Jim Garrison and Organized Crime in New Orleans
Martin Shackelford
Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
Pershing Gervais, a sometime Garrison office investigator who was serving at
the same time
as an informant for Aaron Kohn, was close to Carlos Marcello and his
colleagues. He was also
an FBI informant and on a list of CIA assets in Garrison's office.
In 1962's D.A. election, Garrison was the only candidate who insisted the
Mob was active
in New Orleans. Marcello and his allies supported Garrison's opponent.
Garrison's vice
crackdown included the major Marcello clubs, including the 500 Club.
Judge Haggerty, who was hostile to Garrison and to the police, was friendly
with Marcello
associates.
In 1963, Garrison went after the police for laxity of enforcement against
organized crime,
forcing police raids of Marcello businesses. He also criticized the Attorney
General of
Louisiana for not moving against organized crime in Marcello's bailiwick of
Jefferson
Parish. He campaigned against the sale of paroles to organized crime
figures, and filed
charges against Marcello's primary bail bondsman.
Aaron Kohn, later a Garrison enemy during the JFK investigation, praised him
in 1963 for
his vigorous actions against organized crime in New Orleans.
In 1965, the Marcello gambling interests again supported Garrison's
opponent. Raymond Huff,
a U.S. Customs official close to Guy Banister, obtained Garrison's military
medical record and
supplied it to Garrison's opponent, who selectively quoted it.
Marcello was a deep-dyed racist; Garrison went after the Ku Klux Klan and
received the black
vote overwhelmingly.
John Volz, a federal prosecutor who had been one of Garrison's assistant
D.A.s, was the fellow
who sent Marcello to prison.
Garrison's investigation of the JFK assassination initially centered on
David Ferrie; as a result,
Garrison looked at Marcello, on whose defense team Ferrie had been on Nov.
22, 1963. It was
later Garrison critic David Chandler, a local reporter, who told Garrison
that Clay Bertrand was
Clay Shaw. He and others helped point Garrison away from Marcello, and
toward the CIA.
Some other matters:
Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert Webster was part
of the program;
Donald Deselyea read Oswald debriefing report from the same program; CIA
claimed it was
the Webster debriefing, but Webster wasn't in Minsk at a radio plant.
Garrison worked in the D.A.'s office of Leon Hubert, later a Warren
Commission counsel.
In 1950, Garrison and Clay Shaw lived in the same boarding house. Around
that time, Garrison
wrote a short story about a political assassination in a Latin country, and
a patsy.
Garrison has been accused of investigating the JFK case due to his political
ambition, but in
fact he dropped out of the race for governor in order to pursue the JFK
investigation.
Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had been a
paid informant
for the FBI.
It has been suggested that Garrison's investigation was triggered by his
opposition to the Viet Nam
War, but in 1966, when he began the investigation, he was supporting the
Viet Nam War.
Garrison critic Hoke May, of the New Orleans States-Item, reported that Dr.
Mary Sherman
knew David Ferrie.
Steve Thomas
>
> Garrison's investigation of the JFK assassination initially centered on
> David Ferrie; as a result,
> Garrison looked at Marcello
Well that would be nice if you could show us some proof, but we
know you cant.
, on whose defense team Ferrie had been on Nov.
> 22, 1963. It was
> later Garrison critic David Chandler, a local reporter, who told Garrison
> that Clay Bertrand was
> Clay Shaw. He and others helped point Garrison away from Marcello, and
> toward the CIA.
>
David Chandler never told Garrison that Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw,
and he never pointed Garrison to the CIA.
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> You'll find the cites detailed in Joan Mellen's book,
> Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
Ooh, what a reliable source!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mellen.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Reality.htm
Dave
ShutterBun
"Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
been a
paid informant
for the FBI."
I suppose it would be asking to much to request a cite for this?
(err...other than "Personal interview with Garrison" or somesuch)
If Oswald was a paid informant to the FBI, I can make two conclusions:
1. Oswald didn't tell them jack squat
2. He was paid accordingly
As a recent re-entry to the JFK scene, I expected to find more
perplexing challenges than this. 10 years absence seems to indicate
that not much has changed.
Quote:
"In 1965, the Marcello gambling interests again supported Garrison's
opponent. Raymond Huff,
a U.S. Customs official close to Guy Banister, obtained Garrison's
military
medical record and
supplied it to Garrison's opponent, who selectively quoted it.
Forgive my ignorance, but do you have any cites for Raymond Huff
supplying Garrison's military record to O'Hara? Did this come out in
Garrison's (err...federally?) charging of O'Hara with misappropriation
of Defense Department documents? (did anything come of that case, or
was it among Garrison's 275,000 other "charged, but not tried" cases?)
Just curious. And I would really be interested in this Raymond Huff
character. And why he was (apparently) assisting Garrison's opponents
in a non-election year.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
> been a
> paid informant
> for the FBI."
>
That is only the RUMOR that they had discussed in a TOP SECRET Warren
Commission executive session. It was not true.
> I suppose it would be asking to much to request a cite for this?
> (err...other than "Personal interview with Garrison" or somesuch)
>
> If Oswald was a paid informant to the FBI, I can make two conclusions:
>
> 1. Oswald didn't tell them jack squat
> 2. He was paid accordingly
>
How do you know exactly how much FBI informants are paid? You have the
records?
Steve Thomas
> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
> been a
> paid informant
> for the FBI."
>
> I suppose it would be asking to much to request a cite for this?
Its always too much when asking Shack for a cite. He'll claim he did
give the cite, Joan Mellen. If you want to know who she got it from,
you'll have to buy the book, because Shackelford isn't gonna tell you
that. He's more of a book salesman in this regard as opposed to an open
researcher.
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>You'll find the cites detailed in Joan Mellen's book,
>Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
>
>Pershing Gervais, a sometime Garrison office investigator who was serving at
>the same time
>as an informant for Aaron Kohn, was close to Carlos Marcello and his
>colleagues. He was also
>an FBI informant and on a list of CIA assets in Garrison's office.
>
Garrisonites keep claiming that the CIA had "assets" in Garrison's
office. I haven't seen any evidence of that.
So prove me wrong and post a hard citation showing "assets" the CIA
had in Garrison's office.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>Some other matters:
>Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert
>Webster was part
>of the program;
Citation!
Look . . . Martin, you seem to believe everything you read in
conspiracy books, and never seem to see the need to back up your
assertions.
But you really need to understand how that makes you look.
So kindly post the evidence for a "false defector" program.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Jul 1, 8:54�am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
>been a
>paid informant
>for the FBI."
>
It's possible Boggs told him this. There was an early, bogus report
to this effect.
It was debunked, but Boggs was one of those WC members who didn't pay
too much attention to the proceedings, and may simply have been
unaware the claim was debunked.
Of course, it's possible Boggs said no such thing. We are dealing
with unreliable data piled on top of unreliable data here.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
I am reading Let Justice Be Done (New Light On the Garrison
Investigation)...lots of intrigue in Jackson, and Clinton, Shaw and
Oswald, Maryland Farms episode with Lawrence Hall and Shaw, Perry
Russo before the sodium pentahol smear...stuff that Garrison was
handed instead of smeared that he went after..and of course lots of
David Ferrie with lots of everybody's...and MK Ultra through Tulane at
the hospital in Jackson and Oschner. He definitely was not popular
with the guvmint as they knew he was gettin' pretty close. I think if
Garrison had a better view of the mob in N.O. he would have set off
some real fireworks...
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Do the executive sessions list who was present?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some other matters:
>> Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert
>> Webster was part
>> of the program;
>
> Citation!
>
> Look . . . Martin, you seem to believe everything you read in
> conspiracy books, and never seem to see the need to back up your
> assertions.
>
More false charges. Martin and I are leading critics of some of the
wacky conspiracy books.
> But you really need to understand how that makes you look.
>
You don't care how your misrepresentations make you look.
curtjester1
Wasn't Oswald quoted as him being paid to hand out the leaflets in
N.O.? Ten years?...there have been a lot books written about JFK, and
N.O. I think you better catch up.
CJ
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:09h2559sfq1k4g66n...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>The document that was released listed 11 CIA assets close to Garrison.
>
Do you not understand the word "citation?"
Give me a citation, and if it's online anywhere, a link.
Who wrote the document? Is it Garrison's own opinion? Somebody like
Fonzi?
Nobody is going to take you seriously if you won't produce a citation.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Canuck
> On 8 Jul 2009 22:02:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >The document that was released listed 11 CIA assets close to Garrison.
>
> Do you not understand the word "citation?"
>
> Give me a citation, and if it's online anywhere, a link.
>
> Who wrote the document? Is it Garrison's own opinion? Somebody like
> Fonzi?
>
> Nobody is going to take you seriously if you won't produce a citation.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Martin
>
> >news:09h2559sfq1k4g66n...@4ax.com...
> >> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >>>You'll find the cites detailed in Joan Mellen's book,
> >>>Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
>
> >>>Pershing Gervais, a sometime Garrison office investigator who was serving
> >>>at
> >>>the same time
> >>>as an informant for Aaron Kohn, was close to Carlos Marcello and his
> >>>colleagues. He was also
> >>>an FBI informant and on a list of CIA assets in Garrison's office.
>
> >> Garrisonites keep claiming that the CIA had "assets" in Garrison's
> >> office. I haven't seen any evidence of that.
>
> >> So prove me wrong and post a hard citation showing "assets" the CIA
> >> had in Garrison's office.
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> .John
>
> - Show quoted text -
bullshit! Just kidding - prw
Martin Shackelford
The cite is in Mellen.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:tuja55dbi1qsrgntr...@4ax.com...
Thalia
Have you read "JFK and The Unspeakable" It convincingly answers the
questions of why Kennedy was killed and who did it (the CIA on behalf
of powerful military interests)
Thalia
> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
What evidence do you expect to get .Johm? A hand written memo by
Helms? The CIA is a spy organisation dealing with national security,
they don't operate like an open book.
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>It was a CIA internal memo, John.
>The cite is in Mellen.
>
Then post the cite here.
I simply don't trust Mellen to correctly characterize the contents of
any document.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Jul 6, 8:31�am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>
>> <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >You'll find the cites detailed in Joan Mellen's book,
>> >Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
>>
>> >Pershing Gervais, a sometime Garrison office investigator who was serving at
>> >the same time
>> >as an informant for Aaron Kohn, was close to Carlos Marcello and his
>> >colleagues. He was also
>> >an FBI informant and on a list of CIA assets in Garrison's office.
>>
>> Garrisonites keep claiming that the CIA had "assets" in Garrison's
>> office. �I haven't seen any evidence of that.
>>
>> So prove me wrong and post a hard citation showing "assets" the CIA
>> had in Garrison's office.
>>
>
>What evidence do you expect to get .Johm? A hand written memo by
>Helms? The CIA is a spy organisation dealing with national security,
>they don't operate like an open book.
There are in fact lots of secret internal documents from the Garrison
era showing who was connected with the CIA (or not) and how.
Martin needs to produce this document.
You aren't allowed to just *posit* a document and claim to have proof.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
McAdams never accepts hard evidence. Even when Helms admitted during sworn
testimony that Sturgis was a contract CIA agent, McAdams keeps denying it.
Even when the Director of Central Intelligence admits in writing that the
CIA has been lying to Congress for several years, McAdams continues to
deny it. Even a deathbed confession by a CIA officer that several CIA
officers assassinated President Kennedy means nothing to someone like
McAdams.
John McAdams
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a590429$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Tony, you have no primary source for Helms saying that Sturgis was a
contract agent.
It's just an assertion from Mark Lane.
Produce a *primary* source on that.
.John
claviger
> McAdams never accepts hard evidence. Even when Helms admitted during sworn
> testimony that Sturgis was a contract CIA agent, McAdams keeps denying it.
Source please.
> Even when the Director of Central Intelligence admits in writing that the
> CIA has been lying to Congress for several years, McAdams continues to
> deny it.
Source please.
> Even a deathbed confession by a CIA officer that several CIA
> officers assassinated President Kennedy means nothing to
> someone like McAdams.
What CIA officer made a deathbed confession? Who were the several CIA
officers? E Howard Hunt made a deathbed opinion, not confession. He spiced
it up with stuff he saw on TV.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> McAdams never accepts hard evidence. Even when Helms admitted during sworn
>> testimony that Sturgis was a contract CIA agent, McAdams keeps denying it.
>
> Source please.
Source is the messages right here in this newsgroup.
>
>> Even when the Director of Central Intelligence admits in writing that the
>> CIA has been lying to Congress for several years, McAdams continues to
>> deny it.
>
> Source please.
Did you read my message about Panetta admitting that the CIA has been
lying to Congress? Oh, I forgot, McAdams erased it, to protect you.
>
>> Even a deathbed confession by a CIA officer that several CIA
>> officers assassinated President Kennedy means nothing to
>> someone like McAdams.
>
> What CIA officer made a deathbed confession? Who were the several CIA
> officers? E Howard Hunt made a deathbed opinion, not confession. He spiced
> it up with stuff he saw on TV.
>
>
Another denier.
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, stop doing that. One of your defenders just got through saying
that you would not be stupid enough to keep denying it.
The primary source is the sworn testimony in the Helms deposition.
John McAdams
Now *this* is interesting.
Martin claims that Joan Mellen has the document. But he won't tell us
what it is.
And *you* claim: "documents, you can't expect no stinkin' document!"
You and Martin need to have a talk.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Then post a link to the Helms Deposition!
.John
Martin Shackelford
things be spoon-fed to you.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:spbl55ldjasnpbj0k...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
Read the book. At one of the conferences I asked Mark Lane to upload all
the documents from the trial, but he knows nothing about computers.
Martin Shackelford
the Internet?
You and your friends have been working hard at Wikipedia to make
sure that isn't the case, and likely at other places as well.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4a5aadef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Are you one of those foolish enough to believe that everything is on
>the Internet?
>You and your friends have been working hard at Wikipedia to make
>sure that isn't the case, and likely at other places as well.
Oh, my!
A conspiracy to cleanse the Internet of conspiracy-oriented material.
Is Tony part of the conspiracy?
He could post the supposed deposition -- if it in fact existed.
Is the Mary Ferrell Archive part of the conspiracy? They could
certainly post it.
Where is it, Martin?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>You need to read a book, John, instead of continually demanding that
>things be spoon-fed to you.
>
There is no reason I should read any book until I know that the
central assertions are at least somewhat reasonable.
When I find that people like you won't defend those assertions -- or
discuss the evidence on which they are based -- I tend to believe it's
just another silly buff book.
Your own behavior gives it away, Martin.
If you had solid evidence -- if it existed in books like this -- you
would post it. But you refuse.
Case closed.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pamela
That is the routine of the WC apologist. Deny, deny, deny, and then
hope any road that is left leads back to the WCR.
Steve Thomas
> You need to read a book, John, instead of continually demanding that
> things be spoon-fed to you.
>
Maybe us rubes would shell out the dough for a few of these books if you
could ever provide a cite that would withstand scrutiny. We know you cant
though, because the books you cite suck and lack primary sources, or
misrepresent them altogether.
> Martin
>
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:spbl55ldjasnpbj0k...@4ax.com...
Steve Thomas
As opposed to the conspiracy buff routine of making an allegation,
being asked for proof, and then stonewall, stonewall, stonewall,
because there is no evidence of the proposed allegation.
Anthony Marsh
> On 13 Jul 2009 20:05:58 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> <msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Are you one of those foolish enough to believe that everything is on
>> the Internet?
>> You and your friends have been working hard at Wikipedia to make
>> sure that isn't the case, and likely at other places as well.
>
> Oh, my!
>
> A conspiracy to cleanse the Internet of conspiracy-oriented material.
>
> Is Tony part of the conspiracy?
>
> He could post the supposed deposition -- if it in fact existed.
>
Knock it off. Of course I don't have the deposition. Are you claiming that
it doesn't even exist, that the trial didn't even exist. Just because I do
not have something personally does not mean it never existed.
> Is the Mary Ferrell Archive part of the conspiracy? They could
> certainly post it.
>
Only Mark Lane has it.
Anthony Marsh
> On 2 Jul 2009 15:51:07 -0400, ShutterBun<shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
>> been a
>> paid informant
>> for the FBI."
>>
>
> to this effect.
>
> It was debunked, but Boggs was one of those WC members who didn't pay
> too much attention to the proceedings, and may simply have been
> unaware the claim was debunked.
>
Boggs was at that January 27, 1964 Executive Session and participated in
the discussion. So don't claim he was not there or not aware of the
rumor. I don't think they totally debunked the claim in that meeting.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0001a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0003a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0004a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0005a.htm
> Of course, it's possible Boggs said no such thing. We are dealing
> with unreliable data piled on top of unreliable data here.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
> >> Even a deathbed confession by a CIA officer that several CIA
> >> officers assassinated President Kennedy means nothing to
> >> someone like McAdams.
>
> > What CIA officer made a deathbed confession? Who were the several CIA
> > officers? E Howard Hunt made a deathbed opinion, not confession. He spiced
> > it up with stuff he saw on TV.
>
> Another denier.
E Howard Hunt would be overjoyed knowing you believed his story à
bouche ouverte, since the assassins were Corsican mafia. And of course
those guys would blend right in on the Tertre Herbeux. No one would
ever guess they were éstrangères.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>>> Even a deathbed confession by a CIA officer that several CIA
>>>> officers assassinated President Kennedy means nothing to
>>>> someone like McAdams.
>>
>>> What CIA officer made a deathbed confession? Who were the several CIA
>>> officers? E Howard Hunt made a deathbed opinion, not confession. He spiced
>>> it up with stuff he saw on TV.
>>
>> Another denier.
>
> bouche ouverte, since the assassins were Corsican mafia. And of course
> those guys would blend right in on the Tertre Herbeux. No one would
>
>
>
I am not talking about that part of his story. Just being approached by
a fellow CIA officer with a plan to assassinate President Kennedy.
>
>
Canuck
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
To clarify why I would respond with a common swear word, I was showing a
friend this newsgroup, and pointed out that three moderators take turns
reading comments before they are added. I mentioned to him that
occasionally, someone will put down another researcher, which is not
allowed, and the comment is therefore rejected. To show him how the site
works, I sent off my message, anticipating that it might be rejected, but
I guess "bullshit" is acceptable language these days, and my comment
wasn't directed at anyone in particular, although it looks like I'm
responding to John's comment.
Of course, I saved myself by adding "just kidding"!
Don't forget to read my three parter on PJM and LHO, as well as "Did
Oswald Come Back?" and "My Brief Correspondence with Aline Mosby" at Clint
Bradford's site: http://www.jfk-info.com/sitemap1.htm (I believe he is
revising the site but just follow his instructions when you get there).
- Peter R. Whitmey (alias "Canuck")
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:c1jn55104tglgfifp...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:25jn55hp07j9guf7l...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:be6c0ed4-7efc-42b0...@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I have ONLY questioned steve about the evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes.
So far, steve has RUN from those issues ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mnf7m.60$E61...@newsfe09.iad...
Sandy McCroskey
> Maybe you rubes should discover the public library.
>
> Martin
>
I doubt very much if the book in question is in many public libraries. You
may be peeved with John and some other folks here, but if you really
wanted (or had a ghost of a chance) to convince anybody (else) of
anything, you would provide citations, as is the normal practice in such
debates.
If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
fooling?
/sandy
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>This is one of your most evasive replies to date, John.
>
Huh? I asked "Where is it? [the document]" and you answer this way?
Who are you to talk about evasion?
You are going to convince nobody if you just continue to stonewall on
the evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Apparently you never get tired of wishfully declaring "Case Closed."
>
You'll never reopen the case unless you can produce some evidence.
But producing evidence seems to be against your principles.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Maybe you rubes should discover the public library.
>
Maybe you rubes should stick to the library and avoid the newsgroup
until you are willing to actually discuss evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Jul 15, 6:58 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Maybe you rubes should discover the public library.
>>
>
>I doubt very much if the book in question is in many public libraries. You
>may be peeved with John and some other folks here, but if you really
>wanted (or had a ghost of a chance) to convince anybody (else) of
>anything, you would provide citations, as is the normal practice in such
>debates.
>
>If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
>anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
>form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
>fooling?
>
>/sandy
Martin has done this many times.
Deep down, he must know that his "evidence" is terribly weak, else he
(and Mellen if it came from Mellen) would be posting it all over the
Internet.
My guess is that his "list of CIA assets in the Garrison
investigation" comes from some Garrisonite source, and simply
represents somebody's (Gaeton Fonzi, maybe) wacky opinion that this or
that person was an "asset."
The notion of "CIA assets" in the Garrison investigation is an old
one.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Secret internal CIA documents show that, in the vast majority of these
cases, the person had no connection with the CIA, and among those who
had a connection, none were "assets in the Garrison investigation."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> On 15 Jul 2009 18:58:40 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>
> >Maybe you rubes should discover the public library.
>
> Maybe you rubes should stick to the library and avoid the newsgroup
> until you are willing to actually discuss evidence.
>
> .John
LOL
Richard
> On 7/2/2009 3:51 PM, ShutterBun wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Warren Commission member Hale Boggs told Garrison that Oswald had
>> been a
>> paid informant
>> for the FBI."
>>
>
> Commission executive session. It was not true.
Wait a second. Oswald asked to speak to an FBI agent after he was arrested
in NO. (WCH Vol. 4, p 431 and following; testimony of Agent John Quigley)
So if he wasn't an informant, paid or otherwise, he was something.
>
>> I suppose it would be asking to much to request a cite for this?
>> (err...other than "Personal interview with Garrison" or somesuch)
>>
>> If Oswald was a paid informant to the FBI, I can make two conclusions:
>>
>> 1. Oswald didn't tell them jack squat
>> 2. He was paid accordingly
>>
>
> How do you know exactly how much FBI informants are paid? You have the
> records?
>
>> As a recent re-entry to the JFK scene, I expected to find more
>> perplexing challenges than this. 10 years absence seems to indicate
>> that not much has changed.
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> "In 1965, the Marcello gambling interests again supported Garrison's
>> opponent. Raymond Huff,
>> a U.S. Customs official close to Guy Banister, obtained Garrison's
>> military
>> medical record and
>> supplied it to Garrison's opponent, who selectively quoted it.
>>
>> Forgive my ignorance, but do you have any cites for Raymond Huff
>> supplying Garrison's military record to O'Hara? Did this come out in
>> Garrison's (err...federally?) charging of O'Hara with misappropriation
>> of Defense Department documents? (did anything come of that case, or
>> was it among Garrison's 275,000 other "charged, but not tried" cases?)
>>
>> Just curious. And I would really be interested in this Raymond Huff
>> character. And why he was (apparently) assisting Garrison's opponents
>> in a non-election year.
>>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
If the book is published in a publishing house and on sale in some
bookstores then it is likely in SOME library. Have you ever heard of a
thing called an inter-library loan? You can go to your local library and
use the computer to search the other libraries for the book and then
request your library to get it through a loan. Self-published books are
rarely in public libraries, but sometimes are donated.
> If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
> anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
> form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
> fooling?
>
Yeah, you mean the way YOU have scanned in so many book pages for us and
even done the courtesy of putting them into PDFs for us? Thanks for your
help. Just who do you think you're fooling?
> /sandy
>
Sandy McCroskey
Exactly. Although it's a self-published book, there is an outside
chance it might be in some library somewhere. Thank you.
Shackelford wouldn't make it necessary for anyone to jump through
hoops to check his story if he had any confidence the evidence.
>
> > If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
> > anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
> > form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
> > fooling?
>
> Yeah, you mean the way YOU have scanned in so many book pages for us and
> even done the courtesy of putting them into PDFs for us? Thanks for your
> help. Just who do you think you're fooling?
>
> > /sandy
Well, Marsh, I do believe that whenever I've cited a book, I've given
the page number, and usually at least one cut-and-pasted passage.
What do you want a PDF of, exactly? Just tell me, and I'll see what I
can do for you.
What obscure bit of evidence do I claim to have seen but cannot
provide any access to?
I can't think of any.
Sandy
Anthony Marsh
Yes, to start I need a PDF of the part of the book Cold Warrior which
discusses James Jesus Angleton. A PDF is better than a JPG because one can
cut and paste text. PDFs also may sometimes allow you to add comments and
attach documents if you format them correctly. See the manual. I've
noticed that some new books will have a PDF sample of a chapter or two,
maybe it's Amazon.com which does that. I've given URLs to a couple of
those.
Sandy McCroskey
Well, I never said I had that book, and have never discussed it here.
Maybe you should try your local library.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, thanks a lot for your help, "fellow researcher."
You don't even have the Warren Commission Report, do you?
Sandy McCroskey
You crack me up, Marsh!
Martin Shackelford
There are already plenty of fine JFK webpages.
Martin
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:777a35fe-736c-47bd...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
"self-published"?
It was published by JFK Lancer, which has published quite a number of books,
including
my own chronological presentation of Oswald's military service and medical
files.
Martin
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cbf1ce58-6bd9-4a23...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Jean
> I'm not going to create a webpage just to cater to McAdams and his cronies.
> There are already plenty of fine JFK webpages.
>
> Martin
When you post extraordinary claims, Martin, you shouldn't be
surprised that people ask you to back them up. I should think you'd
*want* to post such evidence.
If there's an actual CIA "internal document" that lists "11 CIA
assets close to Garrison," isn't it odd that none of the JFK webpages has
uploaded it, not even Joan Mellen's? Is this document reproduced in her
book?
Another claim -- "the CIA admitted" that Robert Webster was part of
a "false defector" program. Wow, an official admission that there were
fake defectors. And not a single JFK webpage presents this evidence,
according to Google? Who or what is the "CIA" source on that one, could
you please tell me that?
Jean
Sandy McCroskey
> I'm not going to create a webpage just to cater to McAdams and his cronies.
> There are already plenty of fine JFK webpages.
>
> Martin
>
"*For* McAdams and his cronies"? But supposedly this evidence would make
them eat their words. Why aren't you eager to shove it in their faces?
Who needs a PDF? You could copy out the relevant passage right here. WIth
the page number(s) and any relevant sourcing (e.g., if there are
footnotes).
That'd show 'em!
(Or would it...? Eh?)
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
> Whatever gave you the wacky idea that Mellen's book on Garrison was
> "self-published"?
> It was published by JFK Lancer, which has published quite a number of books,
> including
> my own chronological presentation of Oswald's military service and medical
> files.
>
> Martin
>
I don't see much difference between being "self-published" and being
published by a CT house like "JFK Lancer," to tell you the truth. I got
the impression that it was "self-published" because Tony Marsh mentioned,
in the context of a discussion of this book, that self- published books
are harder to find in libraries.
As far as that goes, I'm sure books published by JFK Lancer are just as
difficult to find in public libraries as the productions of the most
blatant vanity press.
/sandy
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 9:04 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> I'm not going to create a webpage just to cater to McAdams and his cronies.
>> There are already plenty of fine JFK webpages.
>>
>> > If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
>> > anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
>> > form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
>> > fooling?
>>
>> > /sandy
>
>
>"*For* McAdams and his cronies"? But supposedly this evidence would make
>them eat their words. Why aren't you eager to shove it in their faces?
>
>Who needs a PDF? You could copy out the relevant passage right here. WIth
>the page number(s) and any relevant sourcing (e.g., if there are
>footnotes).
>
>That'd show 'em!
>
>(Or would it...? Eh?)
>
Of course, the newsgroup accepts posts with binary attachments. Canal
is always sending such with his "inside the skull" photos.
Martin could scan any document that is "killer evidence" at attach it
to a newsgroup post.
He could e-mail it to anybody who asked.
He could xerox and snail mail it to anybody who asked.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7/5/2009 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>> <msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some other matters:
>>> Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert
>>> Webster was part
>>> of the program;
>>
>> Citation!
>>
>> Look . . . Martin, you seem to believe everything you read in
>> conspiracy books, and never seem to see the need to back up your
>> assertions.
>>
>
>More false charges. Martin and I are leading critics of some of the
>wacky conspiracy books.
>
>> But you really need to understand how that makes you look.
>>
>
>You don't care how your misrepresentations make you look.
>
>> So kindly post the evidence for a "false defector" program.
>>
Tony, I would think that *you,* of all people, would love to see
evidence of a "false defector" program.
Why aren't you pressing Martin to post it?
Why aren't you e-mailing Mellen and asking for a scan of the relevant
document?
Do you actually *care* whether this old chestnut is true?
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jul 1, 11:54=A0am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> You'll find the cites detailed in Joan Mellen's book,
>> Jim Garrison: His Life and Times--The Early Years
>>
>>
>> It has been suggested that Garrison's investigation was triggered by his
>> opposition to the Viet Nam
>> War, but in 1966, when he began the investigation, he was supporting the
>> Viet Nam War.
>>
>> Garrison critic Hoke May, of the New Orleans States-Item, reported that D=
>r.
>> Mary Sherman
>> knew David Ferrie.
>
>I am reading Let Justice Be Done (New Light On the Garrison
>Investigation)...lots of intrigue in Jackson, and Clinton, Shaw and
>Oswald, Maryland Farms episode with Lawrence Hall and Shaw, Perry
>Russo before the sodium pentahol smear...stuff that Garrison was
>handed instead of smeared that he went after..and of course lots of
>David Ferrie with lots of everybody's...and MK Ultra through Tulane at
>the hospital in Jackson and Oschner.
Huh!!??
Post the evidence linking Tulane and Oschner and the hospital in
Jackson with MK/ULTRA.
Anthony Marsh
That would do no good. The WC defenders just refuse to look at the
documents when we upload them. And you know that McAdams forbids binary
files here so that scans can not be shown in the body of the message.
That way he can pretend that he never saw the document.
Anthony Marsh
> On 6 Jul 2009 21:50:08 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/2009 8:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 1 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some other matters:
>>>> Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert
>>>> Webster was part
>>>> of the program;
>>>
>>> Citation!
>>>
>>> Look . . . Martin, you seem to believe everything you read in
>>> conspiracy books, and never seem to see the need to back up your
>>> assertions.
>>>
>>
>> More false charges. Martin and I are leading critics of some of the
>> wacky conspiracy books.
>>
>>> But you really need to understand how that makes you look.
>>>
>>
>> You don't care how your misrepresentations make you look.
>>
>>> So kindly post the evidence for a "false defector" program.
>>>
>
> Tony, I would think that *you,* of all people, would love to see
> evidence of a "false defector" program.
>
I have no doubt that Angleton set up a false defector program. But I do
not have the evidence to prove it. And BTW not all the false defectors
need to be CIA officers.
> Why aren't you pressing Martin to post it?
>
Pressing Martin to post something? I already tried before and it did no
good. Don't you remember who it was that found Judyth's letter to
President Kennedy? It wasn't Martin. It wasn't you. It wasn't Barb. It
wasn't Reitzes.
> Why aren't you e-mailing Mellen and asking for a scan of the relevant
> document?
>
Don't have her e-mail address. Can you point me to her Web site?
> Do you actually *care* whether this old chestnut is true?
>
Yes, but I realize that many things are true even if we do not yet have
the documents to prove it. A very long time ago I realized that the CIA
tried to assassinate Fidel Castro. I did not have to wait for the
Inspector General's report to come out. And BTW all copies of that report
were supposed to be destroyed. So, if the one remaining copy were not
found you would still be denying that the CIA tried to kill Castro. Maybe
you still do, despite the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Jul 2009 22:40:18 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 9:04 am, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> I'm not going to create a webpage just to cater to McAdams and his cronies.
>>> There are already plenty of fine JFK webpages.
>>>
>>>> If you really wanted (or thought you had a ghost of a chance) to convince
>>>> anybody of anything, you'd gladly provide access to the proof, in whatever
>>>> form: a PDF on a webpage, for example. Just who do you think you're
>>>> fooling?
>>>
>>>> /sandy
>>
>>
>> "*For* McAdams and his cronies"? But supposedly this evidence would make
>> them eat their words. Why aren't you eager to shove it in their faces?
>>
>> Who needs a PDF? You could copy out the relevant passage right here. WIth
>> the page number(s) and any relevant sourcing (e.g., if there are
>> footnotes).
>>
>> That'd show 'em!
>>
>> (Or would it...? Eh?)
>>
>
> Of course, the newsgroup accepts posts with binary attachments. Canal
> is always sending such with his "inside the skull" photos.
>
Not in the body of the message and several people have had trouble seeing
them or uploading them. Because you refuse to put alt.binaries.pictures on
your server. Maybe you are afraid of all the porn that gets posted into
it.
That is why I include URL links to my Web site. Then you and Barb refuse
to click on them and then you two pretend that I never uploaded the files
a few thousand times. Keep those blinders on.
> Martin could scan any document that is "killer evidence" at attach it
> to a newsgroup post.
>
Not necessarily.
> He could e-mail it to anybody who asked.
>
He e-mailed me a lot of documents about Judyth. YOU would not post them. I
linked to them on my Web site and then you and Barb pretended that you
could not see them.
Dave Yandell
kind enough to offer a prompt and helpful reply.
Regarding the claim about CIA infiltration in Garrison's office, Martin is
misremembering. Professor Mellen informs me that the document listing the
11 assets is *only at CIA headquarters*. Her information came from HSCA
staff (including L. J. Delsa residing in the NOLA area) who reported
having seen it at CIA but were not allowed to copy it or take notes. This
is why only a few of the names were given. Professor Mellen herself *has
not seen*, let alone possessed this document.
Regarding Robert Webster, Martin seems again to have seriously
misunderstood or misremembered. Professor Mellen's case for the false
defector claim is cumulative. There is no document in which the CIA
acknowledges him as being in a false defector program.
As Professor Mellen said in her note to me, "If you want CIA to spell out
that he was a false defector, etc. you won't, I don't believe[,] find
that. WHy should they create such a document[?]"
Professor Mellen identified the document in question as a memo summarizing
an interview, found in Webster's CIA file, conducted by Eleanor Reed from
the CIA's NYC office, who Mellen believes also debriefed Oswald after his
return from the USSR. After reading the document, I am uncertain that it
indicates involvement in a false defector program rather than Reed
interviewing a returned former defector for the Contact Division to gather
whatever information they can get. Obviously, one needs further context
established to come to a conclusion.
She referred me to a recent article of hers in which she cites this
document in whole. The following are excerpts from that very interesting
article, including the whole of Reed's interview summary memo.
Best,
Dave
From Joan Mellen, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald”, posted at
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald
The paper was originally presented on October 5, 2008. Its publication
history is given at the web link posted.
Oswald’s appearance in the Soviet Union was as a participant in the
Agency’s “false defector” program, in which he was joined by several
other young men, whose files can be found at the National Archives.
There is no document that names a “false defector program,” but that
does not mean such a program did not exist, and there are copious
files about various of the participants. James Angleton ran that
program. By putting the lie to the possibility that the Soviet Union
had sponsored the assassination, Nosenko’s statements implicitly
threatened to expose for whom Oswald was acting. Nosenko’s life became
a living hell after that.
…
The “Anderson” [DY: discovered to be a code name for Eleanor Reed by
Professor Mellen] who debriefed Oswald was, strictly speaking not
working directly for Robert T. Crowley, who headed up the CIA Contact
Division, Support Branch, the primary function of which was Counter
Intelligence. But she may have acted on his behalf in the debriefing.
I recount this information in my new little book, the prequel to “A
Farewell To Justice,” which I called “Jim Garrison: His Life and
Times.” (It was published by jfklancer).
…
Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet
Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false
defectors, is contained in a document I have just discovered and that
CIA released "as sanitized" in 1998. The document resides in Robert
Webster's file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several
reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can
await, with some expectation, that the parallel document of Oswald's
debriefing by Reed (with perhaps her frequent debriefing partner Rudy
("Valentino") Balaban), may well surface. This document demonstrates
beyond doubt Reed ("Anderson") was an SR6 debriefer; I copy it here in
full [ed. note: see 104-10182-10074]:
TO: Eleanor Reed
FROM: [03] IR/CR
SUBJECT: Appraisal of Interrogation
1. The eagerness of the subject to help and his repeated expressions
of regret for having neglected opportunities for more detailed
observations left me with mixed reactions. In my opinion this attitude
detracted from his otherwise seemingly genuine manner and at least for
me it “watered down” his attempt to generate a repentant impression.
2. The subject readily answered questions and was extremely friendly
during both periods of interrogation. Plottings and data, however, by
the subject on a blank town plan left him for homework later proved
disoriented. [sic]. The subject discovered his error during our second
meeting and volunteered corrections.
3. As far as substantive intelligence gained is concerned, the
interrogation provided data on a plant previously described as
possibly in the electronics business as a probable radar storage and
repair area. A hitherto unknown naval installation was also identified
and located in an area other than the one previously assumed.
4. It can be said that if the subject’s bona fides are definitely
established, positive intelligence gathered from him is of real
value.
[03]
GROUP 1
Excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification.
John McAdams
wrote:
>I took the liberty of contacting Professor Joan Mellen myself. She was
>kind enough to offer a prompt and helpful reply.
>
Good work on that.
>Regarding the claim about CIA infiltration in Garrison's office, Martin is
>misremembering. Professor Mellen informs me that the document listing the
>11 assets is *only at CIA headquarters*.
Translation: conveniently unavailable.
>Her information came from HSCA
>staff (including L. J. Delsa residing in the NOLA area) who reported
>having seen it at CIA but were not allowed to copy it or take notes. This
>is why only a few of the names were given. Professor Mellen herself *has
>not seen*, let alone possessed this document.
>
Well that certainly engenders confidence.
>Regarding Robert Webster, Martin seems again to have seriously
>misunderstood or misremembered. Professor Mellen's case for the false
>defector claim is cumulative. There is no document in which the CIA
>acknowledges him as being in a false defector program.
>
>As Professor Mellen said in her note to me, "If you want CIA to spell out
>that he was a false defector, etc. you won't, I don't believe[,] find
>that. WHy should they create such a document[?]"
>
Translation: "I have nothing."
>Professor Mellen identified the document in question as a memo summarizing
>an interview, found in Webster's CIA file, conducted by Eleanor Reed from
>the CIA's NYC office, who Mellen believes also debriefed Oswald after his
>return from the USSR. After reading the document, I am uncertain that it
>indicates involvement in a false defector program rather than Reed
>interviewing a returned former defector for the Contact Division to gather
>whatever information they can get. Obviously, one needs further context
>established to come to a conclusion.
>
>She referred me to a recent article of hers in which she cites this
>document in whole. The following are excerpts from that very interesting
>article, including the whole of Reed's interview summary memo.
>
>Best,
>Dave
>
>From Joan Mellen, �Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald�, posted at
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald
>
>The paper was originally presented on October 5, 2008. Its publication
>history is given at the web link posted.
>
>Oswald�s appearance in the Soviet Union was as a participant in the
>Agency�s �false defector� program, in which he was joined by several
>other young men, whose files can be found at the National Archives.
These were "defectors."
She has no evidence they were "false defectors."
>There is no document that names a �false defector program,� but that
Bingo!
>does not mean such a program did not exist, and there are copious
>files about various of the participants.
But how does one know they were "participants" unless one knows there
was a program.
>James Angleton ran that
>program. By putting the lie to the possibility that the Soviet Union
>had sponsored the assassination, Nosenko�s statements implicitly
>threatened to expose for whom Oswald was acting. Nosenko�s life became
>a living hell after that.
>
>�
>
>The �Anderson� [DY: discovered to be a code name for Eleanor Reed by
>Professor Mellen] who debriefed Oswald was, strictly speaking not
>working directly for Robert T. Crowley, who headed up the CIA Contact
>Division, Support Branch, the primary function of which was Counter
>Intelligence. But she may have acted on his behalf in the debriefing.
>I recount this information in my new little book, the prequel to �A
>Farewell To Justice,� which I called �Jim Garrison: His Life and
>Times.� (It was published by jfklancer).
>
>�
>
>Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet
>Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false
>defectors, is contained in a document I have just discovered and that
>CIA released "as sanitized" in 1998. The document resides in Robert
>Webster's file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several
>reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can
>await, with some expectation, that the parallel document of Oswald's
>debriefing by Reed
OIC. I don't *have* the document, but I posit it does exist.
>(with perhaps her frequent debriefing partner Rudy
>("Valentino") Balaban), may well surface. This document demonstrates
>beyond doubt Reed ("Anderson") was an SR6 debriefer; I copy it here in
>full [ed. note: see 104-10182-10074]:
>
>TO: Eleanor Reed
>FROM: [03] IR/CR
>SUBJECT: Appraisal of Interrogation
>
>1. The eagerness of the subject to help and his repeated expressions
>of regret for having neglected opportunities for more detailed
>observations left me with mixed reactions. In my opinion this attitude
>detracted from his otherwise seemingly genuine manner and at least for
>me it �watered down� his attempt to generate a repentant impression.
But a "false defector" would not need to "generate a repentant
impression."
A real defector would.
>2. The subject readily answered questions and was extremely friendly
>during both periods of interrogation. Plottings and data, however, by
>the subject on a blank town plan left him for homework later proved
>disoriented. [sic]. The subject discovered his error during our second
>meeting and volunteered corrections.
>3. As far as substantive intelligence gained is concerned, the
>interrogation provided data on a plant previously described as
>possibly in the electronics business as a probable radar storage and
>repair area. A hitherto unknown naval installation was also identified
>and located in an area other than the one previously assumed.
>4. It can be said that if the subject�s bona fides are definitely
>established, positive intelligence gathered from him is of real
>value.
>
Huh??!!
*If* the subject's bona fides are extablished?
Is it a "false defector" or not?
Welcome to the wacky world of "I don't need evidence, I just posit
stuff" buffs.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
William Yates
And you didn't think to look for that letter yourself; you doubted it
still existed.
>
>> Why aren't you e-mailing Mellen and asking for a scan of the relevant
>> document?
>>
>
> Don't have her e-mail address. Can you point me to her Web site?
Ever heard of something called "Google"?
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
This is what Martin does. He takes already dubious information,
embellishes upon it and garbles it, stonewalls on evidence, makes excuses,
calls those who correct him and his sources a bunch of liars, then moves
on to the next trainwreck. For just a few examples, see:
http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-shackelford.html
Dave
> From Joan Mellen, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald”, posted athttp://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_...
Dave Yandell
> On 23 Jul 2009 22:00:32 -0400, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com>
Yeah, on careful reading, it certainly sounds like Reed didn't know
whether the subject (presumably Webster) would have substantial
intelligence, or what kind of stuff it would be or whether he would be
cooperative with the CIA or truly sorry for having devected or whether he
was a good-faith former defector.
Section 4 reads more as if she was worried that a genuine defector had
been sent back with bogus information by the Russians than that he was a
CIA false defector.
Obviously, other information might support to the conclusion that there
was a false defector program, but Martin Shackelford seems to have taken a
conclusion drawn (correctly or incorrectly) from a range of data by Joan
Mellen, then forced his own misunderstanding of her claim back into a
document that existed only in his imagination and the implausibility of
which Mellen clearly sees while Martin is somehow blind to.
This does explain Martin's inability to produce a document or reference
supporting his highly fanciful claim from the root post of this thread:
"Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert Webster was
part of the program"
This makes all of his bluster as if people were unreasonable to want to
check his sources understandable, but not in a way that does him or his
noisy advocates in this thread any credit.
Perhas an admission by Martin of sloppiness and an apology for nearly
giving birth to a bogus factoid would be more in order than sneering about
other people's requests for citations.
Everyone makes mistakes. I know I do, but what happens next tells us a lot
about someone's credibility.
Best to all,
Dave
Dave Yandell
which I sorted out the mess you made when you butchered (at least) two
claims about memos regarding the CIA from Joan Mellen's new book, then
seemed to get a bad case of the vapors at the very suggestion that you
ought to offer citations for *your* claims (which in neither case match
*hers*).
Will you please retract your misstated claims? How about conceding that
people were right to query your sources and apologizing for the way you
reacted when they did?
Regards,
Dave
On Jul 24, 6:50 pm, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Jul 2009 22:00:32 -0400, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I took the liberty of contacting Professor Joan Mellen myself. She was
> > >kind enough to offer a prompt and helpful reply.
> > >Regarding the claim about CIA infiltration in Garrison's office, Martin is
> > >misremembering. Professor Mellen informs me that the document listing the
> > >11 assets is *only at CIA headquarters*.
> > >Her information came from HSCA staff (including L. J. Delsa residing in the NOLA area) who reported
> > >having seen it at CIA but were not allowed to copy it or take notes. This
> > >is why only a few of the names were given. Professor Mellen herself *has
> > >not seen*, let alone possessed this document.
>
> > >Regarding Robert Webster, Martin seems again to have seriously
> > >misunderstood or misremembered. Professor Mellen's case for the false
> > >defector claim is cumulative. There is no document in which the CIA
> > >acknowledges him as being in a false defector program.
>
> > >As Professor Mellen said in her note to me, "If you want CIA to spell out
> > >that he was a false defector, etc. you won't, I don't believe[,] find
> > >that. WHy should they create such a document[?]"
>
> > >Professor Mellen identified the document in question as a memo summarizing
> > >an interview, found in Webster's CIA file, conducted by Eleanor Reed from
> > >the CIA's NYC office, who Mellen believes also debriefed Oswald after his
> > >return from the USSR. After reading the document, I am uncertain that it
> > >indicates involvement in a false defector program rather than Reed
> > >interviewing a returned former defector for the Contact Division to gather
> > >whatever information they can get. Obviously, one needs further context
> > >established to come to a conclusion.
>
> > >She referred me to a recent article of hers in which she cites this
> > >document in whole. The following are excerpts from that very interesting
> > >article, including the whole of Reed's interview summary memo.
>
> > >Best,
> > >Dave
>
> > >From Joan Mellen, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald”, posted at
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_...
>
> > >The paper was originally presented on October 5, 2008. Its publication
> > >history is given at the web link posted.
>
> > >Oswald’s appearance in the Soviet Union was as a participant in the
> > >Agency’s “false defector” program, in which he was joined by several
> > >other young men, whose files can be found at the National Archives.
> > >There is no document that names a “false defector program,” but that
> > >does not mean such a program did not exist, and there are copious
> > >files about various of the participants.
> > >James Angleton ran that
> > >program. By putting the lie to the possibility that the Soviet Union
> > >had sponsored the assassination, Nosenko’s statements implicitly
> > >threatened to expose for whom Oswald was acting. Nosenko’s life became
> > >a living hell after that.
> > >…
> > >The “Anderson” [DY: discovered to be a code name for Eleanor Reed by
> > >Professor Mellen] who debriefed Oswald was, strictly speaking not
> > >working directly for Robert T. Crowley, who headed up the CIA Contact
> > >Division, Support Branch, the primary function of which was Counter
> > >Intelligence. But she may have acted on his behalf in the debriefing.
> > >I recount this information in my new little book, the prequel to “A
> > >Farewell To Justice,” which I called “Jim Garrison: His Life and
> > >Times.” (It was published by jfklancer).
>
> > >…
>
> > >Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet
> > >Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false
> > >defectors, is contained in a document I have just discovered and that
> > >CIA released "as sanitized" in 1998. The document resides in Robert
> > >Webster's file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several
> > >reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can
> > >await, with some expectation, that the parallel document of Oswald's
> > >debriefing by Reed (with perhaps her frequent debriefing partner Rudy
> > >("Valentino") Balaban), may well surface. This document demonstrates
> > >beyond doubt Reed ("Anderson") was an SR6 debriefer; I copy it here in
> > >full [ed. note: see 104-10182-10074]:
>
> > >TO: Eleanor Reed
> > >FROM: [03] IR/CR
> > >SUBJECT: Appraisal of Interrogation
>
> > >1. The eagerness of the subject to help and his repeated expressions
> > >of regret for having neglected opportunities for more detailed
> > >observations left me with mixed reactions. In my opinion this attitude
> > >detracted from his otherwise seemingly genuine manner and at least for
> > >me it “watered down” his attempt to generate a repentant impression.
> > >2. The subject readily answered questions and was extremely friendly
> > >during both periods of interrogation. Plottings and data, however, by
> > >the subject on a blank town plan left him for homework later proved
> > >disoriented. [sic]. The subject discovered his error during our second
> > >meeting and volunteered corrections.
> > >3. As far as substantive intelligence gained is concerned, the
> > >interrogation provided data on a plant previously described as
> > >possibly in the electronics business as a probable radar storage and
> > >repair area. A hitherto unknown naval installation was also identified
> > >and located in an area other than the one previously assumed.
> > >4. It can be said that if the subject’s bona fides are definitely
> > >established, positive intelligence gathered from him is of real
> > >value.
> Obviously, other information might support to the conclusion that there
> was a false defector program, but Martin Shackelford seems to have taken a
> conclusion drawn (correctly or incorrectly) from a range of data by Joan
> Mellen, then forced his own misunderstanding of her claim back into a
> document that existed only in his imagination and the implausibility of
> which Mellen clearly sees while Martin is somehow blind to.
>
> This does explain Martin's inability to produce a document or reference
> supporting his highly fanciful claim from the root post of this thread:
>
> "Oswald and the false defector program; CIA admitted Robert Webster was
> part of the program"
>
> This makes all of his bluster as if people were unreasonable to want to
> check his sources understandable, but not in a way that does him or his
> noisy advocates in this thread any credit.
>
> Perhas an admission by Martin of sloppiness and an apology for nearly
> giving birth to a bogus factoid would be more in order than sneering about
> other people's requests for citations.
>
> Everyone makes mistakes. I know I do, but what happens next tells us a lot
> about someone's credibility.
>
> Best to all,
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> TOP POST: Martin: To make this easy for you, here are the recent posts in
> which I sorted out the mess you made when you butchered (at least) two
> claims about memos regarding the CIA from Joan Mellen's new book, then
> seemed to get a bad case of the vapors at the very suggestion that you
> ought to offer citations for *your* claims (which in neither case match
> *hers*).
>
> Will you please retract your misstated claims? How about conceding that
> people were right to query your sources and apologizing for the way you
> reacted when they did?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
LOL. Good luck with that.
Dave