Search
  • Fred Litwin

James DiEugenio Misses the Point ... Again!

James DiEugenio has had a meltdown over my analysis of his scholarship.


He has blocked me on Facebook:

"Let me make an announcement after my latest comments about Fred and his mentor Paul Hoch. These will be my last remarks about Litwin. The Quick magazine BS was it. Anyway, I think I have done what I set out to do: which was to expose him as a used car salesman on the JFK case. In fact, someone at EF [Education Forum] just pictured him as such. I don't see any point in continuing this exchange with a dumpster diver, now that I -- and Matt {Douthit] and [David} Mantik- - have exposed him for what and who he is: a phony from the start. The only way I will ever do this again is if he 1.) Writes another book on the case, or related cases, or 2.) Agrees to debate me live. But as of now, I am done dealing with Freddie Boy. As promised, he proved himself to be the David Horowitz of the USA as far as JFK goes. Bye Bye Freddie. I will miss you as much as I would CV 19."

Here is the picture at the Education Forum that DiEugenio references above:

On the Education Forum, DiEugenio took exception to my series on the QUICK articles:

(click the tag below for the complete QUICK series)


"The Quick article referred to above is a piece of pulp. Now let us enumerate the nutty statements in it that somehow Parnell missed:


1. Ferrie ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald.


2. The FBI ordered Garrison to question Ferrie.


3. Oswald had a love affair with Ferrie.


4. Marina's cold feeling drove her husband to the homosexuals.


5. In the spring of 1962, Shaw and Ferrie had already decided to assassinate the president.


6. Ferrie told Oswald about the forthcoming murder and Oswald agreed to take part. He was supposed to distract the police with his shots.


7. Garrison: When I stopped hearing from the FBI, I became curious and continued my own research.


8. Garrison: I suspect that Clay Shaw had given his role to the unfortunate Oswald, because he was jealous of Oswald. After all, Oswald had taken his male friend Ferrie away from him.

No responsible author could possibly associate this article with Garrison. And the fact that Hoch egged on Litwin to do so shows just how far gone Hoch is. There is no evidence in Garrison's files that matches up with this stuff. Secondly, what Garrison is going to say in his Playboy interview is so far away from this, that it renders it null and void."


James DiEugenio misses the point of my series of blog posts on the QUICK magazine article. It clearly demonstrates that Jim Garrison, in late February and early March 1967, put homosexuality at the heart of his investigation into the JFK assassination. It's consistent with what Garrison told journalists like Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Jack Anderson, Merriman Smith, Jerrold Footlick and Art Kevin.


There are several markers that point to Jim Garrison as the ultimate source of information in the article. For instance, the story about David Ferrie ordering Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald through Breck Wall is a longtime Garrison favorite. I have covered this in detail here. The story about Manuel Garcia Gonzalez being one of the gunman was another early Garrison story. And there were details about his former chief investigator, Pershing Gervais, in the QUICK article that were known by very few people.


The biggest link to Jim Garrison was the inclusion of James Dondson, the person who was with Clay Shaw in San Francisco during the weekend of the assassination, in the article. In early March 1967, Garrison met Dondson in Las Vegas (you can see pictures in my blog post). This was not in the newspapers and the only people who knew about this were Lawrence Schiller, Jim Garrison, and perhaps some very close confidants.


Schiller remains as a leading candidate behind the article, but he declines to talk.


So the QUICK article is yet another piece of evidence that, in the early days of his investigation, Jim Garrison believed that a homosexual conspiracy killed JFK.


I found it interesting that DiEugenio said that "Secondly, what Garrison is going to say in his Playboy interview is so far away from this, that it renders it null and void." Of course, I realize that Garrison changed his thinking. I wrote this in the first blog post on QUICK:

"These early beliefs of Jim Garrison are no trivial matter - they are at the heart of whether he was running an honest investigation or running one racked with homophobia, paranoia, and just plain nuttiness.
People forget that when the case started in late 1966, homosexuality was still taboo and gay people in New Orleans were regularly arrested for crimes against nature. While Clay Shaw was a respected member of New Orleans society, his outing as a homosexual helped to paint him as something more sinister - someone with a hidden life - and making it easier for people to wonder about his possible role in a conspiracy. He was also someone who was extremely vulnerable - he didn't want to talk about his homosexuality and his interest in S&M. In fact, Garrison, and others, felt that Shaw would commit suicide.
Ultimately Garrison abandoned the homosexual theory. The many buffs who swarmed to New Orleans probably found it improbable and distasteful. And they convinced Garrison to go after a much bigger target like the CIA."

After this initial Education Forum posting, DiEugenio then wrote this:

"When I looked through that Quick magazine article, and I thought back to how much he made out of it. It really sickened me.
The idea that Garrison could have written it, that could only have been offered by someone as far gone on New Orleans as Paul Hoch. Then they kept on going--duh who else could it be?- just to keep the piece of trash article going."

What kind of serious person talks like this?


Paul Hoch's assistance on the QUICK blog posts was a blessing.


The fact that James DiEugenio completely misses the point illustrates why he can't be taken seriously.



141 views

Recent Posts

See All