Dr. Gregg Wager

This book is about the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash, but also cross references to the topics of Leonard Peltier, Legal Hermeneutics, and Postmodern law.

For another perspective on Tom O'Neill's book and others, I write about this in the newest issue (016) of garrison: https://www.lulu.com/shop/midnuight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-016/paperback/product-2mvrd2v.html?page=1&pageSize=4

Here's a follow-up: https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/03/02/was-liberal-activist-allard-lowenstein-a-nyc-congressman-who-headed-dump-johnson-movement-in-1968-and-investigated-robert-kennedys-assassination-a-cia-asset/

I know it came down to a big battle in court whether Silverstein should be paid twice for two separate attacks, and Silverstein won. It would have been a brave insurance investigator indeed to challenge what had become a false flag operation blamed on Al-Qaeda terrorists. We hear a lot about Project for a New American Century (PNAC) being part of the plan (which included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz), as well as William Kristol (whose father Irving was an editor for one of the CIA's front publications during the Cold War). Gore Vidal was an early skeptic and also mentioned a probable role for Zbigniew Brzezinski as someone who advocated a New Pearl Harbor (Vidal eventually recanted his suspicions).

I lived in Manhattan during 9/11 and remember a colorful newspaper (the New York Observer) which I wrote a few music reviews for in 2001. Every issue had a large color caricature of a prominent New Yorker on it. I remember the caricature of Larry Silverstein when he got the 99-year lease to the World Trade Center only a few months before 9/11. He was fast becoming one of the biggest land developers in Manhattan and a scheme to demolish the buildings on WTC to collect insurance (twice it turned out--considered two terror attacks because there were two airplanes) and then rebuild would make him a ruthless operator indeed (not to mention mass murderer). Many people also don't mention that 9/11 was an election day for Mayor, and I had gone out early to vote (that is, before the planes hit--the election was of course cancelled later in the day). Local news interrupted the Today Show with the first news of a plane hitting the north tower, but there was a complete blank in terms of news gathering after that until all four planes were down. No one could identify the flights or what airport they had departed from. Even a hijacking by itself would have been national news and would have interrupted any scheduled program not more than five minutes after it occurred. An air traffic controller in Connecticut heard a broadcast from Flight 11 and knew the plane had been hijacked 20 minutes before it hit the north tower. Not one word until more than an hour later.

David Ray Griffin writes a terrific article about the collapse of WTC 7 in the newest "garrison" magazine (I have an article in there as well). Shouldn't we wait until a plausible explanation for the Surfside building collapse is available? Watching the security camera footage, I see a similar "free fall" during the first part of the collapse and then another free fall during the final collapse, after the remaining building seems to be leaning a bit. Also, I see several small, bright explosions in this footage (very similar to WTC 1 and 2). We shouldn't rule out anything yet (including foul play in Florida).

I hope you get a chance to read my article in the new Garrison on Lowenstein. He is a key figure to unlocking a lot of intrigue of his day.

Garrison Issue 007 has a new article by me regarding Lowenstein's assassin and schizophrenia: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews

An interview about my career as a music journalist: https://musicjournalism.substack.com/p/gregg-wager-interview

I'm drawing from my personal experience with Halberstam, because I can't find the source of Abbie Hoffman calling "Best and the Brightest" his favorite book. Back in the 1980s when I was a classical music critic with the LA Times, I had a friend a few decades older than me who was a classical music buff and worked as a probation officer in Pasadena. He had an odd assortment of young men my age who were his close friends and had been at one time on probation. He was the one who not only told me that "Best and the Brightest" was Hoffman's favorite book, but that he thought Halberstam was the "greatest journalist of his generation." When I finally read Halberstam, I knew I had been had, since it was yet another book trying to put down JFK and doing it implausibly. I wondered if this probation officer was on some secret mission to get and keep us young radicals in line. I'm glad to know Vann was feeding Halberstam a very lopsided position on things, but I still think there was a concerted effort (probably led by the CIA) to destroy JFK's legacy; and Halberstam's book was used to help along this purpose.

Prouty's account of Chiang Kai Shek's picture omitted from the Teheran Conference has always been one of my favorite examples of how the narratives of history become revised and false. The encounter between Elliott Roosevelt and Stalin still remains by and large unknown and shocking. http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html

Yes, I would concur easily detecting something fishy about Halberstam's slant, although I remember reading his Fifties book without many suspicions. Didn't know much about Vann. I was in kindergarten when JFK was assassinated but remember clearly the high regard he was held under until gradually books like Halberstam's and Seymour Hersch's started to pick away at his legacy (no such picking away at Johnson or Reagan, who are much easier targets). I confess I had a sweet tooth for reading Sherman Skolnik when he was alive (and corresponding with him). He had no trouble accusing the Chicago Seven of being provocateurs. I also remember Abbie Hoffman appearing on the McGlaughlin Group in his later years and wondered how things got so topsy turvy. I have yet to figure out what Ken Burns is ultimately up to. His New York documentary was very compelling. As a musicologist, I found his Jazz documentary to be downright silly and sacrilegious (blame his reliance on Wynton Marsalis). Vietnam was noticeably watered down.

I always felt "the Best and Brightest" was a disingenuously slanted book. Abbie Hoffman said it was his favorite book, which makes me think he was just as disingenuous.

If you've ever driven a taxi cab or ambulance (or used a CB radio, for that matter), you know that there can be up to 10 open mikes at one time in a group of 50 or more drivers on the same frequency. It would not typically happen on a motorcycle, because it usually occurs when the driver drops the microphone in their lap and sits on it. Certainly, the HSCA made an embarrassing mess of many things (especially neutron activation, which has also now been thoroughly debunked). That doesn't stop me from wondering exactly what is on the Dictabelt. If it was actually made during the event, it should be treated like other evidence (e.g. films) and be thoroughly analyzed. My recollection is that the acoustic team used mathematical probability to conclude that the sonic impulses they found (which could not be heard, only indicated on their equipment) matched generally the sounds of gunshots fired within the time frame. I especially find it unbelievable that there was a carillon on the recording, but after more than fifty years, no one has ever stepped forward who knew where that carillon was in the city of Dallas. Bugliosi laughably uses several pages to ineptly examine the Doppler effect that occurs on the recording, obviously having no idea whatsoever what the Doppler effect is (not even a proofreader bothers to explain it to him--I learned about the Doppler effect in high school--it's not rocket science). Can't anything at all be done competently to analyze this Dictabelt recording?

I have the advantage of graduating from law school, although I'm not a practicing attorney. Still, I remember my criminal law professor claiming that most practicing prosecutors in America could indict a ham sandwich for just about anything. I also notice many researchers stumbling on the cold and ruthless legalism that dead people have no rights. In other words, once LHO was dead, he no longer had a right to due process of law (including valid chains of evidence, cross examination of witnesses, facing accusers, let alone proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Years ago, I looked up Sergio Arcacha Smith's office address in Houston on Google maps and it wasn't far (within a few blocks) from the ice skating rink where David Ferrie was making all his telephone calls on 11/22.

Thanks for responding, Greg, but you take a lot of space with arguments I would not spend much time on. Give me and Mr. Garrison a little more credit. Banister and Ferrie stockpiled crates of weapons stolen from Schlumberger at Banister's office. Shaw frequently showed up there with full knowledge and support of the activity and of further gun-running and training, perhaps even as a CIA handler. The FBI and at least the City of New Orleans did not recognize that the CIA could "approve" such domestic crimes under "Operation Mongoose," which included planning assassinations (especially of Castro). Of course it's not illegal to be on the CIA payroll, but as Watergate demonstrated, agents ("retired" or not) caught engaging in domestic crimes do not get immunity from local law. As for Russo's story, I understand a girlfriend of his was at the party and could corroborate. If Russo's "Leon Oswald" might have been a misidentification, that doesn't dismiss his entire account. Russo related his story to Garrison under sodium pentothal and hypnosis (a common practice then, although not allowed anymore).

If Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was frivolous, as repeatedly claimed by non-lawyers such as journalist Tom Wicker, that would be reason to blame Judge Haggerty for agreeing to try it. I've never heard of anyone ever criticizing Haggerty. As far as Garrison's case against Shaw for conspiracy, the law says he only has to show that Shaw entered into an agreement with said people for a criminal purpose. Liability for any crime committed by any conspirator that is reasonably related to the original purpose is shared by all conspirators. That's why conspiracy is called "the darling of the prosecutor": it can typically be very broad. A "chain conspiracy" involves groups of conspirators, not one big conspiracy with a mastermind at the center. Garrison argued many things, collectively and in the alternative, including the illegal break-in at Schlumberger (which was easy to prove) as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise by the conspirators. Shaw's only defense was that he was not the "Clay Bertrand" that Dean Andrews claimed (in testimony before the Warren Commission) tried to hire him to be Oswald's lawyer. Shaw also denied even knowing Ferrie or Oswald, even though many (including the Clinton people) testified they saw him together with the two. We're also supposed to believe that Dean Andrews made up the whole story (giving false testimony to the Warren Commission) and that "Clay Bertrand" never existed. The biggest problem with Garrison's case was that his main witness died before he could testify. Had Ferrie lived and testified, I can't believe a jury would have acquitted Shaw. Garrison had the responsibility to vigorously prosecute Shaw based on the evidence against him. Compared to the way other prosecutors around the country operate (not to mention other certain DAs in New Orleans), Garrison's methods were perfectly sound.

Haslam sometimes draws some far-fetched conclusions based on the investigating he does, which is often cursory, but he doesn't pretend to be more thorough than he is. The mystery of this violent death of Dr. Mary Sherman and the staged fire as inept cover-up makes for a compelling topic. Haslam writes an intro for Judyth Vary Baker's book, which is an entirely different style of storytelling. I'm not going to ignore this, unless someone else has a better explanation.

How horrible to think comedians are now supposed to be the source of reliable information and analysis about current events and history. Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert also had an artful way of getting us to laugh at something ridiculous while moments later rolling their eyes at something they want us to dismiss as mere "conspiracy theory." Even stranger when comedians get angry and start emotionally wagging their fingers at people and ranting. What a betrayal to see John Oliver carrying on this tradition of reining in the masses. I take the Covid crisis seriously, because even if I'm wrong, I'd rather error on the side of safety and saving lives. But using doubts about Covid to debunk research about the JFK assassination speaks volumes as to why television and its "show biz" are run by some genuinely ruthless characters.

One thing that I learned my first year in law school that appears to confuse a lot of people about Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw: there are different types of criminal conspiracies, and in a "chain" conspiracy, one group of people might not know exactly what another group of people are planning or doing. All Jim Garrison had to do was prove that Shaw, Oswald and others had entered into an agreement to commit a crime, and Shaw would be liable for all crimes committed by Oswald and the other conspirators that were "reasonably related" to that agreed-upon crime. That's why "conspiracy" is called the "darling of the prosecutor." The criminal purpose that Shaw, Oswald, Banister, Ferrie, Thornley, and anyone else all entered into an agreement for during the summer of '63 did not have to be the assassination of JFK for all these people to share liability in it. That's also probably why Garrison emphasized the Schlumberger burglary.

It's hard to deny Kesey's accomplishment as a novelist. That bus trip he took also influenced rock music from the Beatles to the Partridge Family. As for Kesey's contribution to whatever underground hippie culture of the day you want to recognize, that's something else (including the unedited film he made while traveling on the bus). Allen Ginsberg hated Timothy Leary and his ilk, but there are plenty of literary critics who don't care for beat poets like Ginsberg. Still, how does it all tie in to Oswald? I'm also curious about any new ties between Sergio Arcacha Smith and David Ferrie. I once put into Google maps the addresses of Arcacha Smith's office in Houston and the ice skating rink where Ferrie was making telephone calls on Nov. 22, '63. They are less than a mile from each other.

When a student at USC during the 1970s, I learned quickly how hippies were duped into Libertarianism by the promise to legalize marijuana. They didn't realize that those at the top of the Libertarian pecking order were anti-FDR conservatives. John Hospers was a philosophy professor at USC and the first to run for President as a Libertarian in 1972. His lengthy book should be used as a source more often. At least one of California's initiatives in the 1970s to legalize marijuana was organized by the Libertarians. Mixing Ayn Rand and Libertarianism almost went without saying back in the 1970s, let alone how it all goes down today. That Thornley would self-describe himself as an Ayn Rand enthusiast a decade before Hospers's run for president is unusual and shows how early on he was strangely on board with alternative intellectualism that even to 1960s conservatives was considered extreme. For example, William F. Buckley especially denounced Rand for her atheism. I remember finding pre-Hospers use of the word "Libertarian" in political writings used in South America by American intelligence trying to create a pro-American radicalism that would offset radical Marxism. Don't discount as mere lazy scholarship the way Gorightly tries to link hippies and early Ayn Rand followers with people like Kesey, even though on the surface these people shouldn't get along. He also mentions Robert Anton Wilson, a devout disciple of Timothy Leary. He was widely read on college campuses. I even quote Wilson in my dissertation, mostly as a source for left-wing radical belief systems, but then he also embraces theories about the Illuminati, which I associate with the politically right. In the long run, Wilson was at least as influential as Kesey, if not more influential. In fact, I always suspect that when Kesey was in exile in Mexico (after his famous bus trip), he made some deal with the CIA or FBI to avoid prosecution (he made lots of anti-drug lectures after that, as one of MK ULTRA's most famous volunteer subjects). I was also shocked to find this Wikipedia article about Thornley's chum Greg Hill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaclypse_the_Younger I wouldn't be surprised if Thornley was just as much an agent provocateur with his Ayn Rand stuff as Oswald was with Marxism. On the other hand, I'm not about to guess at this point why someone like Gorightly would attempt to prop up Thornley as a hippie-era prankster.

Is anyone else trying to figure out "Boogaloo," "Big Igloo Bois," et al.? https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/

Paul, Have fun with Esa-Pekka! I have been writing program notes for LA Phil for the past decade, but the fellow I have been reporting to has been "furloughed" due to COVID.