Oswald in Clinton, Louisiana
bgarrettmeadows
Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
had shown up at his door seeking a job at the local mental hospital.
Martin Shackelford
shoot this down, but failed.
Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
book. There were quite a few witnesses, and a number of them testified at
the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
Martin
"bgarrettmeadows" <bgme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178852888....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
black...@aol.com
I would have to say it is unproven. On the plus side, there are quite
a few people who tell an interweaving story, and they appear to have
no reason to be wrong about it. The HSCA believed them. On the minus
side, I and others have a few reservations about the whole matter. I'm
not convinced that, whatever happened there, it was Oswald, Ferrie and
Shaw. There is a post of mine out there somewhere that details my
concerns.
bgarrettmeadows
Thanks very much for your insightful response. It has always been
puzzling to me how Oswald ended up in such hick towns like Clinton and
Jackson.
bgarrettmeadows
wrote:
> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
> shoot this down, but failed.
> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
> book. There were quite a few witnesses, and a number of them testified at
> the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:1178852888....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Has it ever been creditably established that Oswald was or was not in
> > Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
>
> > A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
> > being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
> > state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Didn't Garrison put forth
that Oswald's appearance in Clinton was a precursor to setting him up
as a nut to be hospitalized in the mental instituation located in
Clinton?
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
> shoot this down, but failed.
> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
> book. There were quite a few witnesses, and a number of them testified at
> the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
>
> Martin
Shackelford neglects to mention that Oswald made two trips to Clinton
-- one with the usual suspects and one with Judyth Vary Baker. We
have Judyth's word for that and Shackelford, as the lead researcher on
her book, no doubt verified it. Why is he so modest?
JGL
>
> "bgarrettmeadows" <bgmead...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178852888....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Has it ever been creditably established that Oswald was or was not in
> > Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
>
> > A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
> > being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
> > state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
steve
wrote:
> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
> shoot this down, but failed.
> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
> book.
i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
There were quite a few witnesses, and a number of them testified at
> the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
the one where he was found innocent ya men?
John McAdams
wrote:
Here is the definitive word:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm
It's important to look at how the story developed.
Much like the testimony of Perry Raymond Russo, it was pretty
impressive IN ITS FINAL FORM when it got to trial.
But if you saw what went into it, and how shaky the original reports
were, you get a very different impression.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
>> shoot this down, but failed.
>> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
>> book.
>
> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
>shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>
>
She labels almost everybody who opposed Garrison a spook of some kind,
but her use of evidence is shoddy.
For example, she claims that Garrison critic Joseph Rault was a CIA
"asset."
But a secret internal CIA document dated 31 October 1967 lists Rault's
"CIA CONNECTION" as "NONE."
It's Archives Record Number 104-10106-10694.
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 May 2007 17:16:21 -0400, steve <misled...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
>>> shoot this down, but failed.
>>> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
>>> book.
>> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
>> shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>>
>>
>
> She labels almost everybody who opposed Garrison a spook of some kind,
> but her use of evidence is shoddy.
>
> For example, she claims that Garrison critic Joseph Rault was a CIA
> "asset."
>
Ok, so Joan Mellen is a kook. But that does not mean that the CIA was
uninterested and uninvolved in the Clay Shaw trial.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 May 2007 17:16:21 -0400, steve <misled...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
>>>> shoot this down, but failed.
>>>> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
>>>> book.
>>> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
>>> shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> She labels almost everybody who opposed Garrison a spook of some kind,
>> but her use of evidence is shoddy.
>>
>> For example, she claims that Garrison critic Joseph Rault was a CIA
>> "asset."
>>
>
>Ok, so Joan Mellen is a kook. But that does not mean that the CIA was
>uninterested and uninvolved in the Clay Shaw trial.
>
"Interested," yes.
"Involved," not that I have seen any evidence of.
As for "interested," here is the definitive word.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/notcia.htm
.John
Anthony Marsh
> On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
>> shoot this down, but failed.
>> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
>> book.
>
> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
> shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>
There are a few interesting tidbits, but most is unreliable speculation.
steve
> On 11 May 2007 17:16:21 -0400, steve <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried to
> >> shoot this down, but failed.
> >> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
> >> book.
>
> > i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
> >shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>
> She labels almost everybody who opposed Garrison a spook of some kind,
> but her use of evidence is shoddy.
>
> For example, she claims that Garrison critic Joseph Rault was a CIA
> "asset."
>
> But a secret internal CIA document dated 31 October 1967 lists Rault's
> "CIA CONNECTION" as "NONE."
>
> It's Archives Record Number 104-10106-10694.
>
i found the source notes to be not very convincing. It seemed like
she made a lot of claims, but none were backed up by credible info,
and at times no info at all.
Martin Shackelford
book and William Davy's book, I no longer have any doubts that Oswald,
Ferrie and Shaw went to Clinton together.
Martin
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178890793.7...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
evidence from the investigation, and other witnesses failed to come forward
until after the trial ended.
As for Mellen's sources being "shady," she has all kinds of sources,
including FBI sources, CIA sources, documents from both agencies, prominent
officials in New Orleans, employees of Clay Shaw, friends of Shaw, friends
of Ferrie, and many others, including critics of Garrison who later admitted
having evidence that would have helped him.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178912928.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
always to YOUR website.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4644de54....@news.alt.net...
Martin Shackelford
and OTHER CIA documents say the exact opposite. Citing one CIA document on
the subject is meaningless. Evidence presented without its full context is
meaningless.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4644df2d....@news.alt.net...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:46450b62...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
well-documented.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k-adnR9KyeFFYNnb...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
themselves--they will find this is false.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178935580.5...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> After reading the additional new material on the subject in Joan Mellen's
> book and William Davy's book, I no longer have any doubts that Oswald,
> Ferrie and Shaw went to Clinton together.
>
> Martin
Ok Shackelford, but what about Oswald's alleged second trip to
Clinton with Judyth Vary Baker (altho neither had a car nor a driver's
license)? Any doubts about that? I don't understand why you're so
reluctant to cite JVB as a witness. She was there, wasn't she?
JGL
> <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178890793.7...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 12:49 am, bgarrettmeadows <bgmead...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Has it ever been creditably established that Oswald was or was not in
> >> Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
>
> >> A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
> >> being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
> >> state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
> >> had shown up at his door seeking a job at the local mental hospital.
>
> > I would have to say it is unproven. On the plus side, there are quite
> > a few people who tell an interweaving story, and they appear to have
> > no reason to be wrong about it. The HSCA believed them. On the minus
> > side, I and others have a few reservations about the whole matter. I'm
> > not convinced that, whatever happened there, it was Oswald, Ferrie and
> > Shaw. There is a post of mine out there somewhere that details my
> > concerns.- Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Involved? Read Mellen more closely, including the end notes.
>
All Mellen had was the uaual paranoia.
If you think she had any evidence that the CIA was "involved," tell us
what it was.
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>As anyone who has read the book will know, SOME CIA documents say one thing,
>and OTHER CIA documents say the exact opposite. Citing one CIA document on
>the subject is meaningless. Evidence presented without its full context is
>meaningless.
>
Then show me the CIA document that says that Rault was a CIA "asset!"
You can't, Martin.
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Yep, Shaw was found innocent. The FBI and CIA kept a large amount of
>evidence from the investigation,
And what evidence was that?
And I mean evidence that Shaw was in any way involved in any
assassination plot.
>and other witnesses failed to come forward
>until after the trial ended.
Which would cast some doubt on their credibility, would it not?
>As for Mellen's sources being "shady," she has all kinds of sources,
>including FBI sources, CIA sources, documents from both agencies, prominent
>officials in New Orleans, employees of Clay Shaw, friends of Shaw, friends
>of Ferrie, and many others, including critics of Garrison who later admitted
>having evidence that would have helped him.
>
Martin, of course she lists all these "sources," but her
interpretations are tendentious.
>Martin
>
>"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1178912928.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 11, 9:20 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, Oswald was definitely in Clinton and Jackson. Patricia Lambert tried
>>> to
>>> shoot this down, but failed.
>>> Joan Mellen provides even more supporting evidence for the episode in her
>>> book.
>>
>> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
>> shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
>>
>>
>>
>> There were quite a few witnesses, and a number of them testified at
>>> the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
>>
>>
>> the one where he was found innocent ya men?
>>
>>
>
>
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>It's hilarious that whenever you refer someone to "the definitive word" it's
>always to YOUR website.
Of *course* it's my website, Martin.
It's certainly not Mellen.
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>After reading the additional new material on the subject in Joan Mellen's
>book and William Davy's book, I no longer have any doubts that Oswald,
>Ferrie and Shaw went to Clinton together.
>
Then why are the *initial* accounts of the supposed visits so wildly
inconsistent?
Are you aware of how witness testimony can "evolve" over time, Martin?
>Martin
>
><black...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1178890793.7...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 11, 12:49 am, bgarrettmeadows <bgmead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has it ever been creditably established that Oswald was or was not in
>>> Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
>>>
>>> A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
>>> being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
>>> state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
>>> had shown up at his door seeking a job at the local mental hospital.
>>
>> I would have to say it is unproven. On the plus side, there are quite
>> a few people who tell an interweaving story, and they appear to have
>> no reason to be wrong about it. The HSCA believed them. On the minus
>> side, I and others have a few reservations about the whole matter. I'm
>> not convinced that, whatever happened there, it was Oswald, Ferrie and
>> Shaw. There is a post of mine out there somewhere that details my
>> concerns.
>>
>>
>
>
--
John McAdams
wrote:
Good point.
Garrison's silly theory was that Oswald was going to get a job at a
mental hospital, and then some files were going to be switched around
to make him an *inmate* at the institution.
As though personnel files and patient files are similar.
.John
P.S. Martin, are you lurking? What do you think of Garrison's
theory?
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 May 2007 11:58:14 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It's hilarious that whenever you refer someone to "the definitive word" it's
>> always to YOUR website.
>
> Of *course* it's my website, Martin.
>
You mean like your definitive examination of President Kennedy's last
news conference? You know, the one where you said he was announcing that
he planned to escalate the Vietnam War?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 May 2007 11:58:14 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's hilarious that whenever you refer someone to "the definitive word" it's
>>> always to YOUR website.
>>
>> Of *course* it's my website, Martin.
>>
>
>You mean like your definitive examination of President Kennedy's last
>news conference? You know, the one where you said he was announcing that
>he planned to escalate the Vietnam War?
>
Point me to the page you have in mind, Tony.
.John
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 May 2007 11:57:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Yep, Shaw was found innocent. The FBI and CIA kept a large amount of
>> evidence from the investigation,
>
> And what evidence was that?
>
Shaw's association with the CIA. The CIA's involvement in the Kennedy
assassination. Those two factors do not prove that Shaw pulled a trigger,
but they might convince a jury that Shaw was part of the overall
conspiracy.
> And I mean evidence that Shaw was in any way involved in any
> assassination plot.
>
How peripherally? Sugar daddy to a conspirator? Introducing two
conspirators to each other?
>
>> and other witnesses failed to come forward
>> until after the trial ended.
>
> Which would cast some doubt on their credibility, would it not?
>
No, which would indicate the cover-up of intimidating witnesses.
>
>> As for Mellen's sources being "shady," she has all kinds of sources,
>> including FBI sources, CIA sources, documents from both agencies, prominent
>> officials in New Orleans, employees of Clay Shaw, friends of Shaw, friends
>> of Ferrie, and many others, including critics of Garrison who later admitted
>> having evidence that would have helped him.
>>
>
> Martin, of course she lists all these "sources," but her
> interpretations are tendentious.
>
A triffle understated methinks.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 May 2007 11:57:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, Shaw was found innocent. The FBI and CIA kept a large amount of
>>> evidence from the investigation,
>>
>> And what evidence was that?
>>
>
>Shaw's association with the CIA. The CIA's involvement in the Kennedy
>assassination. Those two factors do not prove that Shaw pulled a trigger,
>but they might convince a jury that Shaw was part of the overall
>conspiracy.
>
Shaw's only "association" with the CIA had nothing to do with any
sinister plots, and ended a decade before the assassination.
As for "the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination," one can't
"withhold" evidence when it doesn't exist.
>> And I mean evidence that Shaw was in any way involved in any
>> assassination plot.
>>
>
>How peripherally? Sugar daddy to a conspirator? Introducing two
>conspirators to each other?
>
In any way at all, Tony.
>>
>>> and other witnesses failed to come forward
>>> until after the trial ended.
>>
>> Which would cast some doubt on their credibility, would it not?
>>
>
>No, which would indicate the cover-up of intimidating witnesses.
>
But you have no evidence that any of the witnesses in question were
ever intimidated.
My guess is that Mellen is recycling witnesses that the Garrison
people know about, but failed to use, since they knew how incredible
they were.
That is what the PROBE crowd has done.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On May 12, 2:40 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> After reading the additional new material on the subject in Joan Mellen's
>> book and William Davy's book, I no longer have any doubts that Oswald,
>> Ferrie and Shaw went to Clinton together.
>>
>> Martin
>
> Ok Shackelford, but what about Oswald's alleged second trip to
> Clinton with Judyth Vary Baker (altho neither had a car nor a driver's
> license)? Any doubts about that? I don't understand why you're so
> reluctant to cite JVB as a witness. She was there, wasn't she?
>
So what if neither of them had a car or a driver's license?
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4645f95f...@news.newsguy.com...
black...@aol.com
> Thanks very much for your insightful response. It has always been
> puzzling to me how Oswald ended up in such hick towns like Clinton and
> Jackson.
I can't say for a fact that it did - or did not - happen, but a lot of it
seems problematic for me. Many people belive that it happened. I think we
should consider that it is a possibility, but one that has not been proven
to a certainty. I dug out my 2002 post on the subject:
QUOTE ON:
Several threads in these two newsgroups, and several email exchanges have
concerned the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie and Clay
Shaw visited the towns of Clinton and Jackson, LA in early September 1963.
Most of us are familiar with the details of the story. Those who are not
should consult Bill Davy's "Let Justice Be Done" for an argument that the
visit did occur, and Patricia Lambert's "False Witness" for an argument
that it did not.
(It should be mentioned that the putative visit does not bear directly on
the assassination, but it does go to the credibility of denials by Ferrie
and Shaw of knowing each other, or Oswald.)
To some degree, I have stayed out of the argument. But I decided to post
my impressions of the controversy. In summary, while it is possible that
the visit did occur, I personally have enough problems with the sighting
to raise reasonable doubt in MY mind. In no particular order:
1) The Stranger Factor: All 3 men were strangers to the Clinton/ Jackson
witnesses, making a POSITIVE identification much tougher.
2) The Time Factor: It is possible to remember a stranger from 4 years
earlier, but to identify them from a photo, beyond a reasonable doubt, is
not an easy thing. I think back to incidents 4 years ago, and I would be
hard pressed to make a positive ID of the rent-a-car guy at the airport,
or the guy who cleaned the gutters on my house.
3) The View Factor: Some of the witnesses concede only seeing the men for
a short time, or from an angle where viewing was difficult.
4) The Car Factor: Some of the early accounts describe different cars. In
time, they came to agree on a black Cadillac. But none of the three men
owned a black Cadillac. Some speculate that Jeff Biddison lent his car to
Shaw, but there is NO evidence that he did. Only speculation. Why would
Shaw borrow the car on this occasion alone? One of the accounts quoted
Shaw as saying the car was registered to the International Trade Mart, but
there is no evidence that a black Cadillac was registered to the ITM.
5) The Other People Factor: Some of the accounts included people who
disappeared from later accounts.
*Anne Hudley Dischler was told Banister was one of the visitors.
*One witness said Oswald was accompanied by a woman.
*Several of the accounts include a man named Estus Morgan
*One of the accounts includes a man answering the description of Winslow
Foster
6) The Ferrie Identification Factor: Ferrie was the least positive of the
IDs. It is said that his appearance was unmistakeable. His 1961-2 police
photos, showing him at his worst, are striking, but other early 60s photos
show him looking very normal.
7) The Palmer Factor: Palmer insisted to HSCA that the white-haired man
could not have been Banister because he knew Banister from the service in
World War II. But Banister was in the FBI, not the service, in WWII. How
could Palmer have been so mistaken? What does it say about credibility?
8) The Klan Factor: Speaking of credibility, the FBI said two of these
guys were Klansman, which shows striking bad judgement in my opinion.
9) The Change Factor: Several of these accounts did change in significant
details over the years: who, how many, what car.
10) The Time Factor 2: It is said that the car arrived in the morning,
Oswald got out and got in the voter registration line, and the car left in
the mid afternoon - several hours. But an email correspondent who checked
the record for August-September 1963 tells me that there was no day in
that period when there were enough registrants to account for a line which
would cause so long a wait.
11) The Ineligibility Factor: Oswald was not a resident, and was thus
ineligible to vote in Clinton. Why waste all that time in line?
12) Purpose 1 - ELSH: It is said that the pupose of the whole event was to
get Oswald a job at East Louisiana State Hospital, where he would be
switched over to become a patient. But Oswald did not raise the
possibility of employment at ELSH; the barber he spoke to was the first to
raise the possibility. It would be quite a coincidence if the barber
happened upon the very possibility the plotters had intended.
13) Purpose 2 - Civil Rights Disruption: It is said that the purpose was
to cause a Cointelpro-style disruption of the civil rights campaign then
underway. But a civil rights Cointelpro program did not then exist.
Further, all three men - Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw - puported to be
supporters of the civil rights movement. Why would they involve themselves
in such an operation?
14) The Visibility Factor: No matter how you cut it, Shaw and Ferrie went
out of their way to be seen with Oswald. They could have parked around the
corner and sent him in. They could have sent him in by bus or taxi. They
could have worn disguises. But they did not. Why? Why go out of your way
to be seen with someone who, by some accounts, was already slated to be
picked up for JFK's assassination? Were Shaw and Ferrie stupid?
15) The Fruge/Sciambra Factor: The Clinton episode was developed by
Francis Fruge and Andrew Sciambra. I have seen a lot of material from both
men, and I have concerns about their objectivity as investigators.
And there are other factors, too. Taken individually, they do not disprove
Clinton/Jackson. But taken as a whole, they raise enough reasonable doubt
for me to prevent me from regarding the identifications as definitive. But
others may disagree.
Something probably happened in Clinton and Jackson. Was it really Shaw,
Ferrie and Oswald? Some ask: What motivation would the witnesses have to
lie? I am only speculating here, but could they have simply talked
themselves - and each other - into believing that a real event included
these then-well-known figures?
QUOTE OFF
black...@aol.com
>
> i wasnt real impressed with Mellen's book, her sources seemed a bit
> shady. i'm curious as to what everyone else here thinks of her book?
She certainly did a lot of new research and turned up a lot of new
material. A couple of things concerned me about the book. She
misidentified Jack S. Martin, in my opinion. She relied heavily on Thomas
Edward Beckham, who has told two completely different stories about the
matter. And there is the allegation that Clay Shaw co-signed a loan for
David Ferrie. Again, an old post of mine I dug up:
QUOTE ON:
In Joan Mellen's "A Farewell to Justice", she asserts that during "the
week of the assassination", David Ferrie approached his friend Herb Wagner
at Herb Wagner Finance Company for a $400. loan to rent a plane for a trip
to Dallas, and that this loan was co-signed by Clay L. Shaw. Mellen
asserts that this proves that Ferrie and Shaw were acquainted, and that
"they participated together in preparations for the assassination." She
does not cite any loan documents to support this; she cites only the
recollection of Wagner's friend Roger E. Johnston Jr.
When the book was published, I publicly indicated several reservations
about the account:
1) Ferrie had received $1635. 90 on October 11, 1963, and his bank records
indicate that he received more than $7000.00 from his employer and
attorney G. Wray Gill in the first week of November 1963 for his work on
the Carlos Marcello deportation case. Why would Ferrie need to borrow a
mere $400.00?
2) Ferrie's Stinson Voyager was not airworthy, but he also owned a
Taylorcraft L-2, purchased on October 21, 1959 and he had access to
several aircraft owned by friends such as Lewis J. "Buster" Abadie. Why
would Ferrie need to rent a plane and create a paper trail, which might
well draw investigative attention?
3) For that matter, why would Clay Shaw be so reckless as to add his name
to that paper trail and draw suspicion to himself?
Recently alerted by Jerry P. Shinley, I ordered from NARA Ferrie's
financial records with Herb Wagner Finance, turned over to Jim Garrison in
1967 by Wagner (who is now deceased). This 40-odd page file shows in
detail Ferrie's loan record with Wagner in the 1961-1966 time period,
including declarations of his financial holdings and liabilities.
Ferrie took out a $602.52 loan on August 16, 1961 for the stated purpose
of paying off another finance company. After he was arrested six days
later on morals charges and lost his income, he found it difficult to pay
off the loan, but Wagner, a close friend, floated him. Ferrie refinanced
the loan on December 14, 1962 and again on February 27, 1964, and
eventually paid it off.
There is not trace in this file of a $400. loan in November 1963 to rent a
plane. At no time did any person co-sign a loan for Ferrie, and
specifically not Clay Shaw. It appears that Joan Mellen's source, Roger E.
Johnston, was mistaken.
QUOTE OFF
black...@aol.com
> book and William Davy's book, I no longer have any doubts that Oswald,
> Ferrie and Shaw went to Clinton together.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:1178890793.7...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 12:49 am, bgarrettmeadows <bgmead...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Has it ever been creditably established that Oswald was or was not in
> >> Clinton, Louisiana, shortly before the assassination?
>
> >> A local barber said he gave a haircut to a guy he later recognized as
> >> being Oswald when Oswald was identified as the assassin on TV. A local
> >> state representative living in Clinton made the same comment after Oswald
> >> had shown up at his door seeking a job at the local mental hospital.
>
> > I would have to say it is unproven. On the plus side, there are quite
> > a few people who tell an interweaving story, and they appear to have
> > no reason to be wrong about it. The HSCA believed them. On the minus
> > side, I and others have a few reservations about the whole matter. I'm
> > not convinced that, whatever happened there, it was Oswald, Ferrie and
> > Shaw. There is a post of mine out there somewhere that details my
>
> - Show quoted text -
I acknowledge the deeply held belief of my colleague Martin, a careful,
wise and seasoned researcher. I find myself somewhat less certain.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178985549.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
was the usual knee-jerk defense of the Warren Report." There is much more to
Mellen's book that you admit.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4645f846...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
us.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4645f88b...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
You seem, however, to be taking Lambert at face value.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4645f95f...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
credible on that topic.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4645f9d3...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
conspiracy, they just weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaw
was one of the conspirators.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dMydnTPYHJN0Ydjb...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
assassination. A 1967 document indicated a curren association with the CIA.
Also, he had several different files--only one was a Domestic Contacts
division file. He accepted assignments from the CIA--one CIA document listed
some of them.
There is PLENTY of evidence of witness intimidation--I can't believe you are
trying to argue that one, John.
You say that you are guessing about what Mellen says--which suggests that
you are attacking her book without having read it. Pretty sad for an
academic. Some of us read books on all sides.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4646503a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>It isn't true that Shaw's connection to the CIA ended a decade before the
>assassination. A 1967 document indicated a curren association with the CIA.
Then post the document -- or at least the relevant portions, with a
National Archives Document number.
And this supposed "document" contradicts literally dozens of *other*
documents (which are known to really exist) that say Shaw's connection
to the agency ended in teh 50s.
>Also, he had several different files--only one was a Domestic Contacts
>division file. He accepted assignments from the CIA--one CIA document listed
>some of them.
Same challenge as above. Post the relevant evidence.
>There is PLENTY of evidence of witness intimidation--I can't believe you are
>trying to argue that one, John.
Then post some.
>You say that you are guessing about what Mellen says--which suggests that
>you are attacking her book without having read it. Pretty sad for an
>academic. Some of us read books on all sides.
>
I got through the first 3 or 4 chapters, and got bogged down and busy.
But it doesn't matter. If she has evidence, you can post the relevant
citation.
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 May 2007 19:39:07 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 12 May 2007 11:57:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, Shaw was found innocent. The FBI and CIA kept a large amount of
>>>> evidence from the investigation,
>>> And what evidence was that?
>>>
>> Shaw's association with the CIA. The CIA's involvement in the Kennedy
>> assassination. Those two factors do not prove that Shaw pulled a trigger,
>> but they might convince a jury that Shaw was part of the overall
>> conspiracy.
>>
>
> Shaw's only "association" with the CIA had nothing to do with any
> sinister plots, and ended a decade before the assassination.
>
So what? Just be honest and explain that in court, instead of committing
perjury.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 May 2007 19:39:07 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 12 May 2007 11:57:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, Shaw was found innocent. The FBI and CIA kept a large amount of
>>>>> evidence from the investigation,
>>>> And what evidence was that?
>>>>
>>> Shaw's association with the CIA. The CIA's involvement in the Kennedy
>>> assassination. Those two factors do not prove that Shaw pulled a trigger,
>>> but they might convince a jury that Shaw was part of the overall
>>> conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>> Shaw's only "association" with the CIA had nothing to do with any
>> sinister plots, and ended a decade before the assassination.
>>
>
>So what? Just be honest and explain that in court, instead of committing
>perjury.
>
He was asked if he "worked for" the CIA, and he said "no."
That was the truth.
.John
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 May 2007 18:20:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 12 May 2007 11:58:14 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's hilarious that whenever you refer someone to "the definitive word" it's
>>>> always to YOUR website.
>>> Of *course* it's my website, Martin.
>>>
>> You mean like your definitive examination of President Kennedy's last
>> news conference? You know, the one where you said he was announcing that
>> he planned to escalate the Vietnam War?
>>
>
> Point me to the page you have in mind, Tony.
>
The page you wrote about President Kennedy's last press conference
before I corrected you.
Anthony Marsh
When sworn in to testify, the witness swears to tell the WHOLE truth.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I don't agree with Garrison's theory on that point. Judyth Baker is more
> credible on that topic.
>
> Martin
Since you think Judyth Baker is more credible than Garrison (Boy, there's
toss-up), it would have been nice if she had volunteered to tesitfy at the
Shaw trial. Might have straightened out a lot of things. But she didn't,
did she? I recall her saying she didn't know anything about the Garrison
investigation, which was front-page news around the country for about two
years running. Sure is hard to take this woman seriously but, of course,
she found a couple (Team Judyth) who did.
JGL
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:4645f9d3...@news.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > On 11 May 2007 14:52:46 -0400, bgarrettmeadows <bgmead...@gmail.com>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
You seem to have invented another phony "anecdote" for your silly campaign.
You also seem to have come up with yet another version of the old "Team
Judyth" myth. It must be a remarkable elastic "organization."
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179159317.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On May 13, 10:19 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> I don't agree with Garrison's theory on that point. Judyth Baker is more
>> credible on that topic.
>>
>> Martin
>
> Since you think Judyth Baker is more credible than Garrison (Boy, there's
> toss-up), it would have been nice if she had volunteered to tesitfy at the
> Shaw trial. Might have straightened out a lot of things. But she didn't,
> did she? I recall her saying she didn't know anything about the Garrison
> investigation, which was front-page news around the country for about two
> years running. Sure is hard to take this woman seriously but, of course,
> she found a couple (Team Judyth) who did.
>
So, if the CIA were credible, they would have volunteered to testify at
the Shaw trial? Tell everyone again about Gordon Novel and why he didn't
testify.
polly brown
> On May 13, 10:19 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > credible on that topic.
>
> > Martin
>
> toss-up), it would have been nice if she had volunteered to tesitfy at the
> Shaw trial. Might have straightened out a lot of things. But she didn't,
I tend to agree that Judyth's choosing to not come forward during the
Garrison investigation is disappointing, whatever the reason.
Pamela
Martin Shackelford
witnesses.
Martin
"polly brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1179285008.0...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
At last we agree, Pam. And I would point out that Judyth also took a
pass on the Warren Commission hearings, the HSCA hearings and various
other investigations of the JFK assassination. It really isn't hard
to figure out why... unless you're Martin Shackelford.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179332217.6...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...