Celebrating Jim Garrison at UNLV

@UNLV, January 31

From Dick Russell, via News From Underground, comes word of an evening about New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, hero of the movie “JFK,” on Jan. 31 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

I doubt the evening will be “the last word,” but the event is sure to be informative, especially for those who haven’t decided whether Garrison was truly a hero, or something of a scoundrel.

And if the proceedings get too heavy for you, it sounds like comedian Richard Belzer may crack a few jokes.

My view of Jim Garrison is this: 

Whatever else you can say about the guy, the fact the CIA’s Counterintelligence (CI) Staff was secretly trying to subvert his investigation in New Orleans in 1967 and 1968 indicates that he was looking into events that involved CI equities, including a CIA operation against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee launched in September 1963.

James Angleton, the legendary chief of the CI staff, certainly could not afford to disclose all that he knew about Oswald in the weeks before JFK was killed.

(Here’s a CI Staff report from April 1967 about Garrison’s investigation and the sorts of issues it was stirring up: “Possible DRE Animus Towards President Kennedy.“)

I think Jim Garrison was on to something important, even if he didn’t have a very clear idea of what it was. I could be wrong.

The problem is that the CIA’s records of certain operations in late 1963 remain, unbelievably, the subject of official classification in 2014 — with the unfortunate approval of Eric Holder’s Justice Department and the Obama White House.

Thus official secrecy makes it hard to pass definitive judgements on Jim Garrison even after all these years.

Watch John Barbour’s film, “The Garrison Tapes” for more background on the crusading New Orleans prosecutor.

From Dick Russell:

“On January 31 at UNLV’s Greenspun Auditorium, a panel including some of the world’s best known and most credible assassination researchers will participate in a live, world-wide webcast about JFK, in particular, the investigation launched by former New Orleans DA Jim Garrison. Longtime TV host and producer John Barbour will screen his groundbreaking film about Garrison, and the panelists will take questions from the audience.

The onstage guests will include author Jim Marrs, whose book about the JFK plot was one of the inspirations for the Oliver Stone film, longtime assassination researcher and author Dick Russell, and historian-author Joan Mellen. Barbour says the panelists will tell what they know about Garrison’s investigation which constitutes “the greatest true story never told.” The 7 p.m. event is free and open to the public. Among those helping to get the word out about the UNLV event is comedian and JFK researcher Richard Belzer.

via Hot panel at UNLV on JFK’s assassination (featuring Dick Russell) :: News From Underground.

72 thoughts on “Celebrating Jim Garrison at UNLV”

  1. Vsyo Yasnovich

    I feel strongly that Lee Harvey Oswald actually believed that he was on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository on November 22, 1963 to help protect Kennedy from an assassination attempt as the result of a ‘deal’ he had made with the U.S. government that would allow him to come back into U.S. society and live a normal life again with his wife and their two young daughters. I feel that way because of a clear revelation that I had in Moscow in early 1993: He and I both spent three years in the Soviet Union, we both were engaged to Russian women (He married his fiancee, I did not.), we both had/have political views that are not accepted in the U.S. and we were both considered a ‘lost person’ by the U.S.. Being considered a lost person in the USSR meant that your government has given up on you, since you had decided to go your own way. In other words, Oswald was a prime target to be set up.

  2. What McAdams does not say is that interview he quoting from is by Mike Ewing.

    Ewing was brought in by Blakey and Cornwell to put a cap on New Orleans. Too much good stuff was coming out through Buras and Delsa, the original investigators. They actually followed Garrison’s leads and they went further than JG did.

    Once Blakey saw this, he decided to disperse that team of Blackmer, Delsa and Buras.

    He now decided to send in Ewing and to go all Mafia in New Orleans. If one reads the entirety of that interview, one will see that Garrison understands all that and is now shutting down on his part. At the end he tells Ewing to read his book.

    This is a very far cry from what Garrison did with Buras and Delsa. He actually sent them reams of stuff from his own files.

    One last thing, it was Garrison who first originated a Mob, CIA, Cuban exile nexus for the crime. He did it formally in Harper’s in 1976, four years before Summers.

  3. Incidentally, the mention of James Angleton’s name in the article above reminded me of one of his quotes. Specifically the one about “a mansion having many rooms- I’m not privy to who struck John.” Does this mean than Angleton did not believe the official version of the assassination? Should he not be added to the list of Washington insiders who did not believe the Warren Commission findings, along with RFK, Jackie Kennedy etc? Apologies for going off on a tangent!

  4. One of the things that irks me about Garrison is the fact that he had the Carlos Marcello organization operating right in his jurisdiction yet he didn’t seem to follow leads to organized crime. Whether one believes the Mob organized the plot against Kennedy or was just involved but the CIA ran the show, I never understood Garrison’s reluctance to follow leads pointing to organized crime involvement.

      1. Good ole Professor McAdams, the master of cherry-picking. This, after all, is the guy who claimed on national TV that one end of CE399 is “mashed very considerably”! Ha ha! Brilliant. The slightly flattened base end of CE399 – that looks just like the Carcano rounds Henry Hurt fired into water – is “mashed very considerably”. Gotta love it.

        Anyhoo, here’s a couple of passages from Garrison’s HSCA interview that the professor chooses not to quote:

        Garrison also began speaking of the various organized crime angles of the CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, noting that he did not know of such plots during his 1967 probe. Garrison stated that he views the plots as very important; that he had not realized that the CIA and the Cuban exiles could be connected through the mafia to that extent. Garrison stated that he would have pursued those plots in depth if he had known of them at the time. Garrison at this point remarked that he has been intrigued by the “recurring pattern” and “recurring associations” between various people in the case and the city of Las Vegas. He stated that Trafficante’s man, Lewis McWillie, ended up working in Las Vegas, and that McWillie was a close friend of Jack Ruby’s. He stated that John Roselli was from Las Vegas, and was also in organized crime, and that another friend of Ruby’s ended up in Las Vegas.

        At that point, it was pointed out that some people have noted that each of Garrison’s original key witnesses in his Kennedy probe had themselves had a recurring pattern of associations: David Ferrie, Dean Andrews, G. Wray Gill, and Jack Martin. Namely, that each had been employed by Carlos Marcello at one time. When asked if he had ever noted this common association, Garrison stated that he had. He went on to state that at one point early in his investigation he had considered looking into a possible connection to the President’s assassination involving Marcello, noting that Ferrie had been somewhat close to him. Garrison stated however that “that trail didn’t lead anywhere; we could find no leads” to pursue it and thus dropped the Marcello possibility. Garrison stated that if he had found any information relating to Marcello, he would have definitely pursued it.

        1. This from Garrison:

          When asked if he believed Marcello was a man capable of having President Kennedy murdered, Garrison did not directly answer the question. Garrison stated that he has “certainly heard” that Marcello may have once been involved in some kind of criminal activity years ago. He stated that he has some reason to believe that some of Marcello’s money was obtained through criminal acts many years ago. Garrison further stated that he has heard of
          allegations linking Marcello to organized crime and the Mafia, but does not know if they are true. He stated that he has heard over the years that Marcello may be a man of significant wealth, and may in fact be one of Louisiana’s wealthier citizens. He stated that Marcello
          is not active in real estate and is a businessman.

          When asked again if he believes that Marcello had the motive and means to assassinate President Kennedy, Garrison again did not respond to the question, and began talking about another subject at length.

          1. Yes John and if you read between the lines you’d understand he did not think Marcello BIG enough to pull it off therefore he was ‘dismissed’

            Oh and where is the source for that quote?

    1. Have you ever seen the 1970 AP photo of Dean Andrews in court with Carlos Marcello? Are you aware of Dave Ferrie’s ties to Marcello? It can hardly be said that Garrison ignored that angle. But given how much organized crime is in bed with US intelligence agencies, it is really impossible to treat them as separate entities.

  5. In regards to the Garrison case: I think that the death of David Ferrie was a major blow. He should have been investigated and questioned. In a legal sense Garrison’s case appears to have been a bit of a fiasco. The witnesses were not the most credible. In an attempt to develop the truth into the assassination the Garrison case was more positive. A witness had to admit that the autopsy was directed by the military (his name escapes me at the moment), and the activities at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans was brought to a much wider audience. Also, it has been confirmed that Clay Shaw was involved with the CIA. On the other hand, I don’t think the evidence was there to justify having him charged with involvement in the killing of JFK.

  6. Steve, what abuses do you mean? How much about the Garrison case have you read? I believe Weisberg, and Meagher had their own axe to grind with Garrison. Weisberg in particular who could be quite unpleasant if you didn’t agree with his views or research. Oliver Stone just said as much in an interview on Black Op Radio this week. I can’t comment on David Lifton as I have not read his work as yet. I don’t believe Tom Bethell either – he stole Garrison’s files and gave them to Shaw’s defence so I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a intel plant like Bill Boxley. I mean, have you ever read the CIA’s own declassified memos outlining their campaign of attack to discredit Garrison? Or the work of Bill Davy, Joan Mellen or Jim Di Eugenio?

    1. Meagher’s criticism of the Clay Shaw trial seems pretty legit:

      “…A critic of the Warret. Report, it seems to me, is obliged to apply to Garrison’s evidence the same strict and objective tests which he applied to the Commission’s evidence. By that yardstick, I find little merit in the testimony of Mssrs. Russo and Bundy, although for reasons other than those against which Professor Popkin [NYR, September 14] argues. Russo’s story, quite apart from the questions raised about resort to hypnosis and sodium pentothal to elicit his story, seems to me inherently bereft of credibility. I can scarcely believe that three conspirators discussed the logistics of a plan to assassinate President Kennedy in the presence of a fourth person, whom they left at liberty to inform on them whenever the spirit moved him—before or after the assassination was accomplished. (Other objections to Russo’s testimony may or may not be warranted; for example, Professor Popkin concedes that the notes of the first interview with Russo written by Garrison’s aide Andrew Sciambra do not include this episode, but he does not explain why it was omitted if, as Sciambra insists, it was discussed. I have heard a number of different explanations from Garrison’s supporters among the critics, none of which provided plausible reasons for the omission of what was undeniably the central part of Russo’s story.)”


    2. The “attempt to discredit Garrison” was overseas, where the CIA was countering a KGB propaganda campaign.

      And Boxley was not a “CIA plant.”

      He had worked for the CIA, but rather than being a CIA spy in Garrison’s office, was an alcoholic who couldn’t “hack it” with the Agency, and had had no connection with the Agency for 14 years when he signed on with Garrison.


      1. John, I’ve not kept up with the details of Garrison’s investigation that are used to discredit him, so it may be that this line of inquiry lead nowhere and/or has been debunked. Any insight you might have would be appreciated.

        This relates to the period in the investigation involving Ruth Paine, a Quaker in New Orleans named Kloepfer, her work in the parish prison, an encounter with Clay Shaw, and a reference to Stephen Lemann, NO attorney (associated with Whitney banking/Freeport Sulphur) and alleged CIA paymaster relating to the Garrison investigation. (Lemann has a number of other credentials not mentioned here.)


          1. John, are you asking what was my point in asking you about this document? or are you asking what was the point of the document when it was generated?

          2. John, I am going to anticipate your response.

            The Stephen Lemann referenced in this document was a member of the NO law firm that represented the Whitney family interests in New Orleans, including Whitney Bank. The Whitney’s were original investors in Freeport Sulphur. I recognize that you have vehemently objected to the research presented by Lisa Pease relating to the mineral company, but you cannot disavow that Freeport was operating throughout the Caribbean and Latin America.

            The Stephen Lemann family and firm also had affiliations with a company called Avrico – which was in essence United Fruit, i.e. Samuel Zemurray and the Dulles brothers whose board members have included such notables as John Jay McCloy of the Warren Commission and Robert Lehman of Lehman Brothers. Avrico and Whitney Bank have shared a New Orleans address, 228 St. Charles Ave.

            This from the United Fruit Historical Society:

            After Zemurray retired in 1951, he remained as chairman of the executive committee of United Fruit. In that position it has been said that he had an important role in engineering the overthrow of the government of Guatemala in 1954, after the democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz began expropriating the company’s plantations in order to follow his agrarian reform project. Zemurray led a campaign that portraied Arbenz as a dangerous Communist ( Read Edward Bernays – my emphasis ) in the American media. Working together with an advertisement company he distributed alarmist propaganda among the press and Congressmen in which he showed Guatemala as a foothold of the Soviet Union in the Western Hemisphere. This campaign was eventually successful, since the CIA sponsored a military coup against Arbenz, in which the rebels used United Fruit boats to transport troops and ammunition. The colonel who led the coup, Carlos Castllo, set back Arbenz labor and agrarian reforms and harshly repressed the opposition. In 1961, United Fruit also provided two ships for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

            Why would you think that UF and Whitney/Freeport Sulphur related attorneys vis a vis Stephen Lemann et al had distanced themselves from these activities by the early 1960’s? and if they had not, is it not interesting to you that Lemann (and through him these same entities) surface in a Garrison document that mentions Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, and through various NO citizens, Clay Shaw? And that in this document, it is evident that Garrison suspected attorney Lemann as a CIA paymaster.

      2. Oh John, do you really believe that people who are no longer “officially employed” by the Agency have truly severed all ties with it?

        1. “Boxley” was tossed out for being a drunkard.

          Do you think that anybody who ever had any connection with the Agency was always and forever a loyal minion?

          Have you folks ever considered that you could connect half the population of the United States to some group you consider sinister by this sort of logic?

          1. Let’s take that coin of logic and flip it over, John.

            Do you intelligence buffs (or maybe you actually have a job with the Agency that pays?) actually think that people in power are incapable of USING THAT POWER in a sinister way? Go back and reexamine Lyndon Johnson’s career, and be sure to look closely at the ballot box stuffing, Connally’s bag jobs, and the murders that took place, and don’t forget to look at the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals. Ya think LBJ might not have been a completely straight shooter, John?

            Then look into CIA’s foreign hit jobs as revealed by Senator Frank Church. Still see nothing? Nixon “not a crook” kind of vision thing going on with you?

            To say, as intelligence buffs like you like to say, that government conspiracies and corrupt power plays don’t happen on a massive scale, is just plain naive. Not that they always happen, let’s be real. But as I think Madison said about power, it must be checked. When it isn’t checked, as Harry Truman reminded us in his Washington Post OP/ED, we should be concerned.

            Do you get that, John? Or do I have to “rub you buff’s noses in it”?

          2. This is not accurate.

            In Destiny Betrayed, I make it clear with testimony from people who were actually there, the circumstances of how and why Boxley left.

            Vince Salandria asked to see all of his work product. He then showed it to Garrison, after he gave Garrison a chapter on counter-intelligence uses during the Russian Civil War.

            Garrison read the file and they decided that Boxley was leading them around the mulberry bush. So they called him down to explain. Lou Ivon called him twice. Boxley said he would show. He did not. On the third try, Boxley laughed loudly and told Ivon to tell Garrison they were coming after him with it all.

            Ivon and Garrison went to the rented room Boxley had. They found out that, first, the phone number he gave them did not match the address, and second, he did not live there. He was there for one day, left a folded shirt, and mailed in the checks.

            Boxley later, in an interview with Texas researcher George Rennar, revealed that he knew about the Garrison desk at CIA. This is revealing since, as the time of that interview, no one knew about the Garrison Group set up by Helms in late 1967.

            Between his saying we are coming after Garrison, and his knowledge of this group, and his failure to show that night, and his giving out a misaligned phone, and phony address, I don’t know any way to explain that all innocently. Plus when you add in the things Boxley actually did, which are also in Destiny Betrayed, I think the case against him as a CIA agent provocateur is quite strong.

      3. John McAdams, you state The “attempt to discredit Garrison was overseas ….

        Somewhere there is evidence that a concerted effort to discredit Garrison was afoot in New Orleans, and that it was funded by local businessmen. If you refute that allegation, I’ll go looking for the source material.

        The Alcock memo intimates that just such an effort was underway, and that Stephen Lemann (Whitney Bank/Freeport Sulphur, CIA paymaster) was involved.

  7. [Jonathan:] “Who among JFK researchers today believes Clay Shaw had a hand in killing JFK?”

    Lee said: “I do request SOMEONE to come forward to give me legal assistance.”

    Clay Shaw then called and hired Dean Andrews.

    Thus the man went by 3 names:

    – “Clay Shaw”
    – “Clay Bertrand”
    – “SOMEONE”.

  8. “Garrison, when I knew him was, amusing, charming and well-read, but also dangerous, because he had a cavalier and completely irresponsible attitude toward power.”

    What exactly does Mr. Bethell mean by “. . . but also dangerous, because he {Garrison} had a cavalier and completely irresponsible attitude toward power”

    Tom Bethell’s generic bio at wiki reveals among other issues, his defense of “Intelligent Design.” I guess that could be a foundation for insisting that no one/Garrison should challenge power, after all, there is a ‘perfect/intelligent design’ that relegates power only to certain entities and individuals, and not others, and it should be respected.

    During the most intense period of the Garrison investigation, did Mr. Bethell consider whether or not the list of contacts in Shaw’s possession – a list representing a veritable who’s who of minor, yet highly provocative/second tier European royalty and/or related enjoying relative degrees of influence – have anything to do with the power manipulating Shaw in New Orleans?

    If stars align, I plan to be in Las Vegas on the 31st; regardless, best wishes to all those who are. Jim Garrison’s efforts kept hope alive.

    1. leslie sharp,

      You write:

      “Jim Garrison’s efforts kept hope alive.” I wish that were true. Garrison was so badly and constantly trashed by the press, that I and I think many others began losing hope in the late 1960s that the truth would ever come out about the JFK murder.

      Hope for me was renewed by the Church Committee, which did excellent work making public CIA and FBI abuses during the decade of the 1960s. That work is enduring.

      1. Maybe my choice of the word “hope” is misplaced. Better said, I think that Garrison re-ignited the conversation in the general population.

    2. Garrison was slurred with an intensity that can only be characterized as a full court press by Intelligence, Big Media, and Big Academia.
      A propaganda campaign that continues to this very day on this very thread.

      Now, the bottom line to all of this is the admission of the members of the Warren Commission that they would go along with the framing of Oswald and not rock the boat.

      “They found their man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can all go home and that’s the end of it.”~Rankin, 22 Jan 1964

      By the same token, we have found our men, these members of the commission blatantly planning the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald. We should be able to all go home and that’s the end of it. BUT for the dupes who continue to argue in favor of this cover-up as a legitimate inquiry.

      There really is nothing more to argue about, the Commission let the cat out of the bag at one of the very first meetings they had. They tried to make that meeting a national security secret, but it snuck through the cracks. We know it now. It cannot be put back in the bag but through spurious disingenuous rhetorical gibberish.

      See: Warren Commission Executive Session of 22 Jan 1964

  9. the fact the CIA’s Counterintelligence (CI) Staff was secretly trying to subvert his investigation in New Orleans in 1967 and 1968 indicates that he was looking into events that involved CI equities, including a CIA operation against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee launched in September 1963.

    In fact, Jeff, we know what the CIA was doing, and it was spinning its wheels.


    As for your “operation” against the FPCC, you have not produced any evidence of a CIA operation against FPCC in New Orleans. You suspect that. That’s not the same as having evidence.

    1. Jeff can defend himself, but there’s certainly a lot of smoke that would suggest the fire regarding a CIA operation against the FPCC. It’s proven that as part of COINTELPRO, the FBI was running such an operation, so it’s not like it’s far fetched at all.

      1. The issue is whether there was an “operation” against the FPCC in New Orleans, as Jeff seems to believe.

        Jeff has implied that the New Orleans debate was part of such an operation.

    2. There was no official FPCC in New Orleans in 1963. Against the wishes of the FPCC leadership, Lee Oswald started his own local branch but he was the only member.

      The circumstantial evidence for the CIA pulling the strings behind Oswald’s FPCC game is pretty strong. We now know how the DRE group in New Orleans was funded. We now know the CIA paid for them to promote Oswald’s FPCC activities in the news media. The only thing missing is a confession.

      1. Actually, Jeff’s own article admits that, before the DRE went ahead (on the day of the assassination) with charging Castro with the killing, they called their CIA handler and asked if it was OK to do that.

        They were told to hold off.

        But they went ahead anyway.

        1. I have to ask John, why do you think Oswald provoked the DRE in New Orleans? Was it to impress Castro after a presidential assassination from a building and job he was still two months away from getting? Or was it pure happenstance that this loner/loser knew who the NO head of the CIA-backed DRE was and where he worked and just decided to make trouble for the CIA after an assassination he could not have had thought of yet?

          1. Oswald’s own explanation for the visit to the Casa Roca was that he was trying to “infiltrate” the anti-Castro forces.

            He claimed to have used information he gained against them.

            As for “provocation:” if you are talking about the dust-up on Canal Street, it was probably Oswald wanting to get publicity.

            And it worked.

          2. OK. One more quesfion – how did the security agencies miss the press release in Oswald from the DRE? They were CIA funded and guided. The FBI spoke with Oswald in jail. How did both agencies miss this warning and not put Oswald on a high security watch list? Seems impossible they missed the release unless both agencies had a use for the guy.

      2. Neil,

        Furthermore, Castro knew all about the legitimate FPCC chapters in the U.S.; he had no information about the NOLA chapter, indicating it was not a regular FPCC chapter.

        Oswald could have set up the rogue FPCC chapter in NOLA all on his own. But the whole affair, including the Jones printing job, Oswald’s arrest, his subsequent long chat with Warren DeBrueys, all of it seems too highly scripted to be of just his own doing. A script starring Oswald the Marxist. In which he adds to his public credentials as a nut case.

  10. I think it is important to keep an open mind to Jim Garrison’s work and investigation. There were problems he caused himself imo and there were equally, if not bigger, problems caused by those trying to sandbag his investigation.

    This looks like a valuable conference.

  11. I hope the event is recorded & made available for viewing on the Internet for those of us unable to attend. Joan Mellen should prove invaluable in explaining what Garrison knew about DRE, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Oswald & Ferrie, the attempts RFK made through Walter Sheridan to pull the plug on Garrison’s investigation & trial & where Garrison’s files are today. It’s possible Jim Garrison had bits & pieces of what is being withheld prom the public today. I hope Ms. Mellen can answer a question that has been hanging around for a long time: why didn’t Garrison go after DRE instead of Clay Shaw? DRE & their handler (Joannides) appear to many to have the motive to set Lee Oswald up for the assassination; DRE was the 1st to publicize that Oswald was a Castro operative the day of the assassination.

    The means & opportunity to both kill President Kennedy & make it appear Lee Oswald had done it would certainly have concerned Dallas. From what is understood Garrison did not have a good investigation relationship with Will fritz, Jesse Curry, Bill decker or Henry Wade. Perhaps that’s why he went the Clay Shaw route?

  12. Thanks for posting this. I’d read about it elsewhere very briefly, I did a web search and could find no other information. Not surprising I guess. I wonder if anyone else might have had the same problem.
    On a related note… I read a thread on the Education Forum a few days ago by John Simpkin about declining readership there since the 50th. Part of it related to internet searches for assassination information. I did a web search for this site through msn using “Kennedy Assassination”. Murder Solved and McAdams both came up on the 1st page. This site never did after 8 pages. 3-4 pages in the Fourm, Lancer, and I think Mary Ferrell came up. I searched again under JFK Assassination. Similar results. I think MF was on the 1st page, and, CTKA and this site were on about page 3. I don’t think this is due to a a lack of interest with 60-80% of people believing Conspiracy. How many people out there who don’t believe the WC search and find nothing or disinformation?
    It makes me think msn, google, etc. are the modern day MSM, I.E. all this is not by accident.
    The mockingbird is still singing.

  13. Need a Jan. 31 in the opening graf and the caption under the Webcast graphic.

    Thanks for the heads up; the text; and the links in today’s post. And thanks for all your work on this Web site.

  14. Steve M. Galbraith

    Sorry, but Jim Garrison’s investigation was a disgrace and a travesty. There is, in my view, no defense for the abuses he engaged in. Good intentions are simply not enough.

    As Tom Bethell, a British journalist who worked for and with Garrison, aptly put it:

    “I knew Garrison quite well, and I’m sure he was, like almost everyone else one has ever met, well-intentioned. No doubt he had persuaded himself that Clay Shaw was guilty as charged. But meaning well is no defense. Garrison, when I knew him was, amusing, charming and well-read, but also dangerous, because he had a cavalier and completely irresponsible attitude toward power.”

    Don’t believe me or Mr. Bethell. Just read what the leading conspiracy advocates who worked with or knew Garrison said. People like David Lifton and Sylvia Meaher and Harold Weissberg.

    1. Steve:

      You clearly do not understand the principles behind asymmetric wars.

      Or the “Go to the mattress” concept.

      It is our obligation to throw everything, up to the kitchen sink, to see what sticks. That was specially true in 1966-69.

    2. I’m curious. What abuses?

      I ask because prosecutors have discretion whether to prosecute; and many prosecutors not only have abused that discretion but also have used corrupt testimony or other corrupt evidence to get convictions. Henry Wade is a prominent example of such a prosecutor.

      What did Garrison do that was so out of the norm for a prosecuting attorney of his time?

      That he prosecuted a man the jury found innocent is not a good answer. American jurisprudence is filled with instances of failed prosecutions. From O.J. Simpson to John Edwards.

      1. Ramon F Herrera

        “That he prosecuted a man the jury found innocent is not a good answer.”


        The members of the Garrison trial jury were convinced that there was a conspiracy. There simply was not enough evidence against Mr. Shaw.

        The HSCA arrived to the same conclusion.

    3. Bethell??? “Secretly he met with Sal Panzeca, one of Shaw’s attorneys, and gave him a witness list…with summaries of…expected testimony… when all the evidence pointed to Bethell…then and only then, did he weepingly admit what he had done.”
      “…Bethell’s confession. With it Garrison could have called for a mistrial.” Pg. 290, Destiny Betrayed.
      No, I don’t believe anything Mr. Behell would have to say.

  15. Welcome back, Jeff.

    The UNLV panelists, Jim Marrs and Joan Mellen, certainly know their stuff, as does Richard Belzer. Mellen has written in incredible detail about Garrison. Should be a great program.

    I believe that Clay Shaw did work for the CIA; that Shaw, Ferrie, Oswald and others in the orthodox cast of characters were associates in New Orleans in the summer of 1963; that all these individuals except Oswald were very minor players (if that) in the JFK assassination; and that the reason CIA and Justice subverted Garrison is that they were afraid of non-JFK-related secrets being revealed; especially anti-castro operations of the CIA.

    Shaw and Ferrie were odd ducks. New Orleans always has been full of odd ducks. One thing’s for sure: they didn’t pull off the cover-up. The cover-up is the surest sign of high government involvement.

    I think Joan Mellen gets it right about Garrison. He never caved or sold out. He was principled. He was on to something.

    Ultimately, though, I believe his prosecution of Shaw was no more than a revealing side show. Who among JFK researchers today believes Clay Shaw had a hand in killing JFK?

    1. “I believe that Clay Shaw did work for the CIA”

      Indeed. The CIA has since acknowledged that Mr. Shaw worked for them. It is at the end of the movie credits.

        1. The only relationship that ended between Shaw and the CIA in 1956 is that which existed “on the record” in 1956.
          What else happened in 1956, and what do you understand was the premise for the PERMINDEX organization…?

          Any Shaw records were very likely “moved” to some other “applicable” operational records, such as Gladio or similar, since he, and others were no longer acting in the same roles with and for CIA after 1956.

        2. “Allen Dulles once called CIA documents ‘hieroglyphics.’…Dulles used to expound on such elements of tradecraft to his fellow Warren Commission members. On one occasion, he told them that no one would be able to grasp an intelligence memo except for those involved in its creation and their colleagues…When Thomas J. Devine, Poppy Bush’s business partner and a former CIA agent, coyly suggested to me that the problem with journalists like myself is that ‘you believe what you read in government documents,’ he was referring to such deeply coded disinformation.” – Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets

        3. Shaw was a “highly paid” as a CIA contract source til 1956 (although there are good reasons to believe it was much longer!) … now if by definition the “average” CIA employee wasn’t “highly paid” then what exactly was Shaw doing for the CIA that was worth so much money? Besides perjuring himself in front of Garrison about whether he had ever worked for CIA?

          1. No, the “highly paid” was from a bureaucrat writing from the Russ Holmes work file in the early 90s.

            All the contemporaneous records say the CIA never paid Show, and he was only debriefed by the Domestic Contact Service.

          2. Correct Dave!

            As recently as last May 2013, a writer named Donald H. Carpenter self-published a biography of Clay Shaw in which he repeats the disinformation that CIA utilized Shaw only for debriefings, as a “source” of no greater importance than many others. A CIA document dated 1992 tells a different story. This document, issuing from CIA’s History Review Staff, or Historical Review Group, among its PROJFILES at once demolishes the defenders of Clay Shaw. Of course it begins with a disclaimer: Nothing was found in the records, CIA writes, “that indicates any CIA role in the Kennedy assassination or assassination conspiracy (if there was one) or any CIA involvement with Oswald.”

            CIA’s History Staff chief, J. Kenneth McDonald, then continues with this jaw dropping line: “These records do reveal, however, that Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956.” The key words are “highly paid” and “contract.” Shaw may not have been a 9 to 5 “employee,” but he certainly enjoyed a complex relationship with that Agency.

            The 1956 end date we can easily discount. As I showed in “A Farewell To Justice,” William Gaudet, a CIA asset, who was based at Shaw’s International Trade Mart in New Orleans, noted that the end dates CIA gave to his service were always inaccurate, and, in effect, there was no end date at all.

            The document is genuine. Historians, particularly CIA historians, would not put this fact in print unless some document existed confirming Shaw’s CIA status. More, this was an internal CIA document, part of CIA’s ProjFiles (project files), administrative records never meant for release. It is evidence against interest, since CIA stated in other places that they had nothing to do with Shaw except for routine debriefings and nothing to do of course with the JFK assassination.


          3. Donald H Carpenter has revealed more than anyone else has, the fact that he included this
            supports my opinion. He just did not have much to say about it, which reinforces that it
            is the story that cannot be told. Otherwise, it would have been told, by Clay Shaw or
            by David Baldwin’s brother, Attorney Edward Baldwin,
            (see – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1198&relPageId=7 )
            or by Liz Garrison or any of her children.
            What does it say about Nicholas Lemann’s answer in the Perry Russo lawsuit?

            http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/ “Undisputed Factual Background ….The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw’s prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.[2]”


          4. The document is genuine. Historians, particularly CIA historians, would not put this fact in print unless some document existed confirming Shaw’s CIA status.

            Not only can you not produce the document, your fictional “document” would contradict all the extant documents from the era of Shaw’s contact with the DCS, and documents from the Garrison era.

    2. Clay Shaw most certainly had a hand in the machinations of assassinations, and not only of JFK.
      The Trade Mart sites all had heavy CIA involvement.

    3. Yes Jonathan,
      I have had some good conversations with Joan Mellen, she is very well informed on many aspects of the case.

      I think Garrison “was on to something” too, Lol

      Yes, his case brought a lot to national attention, and he was soundly slurred by the mainstream establishment; always indicative of fear of exposure of the deep state.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top