Ronnie Wayne – February 11
…. I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugenio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?
Days
Hours
Minutes
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
Leslie sharp — February 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-17/#comment-859067
What Ms Sharp fails to consider here is that Garrison had no ‘conflict of interest’ – Garrison was not related to Clay Shaw. That he was related to those attempting to sabotage his case has no bearing on Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw.
\\][//
Since the current sub-thread is so long that it is awkward to keep scrolling up and down to find the correct spot to post on, I am posting this down here.
Jean asked if Tom agrees with me that Garrison’s trial against Shaw was sabotaged. I would like to know what Tom thinks as well.
HOWEVER: Regardless of what Tom’s opinion is on that matter, I think the accumulation of data that he has presented on this and other threads concerning Garrison’s connection to those involved in sabotaging the case against Shaw prove beyond doubt that there was a conspiracy to destroy not only Garrison’s case, but to destroy him as well.
Garrison obviously recovered both politically and personally from the tribulations he went through in that period. But that does not change the facts we have been presented with here.
This is my opinion based on reading every bit of what has been offered here by all sides in this ‘debate’. This opinion is not derived merely from the information that Tom has brought to the table recently, but on more than 40 years of studying the JFK Assassination. There are a great many avenues to take that prove that the assassination was in fact a systemic coup d’etat by the “Military Industrial Complex”.
For the last several decades, no one has made the slightest dent in the proofs of this event having been a coup d’etat. This is my firm opinion and conviction.
\\][//
Let’s all not forget here, if memory serves correct, that while the jury acquitted Shaw/Bertrand they found there was a Conspiracy in the Assassination of JFK. BAM! Oswald was not a lone nut! Did the Zapruder film alone do this? BTW, let me illustrate my ignorance here, what’s the difference between a verdict of acquittal and not guilty?
Shaw was “acquitted” but JFK was Assassinated as a result of a conspiracy is what the jury concluded. This Fact is largely ignored. But very important.
FREETFEFILES
F
Ronnie Wayne,
A verdict of not guilty constitutes an acquittal. In other words, to find a defendant not guilty is to acquit.
\\][//
Ronnie,
“Let’s all not forget here, if memory serves correct, that while the jury acquitted Shaw/Bertrand they found there was a Conspiracy in the Assassination of JFK.”
That’s what Garrison claimed, but is it true? Author James Kirkwood interviewed several of the jurors and disagreed:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie5.htm
“That’s what Garrison claimed, but is it true? Author James Kirkwood interviewed several of the jurors and disagreed”~Jean Davison
That is 4 jurors Jean (one being an alternate), there are 12 jurors in a trial. What did the other’s think? Did Kirkwood leave their opinions out of his revelations? Or did this sampling of 4 satisfy him that the rest must have been of the same opinion?
\\][//
“That is 4 jurors Jean (one being an alternate)…”
No, Willy, he interviewed and quoted five jurors plus an alternate. Can you quote any juror who said the jury found a conspiracy, as Garrison claimed?
That’s right Jean! I am so sorry, you have 5 out of 12 … still 7 short. Aren’t you. No I cannot name a juror who thought there was a conspiracy; actually I haven’t thought about this until this evening.
Since I am one of those who doesn’t naturally assume Garrison was a liar, I will look into it to see if he claimed that there were jurors who felt there had been a conspiracy.
So far we have jurors who didn’t think Shaw was guilty. Did any of those jurors claim they didn’t think Kennedy was killed in a conspiracy? Or was that question assiduously avoided by your enterprising playwright?
Most people viewing the Z-film for the first time to come away with the impression that JFK was hit from the front. It seems strange that none in this jury would have had that natural reaction. That would mean a second shooter. Rather elementary.
\\][//
Attorney and author Mark Lane said that he interviewed several jurors after the trial. Although these interviews have never been published, Lane said that some of the jurors believed that Garrison had in fact proven a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, but that Garrison had not adequately linked the conspiracy to Shaw or provided a motive.”
So Kirkwood was a personal friend of Shaw… isn’t that INTERESTING:
“Author and playwright James Kirkwood, who was a personal friend of Clay Shaw, said that he spoke to several jury members who denied ever speaking to Lane. Kirkwood also cast doubt on Lane’s claim that the jury believed there was a conspiracy.”~Wiki
. . .
We seem to have some bias in both accounts.
\\][//
(Jean and Willie, this is wishful thinking, but imagine what this might look like if you cast aside all
preconceived notions…..)
Clay Shaw trial juror, David Powe –
American Grotesque: Account Clay Shaw-Jim Garrison Affair …
Crop of upper third of article:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19690301&id=0SkeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BJwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4971,40244&hl=en
March 1, 1969
Dymond said Shaw was “a patsy picked… to provide a forum for an attack on the Warren Commission.”
If Shaw was a patsy, his name “came from” –
Okay Tom…now I get it! Shaw wasn’t connected to anybody…whew, he was a poor innocent man persecuted by an evil DA out for fame.
Thanks for finally convincing me! It was definitely Poe’s opinion that cinched it for me.
\\][//
See Willy, the truth shall set you free.
Yea, I “see” alright “Dr” Photon.
\\][//
“That’s right Jean! I am so sorry, you have 5 out of 12 … still 7 short. Aren’t you. No I cannot name a juror who thought there was a conspiracy….”
But then you are 12 short, aren’t you, Willy?
“Since I am one of those who doesn’t naturally assume Garrison was a liar…”
I didn’t assume anything, I read his book and checked the record. I suggest you do the same.
Garrison claimed, “The jury, polled after the verdict, believed that there had been a conspiracy to assassinate the President
….,” but he didn’t quote a single juror saying that. Neither did Mark Lane — a self-described “close friend” of Garrison’s. In Plausible Denial Lane quoted only one juror, who said, “Garrison had said in the newspaper and on television that Shaw was with the CIA, but at the trial he didn’t offer any evidence about that. Hell, we couldn’t convict because of press conferences.”
“(Jean and Willie, this is wishful thinking, but imagine what this might look like if you cast aside all
preconceived notions…..)
Clay Shaw trial juror, David Powe –
American Grotesque: Account Clay Shaw-Jim Garrison Affair …”
Tom, I’d be glad to comment if I understood what you’re driving at. You’ve shown family and other connections between various people, some of whom were related to Garrison’s wife. What I don’t understand is, how do you get from there to the Shaw trial being a “sham contrivance”?
Could you explain briefly what you think these connections mean? Lots of families don’t get along, have feuds, disagree politically. Some fought on different sides in the Civil War, even.
WDSU directors, 1967: …Thomas B Lemann, Stephen B Lemann : https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zLIoQLayKsA/VrZ3SCcgfuI/AAAAAAAACts/zP4r1-Uw53o/s512-Ic42/LemannWDSUFCC022067.jpg
The GRAND CONSPIRACY
There is a Grand Conspiracy, yes; but there are also tributaries, sub-conspiracies that branch off and are contained and compartmentalized in such a way as to avoid making obvious and direct connections to the larger conspiracy.
A body does not function without a head. There is a center to the power that drives this grand conspiracy, and it’s presence is apparent and unavoidably revealed throughout history. It is systemic and the modus operandi is an open fact. The Power Elite are named and known. There is no real mystery here, only enforced ignorance of the obvious solution.
The largest problem that humanity faces is human nature itself; most people prefer the pleasant delusions they are fed like candy from the corporatist glove box, to the hard truth of reality.
Television is the Born Sucker Machine.
\\][//
“What I don’t understand is, how do you get from there to the Shaw trial being a “sham contrivance”?”~Jean Davison
Tom has show conclusively the connection between Garrison’s inlaws and CIA, thus a connection of Shaw is obviously drawn to CIA from that angle.
But Shaw is connected to CIA in other fashion as well. Shaw is connected to Ferrie as well as Banister and the anti-Cuban exiles.
The point Tom has successfully established is that the Shaw trial was sabotaged by this group in league with and in many cases as part of CIA.
That you could possibly have missed this in the body of what Tom has presented here, I would find remarkable – but for the fact that you miss such connections with a persistence that goes beyond mere happenstance.
\\][//
What Tom has proven is that many if not most of the White elite in a relatively small Southern city knew or were related to each other. It was a class thing not uncommon for the times.
Tom assumes that those connections have driven events, even though there is no real evidence that they did.
Garrison had a sham investigation based on nothing but innuendo. He picked a highly visible target because he was gay -and like any other prominent gay American in 1967 he would be presumed to be a pervert. Much of the New Orleans elite (who knew Garrison better than any other group if this association information means anything) quickly came to the conclusion that Garrison was on a personal witch hunt to gain personal publicity to advance his political and legal career. Obviously they felt that his persecution of an innocent man known and respected by many of the same New Orleans elite was potentially damaging to the reputation of New Orleans and reinforced the view that the city was an American banana republic outside the American mainstream.
The people who knew Garrison best thought that his ” investigation” was horrible and wanted it to go away. That should be seen as the real truth in the whole sordid affair of the trial of Clay Shaw.
Jean, of course, is spot on. There were a very large number of demonstrable lies in On the Trail of the Assassins.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
I’m sorry, Tom, but posting those pages again doesn’t help me at all to understand what you think happened.
Jean,
It is not what I think happened. It is a process of considering the facts (including the contradictions, old and new) and fitting them with an explanation that takes ALL into account.
I am seeing, “that doesn’t matter,” or in reaction to what I’ve presented repeatedly, “I
don’t understand.” DiEugenio, Willy, Stephen Roy, and Photon all understand, Jean. I cannot find appreciable differences in their reactions, as to influencing their opinions of Garrison or of Shaw.
A reasonable person would consider all of the claims and the relationships and try to explain what
possibly could have been going on, taking all into account.
BTW, two years after this, Robert Zirbilich married the Baldwin brothers’ sister, Elizabeth.
In one sentence, Jean, in 1967-69, we were presented with intense discord, but little disclosure.
Nicholas Lemann certainly (acted unethically) did not provide any disclosure in his Jan., 1992 GQ article or in his answer to the court in the Russo defamation suit against him and Conde Naste.
Note, too, that accusations of conflict of interests against prosecutors was not an unknown legal
tactic in NOLA, despite Shaw never throwing a punch.:
Leon Hubert was an Asst. Senior Warren Commission counsel,
Edward M Baldwin was David (and Elizabeth) Baldwin’s brother.
The Thomas Bethell diary- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell1.htm
Liz Garrison’s aunt Adele’s 1978 obituary, one big, happy family!
Willy,
“The point Tom has successfully established is that the Shaw trial was sabotaged by this group in league with and in many cases as part of CIA.”
I wonder if Tom would tell us if he agrees with that?
If the Garrison investigation and the prosecution of Clay Shaw had been contained in the 1966-69
time frame, and even at the risk of stretching it further to mark the end of it with Garrison’s
acquittal in the 1973 criminal trial, I could agree that Garrison was intimidated and thwarted by
Agencies of the federal government teamed with a compliant media, and finally, prosecuted in federal
court to serve as an example (especially had he been convicted) of what can happen if you reach too far.
But, it didn’t end there. Garrison wrote his book, Sklar edited it, Sklar and Stone wrote their
screenplay, Stone produced his film, and as it opened in theaters, Nicholas B Lemann gave the appearance
of pushing back against Garrison and Stone in a January, 1992, GQ Magazine article. Perry Russo
brought extra attention to Lemann’s article when he sued for defamation damages.
However, now I also have to consider the details nobody wrote or spoke of, except Donald H Carpenter,
who did not emphasize them, so I was unaware of them and had to discover them myself. The main question
I have now is, did Garrison “con” Ms. Mellen, Mr. Sklar, and Mr. Stone, et al, or did they learn the newly
emerged background details and conduct themselves as disingenuously as Nicholas B Lemann did?
“What Tom has proven is that many if not most of the White elite in a relatively small Southern city knew or were related to each other. It was a class thing not uncommon for the times.”~Photon
And what Photon proves is that he can write an opinion with no basis in a single substantial counterargument, by pure rhetorical gymnastics.
And I do wonder if Photon realizes this even as he sets out to compose one of his flatulent screeds of scurrilous banter. He surely is aware that few would actually buy his nonsense.
Of the Crypt-Tickled-Three, Photon has the least substance to his haunting.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 21, 2016 at 1:55 pm
The GRAND CONSPIRACY
There is a Grand Conspiracy, yes;
The largest problem that humanity faces is human nature itself; most people prefer the pleasant delusions they are fed like candy from the corporatist glove box, to the hard truth of reality.
This said while you continue to bless the slogans and chants of the 1960s and hold them dear to your heart.
Reality? Yes indeed Willy.
Jean quotes me:
“The point Tom has successfully established is that the Shaw trial was sabotaged by this group in league with and in many cases as part of CIA.”
Then asks:
“I wonder if Tom would tell us if he agrees with that?”~Jean Davison
I too request that Tom tell us what he actually thinks here!
\\][//
Here are two contemporary instances of conflict of interest in New Orleans’ courts, both related to the same case, and ironically involving an Arthur B. Lemann (who has the same name as the son of Thomas B. Lemann).
“The situation was further complicated by an implication that Mose Jefferson needed to obtain a new lawyer, in that Arthur “Buddy” Lemann, according to U.S. attorney Daniel Friel, faced a CONFLICT OF INTEREST in having once represented Stacy Simms, daughter of Ellenese Brooks-Simms. Lemann was to represent Mose Jefferson in the racketeering case. Stacy Simms had assisted her mother in laundering the bribe (in the other case), through Stacy’s bank account and, after pleading guilty to the felony, joined her mother in becoming a witness for the prosecution of Mose Jefferson.
Lemann himself was not Mose Jefferson’s original attorney; Lemann had replaced Ike Spears, who had earlier been disqualified on a CONFLICT OF INTEREST inherent in his having previously represented Brenda Jefferson Foster, younger sister of Mose and William J. Jefferson.”
conflict of interest
n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual’s personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official’s personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=292#ixzz40vzrphdL
“So who were these certain CIA characters beholden to in New Orleans and Dallas? Were some of them willing to be accused of treason for the sake of a cause, knowing it could never be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, not while they could purge and or withhold their files indefinitely?”
Leslie Sharpe Feb 18/16
I find your comments interesting.
Would anyone like to define a limited hangout in terms of the CIA, or individuals in N Orleans or Dallas?
The CIA has admitted in recent years that it was not forthcoming and held back information all along.
“I’d prefer to discuss what this rather troubling new information actually signals to us”
What does it signal perhaps? Please lay out the possibiity for us.
Why would the CIA seek a limited hangout in allowing the Garrison Trial to get off the ground and proceed?
MDG, why limit the possibility that a limited hangout was being managed by ‘THE’ C.I.A. Might it be managed by those to whom certain individuals with CIA credentials were reporting to and dare I say, on the payroll of? Who do we think the CIA actually works for? Our democratic principles, our president? Posthumously ask John Kennedy if he had control over the Central Intelligence Agency? (he soon realized Dulles’ replacement, MIC luminary John McCone was operating behind his back.)
The examples of an impotent branch of our government, the presidency, are endless. Contemporary bookends: ask Eisenhower if when he realized the MIC was out of control he could do anything about it; ask Barack Obama if he could shut down Guantanamo.)
So who were these certain CIA characters beholden to in New Orleans and Dallas? Were some of them willing to be accused of treason for the sake of a cause, knowing it could never be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, not while they could purge and or withhold their files indefinitely?
MDG’
Garrison did not have the chance to go any further in his investigation, and name names when the trial proceeded to that point; because the trial was sabotaged on it’s first leg, and Shaw was acquitted, even though it is now beyond doubt that he was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy.
This “limited hangout” theory is based on a “what if?” that never reached fruition.
It should be self evident that Garrison was not going to prosecute himself, but those of his in-laws and their circle who were guilty in being in on the plot with CIA.
\\][//
A Critique & Complaint in Metaphor
The Human Skeleton
The jaw bone is connected to the skull bone, the skull bone is connected to the backbone, the backbone is connected to the hip bone, the hip bone is connected to the femur, the femur is connected to the fibula/tibula, the fibula/tibula is connected to the tarsals, the tarsals are connected to the metatarsals, the metatarsals are connect to the phalanges…
So you have the skeletal connections for the Garrison-Shaw Trial.
Now where is the meat of your argument as applied to that skeleton?
All I have encountered thus far is a detailed analysis of the skeleton; the counting of vertebrae, designation of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae – making note of the structure of the shoulder and the full rotary capabilities of such a design. And on down the structure from head to toe. What I haven’t seen is the meat of the argument applied to the structure, only implications that are not fully articulated; suppositions as to the width or length of some muscles, but no actual measurement or exact placement on the skeleton.
This allegory may tire you, but I think it shows my point without trudging through every detail of the connections Garrison had, and what that connection actually meant in regard to the trial of Clay Shaw/Bertrand.
\\][//
It’s Magic. It went in a T-3 but didn’t come out. But Did! Through the throat entrance wound. Turned in mid air, went in Conally’s arm pit, traversed a rib, exited his nipple, smashed his wrist then some of it landed in his leg. More of it than is missing from the Warren Omission pristine bullet supposedly found at Parkland.
Oh, my! What a bunch of factoids!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
273 F. Supp. 673 (1967)
Walter SHERIDAN et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Jim GARRISON, Indiv., et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 67-1147.
United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division.
August 28, 1967.
*674 *675 Milton E. Brener, Herbert J. Miller, Gibbons Burke, Edward M. Baldwin, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.
Numa Bertel, James Alcock, Richard Burnes, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
RUBIN, District Judge:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/273/673/2248578/
\\][//
Don’t know why you want to recycle old posts, but here is my response to DiEugenio.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/garrison-angleton-and-the-cia/#comment-501369
And why did you post that on a subthread about the Single Bullet Theory?
“Don’t know why you want to recycle old posts, but here is my response to DiEugenio.”~McAdams
Your response to DiEugenio didn’t fly then and it won’t fly by recycling it here “professor”.
You have huge gaps in your series of dots that do not connect. You hand wave every point you don’t like, simply because it doesn’t fit your most obvious biases.
\\][//
Tom S.
February 20, 2016 at 5:56 am
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/garrison-angleton-and-the-cia/#comment-501357
James DiEugenio
June 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm
“Adams actually wants me to read him the footnotes? Is that what he is saying?”
“In other words, since he is too lazy to read my book”…
I can think of several reasons not to read DiEugenio’s book. Being lazy is not one of them.
Factoids…?
Here is yet another antiquated pile of factoids on your own website Mr. McAdams:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lobster.htm
In fact, I’ll go beyond calling them factoids, I’ll call the entire article “tripe”….
The meat of the exploration is what those undisclosed connections imply – not simply because they existed but made far more suspect because they were withheld throughout proceedings. The insistence that there is no significance because it can’t be wrapped up in a tidy ribbon (distinct from the theory of New Orleans social dynamics) and wrapped up “right now!”, sounds very like the bullying tactic, “if Oswald wasn’t guilty, then who was? And ‘if you can’t prove someone else was involved’, then Oswald was the lone assassin.” What if that philosophy had taken effect in the first few decades of assassination research as new details similar to what Tom S has produced surfaced? No one knows where this is leading, as yet, but it certainly is exposing the Chinese Handcuff phenomenon.
Garrison provided sign posts for ‘who else was involved’, but the argument that he solved the crime – especially when we now know that he failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest vis a vis his relationship through marriage to individuals who had worked for Shaw that were related to the CIA paymaster not to mention attorneys for WDSU involved in discrediting him – falls flat or is ratcheted down a few notches. As an example, had he pursued Stephen B. Lemann and his ties to Whitney and Freeport, where would Shaw have fit into that milieu not to mention Liz Ziegler Garrison’s vested interest in muting the fact? Had he called Ed Butler to testify about his knowledge of the Houma ‘heist’, what other activities and influence might have surfaced? Do we know with certainty that Shaw and Ferrie were taking direct orders from Landsdale and not from those in the shadows – shadows that remained undisclosed by Garrison himself?
Vince Salandria quotes an attorney friend who wasn’t even convinced of a conspiracy, “it isn’t over until it is fully over”.
Is any one else curious why Jean Davison and John McAdams have not seized on this chink in the armour of the Garisson story more aggressively?
Clay Bertrand – aka Shaw – sent Oswald to attorney Dean Andrews to counsel Oswald about issues of citizenship and military status. After the assassination, Bertrand-Shaw contacted Andrews to represent Oswald. Andrews’ WC deposition is fascinating, particularly regarding FBI tactics. [Unsurprisingly WC fanatics don’t believe any of it.]
Is it reasonable to wonder how and why Bertrand-Shaw, a sophisticated, well-connected New Orleans businessman came to know a transient, minimum wage, no-name stumblebum representing himself as New Orleans’ recruiter for FPCC? Is the question interesting and important in light of the government’s narrow-focus claim that the dishonored ex-Marine defector was the president’s *sole*assassin . . . without confederates?
No question, the Garrison-Shaw case is unbelievably convoluted. And Garrison became quixotic rather than practical. And maybe he was a publicity hound. But I don’t see how the pursuit of the question above makes someone a dupe of the CIA or a covert player in an incomprehensible limited hangout.
Regarding the undisclosed family relationships, it appears (to me) that everyone was irritated with Garrison because his case focused the national spotlight on New Orleans, and the spotlight had the potential of illuminating and embarrassing family members who were connected to Shaw. Garrison did his part to keep it secret. Perhaps Shaw was going to use the undisclosed relationships on appeal but didn’t want to involve them (CIA connections and reputations) unless necessary. It is probable, IMO, that others have interpreted the connections as unimportant.
Bill, Garrison’s investigative records and his June 18, 1967 complaint letter to the FCC indicate he undoubtedly knew of the CIA connections of Shaw’s old hire and friend, David Baldwin and Garrison did
describe Baldwin’s brother-in-law Stephen B Lemann and his CIA reputation in the sixth page of that FCC
letter, and approved publication of the entire text of that letter in the Times-Picayune on June 18.
Garrison knew that David Baldwin was godfather and first cousin of his wife, Liz Ziegler Garrison.
It is established that Garrison made some noise about CIA interference. He did not name those names.
Shaw knew of the relationship of Garrison’s wife to the Baldwin brothers in the same week Shaw was arrested. Any trial lawyer can verify that appeals courts look very unfavorably on issues raised on appeal that were known to the appellant but not raised at trial.
Did Garrison obstruct justice in his own investigation and in the prosecution of Clay Shaw by not
revealing to anyone that Shaw hired David Baldwin, fresh from covert CIA assignment in India, or
that Stephen B Lemann and his father were closely connected to the CIA? Garrison’s files reveal that he
knew those details, some from a May 5, 1967 memo from ADA Oser, and the rest from a May 24, 1967 from
ADA William R Martin, a former part-time investigator in Banister’s office, and a CIA asset. Baldwin’s
brother Edward’s law partner James Quaid Jr wrote to CIA director Helms in May, 1967, asking to be
included in the list of CIA approved lawyers in NOLA. Edward had been the law partner of Warren Commission
senior asst. counsel and former NODA, Leon Hubert. Edward Baldwin and Stephen B Lemann were legal counsel
to NBC affiliate WDSU’s Townley and to NBC’s Sheridan. Baldwin was Gurvich’s legal counsel.
Lemann and his brother were booth directors of WDSU, according to the station’s February, 1967 FCC license renewal App. Stephen B. Lemann was WDSU’s legal counsel. He was visibly involved almost from the start.:
Lemann’s brother’s son Nicholas published a Garrison “hit piece” article in the Jan., 1992 GQ magazine.
Perry Russo filed a defamation suit against the magazine’s publisher and Lemann. Lemann responded that
growing up in NOLA, Garrison’s investigation and Shaw prosecution were very personal to him and
Garrison embarrassed New Orleans.
Nothing to see here, just some ole irrelevant, typical southern family connections, and who would expect
Garrison or Shaw to mention any of them as they were presented as resolutely facing off against each other. This is all too trivial and complicated, so move along, Tom S……….
Why is the majority reaction not, “we need to learn all we can related to this nondisclosure because all parties maintained it,
and we’ve assumed Garrison and his office were adversarial towards suspects and the CIA….”
“Garrison or Shaw to mention any of them as they were *presented as resolutely* facing off against each other. This is all too trivial and complicated, so move along”~Tom S
So this is your position that Garrison was in fact involved in a limited hangout. I think that obvious in your construction.
What I don’t think is so obvious in your construction is the fact that this is a supposition on your part. No less a supposition and opinion than any other’s suppositions and opinions.
The choice of context is not binary, but multifaceted and complex.
I have followed every jot and tittle of this argument closely, I have not once even intimated that “this is all too trivial and complicated, so move along.” What I have done however is come to a different conclusion as to what this myriad of complex information means.
I explained my reasons for this disagreement on the original thread this conversation began on. I have seen nothing else in the relitigation here to change my opinion.
If anyone wishes to understand my reasoning on this matter they can go through the arguments on the original thread, I am not going to repeat them here.
\\][//
Author Jeffrey Caulfield, M.D. :
“Garrison did, however, note the Butler-Banister relationship, but never apparently interviewed Edward Butler [founder of INCA] – who was in Los Angeles during Garrison’s investigation –nor was Butler called as a witness [in spite of Garrison being well aware that Butler had introduced Butler’s young cousin Rancier Ehlinger to Gordon Novel as early as 1961 leading to the Houma/Schlumberger weapons transfer, an operation that Garrison once referred to as the “most patriotic burglary in history”]. Garrison did however note the Butler / Banister relationship in the secret Grand Jury proceedings in his files. …”
note: Does this not mirror the Stephen B. Lemann episode? Garrison’s files indicate knowledge that Lemann was CIA paymaster yet he never employed the information officially.
Caulfield continues:
“Instead of investigating Butler, who had ties to dominant figures in the far right – most notably Dr. Alton Ochsner and Patrick Frawley – Garrison focused his case on Lee Havey Oswald and David Ferrie (who were dead) and one seemingly hapless homosexual, Clay Shaw, and others of no significant standing. Ed Butler like Kent Courtney, who Garrison had some evidence against, seemed untouchable. . . . “
(caveat: I would not categorize Shaw as hapless by any stretch, otherwise he would not have been an effective patsy.)
“. . . Garrison kept his investigative files on Ed Butler under the heading of “Radical Right Wing.” He knew Butler was once a member of the John Birch Society and that his organization INCA enjoyed the support of the White citizens’ Council. . . .”
“ . . . [As indicated above] Butler’s cousin, Rancier Ehrlinger (was involved in a drag strip operation with Novel in Hammond, Louisiana), also verified the Novel-Butler relationship. . . .”
“. . . Novel was charged, in 1976, with conspiracy to bomb the Federation of Churches building in New Orleans on Mardi Gras after losing the option to purchase the property where he had intended to build a hotel office complex …. There were two mistrials. During the second trial, Novel failed to cooperation with the defense and was ordered to undergo mental competency tests. JIM GARRISON was NOVEL’S CHIEF COUNSEL (emphasis mine) in the initial proceedings, which was quite odd considering Garrison’s interest in Novel during his investigation of the murder of President Kennedy.”
Source: “General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy,” Jeffrey Caulfield, M.D.
Can a conspiracy be covered up ad infinitem? This is a misleading question. It leads one to incorrectly assume that there is a period where a conspiracy is covered-up and then a period where it is revealed.
I estimate that 90% of people who read JFK facts beleive there was a conspiracy to cover-up JFK’s assassination, and I would guess that 65-70% of the American public agree (Going down as interest wanes). Therefore the cover-up has been exposed, and the consequences need addressing. There isn’t a godlike figure who stands up and says ‘yes, there was a conspiracy, and I declare today the day of its exposure’.
Sorry Tom, you’ll have to excuse my ignorance. For tonight.
Tom, my comment was and still is in full support of both of these authors as I believe they have done excellent research. Yours seems convincing as well. Does the evidence from all three sources not still support a Coup on 11/22/63?
Is that your reaction to this month’s presentation of Garrison’s, Liz Garrison’s, Shaw’s, Edward Baldwin’s, and Nicholas B. Lemann’s non-disclosure, ever?
You prefer some sort of “pledge of allegiance” opinion from me? I’d prefer to discuss what this rather
troubling new information actually signals to us. So far, the reaction to it seems a kind of litmus test.
When everyone involved turns out to be “mum” about the background links of names they emphasized were
significant, Stephen B. Lemann’s role, for example,
I am left to wonder what the interests in common of everyone are, in addition to the background links. Don’t you? For example, here is a Garrison convened grand jury compelling the testimony of his wife’s first cousin (also brother of David Baldwin, Mrs. Garrison’s godfather, the brother-in-law of Stephen B. Lemann, and a former CIA covert agent employed by Clay Shaw at the ITM). Where does it say that? Nowhere… I had to discover those connections.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1174 :
8. Orleans Parish Grand Jury Testimony of Edward M. Baldwin, 9 Aug 1967
Tom S.
February 17, 2016 at 1:06 am
Don’t you? For example, here is a Garrison convened grand jury compelling the testimony of his wife’s first cousin (also brother of David Baldwin, Mrs. Garrison’s godfather, the brother-in-law of Stephen B. Lemann, and a former CIA covert agent employed by Clay Shaw at the ITM).
As Hillary would say, what difference does it make! My god we waste over a week on cousins and brothers and godfathers and bother-in-laws. It was LOUISIANA for crying out loud. They are all kin to each other down there. The family tree does not branch out so much in NO.
I assure you Tom I didn’t post this to get a rise. I did it to call attention to the fact that we often spend too much time on tiny micro facts that in the grand scheme of things don’t mean much. What say ye?
Tom I’m not looking for a pledge of allegiance from anyone about any aspect of this case. Nor do I think what you have discovered is not important or not worthy of discussion. I’m just not sure how to interpret the information in relation to the Garrison case against Shaw. Following it in this format has been difficult as I often miss posts and find them a day or two later.
From what I have read it seems likely Garrison knew the potential depth to which the investigation could extend – to the intelligence community. He likely knew of the affiliations of Baldwin and Lehman, maybe not the depth of them, with that community before he began. Whether for publicity, out of Patriotism or whatever he proceeded. Given their roles (Baldwin and Lehman) did the CIA maybe think they could control or steer Garrison through them? It does smell of something fishy. Or were they directing him in an operation to “prove” through a public trial and acquittal that ClayShawBertrand and the intelligence community were not guilty? That’s not what I get out of the CIA’s concern at daily meetings during the trial about were they giving the defense enough help. The Garrison as a limited hangout for the CIA is a new and foreign concept. Hard to wrap one’s head around but intriguing.
I wish someone would find the Bannister files.
Yes that is when we saw the Z Film in its raw form.
It magnified the horror of what happened in Dealey Plaza.
It strongly suggested a shot from the right front.
And yes there is a strong possibility the Film was altered the weekend after the Assasination.
Oswald as the Patsy was an easy way out
“And yes there is a strong possibility the Film was altered the weekend after the Assasination.”~MDG
What evidence to you have to support this assertion?
\\][//
The Clay Shaw Trial brought forth the Zapruder Film.
The Z Film was shown as a film not stills as in Life Magazine.
Hugely significant.
It has to be kept in mind that Garrison was eventually divorced from his wife and her connections to Clay Shaw.
(It fascinates me that, because others seem to be going out of their way to imply, “nothing to see here,” in comparison I actually seem shrill, to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. I sense it is quite the opposite.)
Garrison did not divorce his children, they were and are second cousins of the late Baldwin brothers.
And….. he remarried about 1991 to his former wife who he was originally married to for fourteen years
until they separated by 1972 (All through the relevant time period). Despite the separation, Liz Garrison was at Jim’s side when he emerged from
the court house after the acquittal verdict in his 1973 criminal trial in federal court. “Garrison’s estranged wife embraced him.” (See- https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DkxgihkiwZE/VrOGE1t6bPI/AAAAAAAACqo/90uuDuEBvSY/s512-Ic42/GarrisonsEstrangedWife.jpg )
Oliver Stone said he met Liz Garrison, Joan Mellen cites a 1998 interview with her. (see- https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22garrison%2C+january+11%2C+1998%22 )
Stone told Gary Crowdus in a 1992 interview that the researcher he hired, Jane Rusconi, read one hundred to two hundred books on the events related to the Garrison investigation, and Stone himself read 20 books.
‘The Clay Shaw Trial brought forth the Zapruder Film. The Z Film was shown as a film not stills as in Life Magazine. Hugely significant.’ — MDG
I would be curious what you mean by ‘hugely significant’. Is it that the Z Film had been withheld from public viewing for over 5 years and we finally saw it in its raw form? Is it that the mesmerizing ‘back and to the left’ entered into the collective psyche during the Shaw trial? Is it that the Z film took on a ‘conspiracy’ all it’s own . . . It was or wasn’t altered? And how did that feed an ancillary investigation that has consumed millions of hours and ink? If we have analyzed the machinations of the Warren Commission in minute detail, in fairness why – when sufficient new information presents itself to argue we should reanalyze the Garrison version of the conspiracy – are we so reluctant? There’s a degree of irony not to mention hypocrisy and bad faith surfacing.
The readers may miss the button hidden in the comment by ‘theNewDanger’ above if they haven’t passed their cursor over his text:
Here is the address of that link for those who might miss it:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf
On the same topic, see also:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
Antony Sutton’s book on Skull & Bones also addresses the subject in a brilliant manner.
\\][//
Why do we seem to have so much difficulty considering what we have had no prior awareness of and how it relates to what we’ve already accepted and highly regard? What do we stand for? Are the stakes for each book author or researcher really all, or nothing?
Are we open to learning new things, even if they seem to us to conflict with what we know with confidence? Do we know what we know, with confidence? I can understand to a degree the defensiveness of a book author who has a comparatively large investment of time and self
in a book intertwined with the author’s reputation, but what explains
the similiar reaction of the rest of us?
Is accuracy in opposition to what we know we know? How did that happen?
I am concerned that there are individuals who have learned things they think may be important but decide not to present because they anticipate the reaction to their facts will be broadly negative and reflect on the presenter, personally.
Great questions. I feel like I don’t know what I know with absolute confidence all the time because I believe education (and the motives behind the syllabuses) is a moving target. The textbooks that purport to contain authoritative knowledge are the established conduit to dumbing down people in comparison to what methods were used and what knowledge was imparted to prior blocks of graduates (every 3-5 years), making it exponentially more difficult for parents to reach their own children today. Check out Ars Technica’s article supporting Grimes’ fallacious math and the truly disgustging comments against alternative points of view (i.e. “conspiracy” theories), especially when an alternative is presented in the comments: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/an-equation-that-debunks-conspiracy-theories/
‘An equation that debunks conspiracy theories’
“OK, not really. But for real: don’t believe silly conspiracy theories.”~Scott K. Johnson
Now who in their right mind would write a schizo sentence like the header in this article?
Of course reading the body of the article one finds it is equally absurd. It is an “equation” that is meant for hand wavers: “You don’t need to know any facts about a specific conspiracy – just that it is exponentially implausible by these calculations.”
When so called “intellectuals” and “scientists” come up with this sort of voodoo superstitious nonsense, you KNOW that the readers who accept this BS have been dumbed down to the point of imbecile level; which is veritably proven by the mess this planet is in.
Leading to an obvious question: ‘What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?’
The answer is within the question itself.
\\][//
A question I would love to see one of the minions of the Ars Technica congregation ask them all just to see that one of them get badgered by their own to prove the purpose of these “studies”. The group think that these studies seek to develop and spread leads to the support of everything else the government justifies it does in our name that we would otherwise have them not even have the power to do.
The flip side of the same coin is seeing connections and consequences that are not so clear to other people; And compounding it by implying personal motives on the part of those who perceive things differently.
Haven’t those who have been convinced for decades that there was a conspiracy been down this path themselves? I’ll bet Joan Mellen and Jim diEugenion have thrown similar charges at other authors . . . . not maliciously, but in good faith to progress the investigation. Couldn’t the words “Warren Commission Report” or “Dale Myers research efforts” be inserted for “DiEugenio and Mellen’s work” in Ronnie Wayne’s sentence? That’s a bit facetious, but unless one is thoroughly satisfied that the Jim Garrison version of the conspiracy is the day the clock stopped in the investigation, it’s reasonable to continue to pursue any new information regardless of how it impacts his conclusions. Beyond that, we’re now seeing just how his version of the conspiracy ‘took hold’ and how it has driven the conversation for decades. How credible can this site be if there is the slightest hint of attempt to shut down a discussion among the regulars, let alone any suggestion that as Tom mentions, that someone who is walking around with keys should ‘walk on by’ jfkfacts because they will be raked over the coals if their information challenges’ Garrison’s case against Shaw. For the moment, this is a philosophical question that evidently needs to be thrashed out before we have any hope that the updated information will survive this particular gauntlet. Otherwise, the site has attracted an incestuous group of commenters intent on ‘child’s play’.
On a practical note for you henchmen hirers out there, Grimes’ equation suggests that if you want your conspiracy to last at least 10 years, you should definitely limit yourself to no more than 1,257 conspirators.
Well put Tom. I think a lot of us who believe there was a conspiracy can latch onto a particular theory/idea/concept about who, what, when, how, and why and disregard anything and everything that conflicts with one’s belief. That isn’t really much different than what the ‘Oswald as lone nut’ people do. The search forthe truth tends to end when one believes one has arrived at the truth.
In regards to the comment of the week: Of course it would not necessarily mean that all their work is junk, just that it can be viewed in different contexts.For example it is possible to think that Garrison was onto something in that Shaw and Ferrie were connected to Oswald for purposes other than plotting the demise of JFK.Possibly to help build his legend and to help him get into Cuba to spy or to do the dirty deed to Fidel. The CIA as well as RFK’s protege Walter Sheridan would certainly want to sabotage any investigation that might disclose that.
“In regards to the comment of the week: Of course it would not necessarily mean that all their work is junk, just that it can be viewed in different contexts.”~Brian Joseph
Yes it can be viewed by a literal penumbra of contexts as pure data. But it is uncommon for information to be presented simply as pure data by any commentator. The reasons a commentator finds certain data compelling has to do with what that data might mean to that commentator personally.
There is no such thing as an unbiased point of view. The angle that data is assessed at effects the data. Anyone who has studied quantum physics should grasp the significance of “viewer as participant”.
Not to go too deeply into the epistemic implications inherent in the discussion here, I would say that there has already developed a semiofficial narrative on this topic here.
Opinions may very, but don’t walk too far.
\\][//