4,5
Best Edition Denial of Justice: Dorothy Kilgallen, Abuse of Power, and the Most Compelling JFK Assassination Investigation in History with Free PDF EDITION Download Now!
Why is What’s My Line? TV star and Pulitzer-Prize-nominated investigative reporter Dorothy Kilgallen one of the most feared journalists in history? Why has her threatened exposure of the truth about the JFK assassination triggered a cover-up by at least four government agencies and resulted in abuse of power at the highest levels?Denial of Justice—written in the spirit of bestselling author Mark Shaw’s gripping true crime murder mystery, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much—tells the inside story of why Kilgallen was such a threat leading up to her unsolved murder in 1965. Shaw includes facts that have never before been published, including eyewitness accounts of the underbelly of Kilgallen’s private life, revealing statements by family members convinced she was murdered, and shocking new information about Jack Ruby’s part in the JFK assassination that only Kilgallen knew about, causing her to be marked for danger.Peppered with additional evidence signaling the potential motives of Kilgallen’s arch enemies J. Edgar Hoover, mobster Carlos Marcello, Frank Sinatra, her husband Richard, and her last lover, Denial of Justice adds the final chapter to the story behind why the famous journalist was killed, with no investigation to follow despite a staged death scene. More information can be found at www.thedorothykilgallenstory.com.
At this time of writing, The Ebook Denial of Justice: Dorothy Kilgallen, Abuse of Power, and the Most Compelling JFK Assassination Investigation in History has garnered 10 customer reviews with rating of 5 out of 5 stars. Not a bad score at all as if you round it off, it’s actually a perfect TEN already. From the looks of that rating, we can say the Ebook is Good TO READ!
Best Edition Denial of Justice: Dorothy Kilgallen, Abuse of Power, and the Most Compelling JFK Assassination Investigation in History with Free PDF EDITION!
Mr. Shaw feels compelled to give us his second book on this subject in two years and like his first book reveals once again that when it comes to the facts of the actual assassination of John F. Kennedy, his knowledge is very very limited.In his previous book, Mr. Shaw withheld from readers the matter of Dorothy Kilgallen's "exclusive" columns for the New York Journal-American that were based on information fed to her by Mark Lane. This time, he acknowledges one of those items, but not in the correct way that any sensible telling of Kilgallen and the Assassination would require. This concerns the bogus Carousel Club meeting that supposedly took place between Jack Ruby, Officer J.D. Tippit and Bernard Weissman, the Dallas citizen who took out an anti-Kennedy ad in the newspaper on the day of the assassination (tellingly, Shaw can't get this detail right when he says Weissman was responsible for a "billboard").Shaw describes how Thayer Waldo, a journalist of questionable integrity first came up with this alleged meeting story “but was too scared to post it” (Waldo never mentioned it once when he testified before the Warren Commission). But he then tries to mislead the reader into thinking Dorothy got hold of this tall tale on her own and then bravely ran it when no one else would before when she wrote her September 2, 1964 exclusive about this meeting, thus inflating Dorothy’s sense of importance to “breaking” this story.Except there’s just one link in the chain that Shaw is leaving out. The fact that when Dorothy ran this account all she was doing was leaking details of the Warren Commission testimony of Mark Lane, who had gotten the details from Waldo and testified openly about them before the Commission (refusing to name Waldo as the source). Indeed, for the second straight book, Shaw totally withholds from readers the fact that Mark Lane had testified before the Warren Commission and tried to present himself as a legal counsel for the deceased Oswald. When Dorothy ran the Carousel Club story all she was doing was playing the role of courier for the interests of Mark Lane and nothing else.Indeed, Shaw even leaves out the fact that *before* Dorothy ran her article, Lane was already peddling it to the public outside the Warren Commission. In June 1964, Bernard Weissman testified before the Warren Commission and was grilled extensively about his political connections, his motivations behind the advertisement, and he was also questioned extensively about the alleged Carousel Club meeting because Mark Lane had brought the subject up in his Warren Commission testimony. Weissman’s testimony on this matter can be found in Volume V of the Warren Commission hearings starting on page 521. He talked about how he first heard about this alleged meeting he was supposedly present at when he heard Lane talking about it on a New York radio station in an talk program called “Contact.” That is over THREE MONTHS BEFORE Dorothy ran her item about this, so that again hardly makes her “courageous” when all she was doing was repeating something passed on to her by one dishonorable man (Lane) who got it from another dishonorable man (Thayer Waldo).But there’s something else, Shaw is leaving out. You’ll notice I’ve just been referencing the fact that Bernard Weissman was questioned extensively by the Warren Commission about this alleged meeting. It’s right there in black and white in Volume V of the Warren Commission hearings. With that in mind, why does Shaw then proceed to write this whopper regarding the alleged Carousel Club meeting?“Regrettably, out of 552 witnesses called to testify at the Warren Commission, not one of them was asked about the alleged Weismann, Tippit, and Ruby meeting.”Oh really? You mean that Weissman, the most important man to talk to about this, doesn’t count? Lest anyone think I made this whole thing up, readers are invited to look up Weissman's testimony in Volume V of the Warren hearings, page 521 and they can see just how Shaw is guilty of sloppy scholarship or deliberate misrepresentation.But leaving that aside, the Warren Commission DID look at this matter further and their summary on this point has long been available since 1964. Jack Ruby did not know J.D. Tippit. He knew another Dallas police officer named G.M. Tippit. In addition, there were no witnesses who could verify Weissman’s presence in the Carousel Club. The story long ceased to have any credibility and by 1967, the matter of Thayer Waldo being the source had finally become public knowledge and when Waldo fessed up on who *his* source had been, the story’s credibility became more suspect. Waldo was simply relating second-hand gossip from a Carousel Club customer he said he wouldn't give the name of because the man was dating a stripper and didn't want his wife to find out. As Charles Roberts of Newsweek in his 1967 book "The Truth About The Assassination" noted, that only made the story even more suspect given how Lane refused to name this source when he testified to the Warren Commission and was further evidence that Lane knew the story was a hoax that came from a reporter many other reporters (such as Hugh Aynesworth, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Ruby trial, yet who has gone unmentioned in both of Shaw's books) felt had no credibility.When Shaw can’t even get the basic story of this right, and instead tries to conceal critical information like the matter of just who Mark Lane was and what Mark Lane was doing when he appeared before the Warren Commission as a man trying to represent the deceased Oswald, those who are serious students of the JFK assassination can easily dismiss his work as an example of how double of nothing still leaves you with nothing.Believe me, there’s a lot more one could pick apart in Shaw’s work to reveal the shallowness of his work that is largely dependent on fooling people who aren’t familiar with the nuances of the case and the ins-and-outs of the Warren Report. But the most important thing Shaw leaves out is this: Dorothy’s assassination research consisted largely of her being spoon-fed junk by Mark Lane, who was a far more prominent figure than Dorothy was in the annals of conspiracy buffdom at that point in time. Lane was the one appearing before the Warren Commission, Lane was the one organizing “Citizens Committee” bodies, Lane was the one who wrote a book, Lane was the one acting as an advisor to Jim Garrison later on.......and yet no ill-fortune ever befell Mark Lane who lived to peddle more conspiracy ca-ca (the “Winter Soldier Investigation”) right up to his death in 2016 more than 50 years after Dorothy’s death. Strange how the government would somehow find the courier more of a sinister threat than the one who was doing most of the peddling!UPDATE-I am sorry that the comments section for reviews is gone because in the process we have lost a number of interesting things that happened afterwards, such as a rather embarrassing attempt by Mr. Shaw to defend his work by evading all of the tough questions. But let me say something about the disgusting review defending his book by one "Margaret Grace Beers". The author of said review is a troll artist who stole the name of my mother to create a fake account and create a fake review praising Mr. Shaw's book. That should say plenty regarding the kind of company Mr. Shaw attracts with his conspiracy fantasies.
إرسال تعليق