Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Garrison was accused of Child Molesting!


Recommended Posts

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say?

Robert,

Did you really mean to say you think it's "normal" for some humans to have sex with underaged persons? Perhaps you mis-spoke?

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course, the answer to that is laughable when it applies to most presidents … the drug addicted street hooker is usually th *far* more reliable source.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say?

Robert,

Do you really think it's "normal" for humans to have sex with underaged persons? I don't. Perhaps you mis-spoke.

I think you know what I mean. In a country of 300 million people it is *normal* for pedophilia to exist just as it is *normal* for people to murder each other; they have been doing that since the beginning of time. Ever heard of Adam and Eve, the apple and sin? It is also *normal* for a truckload of hypocritical politicians to lie about their sex lives and criminal sex lives.

Ever watch To Catch a Predator on NBC? Some of your politicans are doing the same as those jokers on TV; except they usually have more political pull to get off the charges.

Didn't mean to forget Jeffrey Epstein - who had his own pedophile ring of underage women - he is also CFR member, very rich and got his lawyers to rig the system for him when he should be in jail for a long, long time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/# No time in jail for him, just settle a few lawsuits, make the victims sign confidentiality agreements and he is on his way.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say?

Robert,

Do you really think it's "normal" for humans to have sex with underaged persons? I don't. Perhaps you mis-spoke.

I think you know what I mean. In a country of 300 million people it is *normal* for pedophilia to exist just as it is *normal* for people to murder each other; they have been doing that since the beginning of time. Ever heard of Adam and Eve, the apple and sin? It is also *normal* for a truckload of hypocritical politicians to lie about their sex lives and criminal sex lives.

Ever watch To Catch a Predator on NBC? Some of your politicans are doing the same as those jokers on TV; except they usually have more political pull to get off the charges.

Didn't mean to forget Jeffrey Epstein - who had his own pedophile ring of underage women - he is also CFR member, very rich and got his lawyers to rig the system for him when he should be in jail for a long, long time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/# No time in jail for him, just settle a few lawsuits, make the victims sign confidentiality agreements and he is on his way.

While I don't want to digress too far from the topic, I must say that characterizing otherwise heinous crimes as "normal" tends to minimize--even trivialize--their significance, IMO.

So, Robert, since we aren't speaking in "statistical" terminology, the meaning of the term "normal behavior" when taken colloquially, is "regular or standard" behavior. I don't think

the activities you described are, under that definition, "normal" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

By the way was great to finally chat on the phone last night, your a great guy, and I look forward to more conversations. This is an amazing and complex case, yes?

10 more minutes you would have been a CT ahahahahahahahahahah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad Mike, I though the "In conclusion..." part was added by you

And I think you mean if we talked for another 10 minutes I would have been a LN

However we could have talked until 5 in the morning and I would still be die hard CT lol

I did enjoy talking to you Mike and I notice that while we are on different sides we agree on like 80% of the assassination and 100% views on other subjects

Its weird how that works, my guess is that the 20% of the stuff we dont agree on (Like Mexico City) are the main subjects in why we believe what we believe

I look forward to talking to you again my friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure.

This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!"

Or did Lambert write that too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure.

This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!"

Or did Lambert write that too?

Michael,

Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea?

I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said.

IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad Mike, I though the "In conclusion..." part was added by you

And I think you mean if we talked for another 10 minutes I would have been a LN

However we could have talked until 5 in the morning and I would still be die hard CT lol

I did enjoy talking to you Mike and I notice that while we are on different sides we agree on like 80% of the assassination and 100% views on other subjects

Its weird how that works, my guess is that the 20% of the stuff we dont agree on (Like Mexico City) are the main subjects in why we believe what we believe

I look forward to talking to you again my friend

YES I meant LN lol.

It was amazing at how much of the assassination we do agree on.

I look forward to further discussions, call anytime my friend.

But beware some think I am a bile spitting demon lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure.

This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!"

Or did Lambert write that too?

Michael,

Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea?

I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said.

IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

I think that Mike Hogan makes a good point. Here's my take: Mike Williams' bias clearly appeared (past tense) to be

strongly anti-Garrison at the beginning of this thread. He has since backed off, ever so slightly, from pushing

that original pursuit. As I understand it, he is weighing new evidence and seeking more.

If true, perhaps progress is being made here after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure.

This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!"

Or did Lambert write that too?

Michael,

Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea?

I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said.

IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

I think that Mike Hogan makes a good point. Here's my take: Mike Williams' bias clearly appeared (past tense) to be

strongly anti-Garrison at the beginning of this thread. He has since backed off, ever so slightly, from pushing

that original pursuit. As I understand it, he is weighing new evidence and seeking more.

If true, perhaps progress is being made here after all.

Greg,

Why am I not surprised that you hit the nail on the head?

I asked for further information, and am reading each post and considering its implications. I have to be completely honest here and say that Jimmy D is someone who I find marginal in the credibility dept, you however I find far more credible. If you have reasons to believe that this is just foolishness, I have to give that great weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea?

I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said.

IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

How do you expect readers to know you cut and pasted your title and sub-title from elsewhere?

Particularly when you failed to use quotation marks; would that have been too much trouble?

What's the story behind the misspellings?

Did I miss the title somewhere in the text of your post?

If all you desired was input, you could have chosen a less inflammatory way of formatting your topic title.

C'mon Mike

PS) And where there is smoke there is often fire most certainly applies to indications of conspiracy in President Kennedy's murder.

Do you not understand that simple idea?

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Guest Robert Morrow

Folks, I just read pp. 232-243 in False Witness by Patricia Lambert. She convinced me that Jim Garrison had some sexual issues, particularly that he tried to fondle the genitals of a very young boy at the New Orleans Athletic Club in 1969. And that he probably liked very young sexual partners - boys or girls.

Lambert might be a right wing ideologue; she might even be a lone nutter. And her publisher is M. Stanton and Company, Inc., a right wing publisher. So she and they might have an agenda to "take down" Jim Garrison.

Having said that, Patricia Lambert convinced me Garrison had some pedophile issues. She then spends the next few pages calling Jim Garrison a charming psychopath and suggesting that we read Robert Hare's book Without Conscience on psychopaths as a way of understanding Garrison.

I got to thinking. Ok, Garrison might have had some serious personality issues. But he was right on the money about the CIA murdering John Kennedy. He just did not have enough evidence to take Clay Shaw to court, and, of course, Garrison was being subverted by the government in hundred underhanded and illegal ways. Lots of dirty pool being played in New Orleans.

Speaking of psychopaths, I suggest Patricia Lambert read LBJ: the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson and she what she things about LBJ. Or a good biography on James Angleton, the CIA's director of counterintelligence who many credible researchers think played a key role in the JFK assassination or at the very least covering up and running Oswald.

Or maybe google "Chip Tatum Pegasus" and see if she thinks George Herbert Walker Bush is a "psychopath" or mafia don - someone who made a life career out of deception, assassinations and living above and outside the law. Or read the Franklin Cover Up, a story about a 1980's pedophile ring that GHW Bush was involved with in the 1980's. GHW Bush was in Dallas the day before and the day of the JFK assassination and I think he was involved in it.

And then perhaps take a look at CIA Air Force Major General Edward Lansdale who was photographed at TSBD and identified by Prouty and Krulak. Lansdale was the CIA's expert in coups, propaganda and assassinations. Fletcher Prouty said that Lansdale used to interrogate several Vietnames prisoners by taking a few up in helicoptors ... then tossing one or 2 out to their deaths to see if it might prompt the others to talk. Would that be a psychopath?

My take on Garrison: 1) right on the JFK assassination 2) should not have taken Clay Shaw to trial based on the flimsy evidence of Shaw's role in the JFK assassination 3) Garrison might very well have been a person with pedophile tendencies and at the very least a closet homosexual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51)

In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52)

Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53)

In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54)

The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55)

The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56)

"When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57)

The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58)

"I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59)

Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60)

Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61)

All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions.

From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks:

Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public.

For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness.

Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!

And, I was once of the opinion that I was the only one here who was sufficiently foolish enough to attempt to cast a few unsavory facts about Jimbo.

Tom

P.S. I got your back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51)

In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52)

Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53)

In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54)

The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55)

The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56)

"When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57)

The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58)

"I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59)

Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60)

Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61)

All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions.

From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks:

Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public.

For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness.

Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!

And, I was once of the opinion that I was the only one here who was sufficiently foolish enough to attempt to cast a few unsavory facts about Jimbo.

Tom

P.S. I got your back!

Enjoy his back, Tom... The dude still can't convince anyone here who has a modicum of case knowledge that LHO acted alone and the WCR wasn't a farce...

Sgt Mikey simply needs an audience at the cost of JGarrison's defects or not of character... So he advances nothing other than wasting bandwidth. Have a nice Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...