Conflicts between researchers. Why?

[Richard Coleman]

I also had a copy of the original Turner/Christian RFK book years ago. It was fabulous. Turner always impressed me with what he wrote and interviews he gave.

That said............Joan Mellen, as we all know, has done fabulous research. She also has her biases. Two people she seems to despise are Robert Kennedy and....Bill Turner. From "A Farewell To Justice":

quote on

One day Turner was leafing through Garrison's "crank file" when he found a letter from a man named Thomas Thornhill.


Believing there was something dubious about this lead, which incriminated a man named Edgar Eugene Bradley in the assassination, Assistant District Attorney Mike Karamazin had tucked it away deep in Garrison's filing cabinet. There Turner unearthed it. Although it addressed neither Clay Shaw's, David Ferrie's, nor Oswald's intelligence connections, Turner pronounced this lead viable. The California volunteers had begun to steer Jim Garrison to those false names "smoked" by Gerald Patrick Hemming, disobeying Garrison's order: "I don't care about who the shooters were. I care about who the planners were." No greater disservice was done to Jim Garrison's work than Turner's and Boxley's targeting of Edgar Eugene Bradley. [my emphasis - RC]

[..................]



Describing his own investigation as only a beginning, Garrison stated that he did not want personally "to get into the act." He hoped to help Fonzi "avoid the mistakes" he had made, to "separate out the false leads and identify the Greek coming in with the gifts." He was particularly bitter about Bill Turner who, "using false statements," and a "totally false picture," had led him to charge Edgar Eugene Bradley mistakenly.

[............]


Fonzi had his own doubts once Turner told him about a supposed meeting between Enrique ("Harry") Ruiz Williams, E. Howard Hunt and Richard Helms in a CIA safe house in Washington, D.C., on the very morning of the assassination as they planned a second Bay of Pigs. It seemed to Fonzi that Turner was directing him back to a CIA story discarded even by the Warren Commission, that Fidel Castro had ordered the assassination.

quote off

There is more. Perhaps Jim D. could shed some light on this. Either Joan or everybody else is way off the mark......

[Peter Lemkin]

I am also a friend of Joan, but I personally don't find it in great taste to 'dance on the grave of Bill Turner' on this thread, even if you put it politely, as you indeed have. Anyone who has researched in this field knows that bitter and sometimes illogical [sometimes not] clashes/grudges often occur for a variety of reasons....some due to differences of opinion or tactics/style; some by disruption agents interfering; and lots of other categories I can think of. And we have all made mistakes and we have all at times been mistaken. Maybe because I knew Bill personally, I think this not the place. But do as you see fit. I'm not going to get into what I think was involved in that incident here/now. Why not open a new thread on that, if you want.....

[Jim DiEugenio]

I deal with this issue in Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 280-85.

I ditto the sentiments above.

[Tracy Riddle]

It just seems to be human nature to disagree and argue, especially between two people who otherwise agree on many things. You see it everywhere: religion, politics, science, you name it.

[Lauren Johnson]

It just seems to be human nature to disagree and argue, especially between two people who otherwise agree on many things. You see it everywhere: religion, politics, science, you name it.

I disagree. ::

[Albert Doyle]

It has to do with egos and politics.

[Richard Coleman]

Please, folks. I'm not "dancing on anybody's grave". As I thought I'd made clear, I LIKE Bill Turner. Mentioning Joan's criticism of him was not an endorsement!


Joan Mellen is an important voice in the research community. The occasion of Turner's passing seemed to me an opportune time to point out what I consider a biased and unfair attack by this voice. (If Von Pein or McAdams or Posner slammed Bill Turner, who would care?) "Newbies" interested in the Garrison case will undoubtedly find their way to her book (there aren't that many) and thus encounter her negative assessment. She has done excellent research as everybody acknowledges and is thus very credible. Her attack should be answered, as was her defense of McAdams vis a vis his shameful shenanigans attacking Cheryl Abbate at Marquette.


I'm not trying to pick a fight with anybody, and I'm sorry if some of you think I am.