Johnny Carson vs. Jim Garrison
David Von Pein
JIM GARRISON'S 1968 INTERVIEW WITH JOHNNY CARSON:
www.RapidShare.com/files/243217008/JOHNNY_CARSON_INTERVIEWS_JIM_GARRISON__JANUARY_31_1968.wmv
=============================================
On January 31, 1968, on NBC-TV's "The Tonight Show", Johnny Carson
conducted a lengthy interview with New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison. The purpose of the special interview was to discuss the 1963
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Mr. Garrison, as of that date in early 1968, was in the process of
putting together his extremely-lightweight case against Clay Shaw (who
was arrested by Garrison's office on the bogus charge of conspiring to
murder President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963).
When the Shaw trial finally took place in 1969, the jury took less
than an hour to arrive at the only possible (reasonable) verdict in
the case against Mr. Shaw -- Not Guilty.
The Garrison/Carson interview lasts approximately 46 minutes (when the
NBC-TV commercial breaks are removed) and consumes the bulk of the
01/31/68 "Tonight Show" broadcast. An audio download link to the
entire interview is provided above.
It's a fascinating glimpse into history -- and, to put it quite
bluntly, it's also a rather fascinating glimpse into the mind and
inner conspiratorial thoughts of a total kook by the name of Earling
Carothers ("Jim") Garrison.
Mr. Garrison, I will admit, handles himself quite well during the NBC
broadcast with Johnny Carson. He doesn't lose his cool (even though
Carson interrupts Garrison's theory-spouting on numerous occasions,
and it becomes very evident that Johnny isn't buying one single thing
that Jim is telling him during the entire program).
Johnny Carson has been accused of being overly rough, brusk, and rude
toward Garrison on the program in question. But, in my opinion, Johnny
did not exhibit those characteristics at all. Mr. Carson, in my view,
handled himself exceedingly well under the circumstances (i.e., the
circumstances of being placed in a position where he had to act as an
investigative reporter for the evening, instead of the late-night
comedian and witty interviewer of movie stars that America had become
accustomed to seeing since Carson began hosting "The Tonight Show" in
October of 1962).
The Garrison interview brought out a low-key and totally-serious side
of Carson that I don't recall ever seeing (or hearing) before. He was
restrained and completely serious and thoughtful throughout his
lengthy piece with Garrison. Usually there's a lot of comedy and
quipping going on in a Carson interview (even when the subject matter
is dead serious). But not in this footage with Garrison. It's great
archival stuff.
Johnny asked some hard-hitting questions of Mr. Garrison, some of
which I'm going to write out in word-for-word fashion in just a
moment. Carson displayed a good deal of knowledge about many of the
details surrounding the JFK murder case, and (IMO) deserves nothing
but applause for his actions during his interview with Mr. Garrison.
The main reason I applaud Mr. Carson so loudly with respect to this
particular interview is because I was glad to see John ask such hard
questions which cast doubt on the notion of conspiracy in the JFK
case, instead of merely nodding in agreement with everything this
fruitcake named Garrison had to say. (Which were all things, by the
way, that haven't a shred of truth to them whatsoever re. the vast
"Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald As A Patsy" conspiracy plot that
Garrison said was afoot in Dealey Plaza in '63.)
About the only thing Johnny seemed unsure of (regarding any REAL
evidence in the case) was the mentioning of Dr. Humes burning his
notes, a topic that Garrison brought up to make things seem more
"shady" of course.
In 1978, Dr. Humes fully explained to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations why he burned his original autopsy notes, with that
reason being: the notes were stained with President Kennedy's blood
and Humes didn't want notes with the President's blood all over them
to possibly fall into the hands of someone with "peculiar ideas about
the value of that type of material".
Here are Dr. Humes' exact words concerning the note-burning topic:
"The original notes which were stained with the blood of our
late President, I felt were inappropriate to retain to turn in to
anyone in that condition. I felt that people with some peculiar ideas
about the value of that type of material, they might fall into their
hands. I sat down and word-for-word copied what I had on fresh paper."
-- Dr. James J. Humes; 1978; Via HSCA Testimony
Now, of course, as of Jim Garrison's 1968 appearance on "The Tonight
Show", Mr. Garrison probably had no way of knowing for sure the
precise reason for why Humes burned his notes, because that
information was not made public (to my knowledge) until Dr. Humes told
the HSCA his reason ten years after Garrison's interview with Johnny
Carson.
NOTE/CORRECTION --- In a 2006 version of this "Garrison/Carson" post,
I raked Mr. Garrison over the coals on this particular subject of the
note-burning, when I said this:
"Garrison lied (as usual) when he said he didn't know why Humes
burned his notes....even though he should have known full well why
Humes burned them, because Humes told the WC why he did so, with the
reason being: the notes were blood-stained and Humes didn't want notes
with the President's blood all over them to become a part of the
permanent record in the case. So, Humes re-copied (verbatim) many of
his original notes." -- DVP; October 23, 2006 (original post linked
below)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d00a87bffda43219
But today I realized that I was in error when I blasted Mr. Garrison
for not knowing, as of January 1968, the reason Humes burned his
notes. I was in error because Humes didn't mention anything in his
1964 Warren Commission testimony about the notes being stained with
the late President's blood.
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that he "destroyed certain
preliminary draft notes" and he also said that a first draft of the
autopsy report was "burned" in his home fireplace, but that's as far
as it went. There was no mention of JFK's blood staining the notes.
I, however, had erroneously thought that Humes did mention the blood
of the President staining the notes in his Warren Commission session.
But I now stand corrected on this matter after looking through Dr.
Humes' WC testimony again today. And I offer an apology to the late
Jim Garrison on this matter (but ONLY this matter, however).
Mr. Garrison, of course, likes to make huge conspiracy-flavored
mountains out of things that can just as easily be explained in non-
conspiratorial ways. For example: The differing eyewitness accounts of
the color of the Depository sniper's clothing. Garrison wants Carson's
audience to believe that just because a certain witness described a
"blue shirt" (vs. another color garment), this therefore is absolute
PROOF that it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald in the window.
That type of argument is nonsense for several reasons, of course, not
the least of which is the fact that eyewitness accounts relating to
things like clothing, hair color, weight, and height, etc., are almost
always going to differ whenever you get several witnesses together to
compare these things. People, in general, just do not recall details
like this very well (especially under conditions when they have no
real NEED to notice these mundane things at the time they are seeing
them).
The same goes for "timelines", which are hardly EVER exactly the same
from one witness to the next. In the JFK case for example, the
witnesses told of the shooting taking anywhere from five seconds to
five MINUTES to complete. One witness actually thought the shots were
a total of FIVE MINUTES apart; and James Altgens thought the shooting
took up to a full thirty seconds as well, illustrating how people
don't measure "time" very well when they are asked to do so.
Back to Oswald's clothing -- There were, indeed, varying versions from
the witnesses as to what the ONE ASSASSIN IN THE SNIPER'S NEST was
wearing. Meaning: somebody's got to be wrong. Unless Mr. Garrison and
other conspiracy theorists actually want to believe that there were
MULTIPLE KILLERS jammed and squeezed into that tiny sniper's nook at
the very same time on November 22, 1963.
But the bottom line is that the whole case against Lee Oswald can't
simply be tossed into Garrison's trash bin just because of a witness'
description of the assassin's shirt.
Plus, there's the possibility (however remote) that Oswald DID have on
a different shirt when he was shooting JFK, and then changed to the
brown shirt in flight (just after leaving the sniper's nest), possibly
putting on the brown shirt hastily as he descended the four floors to
the lunchroom. Why was that simplistic clothes-changing activity not
possible in Mr. Garrison's mind?
Granted, I don't think any other shirt was found discarded in the Book
Depository that day. But the more I think of this shirt-changing
scenario, the more sense it makes from Oswald's point-of-view.
Because, it probably WOULD have been a smart move on Oswald's behalf
to want to change his outward appearance somewhat after having just
shot the President. (Similar to what he did to change his appearance
when he tossed aside his windbreaker jacket after shooting Officer
Tippit less than an hour after Kennedy's assassination.)
Another very real possibility is that Oswald shot JFK in his white T-
shirt ONLY....and then (after the shooting) hurriedly put on his brown
shirt over the top of the T-shirt. Hence, Officer Marrion Baker sees
Oswald with an untucked brown shirt that Baker thinks is a "jacket".
That seems the most likely "clothing discrepancy" scenario to
me....and it's a scenario which does not require Oswald to ditch a
second shirt someplace. He merely puts on one shirt over another to
change his appearance slightly from 12:30 to 12:32.
In the Johnny Carson interview, Carson asks a very prudent question of
Garrison that's as true today as it was during that interview ---
"What makes it [Garrison's overall belief in a JFK conspiracy] a fact?
Just because YOU say so?"
As Johnny was uttering the above words, I was nodding my head firmly,
in thorough agreement with Johnny's skepticism toward Mr. Garrison's
unprovable theories.
Another witness that Garrison spends a good deal of time on in the
Carson interview is Julia Ann Mercer (who claimed to have seen Jack
Ruby driving a green pick-up truck in Dealey Plaza about an hour
before the assassination).
It's quite interesting to take note of Mercer's apparent verbiage that
she used (as relayed by Garrison). Per those words of Mercer (as read
by Garrison), it would seem as if Mercer was actually claiming she
could RECOGNIZE Jack Ruby via facial features (et al) as Ruby was
killing Oswald.
That IDing of Ruby DURING the shooting of Lee Oswald is, of course, a
virtual impossibility, since Ruby was on camera for a mere fleeting
instant (with his back to the live TV cameras as well), and then Ruby
was wrestled to the ground by police and was then out of sight of the
cameras.
But does Garrison point out that apparent impossibility/discrepancy
regarding Mercer's statement? Of course not. Because he wants America
to believe Mercer's entire account -- including the preposterous part
that has a batch of brain-dead assassins actually being stupid enough
to take a rifle from the back of a pick-up truck (being driven by Jack
Ruby no less -- how convenient there too -- that guy was EVERYWHERE it
seems on Nov. 22) in front of a gob of potential witnesses who were
stalled in a traffic jam near the Triple Underpass.
Brilliant "professional" assassination plan there, huh? Why not just
paste a sign on the truck too, which says in bold letters for all to
see -- "RUBY & CO., INC. -- ASSASSINS FOR HIRE -- WE'RE HERE TO UNLOAD
THE JFK MURDER WEAPON AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN HOW MANY DALLAS
MOTORISTS SEE US WITH THIS RIFLE!" [[laugh]]
Below, I have written out some of the interesting excerpts and
snippets from the Garrison/Carson interview (interjections by this
author will be denoted by the initials "DVP")......
-------------------------------------
JG (Jim Garrison) -- "We have found that the Central Intelligence
Agency, without any question, had individuals who were connected with
it involved [in the assassination of JFK]."
JC (Johnny Carson) -- "You have absolute facts and proof of that?"
JG -- "Without any question. I wouldn't say so otherwise."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Mr. Garrison had no "proof" of the above allegation re. the
CIA. He was merely theorizing. He was good at theorizing about murky,
unverifiable conspiracy plots, such as the one involving Clay Shaw,
Guy Banister, and David Ferrie. But "proving" these crackpot theories
was another matter. In short, he couldn't do it. And a jury in 1969
"proved" that Garrison couldn't do it in a court of law.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "They [the Warren Commission] concluded that Lee Oswald was the
lone assassin....and the evidence is clear that Oswald never fired a
shot....never fired a shot."
~~~~~~
DVP -- The above comment by Mr. Garrison is totally laughable. Such an
asinine remark by a person in Mr. Garrison's position at the time
(that of a District Attorney) deserves nothing but utter contempt from
anyone who has looked even superficially into the facts surrounding
John Kennedy's tragic murder.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "There was never an investigation. .... I'm not at all impressed
with the fact that they [the Warren Commission] could find no evidence
of a conspiracy. After going through their inquiry, I doubt if they
could find a streetcar if they had a transfer in their hands and it
was pointed out to them."
~~~~~~
DVP -- The above comment by Jimbo was indeed humorous, and elicited a
chuckle from Mr. Carson's studio audience. I kind of wish, though,
that Carson had followed up Jim's witticism with a comment about Mr.
Garrison not being able to locate his 'common sense'....because it's
fairly obvious that Jim had very little of that particular trait when
it came to his absurd theories concerning the JFK case.
-------------------------------------
JC -- "Now, you say 'the fact remains' again....as if it IS a fact.
You keep saying 'we know' and 'the fact is'....but that's not a fact,
is it?"
JG -- "Yes."
JC -- "What makes it a fact? Because you say so?"
-------------------------------------
JC -- "Jim, aren't you taking inconsistencies in testimony during the
emotional time, even self-contradictory testimony, from even sometimes
the most truthful of witnesses....and using THAT as tainting
everything else that is very well explained?"
~~~~~~
DVP -- An excellent observation by Mr. Carson. And also a correct one,
IMO. Conspiracy theorists are experts at using selective pieces of
seemingly-contradictory evidence or witness statements and then
twisting those things into their own unique brand of "proof" that a
conpiracy had taken place on 11/22/63.
But the fact is that the things mentioned by Garrison (which I didn't
print out verbatim, but which prompted Johnny's comment above) were,
as John said, being used by Mr. Garrison to attempt to taint the
overall Lone-Assassin conclusion.
One thing, in particular, that Garrison is certainly dead-wrong about
(that he mentioned in the Carson interview) involves the actions and
observations of Roy Truly and Marrion Baker (who both saw Lee Oswald
on the 2nd Floor of the Book Depository approx. 90 seconds after
Oswald shot JFK from a 6th-Floor window).
Garrison erroneously assumes that since Truly and Baker saw Oswald on
the second floor shortly after the shooting, this therefore must
indicate that Oswald was innocent. But what Jim didn't tell the
audience that night in 1968 is that the Warren Commission conducted
multiple "re-enactments" of Oswald's alleged movements from the 6th to
the 2nd Floor of the building, and those re-creations proved beyond
any doubt that a person WAS capable of travelling that distance in
less than 80 seconds. Which indicates that the assassin (Oswald) could
very well have been on the 6th Floor at 12:30 PM and also on the 2nd
Floor by approx. 12:31:30 PM.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the
Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did
NOT."
~~~~~~
DVP -- That last line deserves a replay (just to emphasize the sheer
size of Garrison's gall at having spouted such nonsense) -- "The only
evidence available indicates that he did NOT".
Incredible, isn't it? Both times.
Mr. Garrison thinks the "ONLY evidence available" suggests that Lee
Oswald did NOT fire any shots from the TSBD. About the only thing left
to do after hearing (or reading) such total garbage from JG is to
throw up one's hands and scream "WTF?!". I think I'll go do that now.
Excuse me.
:)
-------------------------------------
JC -- "You are asking us and the American public to believe that a
team of seven gunmen carried this out with precision, firing from
various points that day in Dallas, which is a remarkable feat in
itself, and disappeared into thin air, with no witnesses who ever saw
any other gunmen or getaway vehicles....and a gigantic conspiracy in
which nobody seems to have yet proved anything....you ask us to
believe that....I find that a much larger fairy tale than to accept
the findings of the Warren Report."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Bravo, Mr. Carson! Well said! I applaud ye (again). I couldn't
have said that better myself.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "Having gone through the twenty-six volumes, Johnny, I CAN say
that it is not possible for a reasonable man to conclude that the
Warren Commission was right."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Another outlandishly-ludicrous statement by Jim G. in my
opinion, and in the opinion of a JFK assassination expert/author who
possesses probably more common sense and reasoned-thinking skills than
anybody I can personally think of -- former Los Angeles Deputy D.A.
Vincent Bugliosi, who made the following bold (but spot-on accurate)
declaration many years ago:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime. The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- VB; 1986
=============================================
Allow me to close this essay with the following remarks (which I think
aptly apply here, since I'm discussing a conspiracy kook named Jim
Garrison, a man who disbelieved virtually all of the actual,
documented evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder
investigations).....
The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
positively supports just one single gunman by the name of Lee Harvey
Oswald. And this physical evidence (plus a boatload of circumstantial
evidence as well) is just too overpowering in size and scope to merely
be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can (as Mr. Garrison seemed to
want to do every step of the way in his so-called "investigation" of
the case in the 1960s).
And the act of casting doubt upon the validity of ALL of the "Oswald
Is Guilty" evidence, sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is
merely the cowardly act of hardened conspiracy buffs (such as the late
Mr. Garrison) who simply cannot face the raw fact that the totality of
evidence in the JFK murder case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the Pope
is Catholic.
David Von Pein
November 2006
June 2009
=============================================
RELATED LINKS:
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225ycs&v=1
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=lw7vdwfesk&v=1
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
=============================================
pamela
> JIM GARRISON'S 1968 INTERVIEW WITH JOHNNY CARSON:
>
> aptly apply here, since I'm discussing a conspiracy kook named Jim
> Garrison, a man who disbelieved virtually all of the actual,
> documented evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder
> investigations).....
>
> The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
> positively supports just one single gunman by the name of Lee Harvey
> Oswald. And this physical evidence (plus a boatload of circumstantial
> evidence as well) is just too overpowering in size and scope to merely
> be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can (as Mr. Garrison seemed to
> want to do every step of the way in his so-called "investigation" of
> the case in the 1960s).
>
> And the act of casting doubt upon the validity of ALL of the "Oswald
> Is Guilty" evidence, sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is
> merely the cowardly act of hardened conspiracy buffs (such as the late
> Mr. Garrison) who simply cannot face the raw fact that the totality of
> evidence in the JFK murder case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the Pope
> is Catholic.
>
> David Von Pein
> November 2006
> June 2009
>
>
>
> www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225ycs&v=1
>
> www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=lw7vdwfesk&v=1
>
> www.prouty.org/garrison.html
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
>
Garrison was sandbagged by the govt which withheld information that would
have helped him prove his case. That is different from what "DVP" would
have us believe.
David Von Pein
>>> "Garrison was sandbagged by the govt which withheld information that
would have helped him prove his case. That is different from what "DVP"
would have us believe." <<<
So, "Pamela", you ACTUALLY believe that Garrison's "case" against Mr. Shaw
was a valid one?
IOW, "Pam", you actually think Clay Shaw was GUILTY of conspiracy to
murder the 35th U.S. President of the United States?
Come on now, "Pam". Let's keep our collective heads about us.
"DVP"
tomnln
"pamela" <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f646f5f1-717a-445b...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Top feature;
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Garrison was sandbagged by the govt which withheld information that
> would have helped him prove his case. That is different from what "DVP"
> would have us believe."<<<
>
> So, "Pamela", you ACTUALLY believe that Garrison's "case" against Mr. Shaw
> was a valid one?
>
No.
> IOW, "Pam", you actually think Clay Shaw was GUILTY of conspiracy to
> murder the 35th U.S. President of the United States?
>
Clay Shaw was the only CIA connection that Garrison could get his hands
on in New Orleans besides David Ferrie and he wanted to keep Ferrie as a
witness.