Stephen Roy Reviews Book on Clay Shaw

[John McAdams]

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[black...@aol.com]

Does anybody know what the deal is with DiEugenio? Every time something
nice happens to me, he's there to attack it. A while back, Anthony Summers
praised my work, and he went ballistic on it. Now I get a review
published, and he gets all condescending.

If one wants to get respect, they have to give respect.

[David Von Pein]

STEPHEN ROY SAID:

Does anybody know what the deal is with DiEugenio? Every time something
nice happens to me, he's there to attack it. A while back, Anthony Summers
praised my work, and he went ballistic on it. Now I get a review
published, and he gets all condescending.

If one wants to get respect, they have to give respect.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't sweat it, Stephen. If Jim DiEugenio ever says something nice about
you, THEN it's time to start worrying. Because, as far as I have been able
to tell, DiEugenio hasn't gotten one thing right about the JFK
assassination yet. So, as far as I (personally) am concerned, I know if he
is verbally bashing me, such as calling me one of the "Warren Commission
Crazies" (which evidently is his newest put-down when bashing reasonable
"LN" people), then I must be doing something right.

For example, let's have a gander (and a robust laugh, to boot) at
DiEugenio's latest attack against me over at the Deep Politics Forum. And,
by the way, Jimbo keeps bringing up this same "Railway Express" argument
from time to time, which I love to see him do---because if THIS paper-thin
argument is the *best* he's got to knock down my LN arguments, then I can
certainly claim a definitive victory against this conspiracy clown....

[Quote On:]

"Von Pein is the prime example of the Warren Commission Crazies or
kamikazes.

I mean, see there was never any evidence that Oswald ever picked up the
handgun used to shoot Tippit at Railway Express. In fact, even more
exculpatory, there was never any evidence that the FBI even went there. So
how did the transaction happen?

According to Von Pein, the post office kept a separate box for REA
transactions and a separate container for the money. Remember this is in
1963. Before the proliferation of private mailers like Fed Ex and UPS. Of
which REA was a forerunner. The USPS was a competitor with REA. He has
them doing a collection for them.

Not kidding. He said that.

This is how apoplectic the guy is about the Commission. But see you have
to be afflicted in order to buy that BS today." -- James DiEugenio; March
30, 2015

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14829-Blatburst-Roy-Carpenter-and-Holland&p=98921#post98921

[End Quote.]

How about that for sterling logic and razor-sharp evaluation of the
evidence against Oswald in the Tippit murder, folks? DiEugenio is *much*
more concerned about the lack of a paper trail that would connect Lee
Harvey Oswald to the Smith & Wesson revolver that killed Officer J.D.
Tippit than he is about the PROVABLE FACT that Oswald had that very same
gun ON HIM (as he was trying to shoot more policemen with it) when he was
arrested inside the Texas Theater just a half-hour after Officer Tippit
was gunned down.

And yet DiEugenio claims that it is *I* who has "to be afflicted in order
to buy that BS today".

There are no words left for me to use to describe how utterly preposterous
and insane DiEugenio's thinking is regarding this matter concerning
Oswald's revolver and the Railway Express.

To DiEugenio, Oswald being caught red-handed with the murder weapon in his
very own hands in the movie theater on 11/22/63 is of far less importance
than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did
Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in
early 1963?

Allow me to repeat something I said two years ago....

"How anyone can possibly even begin to take DiEugenio seriously when it
comes to the JFK assassination is a real mystery to me." -- DVP; January
4, 2013

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html

BTW, DiEugenio also has a lousy memory, because in 2011, I proved that I
was correct when I speculated that perhaps the United States Post Office
would occasionally forward money to third parties after collecting a COD
payment from a P.O. Box holder. DiEugenio always totally ignores this
discussion from December 2011....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html

[black...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:50:09 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

One thing that didn't make the final edit of the review: Carpenter's book
goes into extraordinary detail, 519 densely-packed pages of text, 2966
source notes, about 400 interviews. No previous book has ever come close
to finding so much material, giving us a much fuller look at who Shaw was.
And beyond all that, Carpenter, for the first time, gives us almost a
day-by-day look at how the Garrison investigation developed and
progressed.

[Carmine Savastano]

I read this prior, a good article. Garrison did make mistakes as well as
progress. However, his work is not the majority of evidence or
investigation done. Just the most often praised and criticized.

[Anthony Marsh]

Spoiler alert.
Does he finally admit that Clay Shaw was a Domestic Contact for the CIA
and was regularly debriefed about his trips overseas?

[Pamela Brown]

Jimmie D seems to be very protective of his version of the Garrison
investigation and Clay Shaw trial. Anyone trying to paint Clay Shaw or
David Ferrie as innocent of involvement in the murder of JFK is probably
going to get a negative response...

[Pamela Brown]

Nice review, thanks...I will look forward to reading this book...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/30/2015 11:14 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:50:09 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Does anybody know what the deal is with DiEugenio? Every time something
> nice happens to me, he's there to attack it. A while back, Anthony Summers
> praised my work, and he went ballistic on it. Now I get a review
> published, and he gets all condescending.
>

I think he gets a little annoyed by people who kill our President and
then cover it up. Some people are sensitive about those things.

> If one wants to get respect, they have to give respect.
>

No one wants or needs respect from the cover-up.
Do you expect respect from the Nazi guards at the concentration camp?

[Ace Kefford]

David,

This one quote from your post characterizes so much of the failures of too many conspiracy true believers:

"To DiEugenio, Oswald being caught red-handed with the murder weapon in
his very own hands in the movie theater on 11/22/63 is of far less
importance than being able to answer the following question --- When and
where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail
order in early 1963?"

They will focus obsessively on little details and ignore the bigger,
clearer facts that establish what did happen.

Thank you for your efforts.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

What "progress" did Garrison make?

What evidence of any conspiracy in the assassination did he reveal?

There isn't a single shred of evidence that Shaw was involved in the
assassination. None.

[black...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 4:47:46 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Spoiler alert.
> Does he finally admit that Clay Shaw was a Domestic Contact for the CIA
> and was regularly debriefed about his trips overseas?

Yes.

[John McAdams]

On 31 Mar 2015 16:47:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Will you finally admit that Shaw was no sort of spook, operative or
asset?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Mark Florio]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-5, Carmine Savastano wrote:

What "progress" did Garrison make? Mark Florio.

[Jason Burke]

On 3/31/2015 2:01 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/30/2015 11:14 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:50:09 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Does anybody know what the deal is with DiEugenio? Every time something
>> nice happens to me, he's there to attack it. A while back, Anthony
>> Summers
>> praised my work, and he went ballistic on it. Now I get a review
>> published, and he gets all condescending.
>>
>
> I think he gets a little annoyed by people who kill our President and
> then cover it up. Some people are sensitive about those things.
>

Say Tony. I've been wondering just when someone is going to tell us who
killed out president and then covered it up.

Any timeframe? Well, not counting that pesky WR...

[black...@aol.com]

Respect for other researchers, especially those who may disagree? Or are
you saying that disagreement equals cover-up?

[Mike]

Funny tony because I consider you part of the cover-up. You are to the
HSCA (and particularly the acoustic evidence) as John McAdams is to the
WCR.

[Carmine Savastano]

He discovered over 10 CIA informants and possibly connected people's
actions such as Guy Banister who someone you know found was a CIA
informant. So do not underestimate his contributions, just as JD should
overestimate them. He did the best he could with the government fighting
him. There is evidence for that as well. No one knows the answers yet.
Neither side, they just claim to.

[John Paul Jones]

Is it true that Clay Shaw told a detective that he went by the alia Clay
Bertrand?

[John McAdams]

On 1 Apr 2015 16:34:41 -0400, John Paul Jones <jimmor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shawbook.txt

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[black...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 4:56:57 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:

> Nice review, thanks...I will look forward to reading this book...

Thank you. It presents a much fuller biography of Shaw than we've ever
had. It makes a powerful addition to the various interpretations of Shaw.
While Carpenter has his own views about the investigation, the virtual
day-by-day account is very useful to junkies of the case. And there are
lots of little surprises there, too, lots of nuggets about the various
characters of the case.

It is clear that, deserved or not, Shaw endured a lot. His health problems
may even have begun before the Garrison investigation.

[Ace Kefford]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

From my reading back in the 1970s, after the trial debacle and before
Oliver Stone decided to use Garrison as the human focus of his "JFK" film,
most serious critics considered him and his investigation to be a horrible
mistake. Some even went as far as thinking that those mysterious
intelligence assets behind the coverup might actually have deliberately
encouraged and promoted his crazy theories and nutty investigation in
order to make all critics look like idiots.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ignoring the fact that I was the first person to write to the HSCA and
criticize it.

[Anthony Marsh]

The cover-up is not researchers. WC defenders are rarely researchers. I
am not talking about all WC defenders.
Lying equals cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

David Ferrie. Clay Shaw. CIA. Playing the Zapruder film.
Making the leadership of the CIA panic.
It's called shaking the tree to see what falls out.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said he was a spook. I never said he was an agent. He was listed
as an asset.

Just read his 201 file.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Shh, don't tell McAdams or you'll have to kill him to keep it secret.

[Anthony Marsh]

But you didn't have the guts to tell that to Garrison to his face.
I did. He explained that it's an important tool to breaking up a
conspiracy by going after the small fish to get to the big fish.
The CIA was outside his jurisdiction.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

But McAdams won't believe when he calls Clay Shaw a CIA asset.
Then he'll throw him under the bus and call him a kook.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Excuse me, he discovered no CIA informants at all. There isn't a single
shred of evidence that he "discovered" any CIA informants. Any evidence
that anyone provided information to the CIA was discovered by other people
or revealed by the CIA.

"Possibly connected actions"? What does that mean?

You are always stating that we have to use official evidence. And yet you
cite Garrison's investigation as evidence?

Evidence of abuse of power, perhaps but certainly not evidence of anything
to do with the assassination.

[black...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 1:52:27 PM UTC-4, Carmine Savastano wrote:
> He discovered over 10 CIA informants and possibly connected people's
> actions such as Guy Banister who someone you know found was a CIA
> informant. So do not underestimate his contributions, just as JD should
> overestimate them. He did the best he could with the government fighting
> him. There is evidence for that as well. No one knows the answers yet.
> Neither side, they just claim to.

You'd be surprised at how much people who have done many years of primary
research into the New Orleans investigation know.

[Bud]

What good is finding people who have talked with the CIA?

[Mike]

I look at what you do now. Now what you might have done in the past.

To me you do not act like a researcher. You act like someone who is
trying to prevent research.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Ignoring the fact that I was the first person to write to the HSCA and
criticize it.

And you know this because you were the mail boy for the HSCA and observed
every letter they received.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you Anthony?

[Pamela Brown]

With someone as central to Garrison's claims about a conspiracy it is of
value to have as much information as possible, so that everyone can weigh
and evaluate it for themselves and not have to resort to cherrypicking
from one side or the other. It will help to see Shaw as a person, too, as
so much of the investigation seemed to diminish his reputation in the
community and his contributions to NOLA.

[Pamela Brown]

Garrison was the only official to open a legal investigation into the
assassination. Whether this was brave or foolish, I find that
significant. Garrison was a threat to whatever it was that was covering up
what happened. He was roasted everywhere he turned in the press.Something
about what he was doing was a threat.

It seems to me that Garrison was sandbagged on every side. Then, to make
matters worse, he made a lot of mistakes. It is difficult, though not
impossible, to extract some intriguing leads out of his investigation.

I must say, however, that when I first heard of the movie JFK and its
focus on the Garrison investigation I was shocked. It seemed unlikely
that much of value could be resurrected from such a quagmire. However, as
a movie taking dramatic license it did work, to some extent. The first
half of JFK is riveting; the second half falls apart. I don't view it as
'real life' though, but as an amalgam of dramatic images from Stone and
Garrison's point of view...

[Pamela Brown]

Garrison was a DA; an officer of the court. Things were happening under
his nose. He had to follow those leads. The scope of the attacks against
him lend credence to the fact that his investigation was somehow a
thorn-in-the-side to some people, including, it seems, RFK.

Some interesting things emerged from the trial. For one, Garrison
understood how complex Marina Oswald was. He even wanted to question her
as a hostile witness, but decided against that. Her testimony did reveal,
however, the gaps her her relationship with LHO while they lived in NOLA.
She didn't know he had been fired from Reily Coffee for two weeks.

Pamela
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/2/2015 1:30 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:02:41 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-5, Carmine Savastano wrote:
>>>> I read this prior, a good article. Garrison did make mistakes as well as
>>>> progress. However, his work is not the majority of evidence or
>>>> investigation done. Just the most often praised and criticized.
>>>
>>> What "progress" did Garrison make?
>>>
>>> What evidence of any conspiracy in the assassination did he reveal?
>>>
>>> There isn't a single shred of evidence that Shaw was involved in the
>>> assassination. None.
>>
>> From my reading back in the 1970s, after the trial debacle and before
>> Oliver Stone decided to use Garrison as the human focus of his "JFK" film,
>> most serious critics considered him and his investigation to be a horrible
>> mistake. Some even went as far as thinking that those mysterious
>> intelligence assets behind the coverup might actually have deliberately
>> encouraged and promoted his crazy theories and nutty investigation in
>> order to make all critics look like idiots.
>
> Garrison was a DA; an officer of the court. Things were happening under

But not in Texas where the crime occurred. Garrison was going after the
CIA and would grab whatever link to the CIA he could find in his state.
I.E. Clay Shaw.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because the letters they received are open to the public. Part of their
open file.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Garrison received a very favorable press early in the matter but lost that
press when he was shown to be a demagogic fraud with no evidence
whatsoever.

Read the interviews he did with the press. He was abusing his power and
making reckless and groundless claims that changed from week to week.

There is no evidence that anyone sandbagged him.

[Anthony Marsh]

To gain information.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2015 4:36 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2015 16:34:41 -0400, John Paul Jones <jimmor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Is it true that Clay Shaw told a detective that he went by the alia Clay
>> Bertrand?
>
> No.
>

How about an informant?

[Pamela Brown]

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:29:58 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/2/2015 1:30 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:02:41 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-5, Carmine Savastano wrote:
> >>>> I read this prior, a good article. Garrison did make mistakes as well as
> >>>> progress. However, his work is not the majority of evidence or
> >>>> investigation done. Just the most often praised and criticized.
> >>>
> >>> What "progress" did Garrison make?
> >>>
> >>> What evidence of any conspiracy in the assassination did he reveal?
> >>>
> >>> There isn't a single shred of evidence that Shaw was involved in the
> >>> assassination. None.
> >>
> >> From my reading back in the 1970s, after the trial debacle and before
> >> Oliver Stone decided to use Garrison as the human focus of his "JFK" film,
> >> most serious critics considered him and his investigation to be a horrible
> >> mistake. Some even went as far as thinking that those mysterious
> >> intelligence assets behind the coverup might actually have deliberately
> >> encouraged and promoted his crazy theories and nutty investigation in
> >> order to make all critics look like idiots.
> >
> > Garrison was a DA; an officer of the court. Things were happening under
>
> But not in Texas where the crime occurred. Garrison was going after the
> CIA and would grab whatever link to the CIA he could find in his state.
> I.E. Clay Shaw.

I don't know that I see it that way. LHO went to see a lawyer named "Clay
Bertrand" per Dean Andrews, in his WC testimony. Of course he
flip-flopped and lied and 'forgot' a lot, but this was an intriguing lead.
If Clay Shaw were not Clay Bertrand, for example, who was? Clay Shaw got
pulled into the mix, CIA or not...

[Pamela Brown]

Of course, McAdams *cannot* have any connection between Clay Shaw and CIA.
That doesn't mean one wasn't alluded to in this book however...

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:34:42 PM UTC-4, John Paul Jones wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> > http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
> > .John
> > -----------------------
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean the McAdams book? He can allude to something just to debunk
it and call conspiracy believers kooks.
It's like those old TV shows where they start off by asking the
question, "Have aliens visited the Earth?" and at the end they say no.

[Anthony Marsh]

Everyone was. Maybe 1,000 people shared that alias. It's like in the gay
community where you call every guy Mary.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only after your beloved CIA counter attacked. Led by Richard Helms.

> Read the interviews he did with the press. He was abusing his power and
> making reckless and groundless claims that changed from week to week.
>
> There is no evidence that anyone sandbagged him.
>

CIA.

>
>
>

[Bud]

And go nowhere with it. The conspiracy hobbyist method of investigation.

[Bud]

Vague "connections" after fifty years is running on the fumes of
innuendo.

[BOZ]

how DO YOU KNOW?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The jury was CIA?

He sandbagged himself with his reckless charges.

Do you believe Clay Shaw conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? That was the
heart of his claims.

[black...@aol.com]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:53:57 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Do you believe Clay Shaw conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? That was the
> heart of his claims.

As I tried to make clear in the review, there was LOT riding on whether or
not Shaw conspired to kill JFK:

Acquaintance: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, a possible acquaintance
with Oswald or Ferrie is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK,
such an acquaintance is less significant.

Bertrand: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the possible use of the alias
Clay Bertrand is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK, such use
is less significant.

CIA: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the nature and extent of his
relationship with the CIA is significant. If he did not conspire to kill
JFK, such a relationship is less significant.

Truthfulness: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the truthfulness of his
statements is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK, it is less
significant.

The problem is: the whole conspiracy case against Shaw stands or falls on
Perry Russo and Charles Spiesel, neither of whom was a good witness.

[Mark Florio]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 8:44:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 3/31/2015 5:07 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-5, Carmine Savastano wrote:
> >> I read this prior, a good article. Garrison did make mistakes as well as
> >> progress. However, his work is not the majority of evidence or
> >> investigation done. Just the most often praised and criticized.
> >
> > What "progress" did Garrison make?
> >
> > What evidence of any conspiracy in the assassination did he reveal?
> >
> > There isn't a single shred of evidence that Shaw was involved in the
> > assassination. None.
> >
> >
> >
>

> But you didn't have the guts to tell that to Garrison to his face.
> I did. He explained that it's an important tool to breaking up a
> conspiracy by going after the small fish to get to the big fish.
> The CIA was outside his jurisdiction.
>
> >

You didn't reply to Steve's questions did you?

BTW, if you keep patting yourself on the back as you love to do, you're
going to need Tommy John surgery before the All-Star break.

So, do you or do you not believe the Garrison case was worth it? As usual,
your position is not clear. Mark Florio.

[Anthony Marsh]

The CIA admitted the connections in 1967.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is it true that the CIA said that Clay Shaw went by the alias Clay
Bertrand?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2015 9:27 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 8:44:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/31/2015 5:07 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-5, Carmine Savastano wrote:
>>>> I read this prior, a good article. Garrison did make mistakes as well as
>>>> progress. However, his work is not the majority of evidence or
>>>> investigation done. Just the most often praised and criticized.
>>>
>>> What "progress" did Garrison make?
>>>
>>> What evidence of any conspiracy in the assassination did he reveal?
>>>
>>> There isn't a single shred of evidence that Shaw was involved in the
>>> assassination. None.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But you didn't have the guts to tell that to Garrison to his face.
>> I did. He explained that it's an important tool to breaking up a
>> conspiracy by going after the small fish to get to the big fish.
>> The CIA was outside his jurisdiction.
>>
>>>
>
> You didn't reply to Steve's questions did you?
>

Yes, I did. As much as he is entitled to.

> BTW, if you keep patting yourself on the back as you love to do, you're
> going to need Tommy John surgery before the All-Star break.
>
> So, do you or do you not believe the Garrison case was worth it? As usual,
> your position is not clear. Mark Florio.
>

I have no idea what you think you mean by worth it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2015 8:53 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:53:57 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Do you believe Clay Shaw conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? That was the
>> heart of his claims.
>
> As I tried to make clear in the review, there was LOT riding on whether or
> not Shaw conspired to kill JFK:
>
> Acquaintance: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, a possible acquaintance
> with Oswald or Ferrie is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK,
> such an acquaintance is less significant.
>
> Bertrand: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the possible use of the alias
> Clay Bertrand is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK, such use
> is less significant.
>

Silly. As a gay man he would routinely use an alias to protect his real
identity. That has nothing to with the CIA, Mary.

> CIA: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the nature and extent of his
> relationship with the CIA is significant. If he did not conspire to kill
> JFK, such a relationship is less significant.
>

No. Many people had relationships with the CIA that had nothing to do
with assassination. My father was the NSA liaison to the CIA, but he had
nothing to do with assassinations.

> Truthfulness: If Shaw did conspire to kill JFK, the truthfulness of his
> statements is significant. If he did not conspire to kill JFK, it is less
> significant.
>

It is significant either way.

[black...@aol.com]

No.

[Bud]

Ok, you`ve been only running on the fumes of innuendo for 48 years. You
conspiracy types haven`t been able to go anywhere with this because there
was nowhere to go.

[Pamela Brown]

Not exactly. The conspiracy case against Shaw fell on Ferrie, but Ferrie
did not live long enough to testify.

[Pamela Brown]

That also sums up what the mainstream press did to the JFK 50th.
Awful...

[Anthony Marsh]

30 November 1967

TO: New Orleans

FROM: Office of General Counsel

CITE: Headquarters

REF. NO-406-67

1. Most interested para 3 of reference which states conversation
between Hunter C. Leake and Alfred S. Moran on the Garrison matter. Agree
with Hunter's desire to question Moran further. Since Moran has in past
always been most helpful and cooperative with the agency, we believe in
this case an exception might be made to the caveat on discussing the Clay
Shaw case. It makes no sense for Clay Shaw to use the name Clem Bertrand
at such a meeting so we assume they were two different people, but if
Moran could confirm this it might be a very important point.

Would it be possible for Hunter to inquire casually of Moran along
this line? If so, we have means of getting this information on to Dymond
for use in preparing Shaw case without involving Hunter or Agency.

Lawrence R. Houston
General Counsel
Releasing Official

So you consider that denial absolute truth?

[black...@aol.com]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 1:00:18 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > The problem is: the whole conspiracy case against Shaw stands or falls on
> > Perry Russo and Charles Spiesel, neither of whom was a good witness.
>
> Not exactly. The conspiracy case against Shaw fell on Ferrie, but Ferrie
> did not live long enough to testify.

Russo and Spiesel were the two who testified that a conspiracy involving
Shaw took place. A lot rides on their credibility and truthfulness.

[Mark Florio]

Oh, I think you have some idea.

Was the ruination of a liberal, pro-JFK Democrat worth what you think
Garrison achieved? Mark Florio.

[black...@aol.com]

YOU ASKED:

> >> Is it true that the CIA said that Clay Shaw went by the alias Clay
> >> Bertrand?

I REPLIED:
> > No.

CIA (Larry Houston's office) WROTE:
It makes no sense for Clay Shaw to use the name Clem Bertrand
> at such a meeting so we assume they were two different people, but if
> Moran could confirm this it might be a very important point.

LET ME REPEAT: "WE ASSUME THAT THEY [BERTRAND/SHAW] WERE TWO DIFFERENT
PEOPLE."

So you consider that denial absolute truth?

IN A DOCUMENT NEVER INTENDED FOR THE PUBLIC? GARRISON WAS SAYING THEY WERE
THE SAME MAN. CIA WASN'T CONFIRMING IT, THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF
WHAT GARRISON SAID WAS TRUE.

BUT TO YOU, IT'S ALL LIES, RIGHT??

[black...@aol.com]

Trust me: You don't want to go head to head on the details of the New
Orleans case.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Perry Russo is the one who said he heard them plan the assassination. Them
being Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald.

I always find it odd that the same people who believe Garrison was a hero
for his investigation - "He was onto the truth!" - also say Oswald - "poor
Lee" they call him - was completely innocent. Garrison explicitly said
that Oswald was involved in the act.

From his opening remarks at the Shaw trial:

"The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with
having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY
OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY."

If you think Garrison was on the trail of the assassins and you think
Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination you have a problem since
he thought LHO was one of them.

True, Garrison believed that Oswald became the fall guy, the person who
would be solely blamed for the assassination. But he also believed that
Oswald was involved in that murder.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the SAME people. Cheap slander. Only a few say Oswald was innocent.
The point was that Garrison, no matter how misguided, had the courage to
go after the CIA. Something you guys don't have.

> From his opening remarks at the Shaw trial:
>
> "The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with
> having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY
> OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY."
>
> If you think Garrison was on the trail of the assassins and you think
> Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination you have a problem since
> he thought LHO was one of them.
>

Well, similar to the driver of the getaway car at a bank robbery. All
the robbers get away and the driver is left literally holding the bag.

> True, Garrison believed that Oswald became the fall guy, the person who
> would be solely blamed for the assassination. But he also believed that
> Oswald was involved in that murder.
>

The difference between a patsy and the mastermind.

[Anthony Marsh]

Garrison didn't know that for sure, but he suspected it.
Especially when Shaw said it himself.

> BUT TO YOU, IT'S ALL LIES, RIGHT??
>

But you think Shaw was lying.

[Anthony Marsh]

Can you translate that into English for me? Who is the Liberal, pro-JFK
Democrat?

[black...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Garrison didn't know that for sure, but he suspected it.
> Especially when Shaw said it himself.

Wow. You need to recheck the evidence on this from the Shaw trial. The
evidence says Shaw did not say Bertrand was his alias. If it had been, he
would have been nuts to admit it. A total fabrication.

>
> > BUT TO YOU, IT'S ALL LIES, RIGHT??
> But you think Shaw was lying.

No, he just never said it.

[Mark Florio]

No, because I've already used the plain stuff. You know who I mean; don't
play dumb.

Was the ruination of the liberal, pro-JFK Democrat Clay Shaw worth what

[Pamela Brown]

Not making a point either way regarding them. Just saying that without
Ferrie, Garrison's case was significantly weakened.

[Pamela Brown]

And Garrison did so from the position of a DA, and an officer of the
Court, which put him in the position of opening the only legal proceeding
to take place regarding the assassination. The credibility associated
with Garrison's position put him in the crosshairs of those who did not
want the truth to come out.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/8/2015 1:31 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Garrison didn't know that for sure, but he suspected it.
>> Especially when Shaw said it himself.
>
> Wow. You need to recheck the evidence on this from the Shaw trial. The
> evidence says Shaw did not say Bertrand was his alias. If it had been, he
> would have been nuts to admit it. A total fabrication.
>

I know all that. You need to admit that at the fingerprinting he was asked
if he ever used an alias and he said yes, Clay Betrand. You can never
admit any simple fact. You know it is a house of cards and you dare not
pull out ANY card lest the whole thing fall down. Maybe if you had ever
been in the real world you'd realize that wealthy gays often use aliases.

>>
>>> BUT TO YOU, IT'S ALL LIES, RIGHT??
>> But you think Shaw was lying.
>
> No, he just never said it.
>
>

So the booking clerk just made it up from his imagination? How did he
know what name to make up? Cat got your tongue again?

[John McAdams]

On 8 Apr 2015 21:12:01 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Got if off an "information sheet" from Lou Ivan.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[black...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:12:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 4/8/2015 1:31 PM, blackburst wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> Garrison didn't know that for sure, but he suspected it.
> >> Especially when Shaw said it himself.
> >
> > Wow. You need to recheck the evidence on this from the Shaw trial. The
> > evidence says Shaw did not say Bertrand was his alias. If it had been, he
> > would have been nuts to admit it. A total fabrication.
> >
>
> I know all that. You need to admit that at the fingerprinting he was asked
> if he ever used an alias and he said yes, Clay Betrand.

Baloney. The weight of the evidence from the Shaw trial is that he did NOT
say that. You are unfamiliar with the transcript.

You can never
> admit any simple fact.

It's NOT A FACT.

You know it is a house of cards and you dare not
> pull out ANY card lest the whole thing fall down.

You can't admit that you know crap about the New Orleans case. I know more
than you about it.

Maybe if you had ever
> been in the real world you'd realize that wealthy gays often use aliases.

Here's what you allege: That Shaw consorted with and conspired with Oswald
to assassinate JFK in 1963 USING THE BERTRAND ALIAS; That the FBI
investigated and LOOKED FOR BERTRAND in 1963; That Garrison's office was
looking for Bertrand Dec1966-March1967 and SHAW KNEW IT. You allege that,
knowing all this, Shaw just absent-mindedly admitted using the alias and
gave Garrison the evidence he needed to convict him. ARE YOU NUTS,
ANTHONY??

> So the booking clerk just made it up from his imagination? How did he
> know what name to make up? Cat got your tongue again?

There is no other possible conclusion. Learn the evidence before you make
wrong assertions.

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:31:44 PM UTC-5, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > Garrison didn't know that for sure, but he suspected it.
> > Especially when Shaw said it himself.
>
> Wow. You need to recheck the evidence on this from the Shaw trial. The
> evidence says Shaw did not say Bertrand was his alias. If it had been, he
> would have been nuts to admit it. A total fabrication.
>

In your opinion, to which you are entitled.

[Pamela Brown]

Truth is often even stranger than fiction...

[Anthony Marsh]

I never disputed that. I know that you personally interviewed all the
thousands of Ferrie's victims and talked to most of the SM partners of
Clay Shaw. I am just asking you to share it with us. I notice that you
always refuse to answer my questions.

[Anthony Marsh]

And that makes it false?
Are you charging that Ivan just made it up?
Please tell me that you really are that desperate.
Remember how you used to tell me the Ferrie and Oswald were never in the
same place at the same time because they were in different CAP chapters?
Ah, the good old days. Before all those damn leaks.

[Pamela Brown]

Do you intend to include the CAP photo of Ferrie and LHO? Let's see, what
was the distance between them there? A foot or two? ;-0

[Pamela Brown]

Somehow doubt that Blackburst will appreciate your use of irony...:-0

[black...@aol.com]

Are you asking this of me, or Anthony. Those are his words and,
unsurprisingly, he completely misstates my writing on the picture and the
CAP squadrons.

Sure, I'd use it. It shows that they met in 1955.

[black...@aol.com]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:52:19 PM UTC-4, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > I never disputed that. I know that you personally interviewed all the

> > thousands of Ferrie's victims and talked to most of the MSM partners of

> > Clay Shaw. I am just asking you to share it with us. I notice that you
> > always refuse to answer my questions.
>
> Somehow doubt that Blackburst will appreciate your use of irony...:-0

Y'all are entitled to your belief. For me, beyond the highly disputed
claim of one cop, I find it hard to believe that Shaw, knowing the
Bertrand name was radioactive at that precise moment, would have claimed
it as an alias.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't you think Shaw was smart enough to know not to give false
information to the police and risk perjury or obstruction of justice
charges?

If the CIA had given him an alias to use in his spying or meetings with
them it would be a serious violation to reveal it to anyone, even the
police.

Would you reveal your alias?

You revealed it to me.

Would you reveal it to the police when they ask you if you ever used an
alias?

One cop accused me of using an alias so I had to show him both my Social
Security cards.

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course you can't find your writings on the picture and CAP squadrons
to post them here.

> Sure, I'd use it. It shows that they met in 1955.
>

It doesn't prove they were lovers.
And you refused to post it just now.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Ciravolo.jpg

David Ferrie (second from left) and a teenaged Lee Harvey Oswald (far
right) in a group photo of the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol in 1955
(click to enlarge)

David William Ferrie (March 28, 1918 ? February 22, 1967) was an American
pilot who was alleged by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison to
have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F.
Kennedy.[1] Garrison also alleged that Ferrie knew Lee Harvey Oswald.
Ferrie denied any involvement in a conspiracy and said he never knew
Oswald.[2] Decades later, photos emerged establishing that Ferrie had been
in the same Civil Air Patrol unit as Oswald in the 1950s, but critics have
argued this does not prove that either Ferrie or Oswald was involved in an
assassination plot.[3]



As your own research has proven, Ferrie raped so many thousands of young
boys that he could not possibly have remembered each of them.

[black...@aol.com]

Holy cow, DiEugenio is again slagging me on the Deep Politics Forum.
Paranoid, envious, crazy, insane, irrational stuff. It must annoy him that
I know much more about the subject than he does.

I was among those who took him seriously until he developed an obsession
with attacking other researchers. There's more to come on this. Much more.

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 23:30:03 -0400, "black...@aol.com"

Just started reading his attack.

He seems to be touting OTHER LOSSES, a book that has been pretty
thoroughly debunked.

And he touts Gordon Novel!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[black...@aol.com]

One of his weird obsessions right now is that I knew Gordon Novel, and so
he needs to preemptively discredit anything Novel told me. So he claims
that anything Novel wrote years ago or said in any claimed conversation
with him is true, and that anything he said after some uncertain date
(including what he said to me) is all CIA disinfo!! How convenient! Like
anybody is going to believe such crap.

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 23:30:03 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
<black...@aol.com> wrote:

Just to show how dishonest DiEugenio is, he touts a book titled OTHER
LOSSES, and claims that Stephen Ambrose has endorsed it.

But it's just the opposite.

Scroll down to see Abrose pan the book.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.assassination.jfk/2SyB6YHH2_A/csmHR3tR7_EJ

Just one passage from the review:

<Quote on>

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research,
they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is
seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects.
Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary
evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes
no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth
of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely
critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as
a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and
makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

<end quote>

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[black...@aol.com]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 11:52:33 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> Just one passage from the review:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research,
> they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is
> seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects.
> Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary
> evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes
> no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth
> of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely
> critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as
> a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and
> makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.
>
> <end quote>
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Holy crap! Some serious irony here.

[Glenn V.]

"I asked Roy/Blackburst if he thought Oswald did it, and I did so more
than once. He never answered.

Now he has. No honest, objective, intelligent person can believe that
today. Not with all the evidence of the ARRB."

A conclusion worthy of Jim DiEugenio. Whose basic view is that "there's
more evidence of a JFK conspiracy than there is of the Holocaust".

All of which confirms that DiEugenio does not deserve to be taken
seriously. He's gone full throttle into fantasyland these last years. It
can be no surprise that he's now also "leaning" towards Oswald in the
doorway - not the Cinque version but the Murphy version; "prayer man".

[Anthony Marsh]

And who the Hell is Bacque?
You're trying to bait us into defending him?
Is that Joe Backes?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> One of his weird obsessions right now is that I knew Gordon Novel, and so

There's nothing wrong with knowing a CIA agent.
Don't be so defensive.

> he needs to preemptively discredit anything Novel told me. So he claims
> that anything Novel wrote years ago or said in any claimed conversation
> with him is true, and that anything he said after some uncertain date
> (including what he said to me) is all CIA disinfo!! How convenient! Like
> anybody is going to believe such crap.
>

Something like that.
But you won't tell us what he said.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/20/2015 11:39 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2015 23:30:03 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Holy cow, DiEugenio is again slagging me on the Deep Politics Forum.
>> Paranoid, envious, crazy, insane, irrational stuff. It must annoy him that
>> I know much more about the subject than he does.
>>
>> I was among those who took him seriously until he developed an obsession
>> with attacking other researchers. There's more to come on this. Much more.
>
> Just started reading his attack.
>
> He seems to be touting OTHER LOSSES, a book that has been pretty
> thoroughly debunked.
>
> And he touts Gordon Novel!
>

But it's OK for Roy to tout Novel?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/20/2015 11:30 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> Holy cow, DiEugenio is again slagging me on the Deep Politics Forum.
> Paranoid, envious, crazy, insane, irrational stuff. It must annoy him that
> I know much more about the subject than he does.
>

Maybe you do, but you won't prove it by telling us what you know. Got to
keep it secret.

> I was among those who took him seriously until he developed an obsession
> with attacking other researchers. There's more to come on this. Much more.
>

You took him seriously? Were you also in love with Judyth?

[black...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:32:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, blackburst wrote:
> > One of his weird obsessions right now is that I knew Gordon Novel, and so
>
> There's nothing wrong with knowing a CIA agent.
> Don't be so defensive.

For starters, he wasn't a CIA agent. But he sure wanted to be.

>
> > he needs to preemptively discredit anything Novel told me. So he claims
> > that anything Novel wrote years ago or said in any claimed conversation
> > with him is true, and that anything he said after some uncertain date
> > (including what he said to me) is all CIA disinfo!! How convenient! Like
> > anybody is going to believe such crap.
> >
>
>
> Something like that.
> But you won't tell us what he said.

Sure, just ask. Want to know what he said when I showed him a picture of
David Phillips?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/22/2015 11:40 AM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:32:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, blackburst wrote:
>>> One of his weird obsessions right now is that I knew Gordon Novel, and so
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with knowing a CIA agent.
>> Don't be so defensive.
>
> For starters, he wasn't a CIA agent. But he sure wanted to be.
>

Same with Priscilla Johnson.