http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html

The link above provides access to several interesting Jim Garrison
audio files, including his entire interview with Johnny Carson in the
late 1960s....which I had never heard or seen in its entirety
heretofore.

The Carson/Garrison interview is fascinating, and I was very impressed
by Johnny Carson's depth of knowledge concerning the JFK case. Much
more so than I was with Mr. Garrison's paper-thin pro-conspiracy
arguments. (But then, too, I guess I would be inclined to be more
impressed by Johnny, even if he hadn't known the names of the two Nov.
22 victims, seeing as how I think Mr. Garrison is [was] a total loon
when it comes to anything the man ever said re. the assassination of
John Kennedy.)

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. 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.

More on the Carson/Garrison interview --- Garrison likes to make huge
conspiracy-flavored mountains of out of things that can just as easily
be explained in non-hinky ways. E.G.: 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 re. "clothing"
and "hair color" and "height", etc., are almost always (in any criminal
case) 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 (esp. 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 5 seconds to 5
MINUTES to complete. (One witness actually thought the shots were a
total of FIVE MINUTES apart; 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 CTers) actually want to believe that there were MULTIPLE KILLERS
jammed and squeezed into that teeny-tiny sniper's nook at the very same
time on 11/22.

Some CTers do seem to feel that there were multiple killers on the 6th
Floor at the very same time. But as far as I can recall, not ONE
witness reported seeing more than ONE single man in the SN at any given
time. Nobody ever saw TWO men at the same time in the SN, which IMO is
rather important. Because it means that there was most likely just ONE
man up there, period.*

* = Unless CTers want to purport that the TWO killers were very, very
careful about their movements as they approached the SE corner window
and the SN, making sure that just ONE of them at a time would ever be
seen by any witnesses, instead of somebody catching a glimpse of BOTH
of these men at the same point in time in the Nest.

But the bottom line is that the whole case against Oswald can't be
simply 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 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 TSBD
that day. But, the more I think of this shirt-changing scenario, the
more sense it makes from Oswald's POV. For, 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. Right?
(Similar to what he did to change his appearance when he tossed aside
his windbreaker jacket after shooting Officer Tippit.)

Another very real possibility is that Oswald shot JFK in his white
T-shirt ONLY....and then (after the shooting) hurriedly threw on his
brown shirt over the top of the T-shirt (hence, Officer 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
is 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 {meaning 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 re.
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. -- Assassins For Hire, Inc. -- 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!"

~LOL!~

More re. Johnny Carson......

The Garrison interview brought out a low-key and totally-serious side
of Mr. 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. Great archival
stuff, IMO. I'd recommend people give it a listen when they can. The
"Real Player" download is very fast, too.

Allow me to close this rambling message with this comment (which I
think applies aptly here, since I'm discussing a kook named Garrison
who disbelieved virtually all of the actual, documented evidence in the
Kennedy and Tippit murder cases)......

The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
that supports just one shooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald is too
overpowering to merely be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can. And
doubting (or denying) the veracity of ALL of this physical evidence,
sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is merely the cowardly act
of hardened conspiracy buffs who simply cannot face the raw fact that
the physical evidence in this case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the
Pope is Catholic.

David Von Pein