Quote:Groden also says that Lt. Commander Bruce Pitzer filmed the entire autopsy on 16 mm black and white film. He was working on an edit when he was murdered in his office on October 29, 1966. He then adds that "the murderer stole the film and it hasn't been seen since." (ibid, p. 301) It took Pitzer three years to edit an autopsy film? But beyond that, the men Groden relies upon for this version of the Pitzer story, Dan Marvin and Dennis David, have some credibility problems. No one has done more work on the Pitzer case than the estimable Allan Eaglesham. And his final essay on the subject reveals the problems with the testimony of these two men.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/groden_book.html

All in all, a decidedly mixed bag of goodies.

Many valuable things, and also some things that are decidedly not so valuable: the McCone Rowley document

In deference to Robert, I measured the review on the side of kindness.

Albert Doyle Wrote:As much I respect DiEugenio and his position as a foremost authority on the Assassination I think he should be called on this:

Quote:Groden also says that Lt. Commander Bruce Pitzer filmed the entire autopsy on 16 mm black and white film. He was working on an edit when he was murdered in his office on October 29, 1966. He then adds that "the murderer stole the film and it hasn't been seen since." (ibid, p. 301) It took Pitzer three years to edit an autopsy film? But beyond that, the men Groden relies upon for this version of the Pitzer story, Dan Marvin and Dennis David, have some credibility problems. No one has done more work on the Pitzer case than the estimable Allan Eaglesham. And his final essay on the subject reveals the problems with the testimony of these two men.

I've read Eaglesham and don't find his overly-critical, subjective arguments convincing, or even sound. Martin Hay basically argues the Eaglesham perspective. When I debated with Hay he concluded I had a "hard-on for him" as his summation. Hay refuses to answer some basic questions about Pitzer. His devil's advocate position is no different than Greg Parker's recent efforts. I think it is a major mistake to discredit the CIA murder of Pitzer, its reasons, evidence, and motive. I just can't figure out why DiEugenio, such a firm source on the assassination, would come up against the Pitzer hit and accept such dismissive reasoning that he is normally pretty good at detecting? The Pitzer assassination should be obvious for what it is, that is the murder of someone who had serious film evidence against the Bethesda plotters. And I'm not sure why anyone would call Dennis David uncredible? How smart is it to play hardball on lack of evidence when that evidence was intentionally erased by those who murdered Pitzer? By the way Hay is a regular conversant friend of Amazon comments section Lone Nutter Patrick Collins and communicates privately with him in England. I mean what does it take to question those who attack Pitzer? Friendly relations with Paul May or McAdams? What is going on here? It's one thing to demand well-researched and documented evidence but it's another to deny some of the worst cases of victimization in the assassination.