Sunday, 9 December 2012

Destiny Betrayed, by Jim DiEugenio

If there is any serious JFK assassination researcher who does not own a copy of Jim DiEugenio’s updated book, Destiny Betrayed, then I strongly recommend you order a copy A.S.A.P! After reading through the 398 pages of text in the book, I can honestly describe it as being effing brilliant! In this exceptionally well written and footnoted book, Jim DiEugenio demonstrates beyond any doubt that President Kennedy was not the ferocious cold warrior which his shameless critics try to portray him as.

DiEugenio spends a considerable amount time explaining how John Kennedy’s views on countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, the Congo, and Indonesia differed from the views of people such as Presidents Eisenhower and Johnson, and the Dulles brothers. DiEugenio also spends an entire chapter discussing the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and demonstrates beyond any doubt that President Kennedy was indeed deceived by CIA director Allen Dulles, deputy director Charles Cabell, and deputy director of plans Richard Bissell (this chapter is available for free here on the Mary Ferrell foundation website).

DiEugenio also demonstrates beyond any doubt that the much vilified former New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison, was not the villain he has been portrayed as, and how he was relentlessly targeted by the CIA and the justice department after he decided to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. As a matter of fact, one of main reasons I bought the book was to learn all I could about the Garrison investigation – as this was one area of my research into the assassination of President Kennedy where my knowledge was lacking.

One important point in the book that I wish to point out concerning Jim Garrison is the allegation that he was friendly with the Mafia - namely the New Orleans god father, Carlos Marcello. Yet, as DiEugenio explains on page 172:

“...Garrison went out of his way to raid a Marcello establishment in Jefferson county. In his raids on the Bourbon street rackets, he shuttered bars that were either owned by Marcello or his associates.”

The other (more important) point in the book concerning Jim Garrison that I would like to point out, are the infiltrations into Garrisons investigation by Bernardo DeTorres, William Gurvich, and Gordon Novel at the behest of the CIA. As DiEugenio writes on page 233:

“What makes this so fascinating is that all three of these infiltrations began almost six months before Garrison even accused the CIA of being part of the assassination plot against Kennedy!”

This is indeed a crucial point. For if the CIA had no involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, why the heck would they be so concerned about Garrison’s investigation - before he even fingered them as being part of the conspiracy? Unless of course, they were involved!

I don’t wish to discuss the Garrison investigation in detail, as I think everyone should buy a copy of the book and read about it for themselves. However, I will say that DiEugenio has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Clay Shaw was indeed the mysterious Clay Bertrand, who called New Orleans attorney, Dean Andrews, to defend Oswald after he was arrested by the Dallas Police.

Furthermore, DiEugenio proves that Oswald was indeed associated with the notorious right wing figures, Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Kerry Thornley etc. Now if Oswald was truly the Marxist which the Warren Commission and its defenders uphold, then what the hell was he doing with men such as the above? Unless of course, Oswald was not the Marxist we were told he was – and was set-up as the patsy for the assassination by these right wingers.

In the final few chapters of this excellent book, DiEugenio discusses other important issues such as what happened to the HSCA once Richard Sprague and Robert Tanenbaum were replaced by Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, as chief counsel and deputy counsel of the HSCA, respectively. There is also a 20 page chapter dedicated to the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City, and an 18 page discussion of JFK’s Vietnam policy – and how it substantially differed from that of his successor’s, Lyndon Johnson.

Overall, I am immensely pleased with this book. However, I wish the chapter on Mexico City had been longer. I also believe the discussion on the Cuban missile crisis was fairly brief. We should bear in mind, however, that this is not the author’s fault – as sky horse publishing had placed a limit on the number of pages that could be written. Let me note that although I don’t believe this is the definitive book on the assassination (as I believe Jim DiEugenio will also agree), this is certainly the book which sets the record straight! Not just concerning John Kennedy’s legacy, but also concerning Jim Garrison and his investigation.

I am also pleased that the book didn’t contain any discussion on highly controversial issues such as alteration of the Zapruder film, and David Lifton’s pathetic body alteration theory.

Before concluding this article, I would like to point out what I believe is one of the best (and most important) parts of the book. I am referring to the discussion of Ruth and Michael Paine – Ruth in particular. For those new to JFK assassination research, Ruth Paine was the “innocent” Quaker lady with whom Marina Oswald and her children were living with in Dallas. But most importantly, it was in Ruth Paine’s garage where Oswald allegedly kept his rifle inside a blanket. It was also in Ruth Paine’s house where much of the evidence against Oswald, such as the backyard photographs and the so-called Walker note were found.

Suffice it to say, DiEugenio does an exceptional job in exposing the lies and the hidden background of the Paine’s – such as their connection to the CIA! DiEugenio also discusses in great length one of the most overlooked potential pieces of evidence against Oswald - the so-called Nixie package, which was to be delivered to Ruth Paine’s residence. This package contained a sheet of brown wrapping paper. As DiEugenio explains in his book, this brown wrapping paper was likely to be used as evidence that Oswald had made a gun sack to carry the rifle into the TSBD.

If you want to learn all you can about the Paines, the package, and much more, then you will have to buy the book and read for yourself. As I said at the beginning of this article, if there is any serious JFK assassination researcher who does not own a copy of this book, then I strongly recommend you order a copy A.S.A.P. It is a must read!

However, a word of warning: If you are only interested in untenable conspiracy theories, then this is not the book for you! This is a book based solely on facts and declassified documents. I strongly urge anyone who is interested in learning about the real John F Kennedy, the truth behind his assassination, and the real Jim Garrison, to read this terrific book.

I would now like to conclude this article with an open message to Jim DiEugenio:

Mr DiEugenio,

As someone who greatly admires John F Kennedy, I want to both thank and congratulate you on your enormous contribution to seeking the truth behind his unfortunate death. I also want to thank you for setting the record straight (as you undoubtedly have) concerning his character and legacy. You are without a shadow of a doubt one of the most knowledgeable, dedicated, and honest researchers there is.

There was a time when I almost gave up researching President Kennedy’s assassination, because of the many ridiculous theories I had been reading on the internet, and in some books. However, one of the reasons why I didn’t give up is because of the excellent and credible information I had come across on your website.

I am very pleased that your book has received many five star ratings on I am also looking forward to reading the discussions about your book on the Spartacus education forum. I only wish you had been allowed to write more than you were. I also greatly enjoy listening to you on Len Osanic’s radio show.

Once again, thank you for all you have done!


  1. I agree with you that this is a book everybody should own. Jim is a true expert and his work on Jim Garrison is exceptional. Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a "definitive" JFK assassination book?

    1. Martin,

      I don't think there can ever be a "definitive" book on the assassination. The reason I say that is because even if - and that's a big fat if - all the classified assassination related files were to be declassified within the next 50 years, we will never know how many important files and documents were lost/destroyed.

      Having said all that, the three best books in my opinion are Jim's book, JFK and the unspeakable, and Someone would have talked (3rd edition).

      Jim Di's terrific work at CTKA (and others such as yourself) is the number one reason why I am continuing with JFK assassination research.

      I emailed him an essay I wrote on the dark gray blue jacket (Ce163) which will be posted on CTKA, and would like for you to please provide me some feedback on it if you decide to read it.


    2. No problem, Hasan. I look forward to reading it.

      I actually think I agree with you on the issue of "definitive" books. I gave JFK and the Unspeakable a 5-star review at the time but I'm less enthusiatic about parts of it now. I think Douglass fell for a few too many tall tales. For example William Bruce Pitzer did not make a film of the autopsy and his death was a suicide, pure and simple. And from everything I've read, the FBI didn't ruin Ralph Leon Yates's life, he was genuinely nuts. These types of small points are unimportant to the overall thesis of the book, but at the same time they will mislead people new to the case. As I see it, 50 years on, we need to stop theorizing, stop propagating unfounded allegations, and start seperating the wheat from the chaff.

    3. I totally agree with you about separating the wheat from the chaff, and the need to stop propagating unfound allegations. For example;

      Although I think the SBT is totally bogus, I think it's 100% obvious that Connally was hit at Zapruder frame 224.

      There are some researchers who want to believe that Tippit was shot by an automatic, because of Gerald Hill. But I am 100% convinced that Hill framed Oswald with the revolver, and claimed the Tippit shells were from an automatic as part of CYA.

      I am satisfied that the MC was used during the assassination (and Oswald did NOT own it), and that the Mauser in fact belonged to Warren Caster, and that he lied about removing it from the TSBD before the assassination to help make the Mauser storey disappear.

      I am convinced that there was indeed a shooter in the Sniper's nest window of the 6th TSBD window; unlike some other researchers who want to believe this was not the case.


      As for Ralph Yates, Greg Parker and Lee Farley had a brilliant discussion on Greg's forum that Yates had picked-up Larry Crafard. Look for the "Rushoman to Judgement" thread, if you haven't seen it already.


  2. I can see we agree on a good number of points. The SBT is bullshit but based on Don Thomas's acoustics work I believe Connally was hit around Z-225. Thomas's version of the SBT is no more persuasive IMHO. I have long thought that the Mauser story is a red herring. After all, if you're going to set Oswald up, why wouldn't you use a rifle traceable to him? Where we disagree is that I think Oswald DID own it. I also have no doubt that there was a gunman on the 6th floor based not only on the acoustics but also the witnesses who all saw a guy wearing a white or very light colored shirt - not Oswald's burgandy plaid one.

    OTOH I don't believe Hill planted the revolver on Oswald. IMHO if that were the case Oswald would have shouted about it at least once during the many times he was paraded before the press. I'm sure he would have said something about it during the infamous midnight press conference. I know I would have done. As soon as I got before reporters I'd have been yelling "These bastards are setting me up! They tried to plant a gun on me!" Wouldn't you?

    Just my two cents.

    1. Thanks for the feedback, Martin.

      I think you make a good point about Oswald and the revolver. However, consider that perhaps Oswald didn't want want to accuse the cops of framing him, as he might have thought the press would not believe him, and just ridicule him. Perhaps during the melee inside the Theatre, Oswald didn't even realise that Hill had shouted out that he had the gun. Who knows. Rememeber, Oswald also didn't shout out to the press that he had been framed with the so-called backyard pictures. I hate to think what was going through his mind from the time he was arrested till the time Ruby shot him. In any event, I think the evidence is very convincing that Hill is guilty of framing him.

      As for the rifle, I think Gil Jesus has proven that Oswald could not have ordered it via Money order. It makes absolutely no sense to me that Oswald would use an alias to order the rifle (obviously to hide the fact that he, Oswald, ordered it), but then have it delivered to his PO box; which was under his own name. I think it was Ruth Paine who obtained the rifle as part of the frame-up, and that Michael Paine brought the so-called backyard photos with him when he arrived to "help" the DPD. But since they were already there, the photos then had to be "found" the following day.

      I am firmly of the opinion that only TWO shots were fired from the TSBD sniper's nest, and that Pat Speer's analysis of the ear witness statements has demonstrated that the shot(s) to Governor Connally was fired by a rifle equipped with a silencer/suppressor. I discuss my take on the acoustics evidence in Part 3 of my review of the Don Thomas book. I realise that my belief there were two microphones "stuck" open will sound far fetched, but I think it's possible.

      I have changed my mind on a number of things throughout my research into the JFK assassination, but I doubt that anything will change my mind about Gerald Hill, and that there were two (not three) shots fired from the TSBD.

      Having said all that, I hope we can agree to disagree on some things, Martin, and continue to communicate with eachother.


  3. Absolutely, Hasan. We all place greater emphasis on different pieces of evidence. That's one of the reasons why there are 12 people on a jury. So of course we can agree to disagree. I'm not one of those people who automatically despises people with different views. I am even good friends with a guy who's a committed lone nutter! That being said, I get quite annoyed by the alterationists; the people who pretend that every piece of evidence that contradicts their pet theories is faked or altered. That's just silly and lazy-minded. For the record, I don't buy the idea that the Zapruder film, JFK's corpse, or the X-rays have been altered. Nor do I really believe the backyard photos are fake - I just don't believe Marina is the person who took them.

    And like yourself, my mind is always changing about things based on what I learn. To me, that's the mark of an honest researcher.

    Cheers, Martin

  4. I agree with everything you said, Martin; except of course, the authenticity of the backyard photos. I also get sick and tired of hearing that the Zapruder film, the photos of Dealey plaza etc. have been altered/faked. I tend to keep away from these issues, as there are MUCH more informant issues to focus on.



Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.