Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland

[Jim DiEugenio]

Over at Washington Decoded there is a review of the Don Carpenter book on Clay Shaw.

I tried reading this thing many months ago. When I got to World War 2, I had to stop. I realized what the guy was up to. There was not one mention of James Bacque.

Why is this important? As I explained in Reclaiming Parkland, Bacque uncovered the fact that there was a giant cover up about what the US military did to German prisoners of war at the end. He then wrote an explosive book about it which was examined in advance and endorsed by historian Steve Ambrose. Ambrose said he could not deny the significance of the work since Bacque had the evidence. Of course, after a visit to a military academy, Ambrose changed his mind--after all you don't get on TV and in the NYT if you back subversive work like this. But Bacque kept all the letters Ambrose wrote him praising his work and showed him up for the giant hypocrite he was.

Why is this significant? Because as Bacque shows, Clay Shaw's commanding officer was involved in this crime. Which, as his book Other Losses demonstrates, was covered up by the military. Well Carpenter completely ignores this. He swallows the cover up. Which was enough for me to stop reading. I mean if he was going to ignore that revealing episode, I mean what was he going to do with Clinton-Jackson, Permindex, Shaw's covert security clearance with DOD, the CIA lying about his actual Agency status etc.

Wallace Milam furthered my initial reaction to Carpenter and his cover up book. Wallace told me that Carpenter got in contact with him about the Holland McCombs collection at a university near his house in Tennessee. McCombs was an executive at Life who knew Shaw and was part of the secret reinvestigation by that magazine into the Kennedy case in 1966. Wallace told me, "Jim, I knew where Carpenter was headed with that thing after the first time I talked to him." Wallace was a very good JFK researcher who retired from the field in his late sixties.

Well, Stephen Roy or Dave Blackburst (which I think was his alias at one time) now went over to Holland's site to give Carpenter's cover up book a positive review. (Which, of course, Jefferson Morley featured on his site.) Boy does that say a lot about Roy/Blackburst and this book. Holland is one of the very worst of, what I call today, the Warren Commission Crazies. I mean McAdams (the student teacher terrorizer) actually negatively reviewed the Douglass book there. We all know what Holland is about don't we? The CIA gave him an award.

In this review, Blatburst/Roy tries to turn back the clock to the days of James Kirkwood. He says that, as Carpenter shows, the only evidence against Shaw is the testimony of Perry Russo.

Oh really? What was Shaw doing with Ferrie and Oswald in Clinton-Jackson? Where literally dozens of witnesses saw them, and where he showed Sheriff Manchester his ID? Were they shopping around for farmland?

What about Clyde Johnson, who was actually supposed to be Garrison's prime witness, so important that JG hid him away at a college dorm. The CIA found out about this and beat the living daylights out of him on the eve of the trial. So much so that he couldn't testify. Johnson said that Shaw told him to keep on writing incendiary speeches about Kennedy so as to attract him to come down south. Maybe Carpenter thinks Shaw wanted JFK's autograph?

What about Shaw's scheduling of a trip to the San Francisco Trade Mart on the 22nd. Shaw had never met Monroe Sullivan, the director of that organization before. But Shaw wanted to put on a luncheon and he agreed to pay for everything. When the news came in that Kennedy had been shot, Sullivan was stunned. Shaw conveyed no reaction. When the news came in that Kennedy was dead, Sullivan asked Shaw if he still wanted to go through with his luncheon, and Shaw said yes he did. Sullivan never forgot Shaw's incredibly cool reaction to the shock of Kennedy's murder. Shaw lied--one of many-- about who invited who at his trial.

I could go on and on. But most of this is in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. Its pretty clear now where Roy/Blatburst is coming from. He has been promoting his upcoming book for years and years now, and promoting himself as a great researcher and unbiased adjudicator of evidence in this case. Yep, and so is Max Holland. One is judged by where one chooses to write and who one wishes to promote.

If anyone had any doubts about Roy/Blatburst and his upcoming book, they are now dispelled. Its going to be a straight Oswald did it tome. Which is just untenable today. Roy/Blatburst is going to be our next version of Leslie Nielson doing his "Nothing to see here" act, as the building behind him burns wildly in the night with explosions going off.

[Albert Doyle]

The EF welcomes those rats under the guise of objectivity.



Garrison had the right people as Destiny Betrayed more than proves. A book that gets ignored in broad daylight while the system promotes the trolls. Rotten country, America, isn't it?


The US first planned a draconian Morgenthau Plan for post war Germany that would make sure it never repeated any World War plans again. This modified by the time the Germans lost but was still partly carried out by rounding-up German soldiers and placing them in open camps surrounded by guards and barbed wire with no shelter or food. Sort of just huddled and starved and exposed to death. Nobody was a fan of the Nazis after what they had done, but this was a serious war crime. I read Other Losses.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Bacque's book was a marvel of research. I never saw a book that was so much based on raw declassified data. The references were almost all to boxes and files in the National Archives. The only thing I read that ever came close was Newman's Oswald and the CIA.

Shaw's commanding officer was part of that operation Albert refers to. Shaw himself admitted he was this guy's aide de camp;it was in his Who's Who entry.

After and during the WC, Shaw, like Ferrie, never thought that anyone would ever get onto their relationship with Oswald. I mean, Banister essentially told Delphine Roberts there was going to be a cover up. The FBI let Ferrie lie his head off to them after Garrison turned him over. So Shaw got careless with his Who's Who entry, which also listed his association with Permindex.

He wised up later. Because his entry disappeared after 1964.

With all we know about Shaw today, how anyone could try and whitewash the guy is astonishing. That anyone could endorse a new millennium whitewash, that may be even moreso. But what does one expect from Max Holland and his crowd.

[Albert Doyle]

You're talking about a public that doesn't mind if O'Reilly flagrantly lies.

[Lauren Johnson]

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks for this. What the US did was even worse than I remembered.

BTW, did you note toward the end that after Other Losses came out, he had another book he wanted to market. But had a lot of trouble doing it. Then a secret KGB agent came over and stole some of his stuff.

Not positive, but this would be after the fall of the Soviet Union. Which is usually given as 1989.

I don't think Russia was a big target audience for Bacque. Therefore, this guy was probably doubling for the USA. I touched on this on Len's show Thursday with the Mitrokin Archives.

That is how dangerous Bacque's work is.

[Lauren Johnson]

.pdf of Other Losses

[Magda Hassan]

Ooooh! Thanks for this Lauren ::

[Jim DiEugenio]

Getting back to my original point, the last thing that this case needs today is more agenda guided books on New Orleans or anything else.

We have a review by Martin Hay of the new Ayton/Von Pein book coming up at ctka. Talk about Warren Commission Crazies. I mean these guys take the cake.

What we need now is books that look at the new evidence, or build upon writers who have used that new evidence. What people like Ayton/Von Pein, Carpenter and Blatburst/Roy do is play to the crowd on an old accordion that is out of tune and will need be restored.

For example, what David Josephs is doing at CTKA with MC is something that is new and valuable. He is making the case, more strongly than ever, that Oswald did not go to MC. Or if he did, it was not the way the WC and CIA said so.

BTW, in regard to this, I used to have a letter from Helms to Hoover written in March of 1964 that essentially said, "Hoover will you stop your agents from inspecting what was going on down there. We will handle it." In other words, the FBI was trying to find the evidence trail to put Oswald in Mexico. The problem was the official story was so full of holes, that it was really Swiss Cheese with more holes than cheese.

Well David is taking that further than anyone has.

[Albert Doyle]

We have a review by Martin Hay of the new Ayton/Von Pein book coming up at ctka. Talk about Warren Commission Crazies. I mean these guys take the cake.

They take the fruit cake. lol


What Von Pein calls an intellectual argument is waving his hand and mocking "Two brains fantasy" instead of answering the evidence.