> > Have you ordered your copy of False Witness by Patricia Lambert which > > lists inaccuracies in OTTOTA?
> > I first learned of the very early - I think a day or so - involvement of > > the Secret Service in investigating whether there was an office of the > > FPCC at 544 Camp St in Gus Russo's Live By The Sword.
> > It has a lot of good information about who Banister was and what Guy > > Banister and Associates were doing. I hadn't known previously that he > > maintained close relations to the FBI and was one of the people who dug up > > the dirt that Hoover was so fond of.
> > Banister didn't know Oswald - tho he was certainly aware of him - and said > > to his brother that he was sure that Oswald had used the address to > > embarrass him.
> > We don't know why Oswald did use the address - on a small batch of the > > pamphlets. But, Banister may be right.
> > Sam, please don't think you can take anything in Garrison's oeuvre at fact > > value, much less the howlers in _JFK_.
> > Perhaps you've come to the discussion late and don't know that Big Jim has > > been - and Lambert delivers the coup de grace - thorough discredited from > > A to Z.
> > Most critics, however extreme, add something of value to the historical > > discussion; Garrison was the exception.
> Since this and a note from Todd in this forum is leaning pretty heavily on > Big Jim with virtually no prompting, I kinda infer something else > operating here.
No prompting is needed. The Garrison investigation is a continuing topic here. Garrison created the myth that was shot by Stone and that has been the defining moment which has propelled many, many people here into a deep interest in the case.
What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is
> worthy of particular censure?
Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
It seems to me that if BJ did nothing more
> than move the JFK coverup to heightened national consciousness, he did us > all a service.
Garrison moved it "to heightened national consciousness" in the same way that McCarthy's charges that the US Gov't was filled with red agents created for a time a "heightened national consciousness."
Garrison loved to talk to the media. He would - a la McCarthy - claim that he had "cracked the case" and knew the identities of all the shooters in DP, etc, and that he was about to break it all wide open.
In reality, he had nothing. It was all lies.
And like McCarthy he - when shown to have nothing - remember the jury was out for only 45 mins - claimed to be a victim/infiltrated and destroyed by his enemies.
In reality, they both self-destructed.
And in the end, they both argued - as you do explicitly above - that the end justified the means.
It doesn't.
As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison in droves? That they turned on him?
Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
"Nichts zu danken."
FWIW, in
> "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald, > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses, > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration." > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
I know that these allegations have been made.
Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory.
Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
If you can get ahold of Jean Davison's Oswald's Game, I urge you to do so.
As to the Stone movie, I don't dare see it. I'm afraid I'll absorb too much
> rubbish. > Sam
I've seen bits and pieces but there's no way I could sit through all of it.
It's worse than the worst Nazi or Soviet propaganda.
You know that Stone is still convinced that he - essentially - got it right? That Ozzie was innocent and the Gov't killed JFK?
In fact, he sees history in general as one conspiracy after another.
He can be quite amusing until you realize the dude is dead serious.
Jerry
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> > In article <36D483C8.BFE13...@mindspring.com>, > > sam hitt <samh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Since this and a note from Todd in this forum is leaning pretty heavily on > > > Big Jim with virtually no prompting, I kinda infer something else > > > operating here.
> > No prompting is needed. The Garrison investigation is a continuing topic > > here. Garrison created the myth that was shot by Stone and that has been > > the defining moment which has propelled many, many people here into a deep > > interest in the case.
> > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is > > > worthy of particular censure?
> > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's > > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and > > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
> > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from > > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
> Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not > before.
But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim, huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A) Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous person.
You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they flatly conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look
> bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation > began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his > life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a > suicide.
This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from
> Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
And then,
> OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole > story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water, > there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything > is false.
Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
> > It seems to me that if BJ did nothing more > > > than move the JFK coverup to heightened national consciousness, he did us > > > all a service.
> > Garrison moved it "to heightened national consciousness" in the same way > > that McCarthy's charges that the US Gov't was filled with red agents > > created for a time a "heightened national consciousness."
> > Garrison loved to talk to the media. He would - a la McCarthy - claim that > > he had "cracked the case" and knew the identities of all the shooters in > > DP, etc, and that he was about to break it all wide open.
> > In reality, he had nothing. It was all lies.
> > And like McCarthy he - when shown to have nothing - remember the jury was > > out for only 45 mins - claimed to be a victim/infiltrated and destroyed by > > his enemies.
> > In reality, they both self-destructed.
> > And in the end, they both argued - as you do explicitly above - that the > > end justified the means.
> Sorry, this last went over my head a bit.
Sam, I interpreted what you said to indicate an acceptance - often expressed here - that however bad Garrison was in any particular way, in a larger framework what he did was do "something" to advance... er ... historical truth about the assassination ... or something.
I believe the opposite. That Garrison was such an aberation that he almost killed research - which had a fallow period - until Groden managed to use the Z-film to lobby congress to reinvestigate the case. bring about the HSCA.
> > It doesn't.
> > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison > > in droves? That they turned on him?
> Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
> > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I > > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> > "Nichts zu danken."
> Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey > Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine > Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover > capacity".
This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of scepticism will serve you well.
She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz
> and Guy at Guy's office.
That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had himself some kind of street action there.
Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
He had conversations with his brother on the topic.
I see them as the "real life" versions which are counterpointed by the "fantasy life" versions of the two Delphines and others.
Now, why FPCC, I thought. Since the FBI and CIA
> were both trying to disrupt this New York organization at the time,
The FPCC was an international org - hence CIA's interest.
The FBI conducted several black bag jobs at the NY Office.
They had legitimate interests involving national security. IOW, this is why we have a Bureau and an Agency.
which
> Banister probably knew, it wouldn't hurt a heck of a lot to misbehave in > the name of the FPPC in New Orleans
Maybe it wouldn't have. But Oswald did what he did with no help from anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend of the Cuban Revolution.
I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt for a Banister to pull.
New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles. There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
> > FWIW, in > > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald, > > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban > > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during > > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald > > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses, > > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in > > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently > > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration." > > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> > I know that these allegations have been made.
> > Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their > > conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory. > > Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
> The HSCA did not discuss witnesses.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Of course, they did!
Arcacha was the Cuban Revolutionary
> Council rep in New Orleans.
WRONG. He had been. He had been replaced for cause long before Oswald arrived on the scene. He was living in Texas during he summer of '63.
The CRC, based in Miami, was founded by E.
> Howard Hunt and partly bankrolled by Carlos Marcello.
Maybe it had been; at least partly. I don't know. I know they were broke and in disarray in the summer of '63.
The CRC was an
> ongoing enterprise of the CIA,
Not at all. They closest they came to anything like what you claim is with the DRE.
and so the Secret Service was not about to
> blow the operation of its sister agency.
Sister Agency????
(doubles over with laughter)
There is no overlap between CIA and the SS. Unlike say between CIA and the FBI.
Let me say one thing: the various agencies/services look out for their own interests and in general to the degree they are rivals there is no love lost between them.
Cover for one another? Not hardy, Sam.
The Secret Service office was
> directly across the street, as you recall.
This was a small group that tracked counterfeiting activities and other treasury matters.
And another thing: this
> conspiracy business is primarily involves the mob and/or the US > government.
It primarily involves the fantasies of paranoids - whose theories flourish in the utter absence of evidence.
It seems to me bad form to uncritically reference the US
> government as a reliable source when it has been, and remains, in major > CYA mode.
I knew they were just engaging in wishful thinking when they established the JFK Records Act and released 100,000s of docs!!
So, they're damned if they do; damned if they don't?
Amethyst wrote: Sam wrote: > > > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is > > > > worthy of particular censure?
> > > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's > > > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and > > > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK. > > > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from > > > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
> > Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not > > before.
> But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim, > huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A) > Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out > was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous > person.
Russo was discovered through a newspaper article found by Scambria. He told BJ about it, who then sent Scambria to Baton Rouge to interview Russo. This is the first contact with Russo and pre-hypnosis. I take no position.
> You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they flatly > conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
Threats against JFK were often to be heard, whether it occurred at this party and/or elsewhere it seems to me to amount to zip. I got the impression that Shaw was not the real target anyway, it was to display evidence of conspiracy by getting Dallas people in on the show as well as locals. In the end, BJ could not connect Dallas and N.O. events; but you never know what might slink out from under the woodwork if enough uproar is made. I thought it was a good ploy.
> To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look > > bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation > > began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his > > life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a > > suicide.
> This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
I didn't see where BJ lied; I alone inferred possibilities from OTTOTA, that's all.
> Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man > and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
I guess I don't see how one can so dogmatically assert this cause. It's but one plausible explanation; its being the "official" one lends it no special sanctity. Assume the N.O. coroners were crooks.
> Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in > OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
> Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared > an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
> From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from > > Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
> This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with > the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if > there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
> And then, > > OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole > > story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water, > > there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything > > is false.
> Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if > perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
"At the beginning" would be about the right time, I think, if not earlier.
> > > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison > > > in droves? That they turned on him?
> > Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
> We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
> > > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> > > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I > > > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> > > "Nichts zu danken."
> > Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey > > Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine > > Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover > > capacity".
> This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At > first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
> Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of > scepticism will serve you well.
> She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz > > and Guy at Guy's office.
> That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had > himself some kind of street action there.
That's true, as I just found out.
> Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he > stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
I don't know this story. Guy stopped the sale of jeeps?
> ...Oswald did what he did with no help from > anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend > of the Cuban Revolution.
> I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt > for a Banister to pull.
> New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles. > There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
If Oz was building patsy credentials, whether a chapter survives is moot. He got himself on radio and TV, a success. The significance of what Oz tells Marina depends upon whether he was a commie or building an image.
> > > FWIW, in > > > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald, > > > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban > > > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during > > > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald > > > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses, > > > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in > > > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently > > > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration." > > > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> > > I know that these allegations have been made.
> > > Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their > > > conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory. > > > Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
> > The HSCA did not discuss witnesses.
> I can't believe I'm reading this. Of course, they did!
I have a CD-ROM which bills itself as containing the WC and HSCA reports. I have yet to figure out exactly what's missing, but I assume what I have is the basic report, whatever that may be, which does not have anything about disputing witnesses, except for some vague reference to the "riddle of 544 Camp Street", and appears to draw on the Secret Service memo of December, 1963 I already mentioned and goes no further. Also, in quoting from "Kingfish" concerning witnesses, I did not ever find what witnesses were being referred to, hoping, if it were germane, that someone might clarify this. If they were the same as the HSCA worked specifically with, I have nothing that says that. Also, I ran across what I think was an FBI report or two regarding interview(s) with (Sam?) Newman, who owned the building, and who confirmed that the Cuban Revolutionary Council, which absorbed the Front in 1961 (?) rented office space from him during the period Oz was in N.O., partly on recommendation of Banister. I think the first infestation of the CRC in the building ended in 1962, as the Secret Service report says, but they left owing rent or something, hence Newman's reluctance. I'm vague here because I didn't intend to make a case, but elicit information. What good does it do to refer to "so-called" witnesses? Of what relevance is it that Delphine was reluctant? She doesn't know whether the FPCC idea was hatched in Newman's building, that's just an impression she got from whatever fragmentary info she happened to encounter while in the site where discussions of interest occurred.
> And another thing: this > > conspiracy business is primarily involves the mob and/or the US > > government.
> It primarily involves the fantasies of paranoids - whose theories > flourish in the utter absence of evidence.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Well, so much for objectivity.
> It seems to me bad form to uncritically reference the US > > government as a reliable source when it has been, and remains, in major > > CYA mode.
> I knew they were just engaging in wishful thinking when they established > the JFK Records Act and released 100,000s of docs!!
And the pupose of this observation is what? That after two prior investigations there being 100,000s of docs to release is evidence of openness and candor? I've seen a bit of grumping about leads not checked by the ARRB, such as the possible involvement of Mac Wallace and multiple murders that Billie Sol Estes referred to, including the JFK assassination. In this last, the Justice Dept. could have granted Estes immunity for his various stories, since it had no plans to prosecute him, that I know of, in the absence of these stories. But perhaps you have some anti-paranoid theory to offer here? I know about the time and money shortage argument, to which I fail to be sympathetic.
Hey, I got my copy of False Witness today. Garrison and Stone are nuked. The HSCA takes some serious hits regarding the Clinton, La, saga and regarding he dubious methods they used to come up with some desperate linkage between Ferrie and our boy Lee.
You can order it from B&N online. Get it in a couple days.
> > > > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is > > > > > worthy of particular censure?
> > > > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's > > > > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and > > > > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
> > > > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from > > > > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
> > > Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not > > > before.
> > But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim, > > huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A) > > Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out > > was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous > > person.
> Russo was discovered through a newspaper article found by Scambria. He > told BJ about it, who then sent Scambria to Baton Rouge to interview > Russo. This is the first contact with Russo and pre-hypnosis. I take no > position.
Just keep in mind the very limited scope of Russo's story at this time. Shaw was not a part of it. An 'assassination party' was not a part of it.
> > You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they flatly > > conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
> Threats against JFK were often to be heard, whether it occurred at this > party and/or elsewhere it seems to me to amount to zip.
Very true. Remember back then good citizens would make comments about presidents along the lines of, "Somebody oughta shoot that SOB"!
I got the
> impression that Shaw was not the real target anyway, it was to display > evidence of conspiracy by getting Dallas people in on the show as well as > locals.
I used to think along similar lines. BUT, further study shows that Garrison wanted to get Shaw and would have done *anything* to do it.
Imagine the pursuit of a totally innocent man - year after year. A nightmare.
In the end, BJ could not connect Dallas and N.O. events; but you
> never know what might slink out from under the woodwork if enough uproar > is made. I thought it was a good ploy.
I see ... *sigh* ... the end justifies the means, huh?
> > To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look > > > bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation > > > began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his > > > life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a > > > suicide.
> > This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
> I didn't see where BJ lied; I alone inferred possibilities from OTTOTA, > that's all.
OTTOTA is a pack of self-serving lies.
You probably think I'm exaggerating, right? Actually, it's more like the opposite of that.
Get False Witness for a devastating page by page deconstruction of OTTOTA!
You've got to see this for yourself. I'm sure, you have no idea.
> > Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man > > and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
> I guess I don't see how one can so dogmatically assert this cause. It's > but one plausible explanation; its being the "official" one lends it no > special sanctity. Assume the N.O. coroners were crooks.
OK, Sam ... just *assume* whatever you want.
I see you and Big Jim have a lot in common ... <g>
> > Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in > > OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
> > Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared > > an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
> > From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from > > > Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
What the hell are you talking about with this "preserving BJ's mob detente" stuff??
What he "obtained from Ferrie" were public and private protestations of total innocence. And what Ferrie did was to go public and try desperately to get somebody to acknowledge that Garrison was persecuting him.
You probably think that Ferrie was some evil character. He was a much more sympathetic guy than you think.
And, totally the victim of Jack Martin's lies. Now there was a guy who'd spent time in both prison and a nut house. And a truly vicious and slanderous guy.
Ferrie didn't know Oswald - he admitted of the possibility that the 25 yo Oswald may have been - briefly - in a CAP unit he served - and had no knowledge of the JFK assassination.
> > This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with > > the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if > > there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
> > And then, > > > OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole > > > story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water, > > > there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything > > > is false.
> > Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if > > perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
> "At the beginning" would be about the right time, I think, if not earlier.
The best advice I can give you is "read False Witness"!
> > > > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison > > > > in droves? That they turned on him?
> > > Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
> > We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
> > > > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> > > > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I > > > > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> > > > "Nichts zu danken."
> > > Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey > > > Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine > > > Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover > > > capacity".
> > This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At > > first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
> > Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of > > scepticism will serve you well.
> > She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz > > > and Guy at Guy's office.
> > That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had > > himself some kind of street action there.
> That's true, as I just found out.
Oswald was a guy who was always thinking, always planning this or that. He didn't need anybody else to suggest all sorts of ways to make his life interesting and, in his eyes, purposive.
His main problem was that he saw himself as a highly gifted and important man and the world didn't do much to ... acknowledge that.
> > Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he > > stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
> I don't know this story. Guy stopped the sale of jeeps?
Yes, that was one of his achievements.
I was just reading today that he was going broke towards the end. That Sam Newman didn't receive the rent as regularly as he would have liked and would have kicked him out, but, had trouble attracting tenents to the run-down, seedy Newman Building.
> > ...Oswald did what he did with no help from > > anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend > > of the Cuban Revolution.
> > I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt > > for a Banister to pull.
> > New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles. > > There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
> If Oz was building patsy credentials, whether a chapter survives is moot.
Right. Not that he ever had a "Chapter". Well ... a real one, I mean.
> He got himself on radio and TV, a success.
Yes, indeed. He could be a clever guy at times.
The significance of what Oz
> tells Marina depends upon whether he was a commie or building an image.
The people who knew him knew him to be a Marxist. And, he was building an image as a friend of the Cuban Revolution, as he didn't have a sponsor, ie, somebody who knew him who could establish his bona fides.
I see you're familiar with Garrison's famous "black is white" theory.
> > > > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald, > > > > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban > > > > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during > > > > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald > > > > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses, > > > > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in > > > > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently > > > > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration." > > > > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> > > > I know that these allegations have been made.
Although I'm pretty new at this stuff, I should like to throw some points out there in regards to making a connection with NO and Dallas, in Garrison's arrest of Shaw and in southern politics.
BJ (if this is Garrison?) hoped to tie Shaw with the CIA. The CIA was decidedly in liason with the mob. The Mob's chieftan in NO, Marcello, employed Oz during the summer of 63 as a 'runner'. Oz's Uncle worked the books for Marcello's partner.
Bannister, ex FBI, as an investigator employed Ferrie and had Marcello as a client.
Marcello owned the Dallas organization and Ruby was second in control in Dallas. Ruby told an employee, Martin, "they're going to find out about New Orleans," during his visit while Ruby was in jail.
BJ was unable to secure witnesses that were CIA or FBI, due to "national security" and was therefore unable to prove Shaw's connection with the CIA.
However, later after it was long over, Richard Helm's testified that Shaw was indeed employed by the CIA.
Therefore, Garrison was proven correct in his belief that Shaw was CIA, not only CIA, but covert CIA.
Ruby was known to the Dallas Police as an informant to the FBI. These are all facts.
Also the director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied even having a New Orleans Chapter, much less a member by the name of oswald. Bet they didn't have a florida chapter either.
Think about this, Ruby corrected Wade when Wade stated Oswald was a member of the "Free Cuba Commitee." This was at the press conference, Ruby "hung around for" the night before he killed Oswald.
I think there are links from Shaw to the CIA and the CIA to the anti-Castro Cubans. The mob had a vested interest in all this. They had had very prosperous casinos in Cuba before Castro. There are definite links from the CIA to the Mob. Put Ferrie with Shaw, then enters Bannister (ex-FBI). Wish I had a nickle for all the "ex-FBI" people! Incidently, Ferrie was believed to have flown Marcello back from Guatemala to Shreveport.
I do not think Garrison was on a' witch hunt'. Shaw being a "respectable businessman" is hogwash. He owned the Trade Center that Kennedy was to go directly to from the Airport, until "pursuaded by Democratic Leaders.." to go through downtown Dallas! He had as much interest in Cuba as any agency or organization did. JFK stood in many people's way. I think that Garrison had a very quick mind and he made these connections in his head, or by gut feeling. I think that people of lesser mind would critizise his thinking, because they could not conceive of it. He had a conviction to truth and I think the truth was simply that our government killed our President. He believed this and wanted to show the American public this was so. Shaw was all he had. He is not necessarily wrong because he was unable to prove these connections. Remember, Helms proved the Shaw CIA connection was right on! He did what he could with what he had. The fact that it ruined Shaw does not necessarily mean his nose was clean.
Forgive me for my babbling. I live just outside of Shreveport, LA. I am within 3 hours of Dallas. I am very familiar with the racketerring in New Orlean's and Louisiana politics. Infact, it is ongoing! Casino's are spreading throughout hayseed towns! Edwards, the once governor of LA, is currently in the midst of trials on indictments of racketeering charges. This isn't the first time. Just think, if Garrison had been able to prove Shaw was involved in a conspiracy...i think he would have talked. If so, things would be decidedly different not only in Louisiana and Texas, but in Washington.
My basic reply to you is: where are you getting this stuff?
> Although I'm pretty new at this stuff, I should like to throw some points out > there in regards to making a connection with NO and Dallas, in Garrison's > arrest of Shaw and in southern politics.
> BJ (if this is Garrison?) hoped to tie Shaw with the CIA. The CIA was > decidedly in liason with the mob.
The mob contracts were let very early. Under Ike. He and his vice president were very down on Castro.
Obviously working with the mob was a recipe for disaster and it didn't work out and Helms terminated it.
It probably would have died very early, but, the legendary Sheff Edwards had a contact who had worked for the Bureau (Maheu) and he connected them to Rosselli.
And Harvey and Rosseli got along very well.
The Mob's chieftan in NO, Marcello, employed
> Oz during the summer of 63 as a 'runner'.
No way. Oz worked for Reiley Coffee and then was content to collect unemployment checks and plan his next defection - to Cuba.
Oz's Uncle worked the books for
> Marcello's partner.
Not true. He took some betting action and that was it.
> Bannister, ex FBI, as an investigator employed Ferrie and had Marcello as a > client.
Banister was on his last legs and barely was able to pay the rent at this time. In fact, Newman contemplated throwing him ot for nonpayment but had a hard time renting his office space.
Marcello's lawyer was G Wray Gill.
> Marcello owned the Dallas organization and Ruby was second in control in > Dallas.
Another guy who was down on his luck who was broke and owed the IRS a bundle. He wasn't in the mob. Let alone second in a crime organization.
You have a big imagination!
Ruby told an employee, Martin, "they're going to find out about New
> Orleans," during his visit while Ruby was in jail.
The Secret Service was checking 544 Camp St to see if Oswald had had an office there/or the FPCC.
There were no limitations to the investigation.
Almost everything was found out within days.
There was a strong case against Oswald by Saturday morning.
> BJ was unable to secure witnesses that were CIA or FBI, due to "national > security" and was therefore unable to prove Shaw's connection with the CIA.
He wasn't "connected"; he gave the DCS info he picked up from his foreign travels. So did thousands of people. > > However, later after it was long over, Richard Helm's testified that Shaw was > indeed employed by the CIA.
No. He never said "employed by"; he said that Shaw provided info - was an informant - for the DCS.
> Therefore, Garrison was proven correct in his belief that Shaw was CIA, not > only CIA, but covert CIA.
No way. The DCS is overt and you can find them in the telephone book.
> Ruby was known to the Dallas Police as an informant to the FBI. > These are all facts.
He had had some info to offer. At one time. That's not saying much.
> Also the director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied even having a New > Orleans Chapter, much less a member by the name of oswald. Bet they didn't > have a florida chapter either.
Oswald was a MEMBER. He asked for a charter to have a Chapter and was turned down. You had to have an org with a minimum number of members.
> Think about this, Ruby corrected Wade when Wade stated Oswald was a member of > the "Free Cuba Commitee." This was at the press conference, Ruby "hung around > for" the night before he killed Oswald.
Yes, info on Oswald was being dug up immediately after he was brought in. Half the world knew about his affiliation with the FPCC by Friday evening.
> I think there are links from Shaw to the CIA and the CIA to the anti-Castro > Cubans.
Shaw didn't know Oswald.
Shaw had no role in the JFk assassination.
His info sharing with CIA had ended in the 50s. He had no ongoing relationship with CIA.
The mob had a vested interest in all this. They had had very
> prosperous casinos in Cuba before Castro.
And were realistic enough to realize they had lost them and their loss was irretrieveable.
There are definite links from the
> CIA to the Mob.
Sez you! *LOL*
Put Ferrie with Shaw, then enters Bannister (ex-FBI). Wish I
> had a nickle for all the "ex-FBI" people! Incidently, Ferrie was believed to > have flown Marcello back from Guatemala to Shreveport.
I don't think so, but, suppose he had - so what?
> I do not think Garrison was on a' witch hunt'.
You have picked a very bad time to enter the debate, Al!
Shaw being a "respectable
> businessman" is hogwash. He owned the Trade Center that Kennedy was to go > directly to from the Airport, until "pursuaded by Democratic Leaders.." to go > through downtown Dallas!
Yeah, they had to twist JFK's arm to have a motorcade through downtown? It was his Irish Mafia who came up with the idea.
The whole purpose of the trip was to be seen and heard and pick up popular support.
He had as much interest in Cuba as any agency or
> organization did. JFK stood in many people's way.
JFK was obsessed with Cuba. His daddy had taught hm that you never walk away from a fight. Never quit.
I think that Garrison had a
> very quick mind and he made these connections in his head, or by gut feeling. > I think that people of lesser mind would critizise his thinking, because they > could not conceive of it. He had a conviction to truth and I think the truth > was simply that our government killed our President. He believed this and > wanted to show the American public this was so.
The jury heard his case. It took less than an hour to acquit Shaw.
Shaw was all he had. He is
> not necessarily wrong because he was unable to prove these connections.
Garrison was not necessarily wrong?
You've picked a very bad time to enter the discussion.
> Remember, Helms proved the Shaw CIA connection was right on!
Aha. I guess that proves Shaw was some heavy dude. Probabally one o them assassins that CIa sends around the world to whack people, huh?
He did what he
> could with what he had. The fact that it ruined Shaw does not necessarily mean > his nose was clean.
So, you believe there is credible evidence that Shaw was at a party with Ferrie and his roomate, Leon Oswald, and the three of them hatched an assassination plot?
> Forgive me for my babbling. I live just outside of Shreveport, LA. I am > within 3 hours of Dallas. I am very familiar with the racketerring in New > Orlean's and Louisiana politics. Infact, it is ongoing! Casino's are spreading > throughout hayseed towns! Edwards, the once governor of LA, is currently in > the midst of trials on indictments of racketeering charges. This isn't the > first time. Just think, if Garrison had been able to prove Shaw was involved > in a conspiracy...i think he would have talked. If so, things would be > decidedly different not only in Louisiana and Texas, but in Washington.
IF ... IF ... IF.
OTOH, maybe Garrison was a complete fraud and maybe Shaw was an innocent victim of malicious prosecution.
