Jump to content


Spartacus

Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw (2013)


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:09 AM

In his book, Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw (2013) Donald H. Carpenter argues that during his research he discovered a letter from Shaw to Guy Banister in 1962.

 

 

 

 



#2 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:37 PM

In his book, Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw (2013) Donald H. Carpenter argues that during his research he discovered a letter from Shaw to Guy Banister in 1962.

 

 

 

 

 

Since this supposed letter was written in 1962, I've got fifty bucks that says this letter -- assuming it exists-- says absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. In his capacity as head of the New Orleans Trade Mart, Shaw no doubt wrote many letters to many people about many subjects, so a letter to Guy Bannister in 1962 about some miscellaneous subject.......???

 

P.S. Since it is Res Judicata that Clay Shaw was innocent of involvement in the JFK assassination,

doesn't this thread belong on another forum?

 

PPS Welcome back John, hope you enjoyed your vacation.  Thank you for restoring the forum to its rightful place on the internet hierarchy.



#3 B. A. Copeland

B. A. Copeland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:23 PM

Carroll......'Res Judicata' or not....Shaw was absolutely guilty and his involvement was concealed and consistently covered up. It looks pretty horrible however when you have Intelligence Services and God knows who else working with you against one man. This is far more significant (Simkin's topic) because Shaw obviously knew Bannister and taken into context of the JFK murder, it is something that any serious researcher should not ignore.

 

There can be instances where "Res Judicata" is irrelevant (and when Jurisprudence has been obstructed or 'tampered' with as in the case of the JFK murder). We can see this throughout all US history in partcular, where the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of Slavery for example.



#4 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:34 AM

OK, Mr. Copeland,

 

Let's agree to differ.


Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 18 July 2013 - 12:36 AM.


#5 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:32 AM

I see it from both sides. To me, Clay Shaw was probably a CIA asset, who almost certainly knew fellow assets Ferrie and Banister, not to mention the lawyer who started it all, Dean Andrews. It seems probable, moreover, that Oswald had come in contact with some, if not all, of these men.

 

That doesn't mean they conspired to kill Kennedy and blame it on Oswald, however. That part of Garrison's case was incredibly weak. I mean, I'm willing to suspect Ferrie and Banister's involvement in the assassination. I just don't trust Perry Russo's memory on all this, and suspect the jury finding Shaw not guilty felt the same way.

 

So, in short, I find Carpenter's book of interest.



#6 Guest_Robert Morrow_*

Guest_Robert Morrow_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:20 AM

I see it from both sides. To me, Clay Shaw was probably a CIA asset, who almost certainly knew fellow assets Ferrie and Banister, not to mention the lawyer who started it all, Dean Andrews. It seems probable, moreover, that Oswald had come in contact with some, if not all, of these men.

 

That doesn't mean they conspired to kill Kennedy and blame it on Oswald, however. That part of Garrison's case was incredibly weak. I mean, I'm willing to suspect Ferrie and Banister's involvement in the assassination. I just don't trust Perry Russo's memory on all this, and suspect the jury finding Shaw not guilty felt the same way.

 

So, in short, I find Carpenter's book of interest.

 

Garrison had a pitifully weak case against Clay Shaw for the murder of John Kennedy. Garrison was 100% right that the CIA (aka the government) murdered John Kennedy. Garrison should have dropped his charges against Clay Shaw, but he forged ahead on a charge of the Light Brigade with disastrous consequences.

 

Garrison also had some nasty things to say about Lyndon Johnson and how he was covering up the case and obstructing justice more than any other person.


Edited by Robert Morrow, 18 July 2013 - 02:25 AM.


#7 Don Jeffries

Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction and nonfiction. My first published work, the 2007 sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," has been acclaimed by the likes of "Night at the Museum" screenwriter and "Reno 911" actor Robert Ben Garant and multi-award winning author and former Harvard Professor Alexander Theroux. A second edition is in the works. My nonfiction book "Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics," was released in November 2014 by Skyhorse Publishing.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:03 AM

Garrison was clearly on the right track. This is borne out by the way he was treated by tptb. The mainstream media attacked him viciously, in the same way they would attack Oliver Stone some 25 years later. In an unprecedented move, the governors of several states (including then Ca. Gov. Ronald Reagan) refused to extradite witnesses Garrison requested. And the convenient, unnatural deaths of crucial witnesses like David Ferrie and Eladio del Valle are part of the pattern we see in all these cases.

 

I believe that Garrison had identified, and was targeting, the group of conspirators whom Oswald was told, by whatever intelligence agency he was working for, was plotting to assassinate the President. I don't think Clay Shaw, Bannister, Ferrie and co. were the prime movers behind the assassination, and to some degree may have been patsies themselves. But, like Garrison, I believe this is what Oswald was on assignment for at the time of the assassination; to infiltrate this particular group.

 

Garrison wasn't perfect, but he was the only legal figure in this country to ever attempt to prosecute anyone for the murder of JFK. We know for certain that Shaw had CIA ties, as was revealed many years ago by ex-Agency official Victor Marchetti. Whatever Shaw's role was, and how much he actually knew about the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, he was associated in some manner with Oswald, Ferrie, Bannister and others. If Garrison had received the cooperation from the rest of our judicial system that the average state Attorney General routinely does, if his witnesses had not been eliminated, and if the mainstream media had not launched an ugly smear campaign against him, his investigation might have been completely different, and may very well have eventually exposed the upper tier of conspirators.



#8 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:45 AM

 

That doesn't mean they conspired to kill Kennedy and blame it on Oswald, however. That part of Garrison's case was incredibly weak. 

 

But that was Garrison's ENTIRE CASE, and it relied ENTIRELY on the ridiculous, uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo.



#9 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:45 PM

 

 

That doesn't mean they conspired to kill Kennedy and blame it on Oswald, however. That part of Garrison's case was incredibly weak. 

 

But that was Garrison's ENTIRE CASE, and it relied ENTIRELY on the ridiculous, uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo.

 

 

 

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

 

In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".

 

Tom

 

P.S.  John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum.  With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.

 

Many of which can be found on this forum.



#10 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 19 July 2013 - 01:43 PM

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

 

 

 

 

Tom: Could you please elaborate on this. Who created the smoke screen?



#11 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:13 PM

 

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

 

 

 

 

Tom: Could you please elaborate on this. Who created the smoke screen?

 

 

First off, history needs to be corrected in that Lee Harvey Oswald was of Louisiana (& Primarily New Orleans) descent.

 

As most persons are aware, one does not s**t in their own back yard, and Dallas, TX with it's radical right element was certainly a good location in which to assassinate a President of the US and ultimately have the deed blamed on Dallas and it's right-wing politics.

 

The "power structure" within New Orleans lies not with those who are currently in what is some temporary political position.

It lies with those who possess the capability to place these persons in the various political positions.

 

Therefore, Jim Garrison, not unlike any other political figure in New Orleans, did what he was instructed to do or else he suffered the consequences.

 

Now, if one could only resolve exactly who, within the deep south city of New Orleans, LA, would have reason to replace JFK.

 

Hint:  It would be those who, for whatever reason, had the means and reasons to end Fidel Castro's control of Cuba.

         Just perhaps someone whom United Fruit entrusted to their most confidential tasks.

 

 

(just more of my riddles, I am certain of)



#12 Karl Kinaski

Karl Kinaski

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austria

Posted 18 August 2013 - 11:25 AM

kindle version MAN OF A MILLION FRAGMENTS

 

keen!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users