Jim Garrison -- PERJURER
Dave Reitzes
Garrison refused to answer many questions put to him and gave numerous answers
that are demonstrably false. In fact, some of Garrison's statements are so
easily demonstrated false -- such as his claim that David Ferrie was alive at
the time Clay Shaw was indicted (Ferrie died on February 22, 1967; Shaw was
arrested March 1, 1967, and indicted on March 22) -- that it is impossible to
conclude that Garrison was deliberately telling a lie.
The same cannot be said for September 22, 1967, when Garrison took the witness
stand to testify with regard to the defense's motion to quash the indictment
against Shaw. Two questions were asked and answered before Judge Edward
Haggerty -- who would later preside over the Shaw trial -- instructed Garrison
to answer no further questions, and admonished Shaw's defense counsel, "This is
not a pretrial [hearing] on the Shaw case."
The two questions that were asked and answered were: Had Garrison received
financial aid from the organization known as Truth and Consequences -- yes,
Garrison said he had -- and had Perry Raymond Russo failed several polygraph
examinations? No, Garrison replied, "certainly he has not" (New Orleans
States-Item, September 26, 1967; Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, 240).
Garrison knew perfectly well that Russo had badly failed a March 8, 1967,
polygraph examination administered by Jefferson Parish deputy sheriff Roy
Jacob, as well as attempts to administer a second test on June 19, 1967, by
NOPD polygraph examiner Edward O'Donnell. In fact, Russo had confessed to
O'Donnell that he wasn't sure whether he had seen Clay Shaw at David Ferrie's
apartment or not, and that if he had to give a direct 'yes or no' answer, he
would have to say that, no, Shaw was not at Ferrie's apartment (Edward
O'Donnell, Report to Jim Garrison, June 21, 1967, reproduced in full in
Patricia Lambert, False Witness, 287-9, and at the Kennedy Assassination Home
Page; Milton Brener, The Garrison Case, 109; Lambert, 92-3, 114-5). When
Garrison was informed about Russo's confession, he flew into a rage and accused
Russo of selling out "to the CIA" and "to NBC," which had just learned of
Russo's failed polygraph of March 8.
Both polygraph examiners were instructed by Garrison's staff (Andrew Sciambra
in the case of Roy Jacob, Lynn Loisel and Lou Ivon in the case of Edward
O'Donnell) to never mention the examinations to anyone; O'Donnell was
instructed not to write a report on the incident. O'Donnell refused to obey
this instruction, and promptly wrote a full report, which he hand-delivered to
Jim Garrison himself. Later, O'Donnell was called into Garrison's office, along
with Perry Russo, James Alcock and Andrew Sciambra. Garrison showed the report
to Russo and asked if it was accurate. Russo equivocated until O'Donnell,
bluffing, hinted that the polygraph examination might have been tape-recorded.
Russo then admitted the report was accurate.
Garrison buried the report and made an unsuccessful attempt to have Edward
O'Donnell fired from the NOPD. O'Donnell testified for the defense at the trial
of Clay Shaw, recounting his experience with the DA's office (Shaw trial
transcript, February 26, 1969, Record No. 2043, pp. 2-20; Ibid., February 27,
1969, Record No. 2045, pp. 2-3; Brener, 259; James Kirkwood, American
Grotesque, 401-2; Lambert, 172).
In my article, "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?" I debunk the Garrison-inspired myth
that Clay Shaw perjured himself at trial. Ironically, it turns out to be Jim
Garrison himself who is the perjurer.
Had Perry Raymond Russo failed several polygraph examinations? No, Garrison
replied, "certainly he has not" (New Orleans States-Item, September 26, 1967;
Flammonde, 240).
Dave Reitzes
"Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
The many lies in Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Much more on Jim Garrison's investigation, including Edward O'Donnell's full
report of June 20, 1967:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
St. John the Sublime Reformer
In this post you give it the title of "Jim Garrison - PERJURER".
The post is an attack on Jim Garrison and includes references
such as "The many lies in Garrisons..." etc.
This web site however lists you as a Jim Garrison Supporter.
You refer us to this web site three times in this post alone,
and this web site lists articles by you in which you attack
Garrison's crediblity also.
Why does this web site list you as a Garrison supporter ?
Fraternally Yours,
St. John the Sublime Reformer
A Certain Point Within A Circle
Masonic Historian
Masonicinfo.com - AntiMasonry: Points of View & JFK
http://www.crocker.com/~acacia/article.html
Lafayettes Surprise - The Pentagram of Washington D.C.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter3/chapter3.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia - FreeMasonry
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm
Britains New Masonic Registry
http://news1.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/politics/newsid_57000/57381.stm
http://news1.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_57000/57463.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_353000/353412.stm
ManitobaGL.ca- Kabbalism & MAHABONE
Http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/3164/index.htm
====================================================
St. John the Sublime Reformer's logic is a peculiar form of morality,
veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols. It is based on his three
grand principles - brotherly love, relief, and truth. So mote it be.
Martin Shackelford
refers to Bill Davy as a Garrison supporter. Read it again.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
dudalb
Oliver Stone near deification of Garrison in JFK is one of the most
outrageous frauds ever perpetuated on the public....
Dave Reitzes
>Agreed. Even some Kennedy conpsricacy buffs have denounced Garrison. The
>Oliver Stone near deification of Garrison in JFK is one of the most
>outrageous frauds ever perpetuated on the public....
Yup.
One hardly has to be a Warren Commission advocate to condemn Garrison's
actions. Writing in 1967, Sylvia Meagher said that "as the Garrison
investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious
misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his
witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of
the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison
investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part
of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment" (Meagher, Accessories
After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).
"You have every right to play Mack Sennett in a Keystone Kops Pink Panther,"
Harold Weisberg wrote to Oliver Stone while JFK was in production, "but as an
investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a public hair in a whorehouse at rush
hour" (Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991;
reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, 221).
"Garrison was a tragedy," Weisberg wrote in a letter to me in 1998.
Peter Noyes writes, "Garrison was wrong about Clay Shaw and Edgar Eugene
Bradley [another Garrison suspect]. The case against them was a monumental
fraud" (Legacy of Doubt, 108-9). "Every time Garrison opened his mouth in the
days after Ferrie's death, his appearance of credibility appeared to be giving
way to one of lunacy" (Ibid., 111). "Perhaps the most perceptive observer of
the circus in New Orleans was Hugh Aynesworth [who wrote] 'Jim Garrison is
right. There has been a conspiracy in New Orleans -- but it is a plot of
Garrison's own making. It is a scheme to concoct a fantastic 'solution' to the
death of John F. Kennedy, and to make it stick; in this cause the district
attorney and his staff have been parties to the death of one man and have
humiliated, harassed and financially gutted several others'" (Ibid., 111). "The
trial was a sham; it was perhaps the most disgraceful legal event of the
twentieth century" (Ibid., 114). Noyes' statements are reprinted in Peter Dale
Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler, eds., The Assassinations: Dallas and
Beyond, 296-300. That book's editors call the Shaw prosecution "seemingly
indefensible (Ibid., 9).
Of Oliver Stone's JFK, Dr. Michael L. Kurtz, author of Crime of the Century:
The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective, writes, "As a
historian, I find the distortions of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone appalling.
Garrison's case was based almost entirely on the dubious testimony of Perry
Raymond Russo" (1993 ed., xiii).
In Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy, David E.
Scheim writes that "as Garrison's case unfolded, his specific accusations
became increasingly outlandish and the thrust of his efforts increasingly
questionable. Especially bizarre was Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw . . .
It took the jury less than an hour to find Shaw innocent of Garrison's
extravagant accusations" (Ibid., 48).
"Jim Garrison's performance proved to be disappointing," writes Henry Hurt in
Reasonable Doubt, "particularly after months of highly publicized promises of
what he would present at the trial. He produced no witnesses to suggest CIA
involvement in an assassination conspiracy. He produced nothing, really, that
went beyond what had been presented at the preliminary hearing two years
earlier" (Ibid., 276-7). Hurt criticizes Garrison's "shocking tactics," and
notes, "To many observers, Jim Garrison seemed obsessed with the destruction of
Clay Shaw" (Ibid., 278).
Discussing Garrison's cameo appearance in JFK as the late Earl Warren, longtime
researcher Paul Hoch writes in Echoes of Conspiracy, "Unintentionally, this is
not just an ironic touch: the actions of both men did much to discourage or
co-opt other investigations." Hoch quotes David Lifton as calling Garrison
"intellectually dishonest, a reckless prosecutor, and a total charlatan."
Anthony Summers writes of Garrison's investigation, "As the world learned from
a stream of garish headlines, that inquiry foundered in a storm of allegations
about malpractice by Garrison himself" (Summers, Conspiracy, 1989 ed., 292).
"The case against Shaw was extremely weak . . ." (Ibid., 306).
"The Garrison affair was sown with the seeds of its own destruction," Harrison
Livingstone writes, "by the premature charging of a suspect (Clay Shaw) with no
case against him" (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, 537).
Oswald defender Howard Roffman notes, "Shaw . . . was easily acquitted after a
two-month proceeding in which all the shocking evidence against him promised by
Garrison failed to materialize. Garrison was in consequence widely condemned by
the media, and the New Orleans fiasco caused the virtual destruction of
whatever foundation for credibility had previously been established by critics
of the Warren Report. . . . [H]is unethical behavior and the mockery of justice
. . . left the public and the media highly suspicious of Warren
Report criticism" (Roffman, Presumed Guilty, 28-9).
G. Robert Blakey and Richard N. Billings' Fatal Hour: The Assassination of
President Kennedy by Organized Crime, states, "The evidence of Shaw's
participation in a conspiracy was flimsy, and from his indictment to eventual
acquittal in 1969, the course of the investigation was downhill to disaster"
(Ibid., 53). The "testimony of the 'star witness,' Perry Raymond Russo, had
been blatantly concocted" (Ibid., 193).
Even one of Garrison's most ardent advocates and a personal friend of the
onetime DA had to take exception to the fictionalized Garrison case portrayed
by Oliver Stone in *JFK*:
From Mark Lane, "Fact or Fiction? The Moviegoer's Guide to the Film JFK", *Rush
to Judgment,* 1992 ed. . . .
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Oliver] Stone chose as his hero Jim Garrison. I was delighted when I first
heard that news. However, unwilling to record history and true only to the
Hollywood concept of a technicolor version of black and white in which no grays
are countenanced, Stone, to prove how correct Garrison had been, was determined
to demonstrate how guilty Clay Shaw had been.
Garrison had prosecuted Shaw in New Orleans for conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy. After a lengthy trial Shaw had been acquitted in record time
by a jury whose deliberations [54 minutes--DR] were extended primarily because
they were enjoying a wonderful New Orleans meal provided by Mother's
restaurant, a New Orleans gastronomical landmark.
Stone was confronted with a problem. If the evidence Garrison had gathered had
not been sufficient to establish Shaw's guilt in the minds of an objective
juror, how could he, Stone, prove Shaw's guilt to the satisfaction of his
audience?
Here Stone becomes inventive. He was neither bound by the cumbersome rules of
evidence nor the rules of criminal procedure. He could create celluloid
evidence. Shaw had died; therefore, Stone was not bound by the laws of
defamation which apply, in the United States, only to the living. Apparently,
the less-codified rules of common decency were not an impediment either" (p.
xxxi).
[...]
Was 'Bertrand' really Clay Shaw, Garrison wondered. Shaw consistently denied
that he had ever used that pseudonym. I never saw credible evidence which
convinced me that he had ever used the alias. Stone, untroubled by evidence,
fact or logic, showed Shaw apparently offering to the first police officer who
inquired that he had used the name "Bertrand." If Shaw had used the false name
as part of his CIA cover so that the telephone call [to Andrews] could not be
traced back to him, why would he have betrayed himself at the first
opportunity? Stone did not dwell on the subject. Through the magic of celluloid
he abandoned the scene" (p. xxxii).
[...]
Where Stone labors to demean Clay Shaw and to condemn him by introducing a
bizarre gay orgy scene and by inventing a meeting with David Ferrie and the
district attorney's staff, he is indulging his own fantasies and misleading the
audience" (p. xxxiii).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By embracing Garrison -- even cautiously, such as with early Garrison suspects
like Dave Ferrie -- CTs have ensured their own marginalization. I speak as
someone who myself was blind to how badly Garrison tainted our credibility
until I looked carefully into Garrison's primary sources, and realized it
wasn't just a matter of him having no case against Shaw -- it was a matter of
him having *nothing.*
Dave
John McAdams' excellent Garrison page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
Sterren
Garrison "tainted our credibility"?
To what group are you referring? Dallas "Truth Seekers"? Pro-Conspiracy
advocates? Or are you a multiple personality?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dave Reitzes
>Dave,
>
>Garrison "tainted our credibility"?
>
>To what group are you referring? Dallas "Truth Seekers"? Pro-Conspiracy
>advocates? Or are you a multiple personality?
Depends on who you ask, I suppose. Alas, I'm not going into this subject again.
There's a lengthy thread at Deja.com called "Garrison and the Mainstream
Media," and I would direct you that a'ways, or to
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm..
Dave
Writing in 1967, Sylvia Meagher said that "as the Garrison investigation
continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about
the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the
scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report
have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even
condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a
matter of regret and disappointment" (Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, 1992
ed., 456-7).
"You have every right to play Mack Sennett in a Keystone Kops Pink Panther,"
Harold Weisberg wrote to Oliver Stone while JFK was in production, "but as an
investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush
Dave Reitzes
>
>Garrison died at the time I was in Dallas at one of the JFK Assassination
>Conventions. Radio and newspaper reporters were around Dealey Plaza
>getting "man on the street" interviews. I was "lurking" around, moving
>from one interview to the other, overhearing people's comments. I judged
>it 8-2 favorable for Garrison and public buy-in to the Clay Shaw
>conspiracy. It was pitiful. I thought to myself: My god, here these
>people are - at the very center of the very nucleus of it all - and they
>comment this guy was "martyr", a "hero", "a great man". Ptui.
>
>A day later, I sat in the lobby outside the main convention hall, sitting
>on a lounge talking to Jean Hill. During the course of our chat, I asked
>her: "Jean, why did you say the President's car had a white dog in front?"
>And this is what she replied, I swear on my son's head: "Because the FBI
>had me so mixed up and scared, I just felt I had to say something."
>
>I have a various video documentaries of Jean over the past 30 years.
>It's amusing to track the evolution of what she witnessed from the first
>1/2 hour after the shooting to the next 25 years. "I saw everyone running
>up the grassy knoll and I chased after them", to "I saw a puff of smoke
>and a man running", to "I saw Jack Ruby"......Ptui.
Jean Hill's been raked over the coals a few times around these parts. The
definitive critique comes from Dallas Times Herald reporter Jim Featherston,
who watched the motorcade from the east side of Houston Street. When the shots
rang out, he thought they were firecrackers, and was unable to see any of the
events occurring on Elm Street. He saw an acquaintance of his, Frank Wright,
and asked him what had happened. Wright said, "I don't know, but a young woman
down there has taken a picture of whatever happened." Featherston picks up the
story here.
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I ran to Dealey Plaza, a few yards away, and this is where I first learned the
president had been shot. I found two young women, Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis
Hill, near the curb on Dealey Plaza. Both had been within a few feet of the
spot where Kennedy was shot, and Mary Moorman had taken a Polaroid picture of
Jackie Kennedy cradling the president's head in her arms. It was a poorly
focused and snowy picture, but, as far as I knew then, it was the only such
picture in existence. I wanted the picture and I also wanted the two women's
eyewitness accounts of the shooting.
I told Mrs. Moorman I wanted the picture for the Times Herald and she agreed. I
then told both of them I would like for them to come with me to the courthouse
pressroom so I could get their stories and both agreed. . . . I called the city
desk and told Tom LePere, an assistant city editor, that the president had been
shot. "Really? Let me switch you to rewrite," LePere said, unruffled as if it
were a routine story. I briefly told the rewrite man what had happened and then
put Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis Hill on the phone so they could tell what they
had seen in their own words. Mrs. Moorman, in effect, said was so busy taking
the picture that she really didn't see anything. Mrs. Hill, however, gave a
graphic account of seeing Kennedy shot a few feet in front of her eyes.
Before long, the pressroom became filled with other newsmen. Mrs. Hill told her
story over and over again for television and radio. Each time, she would
embellish it a bit until her version began to sound like Dodge City at high
noon. She told of a man running up toward the now-famed grassy knoll pursued by
other men she believed to be policemen. In the meantime, I had talked to other
witnesses and at one point I told Mrs. Hill she shouldn't be saying some of the
things she was telling television and radio reporters. I was merely trying to
save her later embarrassment but she apparently attached intrigue to my
warning.
As the afternoon wore on, a deputy sheriff found out that I had two
eyewitnesses in the pressroom, and he told me to ask them not to leave the
courthouse until they could be questioned by law enforcement people. I relayed
the information to Mrs. Moorman and Mrs. Hill.
All this time, I was wearing a lapel card identifying myself as a member of the
press. It was also evident we were in the pressroom and the room was so
designated by a sign on the door.
I am mentioning all this because a few months later Mrs. Hill told the Warren
Commission bad things about me. She told the commission that I had grabbed Mrs.
Moorman and her camera down on Dealey Plaza and that I wouldn't let her go even
though she was crying. She added that I "stole" the picture from Mrs. Moorman.
Mrs. Hill then said I had forced them to come with me to a strange room and
then wouldn't let them leave. She also said I had told her what she could and
couldn't say. Her testimony defaming me is all in Vol. VI of the Hearings
Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,
the Warren Report.
Why Mrs. Hill said all this has never been clear to me -- I later theorized she
got swept up in the excitement of having the cameras and lights on her and
microphones shoved into her face. She was suffering from a sort of star-is-born
syndrome, I later figured (Jim Featherston, "I Was There," Connie Kritzberg,
*Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window,* 31-3).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anyone who thinks the Warren Commission fashioned their witness list solely on
the basis of what they wanted to hear, please explain why the Commission never
seems to have made even the slightest effort to identify "Mr. Featherstone"
[sic], much less actually get his version of the afternoon's events into the
record.
However, despite all the absurd embellishments her story has accrued over the
years, it's only fair to note that Hill seems to have been completely
consistent about believing she heard four to six shots fired. That doesn't mean
there *were* four to six shots -- for example, Charles Brehm, a combat veteran
with plenty of first-hand experience with rifles, was only a few yards from
Hill, and he has always been certain there were precisely three shots -- but
it's one element of her story that seems to have been entirely genuine.
I also have said in the past and will say again that I do not consider Jean
Hill a liar. I suspect that after being named as such an important witness by
Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, etc., she simply became unwilling to listen to anyone
who tried to explain to her why they had problems with her story. Some might
call that a form of dishonesty, which it may be, but I would be more
comfortable branding it a state of denial. I really don't think she's unusual
in that respect.
Personally, I would have no problem with someone citing her *earliest*
statements as evidence of conspiracy. The question then becomes how credible a
witness she was *then,* and anyone who wants to argue that her earliest
statements were credible should keep in mind that in her earliest statements,
the dog in the limousine isn't the *really* problematic element:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - -
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest. Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared Jean Hill, Address 9402 Bluffcreek, Dallas 27, Texas
Age 32 , Phone No. EV1-7419
Deposes and says:
Mary and I were wanting to take some pictures of the President so we purposely
tried to find a place that was open where no people was around and we had been
standing half way down toward the underpass on Elm Street on the south side. We
were the only people in that area and we were standing right at the curb. The
Presidents [sic] car came around the corner and it was over on our side of the
street. Just as Mary Moorman started to take a picture we were looking at the
president and Jackie in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog
between them. Just as the president looked up toward us two shots rang out and
I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackies [sic] lap
and she fell across his back and said "My God he has been shot". Three was an
instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted
for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped
away. I THOUGHT I SAW SOME MEN IN PLAIN CLOTHES SHOOTING BACK (emphasis added)
but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying "Get down
thery [sic] are shooting". I looked across the street and up the hill and saw a
man running toward the monument and I started running over there. By the time I
got up to the rail road tracks some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the
motorcade or near by had also arrived and was turning us back and as I came
back down the hill Mr. Featherstone of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary and
ask her for her picture she had taken of the President, and he brought us to
the press room downn [sic] at the Sheriffs office and ask to stay.
/s/ Jean Hill
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - -
>Dave Reitzes wrote in message
><19991029195026...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>>>From: John McAdams 6489mc...@vmsb.csd.mu.edu
>>>
>>>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From: "dudalb" dud...@hotmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >Agreed. Even some Kennedy conpsricacy buffs have denounced Garrison.
>The
>>>> >Oliver Stone near deification of Garrison in JFK is one of the most
>>>> >outrageous frauds ever perpetuated on the public....
>>>>
>>>> Yup.
>>>>
>>>> One hardly has to be a Warren Commission advocate to condemn Garrison's
>>>> actions. Writing in 1967, Sylvia Meagher said that "as the Garrison
>>>> investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly
>serious
>>>> misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his
>>>> witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many
>>>> critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the
>>>> Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not
>>>> condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment"
>>>> (Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).
>>>>
>>>> "You have every right to play Mack Sennett in a Keystone Kops Pink
>>>> Panther," Harold Weisberg wrote to Oliver Stone while JFK was in
>>>> production, "but as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a
>public
>>
>>
>>[sic -- pubic!]
>>>> By embracing Garrison -- even cautiously, such as with early Garrison
>>>> suspects like Dave Ferrie -- CTs have ensured their own marginalization.
>I
>>>> speak as someone who myself was blind to how badly Garrison tainted our
>>>> credibility until I looked carefully into Garrison's primary sources,
>and
>>>> realized it wasn't just a matter of him having no case against Shaw --
>it
>>>> was a matter of him having *nothing.*
>>>>
>>>
>>>While I happen to think that trying to convince Americans that there was
>>>a conspiracy in the death of JFK is a bad cause, it's a cause that
>>>honorable people have embraced. All those people were betrayed by Jim
>>>Garrison.
>>>
>>>.John
>>
>>
>>Bingo.
>>
>>Dave
Haizen Paige
can justify one's use of the term *perjury.*
So once again you are shooting all over the place
in hopes of hitting your target. For a master
liar, let's everyone refer to the immortal words
of one Mr. Clay Shaw, who was so stupid and
rattled at the time of his arrest
that he gave away his own alias in
routine questioning. But rather than take
the word of a New Orleans law officer
with a good memory,
Mr. Reitzes would rather attempt to resuscitate
the justifiably and indelibly tarnished image
of Shaw who spilled the beans on himself.
Let's get one thing straight for the American
public: Garrison was never on trial here for
the murder of JFK. He had nothing to do with it.
On the contrary, he was doing his best to find
out who did -- the fact of which has slipped through
your understanding for about the thousandth time.
Your attempts to obstruct justice by trying
to tear down the reputation of Garrison in
order to elevate Shaw is transarent.
This sophomoric tactic
may work with grade schoolers but not with
grown ups who have seen too much of this
country go down the drain since Clay
Shaw PERJURED himself on the witness stand
even about his alias and God only
knows what else, including his association
with the CIA. If he wasn't perjuring himself
in court, he was LYING in public interviews
about having no ties "whatsoever" with the CIA.
Those people who have not heard from Shaw's
own lips his denial of any ties "whatsoever"
can do so at the following URL:
http://www.astridmm.com/jfk/garrison.html
Just scroll down the page.
Mr. Reitzes can dance around the completely
false misrepresentation that Shaw gives
about his communications and reports to
the CIA, but it doesn't change the fact
that Shaw never said to the American
public, "yes, I was at least a domestic
contact agent for the CIA." Had he
said so he might have had some credibility
as a honest man, but he didn't, and he
never corrected this completely erroroenous
impression with the citizens of this country.
The only thing of importance about Garrison
is that he had nothing *whatsoever* to do
with the plotting to murder JFK, and most likely
Clay Shaw did. If Shaw was willing to lie
about have no ties "whatsoever" with the
CIA -- and we know that he was at the
very least a domestic contact for the CIA
but lied about it -- then what else was
he lying about? And the only thing that
can be said for Shaw's blatant lies is
that it probably saved his life at the
time and he didn't end up on a slab
in a morgue like David Ferrie did.
He got the message loud and clear
and lied his way out of the mess
he created for himself in the
same way the Dean Andrews lied
about what he knew about a
Clay Bertrand and Oswald.
Lying was about the only way
these misguided characters
could protect themselves,
and it worked all right,
but at what cost to this
country?
So if you're going to use
the word "perjury," use
it in the appropriate context
or not it all.
AEFFECTS
>By embracing Garrison -- even cautiously, such as with early Garrison suspects
>like Dave Ferrie -- CTs have ensured their own marginalization. speak as
>someone who myself was blind to how badly Garrison tainted our credibility
>until I looked carefully into Garrison's primary sources, and realized it
>wasn't just a matter of him having no case against Shaw -- it was a matter
>of
>him having *nothing.*
>
>Dave
Lot's of outrage from 'authors' quoted in this cite, could it be it wasn't
their bank accounts that the JFK producer(s) made deposits to? Come on now, you
guy's would be preaching to your perspective choirs if it wasn't for Garrison
and then much later Stone. I make one exception to author(s) that's Wiesberg,
but thats for another thread. The reality is Garrison struck the 1st blow,
albeit 'below the belt', but I've never seen a fight stopped because of a
percieved below the belt punch. JFK wasn't a documentary, it was theater
wrapped around a 'not' so current event. Am I to take it here that freedom of
opinion on the screen or in book form is not allowed in our current
constitution? What the LN'ers need here is an advocacy group with deep pockets
to pay for a silver screen release supporting the WCR, I'm sure there'd be a
battle royale for attending screenwriters, lol. Who knows, it might win an
Academy Award (for fiction of course).
David H.
Dave Reitzes
>
><major snip of various authors>
>
>>By embracing Garrison -- even cautiously, such as with early Garrison
>suspects
>>like Dave Ferrie -- CTs have ensured their own marginalization. speak as
>>someone who myself was blind to how badly Garrison tainted our credibility
>>until I looked carefully into Garrison's primary sources, and realized it
>>wasn't just a matter of him having no case against Shaw -- it was a matter
>>of
>>him having *nothing.*
>>
>>Dave
>
>Lot's of outrage from 'authors' quoted in this cite, could it be it wasn't
>their bank accounts that the JFK producer(s) made deposits to? Come on now,
>you
>guy's would be preaching to your perspective choirs if it wasn't for Garrison
>and then much later Stone. I make one exception to author(s) that's Wiesberg,
>but thats for another thread. The reality is Garrison struck the 1st blow,
>albeit 'below the belt', but I've never seen a fight stopped because of a
>percieved below the belt punch. JFK wasn't a documentary, it was theater
>wrapped around a 'not' so current event.
I'm very fond of the movie *JFK.*
Oliver Stone may be gullible, but he is not a liar or a fraud. Jim Garrison was
both.
Dave
Lurkers, check out John McAdams' excellent Web page on Garrison, featuring
numerous primary sources available nowhere else on-line or in print:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
Leo Sgouros
Haizen Paige <hai...@sedona.net> wrote in message
news:381BE5D...@sedona.net...
Dave Reitzes
>Hey Einstein, only someone who lies *under oath*
>can justify one's use of the term *perjury.*
You mean like Jim Garrison did before the Grand Jury, exactly as I posted?
>So once again you are shooting all over the place
>in hopes of hitting your target. For a master
>liar, let's everyone refer to the immortal words
>of one Mr. Clay Shaw, who was so stupid and
>rattled at the time of his arrest
>that he gave away his own alias in
>routine questioning.
This was debunked thirty years ago:
The following is from American Grotesque, pp. 353-59. The testimony related to
the arrest record took up an entire day, and the following day saw Judge
Haggerty deliver his final judgment on the fate of that dubious piece of
evidence. When someone complained tha Kirkwood was a biased source, I myself
posted every single page of the trial transcript for the entire day's testimony
and the following day's conclusion. I challenged anyone to show me where
Kirkwood was inaccurate. No one uttered a peep. Anyone who wants to take a
crack at it can find URLs at the end of this post providing direct links to the
relevant testimony at Deja.com.
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the summer of 1968 the District Attorney's office
had authorized the release to the press of information
contained on the fingerprint card made out at the Police
Bureau of Identification on the night of Clay Shaw's
arrest. the STATES-ITEM printed a photograph of the card
July 30, 1968, and ran an accompanying article which
quoted police officer Aloysius J. Habighorst as stating
Clay Shaw had freely admitted he used the Clay Bertrand
alias. The alias was typed out on the card, which Shaw
had signed. Shaw had steadfastly denied ever using the
alias. The District Attorney's release of this purported
incriminating evidence to the press was in strict
violation of the pretrial guidelines; nevertheless this
information had been widely circulated and highly
publicized.
Now the state attempted to enter into evidence the
fingerprint card together with the oral testimony of
Officer Habighorst. Knowing he was in tricky territory,
James Alcock wisely began by suggesting the jury be
removed from the courtroom while the judge heard oral
arguments pertaining to the admissibility of this matter.
Louis Ivon, Garrison's smooth-looking investigator,
was sworn in and proved to be a somewhat groggy witness.
Whether he wanted to discourage a lengthy session of
questioning or whether he was simply having an off day of
it was not known. He had been importantly present at
Shaw's arrest, but when Dymond asked Ivon if ho knew what
an arrest sheet looked like, the investigator replied, "I
may have seen them. I may have filled some out."
DYMOND: Did you examine the original Clay Shaw
arrest form?
IVON: I don't know.
Dymond exhibited the form which Ivon had actually
signed and asked where he'd filled it out. Ivon could not
remember if he'd signed the arrest form or not, or the
search affidavit. Only when shown his signature did this
come back to him and then he was unable to recall when or
where he'd signed them.
Now Officer Habighorst, natty in a snug-fitting dark
suit and vest, was called to the stand. The good-looking
police officer told James Alcock he had fingerprinted
Shaw inside the Bureau of Investigation room the night of
his arrest and that he'd not gotten the information he'd
put down on the fingerprint card from Shaw's arrest
record sheet, but from the defendant himself, including
name, age, weight and, Habighorst and the state claimed,
the alias Clay Bertrand. Habighorst detailed the
procedure to Alcock and testified he had not threatened
the defendant, not offered him promises of any sort in
return for information, or abused him physically.
The policeman was cross-examined by Billy Wegmann,
not Irvin Dymond. There was an interesting reason for the
substitution.
Officer Habighorst's brother had been driving across
a bridge several years previously and gotten into a
contretemps with another motorist. They stopped their
cars, argued, and then Habighorst's brother had taken out
a gun, shot and killed the man. Dymond, who defended the
brother, succeeded in reducing the crime from murder to
manslaughter and the defendant had served four years in
prison. It was widely rumored that Officer Habighorst
thought his brother should have gotten off scot free, and
his feelings toward Dymond were not friendly. In an
attempt not to crank up an already hostile witness, Billy
Wegmann handled the questioning.
Billy Wegmann, however, was not wearing kid gloves.
His voice rang loud and clear and he did not permit time
to swat flies between questions, nor did he allow the
witness to dance rings around the answer. Wegmann headed
immediately for a controversial area, wanting to know if
Clay Shaw's lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had been excluded from
the B of I room when the defendant was being
fingerprinted. Officer Habighorst said, "He was there for
a time. If he was excluded, I don't know why." Was his
attorney present, Billy Wegmann wanted to know, when Mr.
Shaw signed the card? "Yes, sir," the policeman replied.
"Are you sure?" Billy Wegmann pressed. Now Habighorst
hedged: "I recall he was inside the door. I would say he
was more inside the Bureau of Identification than outside
the door in the booking area." Hammering at the police
officer, Wegmann asked if it wasn't a fact he had seen
the arrest register on Clay Shaw before he was finger-
printed. Habighorst denied this, repeating his claim that
he'd received the information directly from Shaw himself.
BILLY WEGMANN: Was Mr. Shaw's attorney there when
you got an alias?
HABIGHORST: He could have been. I don't know.
Judge Haggerty interrupted, asking the police
officer how far the defendant had been from his attorney
during the fingerprinting. "I would say twenty feet,"
Habighorst ventured. "As far as I am from Mr. Alcock."
Judge Haggerty surveyed the distance and said, "That's
about thirty feet." Billy Wegmann wanted to know if
Habighorst had been speaking in a normal voice; the
policeman said he could not say whether Eddie Wegmann had
heard him or not. At one point, Officer Habighorst was
completely thrown by the use of the word "subsequent" in
a question and Billy Wegmann was forced to rephrase the
sentence. Now the all-important questions:
BILLY WEGMANN: Did Ivon tell you that Mr. Shaw was
not to be questioned?
HABIGHORST: I don t recall.
BILLY WEGMANN: Did you advise him [Shaw] of his
constitutional rights?
HABIGHORST: No, I explained the booking procedure to
him.
After a short afternoon recess, Dymond began to
attack Habighorst s testimony by putting on the stand
Captain Louis Curole, who had been on duty at Central
Lockup when Shaw was arrested and had assigned a Sergeant
Butzman to guard Shaw until his booking and
fingerprinting were completed. Captain Curole testified
that, as a rule, attorneys are not permitted in the B of
I room with their clients. He went on to say Edward
Wegmann had *not* been allowed to go into the room with
Clay Shaw. He further testified that a copy of the arrest
record is almost always sent to the B of I room and that
this form would include any aliases attributed to the
arrestee.
Dymond asserted that the credibility of Habighorst's
version was now seriously in doubt in light of Captain
Curole's testimony. Alcock objected strenuously but the
judge overruled him. Judge Haggerty's face was now
tightening into a mold of absolute seriousness of
purpose. His eyes were unblinking, as if he'd sighted a
target that did not please him one bit.
Sergeant Jonas Butzman followed Captain Curole to
the stand. He had been within five or ten feet of Clay
Shaw all the time the defendant was in the B of I room.
Butzman testified he had heard Habighorst ask Clay Shaw
only one question and that was about the spelling of a
name. Dymond's next question was "Did you ever hear the
name Clay Bertrand mentioned?" "No," was the reply. The
sergeant said he did not know if Habighorst had a copy of
the field arrest form but indicated Eddie Wegmann had
*not* been in the room at all.
The defense was picking up speed and called Police
officer John Perkins to the stand, again over Alcock's
objections, but the judge, now pursed of mouth, quickly
overruled him. Although Perkins was not on duty at the
time of Shaw's arrest he was assigned to the B of I room.
Questioned about standard operating procedure, the police
officer testified he had never fingerprinted a person
without the field arrest record. More damaging, he
claimed that the fingerprints are applied to the card,
after the arrestee signs the card, and the information is
put on the card last of all.
Now Eddie Wegmann was called to the stand and
questioned by his confrere Irvin Dymond. Eddie's face had
never displayed such angry signs of colic as when he
testified this day about Clay Shaw's arrest and the
booking procedure. It was obvious he had much more on his
mind than the specific testimony he was called to give
this afternoon. Those were not acorns puffing out Ed
Wegmann's cheeks. He was bursting with a sweeping blanket
denunciation of the entire unspeakable injustice heaped
upon his client from March 1, 1967, moment-to-moment, up
until this very minute. If the jury had not still been
playing poker in their waiting room upstairs, I think he
might just have let it out in one ringing explosion. He
snapped out his answers with bare civility to his own co-
attorney in the case: No, he had not been allowed in the
B of I room with his client. No, there had been nothing
about an alias on any report sheet, no alias, in fact,
had been mentioned that evening. He also testified about
his meeting with Shaw in one of the D.A.'s offices after
Clay had been told he was being charged with the crime
and was being placed under arrest. Eddie Wegmann said
they'd kept the conversation to a minimum because he had
been warned the room might be bugged.
After Eddie Wegmann was excused, Sal Panzeca, the
junior member of the defense team, was questioned by
Irvin Dymond. Short, compact and snappy, Panzeca had been
the first legal counsel to see Clay Shaw on the day of
his arrest. He testified he'd told Louis Ivon and other
members of the D.A.'s staff that Clay Shaw was not to be
questioned and that he would, under no circumstances,
answer questions. Panzeca also testified he believed the
room they were in was bugged, that communication between
him and Clay Shaw was mostly accomplished by writing
questions and answers on a pad, adding, "I told him not
even to say hello or goodbye to anyone."
Now Clay Shaw took the stand--the jury was still
out--and in a firm, clear voice began his testimony
regarding the circumstances of his arrest. The press and
spectators granted him complete silence and attention.
Here was the Big Boy himself. Clay stuck to the questions
asked him, never volunteering more information than was
requested, as he testified that he had obeyed the orders
of his attorneys and spoken to no one. In no uncertain
terms, he testified he had signed a completely blank
fingerprint card, had not been asked about an alias, had
certainly never told anyone he had used an alias, and
that his lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had not been permitted to
enter the B of I room with him.
Under cross-examination by James Alcock, Clay got a
laugh when he testified about giving information to an
officer who typed up his original arrest sheet, before
going to the B of I room. Clay said he had been standing
three or four feet away from the booking officer and had
not seen exactly what the man was typing. The judge
asked, "Was there anything preventing you from seeing
over the counter?" To this, the six-foot-four defendant
replied in an easy going voice, "No, that's never been a
problem with me." The spectators and press laughed, and
order in the court was called.
Clay Shaw also stood for no loose dangling ends. He
had testified earlier that Habighorst told him it was
necessary to sign the blank card in order to get bail, to
which Clay said he replied, "In that case, I'll sign it."
Now Alcock asked if Officer Habighorst had asked him any
questions, to which Clay replied, "No." "You did not
utter one word?" Alcock asked. Clay made no bones about
correcting the attorney: "That was not my testimony. I
said I was asked no questions."
It was after the defendant was excused that the fun
and fireworks began. Alcock sought to enter into evidence
and before the jury--who had spent the afternoon
upstairs--the fingerprint card and Habighorst's
testimony. Dymond objected on the grounds that the
witness testified he'd signed a blank card.
This brought forth the no-nonsense ruling of Judge
Haggerty. He had been wound up by the preceding testimony
of two lawyers, the defendant, and three members of the
New Orleans Police Department, all in direct conflict
with Officer Habighorst's testimony. Now he faced James
Alcock squarely from his bench, saying he would not allow
the fingerprint card or the testimony of Officer
Habighorst introduced into the trial. He would hold to
this ruling, no matter whose testimony was to be
believed. Either way, the judge claimed a foul. Two
policemen had violated Shaw's constitutional rights, he
said, by not permitting the defendant to have his lawyer
with him during the fingerprinting--in direct
contravention of the famed Escobedo decision, which
allows an arrestee to have his attorney with him at all
stages of the booking, fingerprinting, and questioning
process. Judge Haggerty also announced that Officer
*Habighorst* (and when he hit the name of the officer,
the judge hit it hard) had violated in spirit the effect
of the Miranda decision by not forewarning Clay Shaw of
his right to remain silent. The judge went on to say
Habighorst also violated Shaw's rights by asking him the
alleged question about an alias, adding, now that he was
revved up and clearing his mind of feelings built up by
this afternoon's performance, "Even if he did [ask the
question about an alias] it is not admissible" Judge
Haggerty then spit out, "If Officer Habighorst *is*
telling the truth--and I seriously doubt it!"
Alcock leaped up from his chair at this remark, his
cheeks instantly crimson and his voice highly shrill and
trembling with anger as he shouted, "Are you passing on
the credibility of a state witness in front of the press
and the whole world?"
Judge Haggerty jutted his head forward and said,
"It's outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Alcock." He
then sat back and spoke in a loud voice. "I don't care.
The whole world can hear that I disbelieve Officer
Habighorst." He gave Alcock a what-do-you-think-of-that
look and then, as if to punctuate his feelings for all
time and leave no doubt whatsoever, Judge Haggerty leaned
forward once again and said, "I do not believe Officer
Habighorst!"
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But rather than take
>the word of a New Orleans law officer
>with a good memory,
>Mr. Reitzes would rather attempt to resuscitate
>the justifiably and indelibly tarnished image
>of Shaw who spilled the beans on himself.
If you care to respond to Mr. Kirkwood's account line by line and show us all
where there is any evidence to support your argument, be my guest.
>Let's get one thing straight for the American
>public: Garrison was never on trial here for
>the murder of JFK.
If Clay Shaw had not died of lung cancer, Garrison would have faced a civil
suit for the crimes he committed against Shaw.
Lurkers, for a complete review of ALL the evidence against Clay Shaw, please
see my article, "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
It's been on-line for nearly a full year, and neither Haizen Page nor anyone
else has pointed out a single factual innaccuracy in it. As always, if there
are any factual inaccuracies, I would be grateful to anyone for pointing them
out to me.
He had nothing to do with it.
>On the contrary, he was doing his best to find
>out who did --
That's not true, Haizen. I have posted proof positive that Jim Garrison had no
case against Clay Shaw, Dave Ferrie, or any of his other "suspects." He abused
his power as District Attorney to indict an innocent man, he knowingly used
fabricated evidence, and he personally and deliberately falsified evidence
himself. I prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt in my article.
the fact of which has slipped through
>your understanding for about the thousandth time.
I eagerly await you point-by-point rebuttal to my article, "Who Speaks for Clay
Shaw?"
If there were the slightest truth to what you're saying, you should be able to
rip my article to shreds in a matter of minutes.
>Your attempts to obstruct justice by trying
>to tear down the reputation of Garrison in
>order to elevate Shaw is transarent.
Isn't it sad that Haizen Page can do nothing but offer ad hominem attacks? This
particular one is one of his most intriguing to date. I'm 'obstructing justice'
by writing articles he cannot refute?
>This sophomoric tactic
>may work with grade schoolers but not with
>grown ups who have seen too much of this
>country go down the drain since Clay
>Shaw PERJURED himself on the witness stand
>even about his alias and God only
>knows what else, including his association
>with the CIA.
Haizen, you are repeating false information that you have been corrected about
many times. My article on the Shaw case proves every assertion of yours false.
In return, it seems that all you can do is distort the facts in shameless
Posner-esque fashion. Everyone knows that Shaw was asked -- by his own defense
counsel -- if he had ever worked for the CIA, and he truthfully responded that
he hadn't. If you can prove that he lied, I invite you for about the hundredth
time to do so. You are no doubt referring to Shaw's status as a domestic
contact during the years 1948 and 1956, which made Shaw one of thousands of
patriotic Americans a year to provide the CIA's Domestic Contact Service with
information relating to routine international travels and/or contacts. Like
most contacts, Shaw was not paid for this service. The information he provided
is available at the National Archives if you'd like to go read it and see all
the s~p~o~o~k~y things he said. A summary is provided in my Shaw article.
Again, I invite you to dismantle my article line by line if you can. Otherwise,
you really have no excuse for perpetuating these myths.
If he wasn't perjuring himself
>in court, he was LYING in public interviews
>about having no ties "whatsoever" with the CIA.
>Those people who have not heard from Shaw's
>own lips his denial of any ties "whatsoever"
>can do so at the following URL:
>
>http://www.astridmm.com/jfk/garrison.html
>
>Just scroll down the page.
I'm sorry, Haizen, but I've been through this a hundred times. If you do not
understand what a CIA contact is, you really should educate yourself about it.
By your standards, anyone questioned by an FBI agent for any reason becomes
someone with "ties" to the federal government.
Isn't it funny that Haizen is so SURE that Clay Shaw was an assassination
conspirator, but the best thing he can come up with is the lame accusation that
Shaw was a big, fat FIBBER?
Isn't it funny that Haizen's wrong about that, too?
>Mr. Reitzes can dance around the completely
>false misrepresentation that Shaw gives
>about his communications and reports to
>the CIA, but it doesn't change the fact
>that Shaw never said to the American
>public, "yes, I was at least a domestic
>contact agent for the CIA."
Why should he? Why should he have to jump through hoops to prove his innocence
to anyone? We have something called a Bill of Rights, Haizen. You should
consider looking into it.
Had he
>said so he might have had some credibility
>as a honest man, but he didn't, and he
>never corrected this completely erroroenous
>impression with the citizens of this country.
So you're conceding the point that Jim Garrison had no case against Shaw
whatsoever? You're saying that Shaw is guilty of one thing and one thing only
-- lying about his alleged CIA "ties"?
Gee, Haizen, it's tempting to settle for that, but I'm afraid I can't --
because I know it's not true. Shaw had no more "connection" to the CIA than
anyone filling out a survey at the post office has to the US Postal Service.
You should consider doing some research, Haizen, instead of simply taking Big
Jim's word for everything.
Lurkers, to find out why Jim Garrison can not be trusted, please check out John
McAdams' collection of documented, proven Garrison lies:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
If Garrison could be defended from the evidence, you can be certain that Haizen
would be refuting every single point there.
>The only thing of importance about Garrison
>is that he had nothing *whatsoever* to do
>with the plotting to murder JFK, and most likely
>Clay Shaw did.
"Most likely"? Is that the best you can do, Haizen? Okay, then, kindly post
your evidence that Clay Shaw "most likely" had anything even remotely to do
with the John F. Kennedy assassination.
We'll all be waiting.
If Shaw was willing to lie
>about have no ties "whatsoever" with the
>CIA -- and we know that he was at the
>very least a domestic contact for the CIA
>but lied about it -- then what else was
>he lying about?
Haizen, can you explain to me why Jim Garrison told the entire world in
February 1967 that he had solved the assassination, and added that he wouldn't
say that unless he had proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?
What happened to that proof, Haizen? Was it stolen from his office by the CIA?
I don't recall Big Jim ever uttering a peep about such a thing.
The man was lying, Haizen. Unlike your feeble allegations, we know for a fact
that Garrison was lying -- he never had any such proof, and any person on his
staff -- *any* of them -- will tell you that, whatever they think about Big
Jim, it is a fact that Garrison did not solve the assassination in February
1967. In fact, he never did solve it at all, did he?
How about the things he said on the Tonight Show -- the things that Carson
suggested were his opinions, and about which Garrison replied that, no, they
were facts -- and he would prove it.
The man was lying, Haizen. None of the things he claimed were introduced into
evidence at the Shaw trial, and member of his staff -- *any* of them -- will
tell you that they never had proof of any of the things Garrison was saying on
nationwide TV.
Snap out of it, Haizen. All Garrison ever did was lie and lie and lie. I've
proven it. Many others before me proved it. You cannot refute any of the
evidence. You never even try, Haizen. Why is that, Haizen?
Haizen, why do you think even hardcore conspiracy theorists like Harold
Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, David Lifton and Anthony Summers condemned Garrison
long ago?
And the only thing that
>can be said for Shaw's blatant lies is
>that it probably saved his life at the
>time and he didn't end up on a slab
>in a morgue like David Ferrie did.
>He got the message loud and clear
>and lied his way out of the mess
>he created for himself in the
>same way the Dean Andrews lied
>about what he knew about a
>Clay Bertrand and Oswald.
Lurkers, as you're probably aware, the "Bertrand" issue has been given a
thorough going-over here in the past couple weeks. If anyone missed it, please
check out my Shaw article, which discusses the subject fully.
I can't understand why Haizen won't just go and demolish that article of mine
once and for all.
>Lying was about the only way
>these misguided characters
>could protect themselves,
>and it worked all right,
>but at what cost to this
>country?
I see. Harassing and bribing witnesses, coercing testimony, fabricating
evidence, and generally trying to railroad innocent people -- as Big Jim did --
is *good* for the country?
How about when Big Jim used a Louisiana anti-subversion statute as an excuse to
harass and imprison civil rights workers in New Orleans?
Lurkers, check out what the Supreme Court said about this blatant abuse of
office -- and this was long *before* the JFK probe even started:
http://www.artmeg.com/casecites/dombrowski.htm
>So if you're going to use
>the word "perjury," use
>it in the appropriate context
>or not it all.
Gee, I'm really sorry to tell you this, Haizen, but lying under oath is
generally considered a pretty reasonable definition of perjury -- and that's
what Jim Garrison did when he swore, under oath, that Perry Raymond Russo had
not failed a polygraph test, when he personally was aware that Russo had badly
failed *two.*
Rebuttal, Haizen?
Let me refresh Haizen's memory by replacing all the material he chose to snip
rather than address.
**********************************************
*********************************************
Shaw trial testimony relating to Shaw's arrest record:
I
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443970968&CONTEXT=938063792.1647575094&hi
tnum=41
II
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443970975&CONTEXT=938063792.1647575094&hi
tnum=42
III
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443970981&CONTEXT=938063792.1647575094&hi
tnum=43
IV
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443973368&CONTEXT=938063792.1647575094&hi
tnum=44
V
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443973374&CONTEXT=938064755.1625686016&hi
tnum=22
VI
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443973380&CONTEXT=938064755.1625686016&hi
tnum=4
VII
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443973387&CONTEXT=938063792.1647575094&hitnum=46