The State of the Case: by Jim DiEugenio

[Albert Doyle]

Feister's work depends on the authenticity of the Z-film, which, after Horne's Inside the ARRB and other works, is very much a debatable point. Her particular form of psychobabble regarding the limo stop has all the depth of a parking-lot puddle.

Without taking an opinion on Feister, to me Crenshaw's insistence on witnessing a tangential wound that entered near the front right temple and exited through the infamous McClelland wound automatically qualifies the legitimacy of the Zapruder Film to the degree of making even Fetzer's claims possible. This wound was witnessed by Pitzer and Dennis David. The reason they probably left the back and to the left jerk in the final film is because they couldn't get away with removing that much, so they buried it at LIFE instead. Pat Speer fails to realize Hill looked down into this wound in the limo and the nurse at Parkland failed to see any damage to the parietal area.

I would say DiEugenio's failure to credit Horne is the far more egregious omission, but then, alas, Horne is a "Liftonite." Certainly DiEugenio's State of the Case is a good effort, but to this reader very much an incomplete account.

DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed is a cracking of the case and exoneration of Garrison. Horne cracks the autopsy evidence by showing the falsified brain evidence at Bethesda is proof of conspiracy at the government level. This is important because it excludes some of the popular false sponsor suspects who couldn't have controlled the cover-up inside Bethesda.

[Jim DiEugenio]

The article was never meant to be a summary of where we are.

It was only supposed to be a precis.

In fact, one editor who wants to run it has already asked to abridge it.

Its started an interesting debate over at JFK Facts.

Do you believe that some of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots really try and spread the line that I am not really an historian?

[Tracy Riddle]

The article was never meant to be a summary of where we are.

It was only supposed to be a precis.

In fact, one editor who wants to run it has already asked to abridge it.

Its started an interesting debate over at JFK Facts.

Do you believe that some of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots really try and spread the line that I am not really an historian?

That Photon troll in the comments is really a piece of work.

[Daniel Gallup]

edits: 1.paragraph beginning with Newman, second sentence, 'along the *why," 2. subsequent paragraph, 4th sentence, beginning with Therefore. 3. paragrpah beginning with 'What makes the shell evidence', 4th sentence, 'extracted from a*weapons",

thanks for the article, especially like the indictment of the msm.

interesting omission in your evidenciary rundown--Feister's work. Any significance there?

Feister's work depends on the authenticity of the Z-film, which, after Horne's Inside the ARRB and other works, is very much a debatable point. Her particular form of psychobabble regarding the limo stop has all the depth of a parking-lot puddle. I would say DiEugenio's failure to credit Horne is the far more egregious omission, but then, alas, Horne is a "Liftonite." Certainly DiEugenio's State of the Case is a good effort, but to this reader very much an incomplete account.

I have it on good authority that she- Sherry Feister- obtained her "credentials" from some mail order op. (Not naming my source however.) And this is second hand so I should be hesitant in posting it.

Dawn

Her credentials, be they ever so splendid, are useless if they are employed in the analysis of a piece of fakery.

[Jim DiEugenio]

The article was never meant to be a summary of where we are.

It was only supposed to be a precis.

In fact, one editor who wants to run it has already asked to abridge it.

Its started an interesting debate over at JFK Facts.

Do you believe that some of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots really try and spread the line that I am not really an historian?

That Photon troll in the comments is really a piece of work.

Does anyone know who that really is? He sounds like maybe Paul May, or David Von Pein.

He challenges my credentials. But then he won't even reveal his own name. Is that rich?

[Ivan De Mey]

Jim, Photon has already been exposed on Jefferson Morley's site:

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/d.../#comments

Check out JSA's comment in that thread:

"I don't think Photon's (aka Paul May, Cindy Targus etc. see reference here:
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/jfklancer.htm) job is to supply facts. His job is to throw doubt into the debate whenever and wherever the Warren Commission (aka CIA) findings on JFK's assassination come into real doubt. In the rare moments when he is completely defeated in an argument (such as when I pointed out that Clint Hill gave testimony about Jackie Kennedy climbing onto the back of the car to retrieve a portion of JFK's skull and that brain matter and blood was spattered all across the back of the limousine), Photon is silent. Another time he never answered back was when I carefully pointed out that Senator Barry Goldwater did leave Washington, D.C. during the October crisis in the Middle East, in 1973. Photon said he hadn't. I pointed out that Barry appeared on the Dean Martin Show that month. Again, silence. It seems to me that "Photon" is taking a page in Lone Nutter tactics from John McAdams. To do this, you smear, smear, smear anyone (Mark Lane, Robert Groden) who brings up information contrary to the Official Warren Commission Report. It's not an objective exchange of ideas that these people want. Their job seems to be to sow dissent and confusion, like a kind of internet "Operation Mongoose" guerrilla fight. It works when it drives thoughtful people away, people who might contribute really valuable insight or information about the case."


Photons comment after that: "Well, you caught me." So he's really Paul May. I have to admit I never heard of him, but then I've only been following JFK-forums for the last 3-4 years.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks so much.

[Dawn Meredith]

Thanks so much.

Really: Why would Paul May not use his real name? If that even is his real name.
He's all over the Ed forum.
I suspect he'd be very afraid to debate you in public Jim.
But if he did it would be fun to see.
Of course we don't permit his kind here.
And your plug got pulled there for reasons I have yet to discern.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

Paul May uses several aliases at different forums. Because he has been ejected from more than one place because he uses very insulting language and makes up stuff to demean his opponent. I know at least one person who was thinking of suing him.

Like in this instance, he says I really don't have any special training as an historian. This is libelous. In the sense that it is false, its done with reckless disregard of the truth, and with malignant intent. In fact, I do have an MA in Contemporary US History from CSUN. I even named my two faculty advisors, who are both still alive. One of them, professor emeritus Paul Koistenon, has written something like a five volume set on the rise of the Military Industrial Complex. He was my principal advisor since his field of expertise matched my interest, modern American History. Here is his amazon page:

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-A.-C.-Koistinen/e/B001HML88I

There are also pages up on projects for my other adviser, Ron Davis.

Glad to see they are still around if I need them for witnesses in a civil action. I for one am a bit tired of the other side lying about who we are and what we do. Plus they do it under cowardly aliases?

I don't know why Jeff Morley allows aliases, because its so easy for a troll like May to come on and you think he is genuine and he turns out to be a troll, who is simply out to lower the debate and smear people.

As per me and Scully and Simkin, I used one post here on that. I think its so stupid and hypocritical that its not worth discussing. But in deference to Dawn, here goes again:

The ostensible reason was that Albarelli complained to Simkin that me and Scully were criticizing his new (crappy) book on the JFK case. Simkin then banned me and Scully. The reason he said was that because we were so critical he could not get authors there for interviews.

Here is my question: What authors have been interviewed there since? None that I can see.

In my opinion, this was simply a pretext to get rid of us over Janney.

Anyway, this caused a mini civil war. And several good people raised a huge first amendment ruckus. And they either voluntarily left or got banned, like Martin Hay and Robert C Dunne.

So Simkin then shut down the forum completely. Lifton started complaining because he said he used it for research purposes. So Simkin brought it back. But if you look at it now, so many good people are gone that its pretty much worthless as far as research goes. The one thread that has any real value is the Sean Murphy, Prayer Man one. And now, OMG, Trejo is back I see. Whew.

He really should shut it down. Its pretty much worthless now. Especially since he eliminated so many posts by good people.

Its funny, because Hasan Yusuf emailed me after it happened and said words to the effect , its none of my business Jim, but I can tell you right now, this will hurt him more than it will hurt you.

I think he was right.

[Marc Ellis]

I think this is worth a long quote. JDE gives a concise summation of the state of the prosecutor's case from 'Reclaiming Parkland'.

"So let's add up the prosecutor's case. No witness at Parkland or "Bethesda ever saw the red spot at the cowlick in 1963. No witness who saw the X-rays at Bethesda recalls the 6.5 mm fragment. The autopsists manipulated the scalp from the skull and say the entry bullet hole was well below it. No other corroborating physical evidence on the X-rays jibes with this new location"

"it is important to quote a standard guide to court procedure. 'McCormick on Evidence'.
It reads in part:

[re:] "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence"

. . a photograph is viewed merely as graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness."121

Can one imagine presenting the 6.5 mm fragment in court when the X-ray technicians and autopsists deny its existence?"


Excerpt From: DiEugenio, James. "Reclaiming Parkland." Skyhorse Publishing. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.


Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/reclaim...0839?mt=11