Defending "Conspiracy Freak"

Author Fred Litwin has found himself embroiled in a manufactured controversy regarding his first book about the JFK assassination entitled I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. The individual who has created this bogus debate is Jim Garrison apologist James DiEugenio. The following quote from DiEugenio’s article “Litwin and the Warren Report” describes his alleged problems with Litwin’s book:

The very title of Litwin’s book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, strikes this reviewer as being deliberately provocative, but at least a bit ersatz. The implication of that title would be that, at one time, the author really believed that a conspiracy killed President Kennedy. Litwin says this was so, yet somehow, he does not produce any evidence to demonstrate it was in his entire book. He notes articles and talks he gave which support the Warren Commission and ridicule the critics.

In response, Litwin has prepared a blog piece that gives specific examples of his critical and skeptical attitude toward the Warren Commission. Yet, for some reason, DiEugenio still doubts Fred's claims. I am not sure why this is, but if I were the cynical type, I might say that Jim is bothered by the fact that Fred has written an excellent book debunking Garrison. Because of this, DiEugenio is striking back at Litwin by implying that he was never a conspiracy believer and his "Conspiracy Freak" book is therefore a fraud. But as I say, I can't read DiEugenio’s mind so a motive for his curious behavior is unclear.

The question is—does evidence exist to support Litwin’s statements that he once believed in a conspiracy? And has DiEugenio mischaracterized said evidence for his own purposes?

Litwin’s writings on the subject were not voluminous prior to his conversion to a “lone nut” position. However, enough examples exist to allow us to evaluate DiEugenio’s claims. In Litwin's blog piece, he mentions the first JFK article that he wrote in 1975 at age nineteen. In that article, he writes:

The assassination of JFK is perhaps the most shocking and controversial act of this [20th] century. The Warren Commission did nothing to stop the controversy.

As is obviously and immediately apparent, this statement does not “support” the WC and does nothing to “ridicule” the critics. Indeed, far from deriding the critics, Litwin’s article goes on to succinctly state their case.

The conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin is seen by most critics to be the major fault of the Warren Commission. Critics say this conclusion is contradicted by the Zapruder film: the most graphic illustration of the assassination.

Litwin then goes on to discuss the Zapruder film and the evidence against the lynchpin of the commission’s case—the single bullet theory. Litwin writes about the upcoming appearance of Rusty Rhodes, a WC critic. While Litwin makes it clear that he believes that the evidence does not support a shot from the front, he also writes: [Cyril Wecht] has found several other facts [aside from a frontal shot] which are not consistent with the Warren Commission.

Litwin then writes about the problems that Wecht and other critics have with the infamous Bullet 399 which was found on Connally’s stretcher. Additionally, Litwin mentions the then-impending HSCA investigation:

Many people argue a new investigation will do little. This is not true for there are still reams of secret evidence in the National Archives that have not yet been examined.

None of this sounds to me like someone who is trying to “ridicule the critics” or “support the Warren Commission.”

Litwin’s second JFK article discusses the appearance of Rhodes and highlights some problems that Litwin had with his presentation. He called Rhodes a “sensationalist” for emphasizing some of the more controversial aspects of the case (such as a frontal shot) while neglecting to mention evidence that contradicted his theories. The main reason that Litwin was critical of Rhodes was because he had agreed with Litwin that there was no evidence to support a frontal shot during a private discussion that preceded his presentation. Despite Litwin’s disagreement with Rhodes over the tone of his lecture, he still noted the following:

The Kennedy assassination has enough legitimate mysteries about it without a necessity to invent them.

Litwin’s next writing on the assassination happened in June of 1976. In a letter to the editor of “People and the Pursuit of Truth” Litwin argues for the theory of Robert Forman and Cyril Wecht that the shot which traversed the back/neck of JFK then exited the limousine rather than hitting Connally. In other words, Litwin argued against the single bullet theory. Which is an odd position to take if one is not a true conspiracy believer.

Litiwn’s next article came in November of 1977. The title of that piece, “Mysteries Persist in Kennedy Killing” gives away the substance of the article. For instance:

A storm of controversy arose when it became clear that the evidence in the case did not sustain the Warren Report conclusions. Critics pointed out that the physical evidence pointed to the existence of a second gunman.

Litiwn criticized the media’s handling of the HSCA investigation:

Chief among the critics of the [HSCA] investigation were the major media in the United States—notably the New York Times and CBS broadcasting. The New York Times assigned one reporter to continually attack the reputation of the chief consul Richard Sprague. These attacks almost succeeded in stopping the investigation—Sprague was fired because of them. One committee member, after seeing the massive media blitz against the investigation, commented that, “I never believed in conspiracies until now.”

Litwin’s words were echoed years later by another critic:

The first attacks on Sprague began with the Los Angeles Times. These were then picked up and amplified by the New York Times. And then the Washington Post jumped into it … [New York Times Reporter David] Burnham went to the newspaper morgue in Philadelphia and wrote a long series about Sprague’s career in the Philadelphia DA’s office. He picked five small points of controversy in Sprague’s illustrious eighteen-year career. When the series was over, the Times ran an editorial asking Sprague to resign.

These words, which could have been authored by the 1977 Fred Litwin were written by Jim DiEugenio himself and are taken from his book Destiny Betrayed. Is this symbiosis of thought between Litwin and DiEugenio proof enough of Fred’s seventies conspiracy pedigree? Most reasonable observers would say yes.

Litwin’s last article as a conspiracy theorist concludes by mentioning the conspiracy staples of witnesses dying and the fact that the HSCA would be the first “real investigation.”

One can hope that DiEugenio will stop his silly attacks on Litwin’s “Conspiracy Freak” book although I am not holding my breath. Obviously, individuals can and do change their mind regarding the JFK assassination as the conversions of Paul Hoch, Dale Myers, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes, to name a few, prove.