I know David Lifton.
David Lifton is a friend of mine.
Jim DiEugenio, a consummate fabricator is no David Lifton.
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
** ** **
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.
But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love—
Hamlet. O God!
Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
Hamlet. Murder!
Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.
I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).
(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).
Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).
In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”
But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”
To what am I referring?
What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was.
This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.
Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.
I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.
I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).
So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:
Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.
Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.
C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".
And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.
Stay tuned.
DSL
