witnesses did not surface for Jim Garrison. They talked about the incident previously for congressman John Rarick and publisher Ned Touchstone of The Councilor. (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 227; Davy, p. 115) Reeves Morgan who, along with his two children, was the second witness to meet Oswald, called the FBI and informed them about it right after the assassination. The reply was that the Bureau was already aware of this incident. (Davy, pp. 102-03) There was clearly an agreement from the top down in the Bureau that they would deny the episode in order not to bolster Garrison and continue to hide their own negligence. But today there is little doubt that this guilty Bureau knowledge is how Oswald’s application at the hospital rather quickly disappeared. And we have this now from people in the FBI. (Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, pp. 232-34). No less than four people saw Oswald inside the hospital, directed him to the personnel office, saw him inside the office, and actually saw the employment application he filled out. (DiEugenio, p. 93)

But for me, the capper that certifies this strange but powerful episode is this: Oswald knew the names of at least one, and more likely two, of the doctors who worked at the Jackson State Hospital. And again, the HSCA secret files proved such was the case. When Oswald was questioned by registrar of voters Henry Palmer, Palmer asked him if he had any associates or living quarters in the area. As a result of the JFK Act, amid all the documentation released on the incident, we know that Oswald replied with two names: Malcolm Pierson and Frank Silva. When the HSCA retrieved the 1963 roster of treating physicians at the hospital, both those names were on the list. (Davy, p. 107) How could Oswald have known this? One way would have been through Shaw’s well established relationship with CIA asset Dr. Alton Ochsner, who had a connection to the Jackson hospital. (Davy, p. 112)

---

IV

As I said above, I am not going to go through the entire litany of lies that Shaw uttered in order to mislead the public prior to his trial, and the jury in his testimony under oath. If the reader is interested in that aspect, he will not find the discussion in Litwin’s book. But you will be able to find it here.

Please note that the majority of material used in that presentation was made available by the ARRB. In other words, the FBI and CIA were concealing much information which would have been valuable to Garrison. In fact, in the case of the FBI, they literally verified what Garrison was saying about both Ferrie and especially Shaw. So here is my question to Litwin: if the FBI confirmed what Garrison was investigating, then how could Garrison have been “deluded”? Was the FBI also “deluded”? Was the CIA also “deluded”? In fact, the CIA was so desperate to conceal their relationship with Shaw that they altered and destroyed much of his file. (Davy, p. 200; ARRB memo of 11/14/96 from Manuel Legaspi to Jeremy Gunn) Question: Did Litwin think he was going to find that kind of information in the files of Dick Billings or George Lardner? I think the readers can make up their own mind on that score.

But let me pose the question in a more concrete manner. As we can see from above, Jeremy Gunn was surprised by the fact the Department of Justice was interfering with a local trial conducted by a DA. The reason being that such is usually not the case. Usually, when asked, the federal authorities will do what they can to aid a local investigation. Because of the cover-up instituted by the FBI and the CIA in the Kennedy case, that did not happen here. As the reader can see from that linked PowerPoint presentation, that cover-up applied to Shaw directly.

Now, with all that in the record––which the author could not find in the papers of Irvin Dymond––here is my question to Fred: What if the circumstances had been normal? That is, what if Washington had been helping the DA instead of obstructing him? For example, consider Shaw saying he never used the alias of Bertrand. If Garrison had the FBI document referred to above and showed it to Shaw on the stand, can one imagine the reaction? Can one imagine the follow-up questions? “Mr. Shaw, would you say that Mr. Kohn has been aiding your defense?” And the follow up to that would be: “And he did so knowing you were lying?” The culminating question would have been: “Now that we know you are lying: Why did you call Andrews and tell him to go to Dallas to defend Oswald?” In this author’s measured and informed opinion, under those normal circumstances, Shaw would have been convicted. The problem with the JFK case is that the political circumstances around it make it so radioactive that it clouds the standard rules of evidence and procedure. In fact, as far as the normal rules of investigation and evidence go, the JFK case is the equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle.

My interview with Phil Dyer certifies the defendant’s knowing perjury even further. After Shaw was safe, that is after the judge had thrown out Garrison’s subsequent perjury case against Shaw––which Garrison would have likely won––Shaw met up with an interior designer he knew early one Sunday afternoon in late 1972. Dyer went along with his designer pal to meet Shaw and a female friend. Phil knew a bit about the JFK case and recalled the Shaw trial. Realizing he was out of the woods, Shaw felt free to admit what had really happened. When Phil asked him if he knew Oswald, Shaw replied yes he knew him fairly well, and he was kind of quiet around him. When asked about Oswald’s culpability, and if he could have gotten those shots off as the Warren Commission said he did, Shaw replied that Oswald was just a patsy, and also a double agent. This alone demolishes Shaw’s entire defense at his trial. And Litwin’s book along with it.

But the worst part of all of this Litwinian/Wegmann/Dymond mystification is that people in New Orleans understood it was such at the time. For example, Carlos Bringuier knew that Garrison was on to something big, and that high persons were involved in the assassination. He also knew something else. That Shaw felt confident because “he knew that these high persons would have to defend him.” (DiEugenio, p. 286) Which, as I have proven above, the FBI and CIA did. Here is the unfunny irony: Litwin uses Bringuier as a witness against Garrison in his book. (see Chapter 11: “A Tale of Three Cubans”)

This is one reason why I fail to see the point of Litwin using early Commission critics like Paul Hoch, David Lifton and Sylvia Meagher to knock Garrison (one could add Josiah Thompson to this list). To my knowledge, at that time, none of them had access to Garrison’s files, none of them had visited New Orleans to do any field investigation, and none of them could have possibly had access to the secret FBI and CIA files that were valuable to Garrison’s case. To top it off, to my knowledge none of them later used the Freedom of Information Act to try and attain them. With those qualifications, their comments amount to sheer bombast. Therefore, what was or is the forensic value of Litwin using them in his book? Very early, actually in grade school, students learn the basic axioms of arithmetic. One of them is that since zero has no value, it does not matter how many of them you add to each other: The sum at the end of the addition is still zero. Adding Hoch to Meagher to Lifton, one still comes up with the forensic value of nothing.

But in some ways, the use of these early critics is worse than that, because they not only bought into the MSM line on New Orleans, but with Meagher and Lifton, they contributed to it.

---

V

Which brings us to Litwin’s writings on Kerry Thornley. Litwin’s chapter on Thornley is one of the worst chapters I have read in recent years. And I don’t just mean about Thornley. It’s the worst about any subject in the recent JFK literature that I have read. The majority of his references here come from the writings of Thornley’s friend David Lifton, Adam Gorightly’s pathetic apologia for Thornley, Caught in the Crossfire, and the writings of Thornley himself. Again, what did Litwin think he was going to get from these sources? When you add in the author’s own massive bias, it makes it all the worse. For instance, Litwin tries to explain away Thornley’s extreme rightwing political views by calling him a libertarian. (p. 179) Calling Thornley a libertarian would be like calling Marjorie Taylor Greene a Republican. Thornley was so far right that an acquaintance of his in New Orleans, Bernard Goldsmith, refused to discuss politics with him. (Joe Biles, In History’s Shadow, p. 57)

Litwin also does a neat job of downplaying Thornley’s testimony before the Commission. He doesn’t quote any of it. That’s a good way to make something of important evidentiary value disappear. No one who knew Oswald in the service supplied anywhere near the psychological/pathological/political disposition for Oswald to kill Kennedy as Thornley did––no one was even close. Thornley’s deposition in Volume 11 was 33 pages long and it was separated from the affidavits of those who knew Oswald in the service, both in Japan and at Santa Ana, California. In fact, Thornley’s highly pejorative testimony was grouped with that of New Orleans radio host Bill Stuckey, who––as we have seen––helped bushwhack Oswald in a radio debate; an affidavit by Ruth Paine, whose home produced so much incriminating evidence against Oswald; and another by Howard Brennan, the man the Commission used to place Oswald in the sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository. That should tell the reader just how the Commission viewed Thornley––what with his depiction that Oswald wanted to die knowing he was a somebody, and Oswald wanted to go down in history books so people would know who he was 10,000 years from now. (Vol. 11, pp. 97, 98)

This is what Kerry was there to do, and Commission lawyer Albert Jenner admitted it with Thornley right in front of him. (Vol. 11, p. 102) Jenner said he wanted Thornley to give them a motivation for Oswald. Which Kerry supplied in excelsis. To excise this is another example of Litwin’s plastic surgery. But in addition to milking Thornley to smear Oswald, the Commission also covered up areas that they should have investigated about the witness. This included topics like: did Thornley communicate with Oswald after they left each other in the service; did Thornley tell Oswald about Albert Schweitzer College in Europe, a place where Oswald was supposed to have applied to, but never attended; did Oswald meet with Thornley in New Orleans; and why did Thornley suggest that Oswald was about five inches shorter than he was when, in fact, they were approximately the same height? You will not find any of these key evidentiary points in Litwin’s chapter. But they help explain why Thornley was tracked down by both the FBI and Secret Service within about 36 hours of the assassination. Thornley himself said that the agencies had just cause to suspect he was involved in the assassination, though that line of inquiry was quickly dropped. But incriminating Oswald so thoroughly before the Commission gave him the opportunity to urinate on Kennedy’s grave at nearby Arlington Cemetery. (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 78)

Litwin is so incontinent to smear Garrison that he recites the whole mildewed rigamarole about the DA suspecting that somehow John Rene Heindel––who talked to Oswald once at Atsugi air base in Japan––was lying to him and the DA was laying a perjury trap for the man through Thornley. (Litwin p. 177) This idea was furthered by Gorightly. If one reads the grand jury transcript of Heindel, it is exposed as pure bunk. What was really happening is that Thornley was so off in what he was saying about Heindel that it caused Garrison to suspect that Thornley was part of the cover-up––which he was. And Thornley did not just do his act before the Commission. In one of his many perjuries before Jenner, Thornley said that he had seen the Butler/Bringuier debate tape with Oswald while he just happened to be standing in a TV studio in New Orleans. (Volume 11, p. 100)

Wisely, Jenner did not pursue that statement. Because it turned out to be a lie. Through the testimony of radio program director Cliff Hall, Garrison discovered that Thornley was not just loitering around WDSU TV in the wake of the assassination. He was doing the same thing his pals Bringuier and Butler were doing in the immediate aftermath of Kennedy’s murder. He was smearing Oswald as a communist in a TV interview at the station. Around this opportune time, Thornley made similar pejorative statements to the New Orleans States Item newspaper. He said Oswald was made a killer by the Marines and the accused assassin was also schizophrenic and a “little psychotic.” (New Orleans States Item, 11/27/63) This is months before his appearance before the Commission.

But Cliff Hall said something that is probably even more relevant to the subject at hand, and it exposes Litwin’s avoidance even further. He said that he and Thornley went out for a drink after that TV interview. Before the Commission, Kerry told Jenner he had not seen Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. (WC Vol. 11, p. 109) He confessed to Hall that this was another lie. He had seen Oswald in New Orleans that summer. When Hall asked if he knew Oswald well, Thornley––like Clay Shaw––replied that he did. (Hall interview with Richard Burness, January 10, 1968)

But in the Kennedy case, just when you think they can’t, things always get worse. And it reveals another perjury by Thornley. As I have indicated above, Thornley’s raison d’être for testifying before the Commission was to dutifully produce his portrait of Oswald as the dedicated Marxist. He came through in spades. Yet Thornley knew that this was also false. He told two witnesses that Oswald was not a communist. (see Biles, pp. 58, 59)

As per the idea that Thornley could have been the model used in the infamous backyard photographs, no one will ever really know the truth about that aspect. But the idea that it could be Thornley was not just Garrison’s. Many years ago, in Las Vegas, it was told to a reporter for Probe magazine, Dave Manning. The information was supplied by none other than Jack Ruby’s acquaintance Breck Wall. Ruby called Wall––the local head of the American Guild of Variety Artists––four times in November of 1963. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 469) As Bill Davy writes, “Ruby’s last long distance phone call during a weekend of frenzied phone call activity was to Breck Wall in Galveston.” (Davy, p. 46) Wall had arrived in Galveston just a few minutes after David Ferrie.

The above points out one of the worst aspects of this book. To anyone who knows New Orleans, Litwin’s portraits of important personages are simply not realistic. They are in fact cheap caricatures. This is acceptable for someone like the late Steve Ditko, who drew Marvel comic books. It is not acceptable for someone who is passing his book off as a work in the non-fiction crime genre. This caricaturing also underlines that, as others have alerted me, Litwin likes to troll on certain forums. One message he left is that Garrison did not give his files to any archives since it would have exposed them as being empty. This is a doubly false statement. Garrison gave many of his files to Bud Fensterwald at the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC). Secondly, the materials used above to impeach Thornley came from Garrison’s files. Besides Hall, there are four other witnesses who saw Oswald with Thornley that summer in New Orleans. (For a further demolition of this chapter, with more of Garrison’s files, see this article)

Thornley was lying about his association with Oswald. He was also lying about his association with those in the network around Oswald that summer in New Orleans. What is important from what I have demonstrated so far about Ferrie, Shaw and Thornley is this: When someone is lying under oath in order to exculpate themselves, those statements are not supposed to be set aside or ignored. Leaving the chimerical world of Litwin/Hoch behind, let us quote a real life colloquy from two experienced professionals on the subject:

Q: False exculpatory statements are used for what?

A: Well, either substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Q: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

A: That is right. (CNBC story by Arriana McLymore, 7/7/2016)

That piece of dialogue was between two veteran prosecutors: the questioner was Trey Gowdy, the respondent was James Comey. Comey was a federal prosecutor for about 18 years and then Director of the FBI. Gowdy was a federal and state prosecutor for a combined 16 years. Through their provable lies, the consciousness of guilt was there in the cases of Thornley, Shaw and Ferrie. I don’t see how it gets worse than looking for evidence that places you with Oswald, or your own defense team covering up the truth about your alias. The point was that Garrison never got to show what the intent of the lies were. But that exchange reminds us all of what proper legal procedure is, and how it has been utterly lost in the JFK case. It was distorted beyond recognition by people with political agendas. And it began with J. Edgar Hoover and those on the Commission, like Thornley’s pal Mr. Jenner.

After suffering through Litwin’s phantasmagoria with Thornley, I was ready to walk the book out to the trash bin behind my apartment. Instead, I decided to take a few days off. I had to in order to recover my damaged sensibilities. I gutted it up and got a second wind. I then managed to finish the book. I hope the reader appreciates that sacrificial effort.

---

VI

In the second part of the book, besides Thornley, the author deals with Carlos Bringuier, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos Quiroga, Clyde Johnson, Edgar Eugene Bradley, Thomas Beckham and Robert Perrin.

All one needs to know about the first three is this: I could detect no mention of Rose Cherami in the book. Why is that important? Because Arcacha Smith was later identified as being one of the two men in the car who disposed of Cherami near Eunice, Louisiana on the way to Dallas right before Kennedy was killed. As everyone knows, including Litwin, Cherami predicted the JFK assassination before it happened. That uncanny prognostication was based upon what Smith and his cohort, fellow Cuban exile Emilio Santana, were discussing in the car. (DiEugenio, p. 182) What made this even more fascinating was that the HSCA learned that the Dallas Police had found diagrams of the sewer system under Dealey Plaza in Arcacha Smith’s apartment after the assassination. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 237) In a 1998 Coalition on Political Assassinations conference, John Judge revealed that Penn Jones actually did crawl through that sewer system in the sixties. One should then add in the evidence that Ferrie had a map of Dealey Plaza in his desk drawer at work. (DiEugenio, p. 216) To most people, right there you have more evidence of a conspiracy. All of it made possible by Garrison’s investigation. Which leads to the question one has to ponder: Who the heck is deluded here? As we shall see, it’s not Garrison.

Quiroga and Bringuier were associated with Oswald through the famous Canal Street confrontation between Oswald and Bringuier. The latter was the head of the DRE in New Orleans and Quiroga was his aide-de-camp. In early August, Oswald met Bringuier at his retail clothing store, insinuating he could help his anti-Castro organization. (John Newman, Oswald and the CIA, pp. 323-24) Later, when Bringuier heard Oswald was leafleting pro-Castro literature on Canal Street, he rode over and violently confronted him about this alleged betrayal. Oswald and Bringuier were arrested. Even though it was Bringuier who accosted Oswald, he posted bail, pleaded innocent and eventually walked. Oswald pleaded guilty, was booked and jailed, and was later fined in court. One of the flyers Oswald passed out on Canal was stamped with the address 544 Camp Street, Guy Banister’s office. Further, the DRE was conceived, created and funded by the CIA under the code name AMPSPELL. (Newman, pp. 325, 333)

As indicated above, the episode is much more interesting, much more multi-layered, than what Litwin presents it as. First off, Oswald wrote about it on August 4^th, five days before it happened. (Tony Summers, Conspiracy, p. 303) Second, Bringuier maintained that he had sent Quiroga over to Oswald’s apartment to return a couple of dropped leaflets and to infiltrate his group. Both Quiroga and Bringuier screwed up the timing of this mission to the Warren Commission. They said this event occurred after Oswald’s next street leafleting episode, on August 16^th in front of the International Trade Mart. It happened before that. (Ray and Mary LaFontaine, Oswald Talked, p. 162) This is made more interesting by another misrepresentation. Oswald’s landlady said that when Quiroga arrived, he did not just have one or two leaflets. She described what he had as a stack perhaps 5 or 6 inches high. (LaFontaine, p. 162)

As noted previously, things always get worse in the JFK case. When Richard Case Nagell, who tried to stop the assassination from happening, was first interviewed by Garrison’s office, he made a rather compelling revelation. He told Garrison’s representative, William Martin, that he had an audiotape of four men in New Orleans talking about an assassination plot against Kennedy. He named one of them as Arcacha; he would only describe another of the men as “Q”. Which would strongly denote Quiroga. (NODA Memo of 4/16/67 from William Martin to Garrison)

Instead of the above, what does the author give us? More sludge from writers like Gus Russo, Shaw’s lawyers and Aaron Kohn. This includes nonsense like the claim Gordon Novel was hired by Walter Sheridan to introduce the TV producer to people in the city, and smears of Garrison’s inquiry by FBI informant Merriman Smith, who Litwin does not reveal is working with the Bureau against Garrison. (see the letter by Smith to Cartha DeLoach of 3/6/67) Or bizarre material about Garrison’s attempt to interview Arcacha Smith in Dallas, which leaves out the prime role of Aynesworth in protecting the suspect. (see LaFontaine, pp. 341-45) The capper to it all is that Litwin writes that Ferrie’s anti-Castro activities ended in 1961, when, in fact, Ferrie admitted he was involved with Operation Mongoose, which began in 1962. (NODA Interview with Herbert Wagner 12/6/67)

As far as Clyde Johnson’s meeting with Shaw under the alias of Alton Bernard in Baton Rouge, Litwin relies on––I am not joking––Aynesworth to say Ruby was not in the city at the proper time. His other source for this, and again I am serious, is Ruby’s sister Eva Grant. (Litwin, p. 196) He also adds that there is no proper source for Johnson being beaten to a pulp on the eve of his taking the stand at the Shaw trial. In fact, the source for this is an unpublished manuscript by a former Garrison volunteer named Jim Brown. His manuscript, titled Central Intelligence Assassination, was full of inside information on the workings of Garrison’s office, including the fact that Garrison was so worried about Johnson being attacked before his appearance that he hid him outside the city at a college dormitory.

The surveillance on Garrison’s office was so thorough that, even under those conditions, the witness was located and beaten. This may have been due to either the previously noted FBI wiretapping, or the CIA’s ultra-secret ‘black tape’ operation. This was a project originating from the office of counter-intelligence chief James Angleton. It began in September of 1967 and continued until March of 1969, at the trial’s completion. According to Malcolm Blunt, the heading ‘black tape’ indicates that it was very closely held at CIA HQ––on a need-to-know basis––and there was no field office access. The folders originally stated they would not be moved from counter-intelligence (CI) and, incredibly, not released to the public until 2017––and then only with CI approval. Which means, they were most likely deep-sixed. This is a sorry part of the story that Litwin avoids at all costs: namely the surveillance and assaults on Garrison’s witnesses before, during and immediately after the trial. This included Johnson, Nagell, police officer Aloysius Habighorst, two of the Clinton/Jackson witnesses and Dealey Plaza witness, Richard Randolph Carr. (DiEugenio, p. 294; Alex P. Serritella, Johnson Did It, p. 279)

The cases of Perrin and Bradley were faux pas that were largely the result of another facet of the infiltration which permitted the harassment just described, and which again Litwin discounts. This would be the horrendous influence on Garrison by CIA infiltrator William Wood aka Bill Boxley. In fact, one can pretty much say that without Boxley those two episodes would not have occurred. There is little doubt today that Boxley was an agent. And in my review of his role in my book, where I included the Perrin and Bradley cases––along with other areas––I proffered substantial evidence that such was the case. (DiEugenio, pp. 278-85)

As per Thomas Beckham and his cohort Fred Crisman, no one will ever know the truth about them. Larry Haapanen, who––surprisingly––wrote a blurb for Litwin, was not the only investigator of the duo. Former CIA pilot Jim Rose also did work on them, especially Crisman. The problem with this subject area is a common theme with the Garrison inquiry––those files, like many others, have largely disappeared. Garrison said that Boxley had taken them. (Litwin, p. 216). The DA also referred to this in the fine John Barbour documentary The Garrison Tapes. But the late JFK photo analyst Richard Sprague told this reviewer that this was not the end of their exit from the record. Sprague said that in the cache of documents the DA donated to Bud Fensterwald and the AARC, the Crisman records also managed to walk away. (1993 personal interview with Sprague in Virginia)

I must add that I did get to see some of the late Jim Rose’s documents about Crisman and Beckham when Lisa Pease and I interviewed him in San Luis Obispo in 1996. To say the least, Crisman appeared to be an interesting character. I saw no indication in Litwin’s text describing Crisman, or in his related notes, that he ever saw these documents. Which means, to put it kindly, his analysis and conclusions in the area are incomplete. As we have seen, for Litwin, that is actually an improvement.