I watched Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, this weekend. It's very typical Oliver Stone -- excellent cinematography, terrific editing and a musical score that would not have been out of place in a feature film. The only thing missing was a coherent argument about the assassination and about American foreign policy since 1963. The film not only accuses the CIA and the military industrial complex of killing JFK, it also concludes that American foreign policy today is still affected by the assassination. That the United States can only have a proper foreign policy if we uncover the conspiracy. Perhaps some people will be fooled into believing there is something new here; something that changes the calculus of the evidence. Instead, we are treated to soundbites - tidbits of conspiratorial, well, as John McAdams would say, factoids. It's not only one-sided, it's jejune. But don't worry. In a matter of months, we will get a longer four-hour exposition, and another "book of the film" complete with annotations that will make it all sound authoritative. A large part of the film is based on the proposition that only a trial of Lee Harvey Oswald could have established the truth of what happened in November 1963. The big logical leap is that if evidence could have been excluded due to a broken chain of possession, he can conclude with minimal evidence that the bullet CE399, for example, was switched. And thus, Oswald would have been acquitted. Of course, acquittal does not imply factual innocence. And yet many of the talking heads in the film provide anecdotes that are hearsay and that certainly would have been excluded from a trial: Gerald Ford supposedly told Valéry Giscard d'Estaing that there was a conspiracy. Secret Service agent Elmer Moore told Jim Gochenaur that he pressured Dr. Malcolm Perry to say that Kennedy's throat wound was an entrance wound. Moore also told Gochenaur that the Secret Service was behind the prosecution of Abraham Bolden. Dr. Donald Miller said that Dr. Perry told him that Kennedy's throat wound was one of entrance. Dr. George Burkley admitted to two researchers that there was more than one gunman firing at Kennedy. Robert Knudsen supposedly told his wife and son that an autopsy photograph had been altered. Some of this information should not be flatly excluded from consideration for the judgment of history but should be treated with some skepticism. I just don't believe Gerald Ford told d'Estaing any such thing, and while there may be some truth in regard to Abraham Bolden, Gochenaur is probably not a very credible witness. I'll be doing a blog post on Gochenaur in the next few weeks. The film briefly mentions that Clay Shaw was indicted by Jim Garrison for conspiracy to kill JFK. It's a bit rich that while the film bemoans the fact that Oswald did not receive a trial, it does not even mention that Clay Shaw had one, and that he was acquitted. And his acquittal was not based on a technicality like a chain of possession issue, but because the jury quickly recognized that the case for his participation in a conspiracy was not convincing. Another piece of hearsay that I have debunked on my website is the claim that Dean Andrews admitted to Harold Weisberg that Clay Shaw was indeed Clay Bertrand. Besides the hearsay, is it really necessary to rehash the Oswald backyard photographs? Does the preponderance of the evidence really show that the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository was not Oswald's? Or that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor when the shots were fired? Should we really have a robust debate on the nature of wound in Kennedy's throat? I could ask many such questions. Oliver Stone suffers from a failure in imagination. Yes, he can imagine a massive conspiracy and coverup. But he cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. And so, once again, JFK researchers will now start to debunk this so-called documentary. Here's my debunking of the notion that Clay Shaw was a "contract agent" of the CIA. Steve Roe has an excellent blog post on Oswald's palm print on the rifle. And this is just the beginning. Stay tuned. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

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.

Our quiz from yesterday was regarding the May 1958 issue of Flying Saucers magazine: The relationship to the JFK assassination is Fred Crisman, who was one of Jim Garrison's main suspects in his so-called JFK investigation. Crisman was involved in a flying saucer hoax and the May 1958 issue contained part one of a three-part series on his story. Click on the Fred Crisman tab below to see other relevant posts including what Jim Garrison told the HSCA about him. The Fred Crisman material starts on page 60 below. The Fred Crisman material starts with "The Tacoma Affair." I'll be posting the next two episodes from Flying Saucers Magazine shortly. Just for fun, here is the inside back cover of this issue: And here is the back cover:

The recent Oliver Stone documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, makes the claim that Clay Shaw was a "highly valued contract agent" of the CIA. Here is an excerpt from the transcript: (at 1:17:15) Whoopi Goldberg: The [Assassination Record] Review Board has shown these denials to be false. Shaw was both a highly valued contract agent and had a covert security clearance for a project codenamed QK/ENCHANT. Where did these incredible claims come from? I will start with the first claim about Shaw being a contract agent. Joan Mellen, in her book, A Farewell to Justice, claimed that she found a smoking gun that proved Clay Shaw worked for the CIA: (page 388) "Incontrovertible proof has come to hand from the bowels of the CIA itself convicting Shaw of perjury. Notwithstanding CIA's insistence that "we have never remunerated him." Shaw had indeed worked as an employee for CIA, a job for which he was paid handsomely, according to the Agency. CIA's History Staff surveyed CIA records that had been made available to the House Select Committee on Assassinations between 1977 and 1979. There were sixty-four sequestered boxes of documents and the one outing Clay Shaw as an Agency employee was among them. "In 1992, the PROJFILES "CIA Matters," a component of CIA addressed by its History Staff, released a document that entirely vindicates Jim Garrison in his conviction that Shaw was acting not for himself in his relationship with Oswald, but for the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA prefaces its revelation about Shaw with a predictable disclaimer. The Agency declares that nothing was found in the records "that indicates any CIA role in the Kennedy assassination or assassination conspiracy (if there was one) or any CIA involvement with Oswald." Then CIA's History Staff Chief, J. Kenneth McDonald, adds: "These records do reveal, however, that Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956." Here is that document: CIA Document RIF #104-10428-10104, dated February 10, 1992, page 3. Section seven notes that "Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956." Note that the document says "contract source" and not "contract agent." To Garrisonites, this document was akin to the Rosetta Stone. Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and prominent JFK conspiracy theorist, made a big deal out of this document on his blog, jfkfacts.org. But there are problems. Shaw was a domestic contact source until 1956; might the word contract be a simple typo? Or perhaps a 1955 document that refers to Shaw as a “valued source” of the CIA’s Domestic Contact Service was misunderstood by the unknown person who compiled this information in 1992. This 1955 document is indeed in the segregated collection. You can find it in reel 17. "This set of CIA documents is a microfilmed collection of documents to which the House Select Committee on Assassinations had access, split into 72 reels. See also a related and overlapping set of documents which were not recorded on microfilm." It is important to note the McDonald summary document in question (which is factually unreliable for reasons apart from its description of Shaw) was not prepared contemporaneously during Shaw’s years of service to the Agency, but decades later. It was compiled for the purpose of describing a collection of assassination-related documents the Agency was preparing to release at the order of then CIA Director Robert Gates, months before the Assassination Records Collection Act became law. All of this material was given to the HSCA. As for the document's reliability, researcher Paul Hoch has found another example of where this document was wrong. It refers to "records relating to Gilberto Alvarado, who maintained that he witnessed Cubans passing Oswald cash at a party on the night before the assassination." In fact, this description is obviously a confused mashup of two allegations that were separately made: one by Gilberto Alvarado in 1963 (which he ultimately retracted), and another, made later, by Elena Garro de Paz. A different page in the 1992 document correctly describes Alvarado as "the Nicaraguan who claimed he saw Lee Harvey Oswald receive cash in meetings inside Mexico City Cuban embassy." Elena Garro de Paz claimed to have seen Oswald and two companions at a "twist party" in Mexico City. The date given for this twist party (November 21) matches neither allegation and is obviously an error, thus suggesting that the 1992 document is not exactly a completely reliable accounting of what is in the CIA's own archive. On the night before the assassination, Oswald was in Dallas with Marina at Ruth Paine's house (thus he could not have received cash in Alvarado's presence or have been at a party in Mexico City). Oswald was only in Mexico City from September 26 to October 3. If he attended a party - which is a big if - it could only have happened during this time period. The 1992 memo was written by J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian. Max Holland spoke with McDonald who told him: “His recollection was that the memo was assembled from a couple of summaries that were prepared for him by the History Staff” In an email Holland noted that "Unless someone can produce a document contemporaneous with Shaw's service as a domestic contact source that states he was well-remunerated or compensated, then I think whatever extant documents we have from his actual service trump a description in a summary that was prepared hastily." It seems clear that the History Staff made an error. The actual documents sequestered by the CIA are available and none of them mentions "contract source." If that term had actually appeared in any document that the HSCA examined, we would have known this well before 1992. In addition, the term "contract source" is not in the standard CIA lexicon. Searching for "contract source" on the Mary Ferrell website only returns the 1992 document. Jerry Shinley has also raised the possibility of a scribal error. He noticed that there are typist's initials on the document: Is it possible that something like "highly-rated CIA contact source" was rendered as "highly-paid CIA contract source"? Could the typist has been working from a handwritten draft or from an audio recording? Other documents in the CIA file on Shaw contradict the notion that Shaw was paid or that there is an inkling of truth in the Paese Sera allegations. These were prepared in 1967, during the height of the CIA’s concern that Garrison might actually know about the Agency’s innocuous relationship with Shaw and purposely misrepresent it in public utterances. A document dated 16 October 1967 flatly stated that Shaw was never remunerated for his services. Conspiracy theorists who jumped on the 1992 document have to face the fact that there are no CIA documents that support the allegation that Shaw was paid by the CIA. No doubt, they will fall back on the old standby that the documents must have been destroyed (see below). That doesn't quite work in this case because the documents were sequestered by the CIA, seen by the HSCA and examined again in 1992. Now on to Project QK/ENCHANT. A CIA document on Clay Shaw had this mysterious paragraph: A staffer from the HSCA also made notes on Clay Shaw from the CIA segregated collection: J. Monroe Sullivan was the Executive Director of the San Francisco World Trade Center and he was with Clay Shaw on November 22, 1963. He certainly had approval under QKENCHANT - but it was on an "unwitting" basis. The 'covert' in 'covert security approval' appears to mean that the approval itself was covert, not that Shaw was approved for covert operations. The number after Clay Shaw's name #402897-A was not related to QKENCHANT. It's just a CIA identifying number for Clay Shaw that you find on many documents. What was Project QKENCHANT? Here is an excerpt from another CIA document: Here is a better description in plain English: There is no evidence that Clay Shaw had clearance under this program: That is certainly not definitive. But, QKENCHANT was not an operational project. And so there is absolutely no evidence that Clay Shaw was an operational agent of the CIA. JFK Revisited is very selective in the information it provides to viewers. The film omits paragraph b. above, and its highlights of paragraph c. do not include the 1949 date - well before Project QKENCHANT even started. Clay Shaw was just a source for the Domestic Contact Service from 1948 to 1956.

Finally, this could be the proof we have been looking for.

Vernon Bundy testified at both at Clay Shaw's preliminary hearing and at Clay Shaw's trial that he saw Shaw and Oswald together on the shore of Lake Pontchartrain. He had come forward, while in prison, the day before he testified at the preliminary hearing, and he was given a lie detector test in which it was determined that he was not telling the truth. Nonetheless, Garrison decided to put him on the stand. After Bundy testified, he was released from prison, and it seems clear that there was some sort of deal with Garrison's office. Alecia Long, in her book Cruising for Conspirators, writes: (page 118) "In 1969, Shaw's attorneys asserted that "at the time of the preliminary hearing," Bundy faced narcotics charges and a possible five-year sentence. However, "after Bundy furnished Garrison with a statement that he had observed Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald" together, "Bundy was ordered released." Alecia's source for this is an FBI document, dated March 4, 1969, based upon a visit to United States Attorney for New Orleans, Louis LaCour, from Clay Shaw's attorneys Edward Wegmann and Irvin Dymond: (unfortunately this document is not online) James DiEugenio, in his review of her book, takes exception: "Bundy was in prison on a voluntary basis, in order to break his drug habit. The most serious crime he committed was breaking into cigarette machines. (Davy, p. 125; also 1995 interview with investigator Gary Raymond by the reviewer) Back then, a pack of cigarettes cost about 30 cents." His source is Bill Davy's book, Let Justice Be Done, on page 125. Here is what Davy writes: "Gurvich goes on to write 'Bundy claimed he was in Parish Prison at the time because he went there voluntarily when he felt himself reverting back to the use of narcotics and feared the consequences of his addiction. Official records corroborate this.'" Davy's source is a memo written by William Gurvich. which I am presenting in its entirety. Bundy tells Gurvich that he went back to prison voluntarily "when he felt himself reverting back to the use of narcotics and feared the consequences of addiction." In June or July of 1963, he left home with two capsules of heroin and went out to Lake Pontchartrain. At the lakefront he saw an older man get out of a black sedan and meet a younger man whom Bundy described as a "junkie." The older man gave the younger man some money, and upon leaving a flyer fell from the younger man's pocket. Bundy identified the older man as Clay Shaw and the younger man as Lee Harvey Oswald. The flyer was supposedly one given out by Oswald in front of the International Trade Mart. It is clear from the memo that Gurvich is repeating what Bundy is telling him. Here's a short excerpt from the actual interview: But was this true? Here is Bundy's rap sheet: As you can see, Vernon Bundy was charged with violation of probation on March 4, 1967. More information can be found in this letter that William Gurvich sent to Edward Wegmann: His arrest in 1966 is not on his rap sheet. This was brought out at the Clay Shaw trial: New Orleans Times-Picayune, February 8. 1969 Bundy had stolen a cigarette machine from the Municipal Auditorium. Judge Bagert sent a note to Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans: Bundy was not in prison voluntarily. While he wasn't facing five years for narcotics, he was in a position to bargain to get out of his year-long prison sentence. But who knows what is not in the record? As William Gurvich notes in his letter: And so, the FBI document from 1969 made a mistake - most probably originating with Shaw's lawyers. Here is a paragraph from a Clay Shaw court filing: Something funny was definitely going on with Vernon Bundy. In an upcoming blog post, I will examine Bundy's testimony in detail.

James DiEugenio has emerged as a leading JFK conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, he suffers from being a member of the cult of Jim Garrison, and his unfettered conspiracism has led him to reject most pieces of physical evidence in the case. He's now hoodwinked Oliver Stone into making a documentary that will question every aspect of the assassination, but without any sort of coherent analysis of the evidence. Oliver Stone is infatuated with James DiEugenio: "You see, Jim DiEugenio is one of the best researchers. He’s third-generation. He’s an auto-didact. He reads every book in different translations. He knows the page number in which he can dump on [Vincent] Bugliosi. He’s done real deconstructions and has a website that’s invaluable. Invaluable. Jim is very perceptive. He remembers everything." Once again, Oliver Stone has been deceived. Thirty years ago, Stone believed that Jim Garrison was a crusading district attorney who was on the way to solving the JFK assassination. The fact that along the way Jim Garrison destroyed innocent people and conducted a homophobic prosecution didn't bother Stone one bit. Oliver Stone actually said that it was "worth the sacrifice of one man." Stone also believed the lies of dictators like Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Nursultan Nazarbayev. And now, he's been taken in by a post-modernist conspiracy theorist whose claim to fame is not his scholarship, but his ability to insult. Every time a book is published about Jim Garrison that is not laudatory, James DiEugenio goes into action. In my case, DiEugenio has published five essays and numerous Facebook posts -- not about what is in my book -- but about what I have left out. He is very angry that I (and others) have not written the book he would have written. This allows him to ignore the central thesis of our books and he can thus turn the focus back on himself. For instance, he is very upset that my book, On the Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser, does not mention Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw. On a posting about my appearance at the virtual Louisiana Book Festival, with Professor Alecia Long, he commented: DiEugenio's quotes from Facebook come from this group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/387164721481044 The answer is pretty simple. Alecia Long's book, Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime, is about the role of homosexuality in the Garrison investigation. My book is about how Jim Garrison led people astray with a variety of ridiculous conspiracy theories. We didn't touch upon Finck's testimony because it was irrelevant to our arguments. His reviews of our books have a veneer of intellectuality. But when you really examine his points, you quickly realize that he's a very poor researcher. For instance, in his review of Long's book, DiEugenio wondered why the Secret Service asked Marina Oswald about a "Mr. Farry" before David Ferrie was questioned in New Orleans. A few minutes of research would have yielded a very simple answer. DiEugenio would rather, as Mel Ayton would say, "create mysteries where none existed." It has also become clear that DiEugenio has read the books and my posts carelessly, if at all. On November 4, 2021, he admitted as much: That admission was triggered by one of my blogs posts. I quoted directly from his book, Destiny Betrayed, about an interview in which it was alleged that Clay Shaw was part of the "intelligence apparatus" in New Orleans. His response was "BTW, it was not me who said this about Shaw. It was the late Bud Fensterwald who wrote about it." Hey, don't blame me! And then there is the nastiness. Here are some of his recent comments on Facebook and the Education Forum. You can see a compendium of DiEugenio's earlier insults here. Of course, James DiEugenio thinks everything is about him. He even believes that Alecia and I timed the publication of our books: Or take this lazy complaint about Long's reference to one of his articles: Indeed, the footnote is simply “61. DiEugenio "Jim Garrison.” But the bibliography includes the full title and the link: DiEugenio, James.... "Jim Garrison, the Beat Goes on." Kennedys and King, September 12, 2018. Here is the introduction from a reply I wrote to his reviews of my three books: "DiEugenio’s official title should be Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith, and as such he must answer anybody who deviates, even if just slightly, from his conspiracy dogma. My heresy of writing an entire book critical of Jim Garrison gets me special treatment, and so the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith has also reviewed my other two books. It’s quite telling that DiEugenio writes that “the problem is – and I cannot make this point forcefully enough – too many writers and interested parties think they know the Garrison inquiry and New Orleans, when they really do not.” Of course, the only person who really understands the Garrison inquiry is the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith – he alone can decipher and interpret the ancient scripture (Jim Garrison’s papers) and he alone can determine which high priests are allowed to add and discuss doctrine. Unauthorized commentators – Patricia Lambert, Don Carpenter, Sylvia Meagher, Gus Russo, Paul Hoch, David Reitzes, Rosemary James, Alecia Long, Max Holland, Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Fred Litwin – are deserving of scorn and ridicule. They do not have the necessary skills to understand the complex nature of the holy texts and they have not adequately studied the printed words of the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith. Salvation is only possible when they have repented and have memorized the full 25 episodes of the Destiny Betrayed podcast. Indeed, many of these illegitimate poseurs have been tainted by working for the ‘deep state,’ which means everything they say or write can be safely ignored. What’s worse is that they hide their devious intent – but no matter, the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith can ferret out their covert connections and can safely exclude their findings from the record." Here are some other relevant links related to DiEugenio's scholarship: The Scholarship of James DiEugenio - A Case Study James DiEugenio has made claims about testing of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that are completely false. The Scholarship of James DiEugenio, Part Two Here is the actual article by Vincent Guinn about the testing of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Did The HSCA Have a Confession Tape? James DiEugenio mentions a witness who "knew something abut a New Orleans based conspiracy along the lines outlined by the DA," but doesn't tell his readers that the witness was Thomas Beckham, someone with very little credibility. James DiEugenio Gets it all Wrong on Permindex/CMC In a book review of Operation Dragon, James DiEugenio gets everything wrong when it comes to Permindex. Did the HSCA Say that Clay Shaw was a High-Level Planner of the JFK Assassination? James DiEugenio totally misinterprets an HSCA document which merely recorded Garrison's allegations. Did the FBI Bug Garrison's Offices? James DiEugenio claims that the FBI bugged Garrison's office. His only piece of evidence is a discredited witness who told other stories that didn't hold up. Did Shaw Confide to Alberto Fowler that he was in the "Intelligence Services" of the armed forces? James DiEugenio claims that Shaw said that to Albert Fowler. This is not true - Fowler just repeated what Garrison was claiming. Jim Garrison and Homosexuality In a review of On the Trail of Delusion, James DiEugenio dismisses the idea that Garrison ever talked about a homosexual conspiracy: "For the record, there is not one memo I have read that shows Garrison ever outlined such a homosexual-oriented plot." Here are several blog posts related to homosexuality that DiEugenio just ignores. Jim Garrison's Homosexual Shakedown Operation Frank Manning, chief investigator for Louisiana Attorney General Jack Gremillion, alleged in 1967 that Garrison was operating a homosexual shakedown operation. DiEugenio's response is to giggle. Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? The German QUICK magazine published an article, supposedly written by Jim Garrison, about a homosexual conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The article was probably written by a reporter who was a confidant of Garrison, inappropriately using his first-person voice but apparently reflecting his views fairly. Here is the entire article with a translation into English. Final Thoughts on the QUICK Article James DiEugenio denies that Garrison ever thought there was a homosexual conspiracy. Here is a variety of Garrison memos that prove the contrary. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuses James DiEugenio's Lame Excuses for Fletcher Prouty The ARRB found that Fletcher Prouty could not back up ANY of his allegations. Wait till you read James DiEugenio's lame excuse for Prouty. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuse for Oliver Stone I blogged about Oliver Stone's love of dictators. Wait till you read James DiEugenio's lame excuse for Stone. The Master Index to James DiEugenio's Witnesses James DiEugenio's two books, Destiny Betrayed and The JFK Assassination, presents many witnesses who believe that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand, who saw Clay Shaw with David Ferrie, and who saw Clay Shaw with Lee Harvey Oswald. Over the past ten months, I have systematically debunked all of these witnesses. Was Clay Shaw Clay Bertrand? Did Carlos Marcello's Doctor Friend Know About Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio can't even get the name of Dr. Kety right. He adds certainty to a claim that is not really being made. Did William Morris Know Clay Shaw as Clay Bertrand? William Morris was a prisoner who made several claims. I post the entire interview with Morris, as well as several memos from people who dispute his claims. Did Dean Andrews admit that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand? Joan Mellen asked Harold Weisberg if Dean Andrews admitted that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. I post her letter and his reply. Did Clay Shaw's Maid Know He was Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio's claims about Virginia Johnson are not born out by two memos written by Garrison's staff. Did Clay Shaw Sign the VIP Room Guestbook as Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio doesn't tell his readers that Jessie Parker made significant changes to her affidavit once it was determined that witnesses disputed what she said. Did Clay Shaw Admit to Aloysius Habighorst that he was Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio doesn't tell his readers that another policeman, Jonas Butzman, testified that Clay Shaw did not admit he was Clay Bertrand. Did Thomas Breitner Meet Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio leaves out many of the other crazy claims of Thomas Breitner. Had he testified at Clay Shaw's trial, he would have been another Charles Spiesel. Was Jim Garrison Searching for Clay Bertrand in 1963? James DiEugenio claims that Jim Garrison didn't know about Dean Andrews' story about Clay Bertrand. And yet the District Attorney's office was assisting in the search. David Chandler Talks to Shaw's Investigators More debunking of DiEugenio's claims that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. Did Clay Shaw Know David Ferrie? James DiEugenio writes in Destiny Betrayed: "As Jim Garrison revealed in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, he had statements from a number of witnesses who had seen the two together. And this is besides the witnesses in Clinton and Jackson. These witnesses included Jules Kimble who took a plane trip with the two men; David Logan who, after being introduced to Shaw by Ferrie, had a homosexual tryst with Shaw; Nicholas and Mathilda Tadin who saw Ferrie with Shaw at the New Orleans Airport where Ferrie was giving their son flying lessons; and Raymond Broshears who had a drink with Shaw and Ferrie, and later joined them for dinner." (page 209) The following four blog posts debunk the stories of David Logan, the Tadins, Jules Kimble, and Raymond Broshears: Did Clay Shaw know David Ferrie? Part One James DiEugenio claims that David Logan was introduced to Clay Shaw by David Ferrie. This is totally untrue. After the party, someone pointed out to Logan that Ferrie was at the party. Did Clay Shaw Know David Ferrie? Part Two A look at Nicholas and Mathilda Tadin's claim that they saw David Ferrie with Clay Shaw. Did Clay Shaw and David Ferrie Fly to Montreal? When Kimble first talked to Garrison's investigators, he said nothing about Clay Shaw. Reverend Raymond Broshears Reveals the Shaw-Ferrie Link! Raymond Broshears was a fabulist, and DiEugenio falls for his nonsense. Here are other witnesses, mentioned by DiEugenio, that I have debunked: Did Clay Shaw's Secretary See David Ferrie in Shaw's Office? James DiEugenio claims that Clay Shaw's former secretary, Aura Lee, saw Ferrie in Shaw's office. Only problem - her name was not Aura Lee; and she was not Shaw's former secretary; and there are no direct statements from Aurelie Alost. Did Herbert Wagner See Shaw and Ferrie Together? While James DiEugenio does claim that Herbert Wagner saw Shaw and Ferrie together, he does claim that Ferrie admitted to Wagner that he was part of Operation Mongoose. This is totally untrue. Did Sandra Anderson Have a Photograph of Clay Shaw with David Ferrie? This is James DiEugenio's favorite type of evidence -- non-existent. Did David Ferrie Fly Clay Shaw to Canada and to Cuba? DiEugenio's allegations about Freeport Sulphur only suffer from lack of evidence. Did David Ferrie Speak to Clay Shaw on the Telephone from Guy Banister's Office? Joseph Newbrough never said a word about this allegation until he spoke to a conspiracy theorist. Was he weaving a story? Did Woodrow Hardy see Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald together? A ridiculous anonymous letter is good enough for James DiEugenio. Did David Ferrie Go Fishing with Clay Shaw? The witness did not get a good view of either man he took fishing. Did Charles Krop Have a Recording mentioning Shaw & Ferrie? More evidence that never turned up. Niles "Lefty" Peterson - Another Forgotten Witness James DiEugenio claims that Lefty Peterson remembered a "Leon Oswald" at David Ferrie's house. This is totally not true. Did Clay Shaw Know Lee Harvey Oswald? Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part One. Fred Leemans came up with an unbelievable story but then his conscience hit him. Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part Two. James DiEugenio not only believes Fred Leemans, he also believes that the CIA assisted in the provision of legal services to various witnesses in the case. The evidence does not back him up. Vernon Bundy's Lie Detector Test Vernon Bundy claimed to see Clay Shaw with Lee Harvey Oswald on the shore of Lake Pontchartrain. One problem - his lie detector test showed he was lying. Despite problems with his testimony, Garrison insisted he testify against Clay Shaw. James DiEugenio does not mention Bundy's polygraph. Did David Ferrie Know Lee Harvey Oswald? Did David Ferrie Know Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, they were in a picture together, but they didn't know each other. Did David Ferrie Introduce Jack Martin to Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's office? The source for this allegation was Jack Martin who was not known for his credibility. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Have David Ferrie's Library Card? Oswald did not have Ferrie's library card. Here is the complete story of what actually happened. Miscellaneous Connections Did a Piece of Paper with the Names of Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald Provide a Link to Rose Cherami? More non-existent evidence. DiEugenio mixes up the Silver Slipper club in Las Vegas with one in Eunice, Louisiana. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Use Jack Ruby As a Job Reference? More non-existent evidence based on fourth-hand information. Did Delphine Roberts see Oswald in Banister's Office? Roberts never said a word about Oswald when she was interviewed by Garrison's office in January 1967. Did Delphine Roberts See Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's Office? (Part Two) Delphine Roberts later said that Mary Brengel had seen Oswald in Banister's office. But Brengel denied that. David Ferrie's "Strange" Ice-Skating Trip, Part One! There was nothing strange about his trip. Al Beauboeuf was an expert roller skater and he wanted to try ice skating. David Ferrie's "Strange" Ice-Skating Trip, Part Two! Here is something that James DiEugenio will never discuss -- Garrison's deranged belief that Breck Wall ordered Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Did Breck Wall order Jack Ruby to Kill Oswald? More direct evidence from Jim Garrison on his belief that Breck Wall ordered Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald. Why do Conspiracy Theorists Still Believe Julia Ann Mercer? Julia Ann Mercer's story got bigger and bigger over the years. That didn't stop James DiEugenio from using her as a witness in his book. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Man of the Right? Jim Garrison claimed that Oswald was not a leftist, and James DiEugenio agrees. Here's the actual evidence. Was Sergio Arcacha Smith with Rose Cherami in November 1963? James DiEugenio believes that Sergio Arcacha Smith was with Rose Cherami in November 1963. The evidence to support this is extremely poor. Did Dr. Wayne Owens hear Rose Cherami predict the JFK assassination? James DiEugenio cites an article from the Madison Capital Times that claims Dr. Wayne Owens heard Rose Cherami predict the JFK assassination in 1963. The only problem is that he doesn't mention the next two issues of the newspaper which prove that he didn't. Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? James DiEugenio accepts hearsay, while on three occasions Gerdes said he never saw Oswald with Ferrie and Banister. James DiEugenio and Richard Case Nagell Did Richard Case Nagell Ever Meet Lee Harvey Oswald? James DiEugenio believes that Richard Case Nagell met Lee Harvey Oswald in Japan and in Texas. The only problem is that there no evidence he did. Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination? James DiEugenio believes that Nagell had foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK assassination. The only problem is the lack of evidence for the claim. DiEugenio's sources are incredibly suspect. Who was Leon Oswald? James DiEugenio believes that a second Oswald named Leon Oswald who was at the assassination party at David Ferrie's house, and that Nagell also met Leon Oswald. The only problem is the lack of evidence for the claim. DiEugenio's sources are incredibly suspect. Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial? James DiEugenio claims that Nagell didn't testify at Shaw's trial because someone threw a grenade at him. Even Jim Garrison disagreed. Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story James DiEugenio believes that Nagell had a copy of Oswald's military ID card when he was arrested in September 1963. The only problem is that it was not listed in his possessions and the only 'proof' is a poor photocopy of the card that showed up in 1976 in Bernard Fensterwald's office. Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension Nagell went to court to get a full pension. It was clear from a history of court proceedings that he suffered a serious brain injury in his plane crash in 1954. You won't read about Nagell's mental issues in James DiEugenio's books.

Here is a review of Oliver Stone's JFK from the December 20, 1991 issue of the Boston Phoenix. The review is mostly positive but here is what I found interesting: "Intentionally or not, Stone's characterization of the conspirators as mostly sinister queens is sadly homophobic. Despite the stereotyping, however, they remain the film's richest characters -- Pesci's Ferrie is a hairless, deranged clown in a bad rug and painted eyebrows torn between his priestly vocation, his lust for power, and his taste for boys. Jones's Shaw is a elegant fop with an edge of menace and melancholy, and even Kevin Bacon as Willie O'Keefe, a composite of several of Garrison's gay witnesses to the dark secrets of Shaw and Ferrie, gets a fetching turn dolled up as Marie Antoinette." The Boston Phoenix was a very friendly paper to both Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. Even they noticed that JFK was homophobic. Related Blog Post Jim Garrison's Ridiculous Interview with the Boston Phoenix

This was a lot of fun. Please share this video on social media.

The Assassination Inquiry Committee of San Diego had a spirited exchange of views in 1968. They noticed that Sylvia Meagher and Edward Jay Epstein were extremely critical of Jim Garrison. Here is their lead article from their July 1968 issue: The issue contained a short interview with Richard Popkin. Here is a short excerpt: Here is Sylvia Meagher's reply from the next issue: For more on Jim Garrison's code-breaking ability, click here. Click on the Sylvia Meagher tab for more relevant posts including a couple of unpublished Sylvia Meagher memos on the Garrison investigation.

One of Jim Garrison's two witnesses against Clay Shaw at the preliminary hearing in March 1967 was Vernon Bundy, a heroin addict, who claimed he saw Clay Shaw and Oswald on the shore of Lake Pontchartrain. He was a surprise witness and he had only come forward on the day of the hearing or a day before. There was little time to vet his story. But Bundy was given a lie detector test by Captain James Kruebbe who told Garrison that he wasn't telling the truth. He was still put on the witness stand. You will find none of this in Destiny Betrayed by James DiEugenio. On November 30, 1993, author Patricia Lambert phoned James Kruebbe and here are some excerpts from their conversation: Lambert: My name is Pat Lambert. Edward O'Donnell gave me your phone number and suggested I give you a call. I'm from Los Angeles; I'm in New Orleans at the moment. I'm researching the Garrison case and I spoke to Edward O'Donnell when I was down here last time and I have spoken to him since, when I was back in California, and the reason I'm calling you is when I was in the Archives I found an FBI document, a memo that quotes an unnamed party making a variety of statements and one of the statements that this person made to the FBI was that Vernon Bundy -- you know who Vernon Bundy is. [Note from Fred - that FBI memo is below] Kruebbe: Sure, sure. Lambert: That Bundy was given a lie detector test immediately before his testimony at the trial and that he flunked it. Now in the memo it says that Edward O'Donnell gave Bundy the test and Eddie said Kruebbe: No -- I did. Lambert: Oh, it was you. Kruebbe: Yeah. Lambert: Well Eddie [O'Donnell] said that he didn't but he said if anybody did, you would be the person who did. Kruebbe: Uh huh. I don't think it was "immediately" before he testified. It was prior to his testimony, yes. Lambert: Do you have any idea how long prior? Kruebbe: No. Lambert: But it was ... Kruebbe: It was prior to it, yes. Lambert: It was before he testified at the trial and is it true that he failed it? Kruebbe: Well, there's no pass or fail. He wasn't telling the truth if that's what you mean. .... Lambert: But all my spare time is going into it and the thing that has motivated me is the Oliver Stone film which seems to me to be a terrible falsification of history. Kruebbe: Well, I'll tell you the truth. We were exposed to it a little bit -- we knew a little bit about it and we knew it was a -- you know (he laughs). I went to the Oliver Stone movie with the idea of just being, laughing at it and saying how awful it was and really I got lost in the entertainment value. That's all it has, is entertainment value. Lambert: The problem that I have with the film is that young people are going to it and coming out thinking they've seen history. Kruebbe: Right. Well, that particular test was peculiar because it came down to me and I was told to run this man and I was not given the bottom issue. The only issue was in very broad terms. Cause what's the story? Number one did anyone send him? These may not be in the order of one, two, three but basically: was he sent by anyone? Was he telling the truth? Or was he put up to do it? You know. And so then I said well what did he tell you? Well, they wouldn't tell me what he told them. So I had to word questions around it. You know: when you spoke to the District Attorney's office, to Mr. Garrison, did you tell him the complete truth? Did anybody put you up to it? Did anybody suggest that you go to him? Are you doing this for personal gain? It had to be worded around that which is a very nebulous thing to begin with because what are we talking about? ... Lambert: Who brought him to you -- do you remember that? Kruebbe: I remember but at this time I'd rather talk to Eddie before I talk to you about it. Lambert: I have no problem at all about that and I appreciate your being willing to talk to me at all. Kruebbe: It was a peculiar thing and it was shocking, you know, why they would use this guy; it was ridiculous. Lambert: Yes. At the time I followed the case and Vernon Bundy's testimony seemed to me to be so unbelievable that you had to wonder why he used him. And one of the things that this FBI report asserts is that Garrison went against the recommendations of his own staff in using Vernon Bundy. Kruebbe: That sounds correct to me. ... Kruebbe: That was a travesty -- the Clay Shaw trial. Lambert: Well, is there anything else about Vernon Bundy's polygraph that you can tell me or that you feel comfortable Kruebbe: I was not told the information he'd given to Garrison; I was not told that. I was just told to try verify it: was the information true? You know. Did you falsify anything about the information you gave him. Actually it's the same question; it's the basic question that's stretched out: did you tell the truth? And you can't give a polygraph test structured on one thing. What you should do is give a sequence of questions leading up to something. You know it was a hard thing to begin with and when I was told what he had told them, my first response was to laugh. I mean, here's a junkie Lambert: Oh, you finally were told. Kruebbe: Yeah. Lambert: Was that after you'd Kruebbe: After I'd given him (Garrison) the report. After the test was over and I was upstairs in the district attorney's office and I was finally told what it was. I had to chuckle. Because, you know what junkie is going to go out and shoot up on cocaine on a windy day out at the lakefront. Come on, give me a break. (laughs) I wasn't the only one of that opinion. Lambert: I always had trouble with Bundy's testimony. You know he got everything into it even Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflet that supposedly fell out of his pocket. Kruebbe: I wasn't aware of that of it just the part Lambert: That he was out there shooting up -- yeah, that's bad enough. Kruebbe: I mean, it's windy out there. You wouldn't go out there anyway. Lambert: Right. And the test results on the test you did run -- even though you feel it was an inadequate test -- was that he was not telling the truth. Kruebbe: He was not leveling. Lambert: He was not leveling. Kruebbe: No. That's all I simply wanted to tell them -- the man wasn't leveling. No one put him up to it; no one sent him in here. He was doing it of his own accord -- he was looking for something. Lambert: He was doing it on his own but he wasn't tell the truth. Kruebbe: Yeah, but he was looking for something. -- he was looking for OUT. [note from Fred - Bundy had just been jailed for violation of probation; he was released after this testimony.] Lambert: Sure. And did you tell Jim Garrison that? Kruebbe: Sure. Patricia Lambert spoke again to James Kruebbe on December 2, 1993: Kruebbe: We were talking before with reference to who was present when I gave Garrison the report. Lambert: Right. The verbal briefing. Kruebbe: There were three people present. Two of whom I remember. I can't put a face on the third one. Do you want them? If you want them I'll give them to you. Lambert: Yes. If you don't mind. Kruebbe: One is Charles Ward. W-A-R-D. You probably have that name already. Lambert: Well, I know of him. Kruebbe: He was an assistant district attorney. Lambert: Right. He's been on my list. Isn't he a judge? Kruebbe: That's right. He's an appeals court judge. An appellate judge. He was the gentleman who came down to get me to run the polygraph examination. Lambert: So it was Charles Ward who brought Bundy to you. Kruebbe: Right. Lambert: I see. Okay. Kruebbe: It was just done in -- it was somewhat of a cryptic way you know. "I can't tell you what he told us; just want to know if he's telling the truth; if anybody sent him -- if anybody put him up to it." You know. So it was an awkward examination because what I'm talking about, I have to impress upon the person, Bundy, that what I'm really talking about when I'm asking you these questions, really what I'm talking about is that which you may have told Garrison. Was that the truth" You know. Lambert: Right. Kruebbe: The questions were revolving around that and also whether or not anybody put him up to it. And that was a big concern apparently. I guess they were thinking that Panzeca [one of Shaw's defense attorneys] or the lead counsel for the defense put him up to it; I don't know. Lambert: Really? Kruebbe: Well, I don't know but why would they ask the question? Nobody verbalized that -- it just my thoughts. Lambert: It's implied by the question. Kruebbe: It's implied by the question. Lambert: Right. Kruebbe: And he was present when the results were given. Lambert: Charles Ward? Kruebbe: Uh huh. And the other man: Alcock. Lambert: James Alcock. Kruebbe: He was the prosecutor. Lambert: Right. That's very interesting. And do you remember what Garrison's reaction was then you told him? Kruebbe: I can give you the essence of it; obviously I don't remember what they said. When I gave the report, all three of them -- the third person, I can't remember who it was -- I can't put a face on him -- it seemed like they all chimed in: "We told you so" -- you know? Lambert: Ah hah. So the staff had already been Kruebbe: Yeah. They had already taken a position: this is trash, you know, you don't fool with it. Lambert: Right. Kruebbe: And his [Garrison's] reaction was: "We didn't put him up to it -- let the jury decide." Lambert: So, in other words -- use him. Kruebbe: They used him. Lambert: But I meant at that moment that's what he was saying. Kruebbe: Right. That they were going to use him? Absolutely. Because the staff members were saying, you know, Lambert: "We told you so." Kruebbe: In essence saying, "we told you so." I can't remember what the verbiage was but they weren't impressed by his [Bundy's] credibility. Lambert: Right. And who would be? Kruebbe: But obviously the people who were involved in the prosecution. they were dictated the plan of action by Garrison. Lambert: Of course. There was another conversation the next day, December 3, 1993. Kruebbe: I wanted to call you up to correct one inaccuracy in what I gave you. Lambert: Okay. Kruebbe: I found my work memorandum to Garrison. Lambert: So you did write something on this. Kruebbe: Yeah. But this is just a work copy. So ... okay. Here we go. It was on March 18, 1967. Lambert: March 18, `1967 Kruebbe: Around noon. Okay. It says, "Around noon Charles Ward requested a polygraph examination be given to Vernon Bundy as he may be used in connection with a court appearance on that date." Well, the record would verify that. Lambert: Then it was the date he testified. Kruebbe: I was told that he "may be used in connection with a court appearance on that date." Lambert: Right. Kruebbe: And again, it's just "certain information, certain information " (he seemed to be scanning the memorandum and here I think he was referring to the language used by Ward in referring to Bundy's story, i.e., instead of telling Kruebbe what it was, Ward referred to it as "certain information") Oh, this is the part that I wanted to tell you about. My misinformation was that I did not learn it [Bundy's statement] from Garrison. I think I learned it from the newspaper. Let me read this once real fast and I'll be able to Lambert: Sure -- that's all right. Kruebbe: Yeah. [Reading:] There was a discussion between Garrison and Ward and Alcock relative to the use of the witness [indecipherable] attorneys discussion of strategy, i.e. if Bundy's {?} testimony was required at the time to {establish} probable cause. They thought he wasn't necessary. {stops reading} So that was a difference of opinion as to whether or not they should use him. Apparently Garrison thought they would. But I don't think I was told what went on. In fact, it's only a two-page thing. {laughs, sounds nervous} Oh, here it is, yeah. "I was not given the benefit of this certain information." Here it is. "Mr. Ward conveyed that the D.A.'s office was primarily interested in learning if Bundy was a plant encouraged by the defense or if he was coming forward on his own. He indicated that Bundy had given certain information as to Garrison, certain information [indecipherable]. I was not given the benefit of this certain information; in fact, only learned of this certain information in the local press. That certain information related to alleged actions by Mr. Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald." Lambert: So the change in what you told me is that you weren't told by the DA or his staff what Bundy's testimony was even after the test -- you got it from the press. Well, that isn't really germane to the main point which is ... Kruebbe: But if you're going to use any part of the information, I wish you'd correct that. Lambert: Oh absolutely. What I'm saying is that it's a minor thing but I appreciate your calling it to my attention. Is there any possibility -- would you feel comfortable letting me have a copy of that report? Kruebbe: I don't think so, ma'am. Because this was a report given to him and although I shared a lot of it with you ... I don't think .. this is a work report .. it's not the final finished product Kruebbe tells Lambert that he "just sat down at a typewriter and I typed double-spaced two pages," and added the date March 18. 1967 in pen. Lambert inserted a note after the transcript: "This is incorrect. The 18th was a Saturday and Bundy testified the day before, on Friday 3/17/67. So, this penciled date must be one of two things: 1) the date that Kruebbe typed the report; or 2) he typed the report, as he suggested, two or three days later and this penciled date is a guess on his part as to the date of the polygraph. We know Bundy came forward and volunteered his services AFTER the Preliminary Hearing began on March 14 and ran 15,16 & 17. That means the polygraph occurred sometime between March 14 and March 17, the day he testified. Kruebbe was adamant during the interview that Bundy's polygraph "pre-dated his testimony." During the Christenberry hearings in January 1971, Jim Garrison was called to testify, and he was asked about Vernon Bundy: Edward O'Donnell was also called to the stand, and he was asked about Vernon Bundy: Here is the FBI report that Lambert mentions in her conversation with James Kruebbe: Here is another version of this memo without the redactions:

BATON ROUGE, La. – Mark your calendar as the 17th Annual Louisiana Book Festival will launch programs on Saturday and Sunday, October 30-31, 2021. Additional new content will be available over the following two weeks on Friday, November 5, through Sunday, November 7, and Friday, November 12, through Sunday, November 14. This free, family-friendly, annual festival celebrating readers, writers, and books is being presented virtually this year. More than 80 authors and presenters will discuss their books during more than 40 virtual programs, including 15 presentations for children, tweens, and teens. Virtual programs can be viewed on the Louisiana Book Festival YouTube channel. I will be on a panel with Professor Alecia Long. Don't forget to buy a copy of her important book, Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime. Here is the link to my author page. I'll post a reminder once our panel discussion goes live.