Jump to content
The Education Forum
Mike Williams

Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?

Recommended Posts

I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You Can Pick Your Friends, But You Can't Pick Your Family."

Attorney Jim Garrison will forever be part of the JFK assassination family. Yet, he often came accross the wrong way. He was a hero, who in the early stages of the investigation, often with little information compared to what we have today, pushed the limits of what could be done at the time. Often going too far, which actually hurt the cause more than it helped it. Such is the case for many of us now who only make us look like so called "conspiracy theorists" who know more about an event that occoured nearly 50 years ago than whats happening right outside our doorstep.

Jim Garrison was a husband and father, a military veteran, an attorney, district attorney and a judge.

Just like Lee Harvey Oswald was no oddball loner, Jim Garrison was an American Hero on the trail of assassins who were supposed to be working for the same government and country that he did.

Edited by Peter McGuire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......

Can you list examples please Mike?

Because any example you list I will be able to disprove

You are way off about Garrison, Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I,for one, am very thankful that we had Jim Garrison and his trial. How else would we have the actual testimony of some of the key people that we discuss today. I can be counted with those that think of him as an American hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On July 15, 1967, Garrison was granted thirty minutes of national television time to respond to an NBC documentary which was highly critical of his investigation. Here is his complete address to the nation in which he outlined his allegations:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCER:

The following time period has been made available to District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans to reply to an NBC news program broadcast on June 19. [1967] In that program NBC News examined some of the methods used by Mr. Garrison in his investigation of what he charges was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Except for the opening and closing announcements, this program has been prepared under Mr. Garrison's sole supervision. Mr. Garrison.

JIM GARRISON:

Tonight I am going to talk to you about truths and about fairy tales; about justice and about injustice.

In the months to follow you are going to learn that many of the things

which some of the major news agencies have been telling you are untrue.

You are going to learn that although you are citizens of the United

States, information concerning the cause of the death of your President has been

withheld from you.

In the months to come you will learn to your own satisfaction that

President Kennedy was not killed by a lone assassin. You will learn that there

has been and continues to be a concerted effort to keep you from learning these

facts. And you will learn, I assure you, that what I have been trying to tell

you and what I am telling you tonight is true.

As children we become accustomed to hearing fairy tales. They are

always pleasant stories and they are comforting to hear because good always

triumphs over evil. At least this is the way it is in fairy tales.

Fairy tales are not dangerous for our children and are probably even

good for them up to a point. However, in the real world in which you and I must live, fairy tales are dangerous. They are dangerous because they are untrue. Anything which is untrue is dangerous.

And it is all the more dangerous when a fairy tale becomes accepted as

reality simply because it has an official seal of approval, or because honorable

men announce that you must believe it or because powerful elements of the press tell you that the fairy tale is true.

The conclusion of the Warren Report, that President Kennedy was killed

by a lone assassin, is a fairy tale. This does not mean that the men on the

Warren Commission were aware at the time, that their conclusion was totally

untrue, nor does it mean necessarily that these men had any sinister motives.

It does mean that the conclusion that no conspiracy existed, and that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin is a fiction, and a myth, and that it should be brought to an end.

The people of this country don't have to be protected from the truth. This country was not built on the idea that a handful of nobles, whether located in our Federal agencies in Washington D.C., or in the news agencies in New York should decide what was good for the people to know, and what they should not know. This is a totalitarian concept which presumes that the leaders of our

Federal government and the men in control of the powerful press media constitute a special elite which by virtue of their nobility and their brilliance, empower them to think for the people. Personally, I would rather put my confidence in the common sense of the people of this country.

The truth about the assassination of the President has been concealed from you long enough. Those forces which are fighting so hard today to tell you that they have examined the Warren Report and that everything is fine, and that our investigation has uncovered nothing, are not merely going to lose this fight

-- they have already lost it.

Now let me tell you why President Kennedy was murdered, and how he was murdered. I also want to give you a few examples which will show you how the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is totally impossible.

President Kennedy was assassinated by men who sought to obtain a radical

change in our foreign policy--particularly with regard to Cuba. You recall that

under President Kennedy the Cold War began to thaw and there were new signs of an effort on the part of the Soviet Union and ourselves to understand each

other.

On the map, this [Cuba] appears to be merely a large island off the coast of Florida. But for many men it meant a good deal more than this. In 1963 a great variety of interests existed, which not only desired an American supported invasion of Castro's Cuba, but took it for granted that it was inevitable.

In the minds of many men, this island represented a tremendous emotional

landmark, because they had steered their courses toward it for so long, and with

such intensity.

In the fall of 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. It was followed by a pronounced new attitude towards Cuba on the part of the United States. Cuba, after this was no longer regarded as an enemy and was no longer regarded as fair game for those men who for one reason or another focused their attention

on this island. The new signs of understanding between Russia and the United

States continued to develop.

In June of 1963, President Kennedy, addressing students at the American

University in Washington told them, "we breathe the same air" as the Russians.

He said we should try to live together in peace on this Earth. Well at this point some individuals transferred their hostile attention from Fidel Castro to John F. Kennedy. They planned the President's assassination, and they planned it well.

The evidence indicates that he [President Kennedy] was shot at from two

different directions in the rear and also from the right front.

We know that shooting was coming from two separate directions in the rear because the President and Governor [John] Connally were hit in the back within a split second of each other--and this necessarily had to happen with two bullets coming from two different rifles.

We know that the President was being shot at from the grassy knoll area on the right front because most of the people in Dealey Plaza heard the shots coming from there--and because at least one of the President's wounds was an

entry wound from the front, and because men were seen running from the grassy

knoll area immediately afterwards.

That's why the idea of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of the

President is a fairy tale and should be brought to an end. If you--the people of the United States--will learn the truth; that the President was assassinated by men who were once connected with the Central Intelligence Agency, of course, this might reflect on the dignity of the CIA.

But I happen to believe that our form of government is strong enough to

survive the truth. I believe that you are entitled to the truth about how your

President was shot down in the streets and how it was done. Instead, some of

the most powerful news agencies we have in our country have worked hard to

convince you that everything is all right.

They do not tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints were not found on the gun which was supposed to have killed the President. And they do not tell you that nitrate tests exonerated Lee Oswald from the actual shooting by showing that he had not fired a rifle that day. And they do not tell you that it was virtually impossible for Oswald to have taken his fingerprints off the gun, hidden the gun, and gone down four flights of stairs by the time he was seen on the second floor.

Above all, they do not tell you of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony

that shots were coming from behind the stone wall on the grassy knoll. In a

choice between official dignity and the truth, dignity was given priority and so

you have not received the full truth.

This is why there continues to be hundreds of documents still hidden from your eyes and classified as secret, and some of them bear such titles as, "Lee Harvey Oswald's accessibility to information about the U-2"; the Central

Intelligence Agency's dossier on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the CIA file on Jack

Ruby. You have not been told that Lee Oswald was in the employ of United States intelligence agencies. But this was the case, and so I am telling you.

Why this young uneducated man had learned to speak Russian even before

he left the Marines, and there's only one way he could have learned that. Oswald had a higher security rating than his buddies in his Marine unit.

During 12 hours of questioning, to give you another example--12 hours of

questioning after the assassination--there is no transcript of Oswald's statements available for you to look at.

Now, it doesn't matter where you live, if somebody in your town steals a

1928 Hupmobile, what he says is written down when he is questioned. However, when the man who has [supposed to have] just killed the President of the United States is questioned for 12 hours, no transcript is available. There's nothing for you to look at.

And believe it or not, one of the explanations given is that the room was too small to include a stenographer.

And here's something else--this case has more accidental fires, more burning of paper than any murder case in history.

For example, when Oswald was questioned by a federal agent in August of

1963, the notes of the interview were later burned. You cannot see the notes

made by Commander Humes concerning the President's autopsy because he burned them too. One of the questioners of Lee Harvey Oswald during the 12-hour session burned his notes.

And similarly, when the Warren Commission contacted the State Department and said, with regard to Exhibit 948, "We notice that a one-page message from the CIA containing secret information is supposed to be attached to this file and it's missing. Would you please furnish us with a copy of this missing secret document?" The answer given to the Warren Commission was that the secret message about Oswald from the CIA was accidentally destroyed while being thermofaxed.

This spontaneous combustion, incidentally, occurred the day after the

President's assassination.

I am not even going to bother to dignify the foolishness which Newsweek

and NBC and some of the other news agencies have tried to make you believe about my office. I've been District Attorney of New Orleans for more than five years and we have never had a single case reversed because of improper methods on the part of our staff. Nor do we rush to judgment on half-baked evidence. And the proof of that is the fact that in more than five years not one defendant has walked out of the courtroom in a murder case with an acquittal. Nor have we lost a major case in five years.

Then what is their game? Their game is to fool you. These people want

the investigation stopped. They don't want a trial at all. Please believe me.

They don't think we're wrong in our investigation. Obviously, if our investigation was as haywire as they would like to have you think, then you

would not see such a coordinated barrage coming from the news centers in the

east. Why are they so concerned? Why is it that they cannot wait until the

trial comes in order to learn what the facts are? Why are they so anxious to

have their own trials?

They know very well that the witnesses they're presenting to you have

not been testifying under oath; that they're not being cross-examined as they

would be at a trial. And that the opportunities for a timely rebuttal by the

State of Louisiana which would exist at a trial have not been provided in their

untrue presentations. They know this. In my considered judgment there has been an effort to prejudice in advance the potential jurors in the trial of this case. As a matter of fact, the National Broadcasting Company has already had the trial. The defendant was found innocent, and the District Attorney was

convicted.

They announced across the nation that my methods were improper. But as

their stories, one by one, turn out to be false, they do not reveal this to you -- but simply search hopefully into new areas. For example, Newsweek magazine had

a feature article saying that my office attempted to bribe a man named Beauboeuf. It later turned out that his story and their article was totally untrue and the tapes which Newsweek described had been altered.

The police investigators in my office were found innocent of any

wrongdoing in a serious investigation conducted by the police department.

However, Newsweek has made virtually no mention of that.

Similarly, in its recent effort to make you think that my methods are

improper, NBC announced coast to coast that it had located the real Clay

Bertrand; that an NBC man had talked to him. This made every newspaper in the country and it inferred once again that in addition to using terrible methods we were off on a wild goose chase. Now when it turned out that this was a total

fabrication, and the man whom NBC identified as the real Clay Bertrand hotly

denied ever using the name, there was only coast to coast silence on NBC.

NBC presented a professional burglar, whom my office had just recently

convicted, and allowed him to make a plainly false presentation that we had

tried to get him to climb into the defendant's apartment and plant evidence there. The inference, of course, was that this particular defendant was too lofty a character to participate in my nefarious schemes.

However, recently, when we called him before the New Orleans Grand Jury

so that he could tell all about our new venture into the burglary business, he took the Fifth Amendment when asked if his statement on NBC was true. Once again, this was followed by a loud silence from coast to coast on NBC.

As a matter of fact, the Warren Commission's inquiry into the assassination started off with a completely unacceptable philosophy for a democracy like ours. One of its stated objectives was to calm the fears of the people about a conspiracy. But in our country, the government has no right to calm our fears any more than it has, for example, the right to excite our fears about Red China or about fluoridation or about birth control, or about anything.

There is no room in America for thought control of any kind, no matter how

benevolent the objective.

Personally, I don't want to be calm about the assassination of John F.

Kennedy. I don't want to be calm about a President of my country being shot

down in the streets. And I don't want to be calm about the fact that for reasons of public policy or national security or any other phony reason, the true facts have been withheld from the people of this country.

If the day has come when it is possible to shoot our President down

because some men disagree with his foreign policy--and the day has come that the moment his heart stops beating other considerations take over which conceal the total truth from the citizens of the United States, then the day has come when we have ceased to be a democracy.

I cannot believe that this is so, that the time has come in America when

the people no longer control their country.

Yet I must confess that I am appalled by the readiness with which some of the major press media have accepted the great fairy tale without hesitation --

rousing from their stupor only when they have learned that a District Attorney

was violating all the rules of etiquette and digging up the truth.

They are telling you that black is white when they tell you there is no

evidence of a conspiracy. They have to know well the significance of the

continued concealment of X-rays and autopsy pictures which if revealed to you

would show that the President was hit by rifle fire from more than one direction.

And they have to know well of the hundreds of documents which remain

classified, secret, and concealed from your view.

And they are making white black when they repeatedly state that my office has used improper methods. They have to know that no D.A.'s office in the United States would dream of operating in the way they suggest. They have

to know that for years I have been a strong defender of the rights of individuals.

They have to know all of this, but they have lent themselves to the all-out effort to convince you that the matter has been looked into and anyone who

raises a question now is irresponsible or a troublemaker or an enemy of the people.

What's that? You say that you are an American citizen and you want to see the autopsy X-rays and you want to see these hundreds of documents that have been withheld from your view and you want to know why these vital notes always ended up being burned?

What's the matter with you? Can't you take the word of these honorable

men, who have looked into it for you?

Let me just give you one example that shows you how impossible the

single assassination theory is -- which shows you the enormity of the fairy tale

which you are supposed to believe in.

Now this is the Warren Commission's own diagram of the route of the

bullet through Governor Connally.

[At this point in his presentation, Garrison displayed a diagram (CE 689) that

presented the Warren Commission's version of the path of the "magic bullet."]

The bullet had to take this route in order to cause the injuries which he received. Now the important thing to keep in mind is that the Warren Commission itself concedes that if this same bullet was not the one which also

went through President Kennedy, then there had to be someone else firing. And

the reason for that, just to put it very simply, is that the Zapruder film has shown that all the firing occurred in six seconds, and yet there were a total of eight wounds. Therefore this one bullet has to cause seven wounds, because one

missed and one was the fatal shot hitting the President. So by the Warren

Commission's own admission, prior to hitting the Governor, this bullet had to go

through President Kennedy who is sitting back here. Now you'll notice that the

Warren Commission did not attempt to include President Kennedy in the diagram -- they could not because of the total impossibility of this bullet having gone through the President also would be too obvious. In other words, by the

evidence of the Warren Commission itself, it is obvious that there was other

shooting going on in Dealey Plaza.

Consequently, the Warren Commission has officially concluded that before

this bullet came down from the sky as it had to, to hit Governor Connally in all

those different places, it entered President Kennedy's body from the rear and

came out of his neck.

I might add that the Warren Commission did not try to include the

President's picture because that would have shown that the course of the magic

bullet would have had to have gone up in the air and come down again in order to end up hitting the Governor

It is by selecting these little portions of each incident and by excluding other portions that the fairy tale is presented to you. However, if they had to show in one diagram the bullet entering the President and then continuing through Governor Connally, you would be able to see the total impossibility of this bullet causing seven wounds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This section was in Garrison's script, but he skipped over it and it was not

broadcast. At the time, Garrison handed out copies of his statement to the

press. This portion was included in Garrison's handout, but he did not state

the words in the next two paragraphs over the air, although he intended to.]

And now, let's take a look at the magic bullet itself: [Exhibit 399].

This is the magic bullet which is supposed to have caused these wounds, without having its shape altered in any way or without even getting dirty. This bullet, which was found at Parkland Hospital, lying on the floor, went through President Kennedy's back and out of his neck, through Governor Connally's back and out of his chest, into the governor's wrist and out of his wrist and into the governor's leg.

[Garrison had a display with a photo of the "magic bullet."]

Don't ask me to explain to you how it was possible for this to have

occurred. They can't really explain it either. But you have to believe it

because if this untarnished bullet did not accomplish all this by itself, then

it means that someone else had to be shooting at the President and, of course,

this would conflict with the official version of the assassination.

[End of scripted, but unspoken portion of Garrison's presentation]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, this is just one of many examples which show that the Warren

Commission's conclusion is completely impossible. Bullet 399 is another

example, the fact that the cartridges in the Tippit case do not match at all the

bullets in Tippit's body--one after the other--if I had the total hour to reply which NBC used to try and discredit my office I would be able to go into more matters. But let's sum it up by saying that it is completely impossible to uphold the single assassin theory, if you look at it seriously. Anyone who has done their homework knows that the single assassin theory is totally impossible.

In the final analysis what has been done by the Warren Commission in its

investigation, is to take this series of implausibilities and to attempt to prove to you that each one of them is at least mathematically possible. Each one of them is mathematically possible, but not probable. However, it is not mathematically possible for all of these series of implausibilities to have occurred, and this is what they ask you to believe.

It's very much like telling you that it is mathematically possible, for

example, for an elephant to hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. Of

course, this is implausible.

But what do they do? They produce an expert who says, "Yes I have made

a study of the situation, and this is not a full-grown elephant, and this is a

particularly tough kind of daisy. And, therefore, it was mathematically possible."

Now the official truth, as a result of such expert testimony--as a result of the creation of a series of mathematical possibilities is now no longer what actually happened in Dallas, but what has been officially approved.

Well, I say that the matter is not closed--not in this country. I say that the day has not yet arrived when the only reality is power and the ideals on which our country was built are merely words printed on paper.

I believe that those news agencies which have sought to imply that I would use improper methods to gain some sort of fictional political advantage have simply revealed their own cynicism. I believe that in this conflict between truth and power -- and this is exactly what it is all about--that power cannot possibly smash truth out of existence. The people in this country will not let that happen.

If we still live in the same country in which we were born, and I don't think it's changed that much; if this is still the country in which, in the words of our Pledge of Allegiance, there exists, "liberty and justice for all," then this attempt to conceal the full truth from you, in the end, has to be a failure.

In this case I have learned more about the human race than I really wanted to know. And I've learned more about some of our government agencies than I really wanted to know. And I've learned more about some of our press agencies than I cared to know. But I am still naive enough to believe that in America the people make the decisions, not a handful of men in the Washington and New York areas.

And I believe that the people of America want to know the entire truth

about how their President was shot down in the streets of Dallas.

And I want to assure you, that as long as I am alive, no one is going to

stop me from seeing that you obtain the full truth, and nothing less than the

full truth -- and no fairy tales.

ANNOUNCER:

Time for the preceding program was made available to District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans. The program was prepared under his sole supervision. It constitutes his reply to an earlier NBC News program examining

some of the methods Mr. Garrison has used in his investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.

This program originated in the studios of WDSU-TV in New Orleans.b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Garrison:

"Fairy tales are not dangerous for our children and are probably even

good for them up to a point. However, in the real world in which you and I must live, fairy tales are dangerous. They are dangerous because they are untrue. Anything which is untrue is dangerous.

And it is all the more dangerous when a fairy tale becomes accepted as

reality simply because it has an official seal of approval, or because honorable men announce that you must believe it or because powerful elements of the press tell you that the fairy tale is true.

The conclusion of the Warren Report, that President Kennedy was killed

by a lone assassin, is a fairy tale."

Cl. Quote

Garrison, this true hero and Don Quixote, was fighting against the Darth-Vader Types of the cold war.

Their secret agenda was the well known Churchill quote:

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

The standpoints of Garrison and, say, McCloy/Dulles-Types were like ice and fire.

KK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: "Why in the world would anyone believe Jim Garrison?"

Answer: "Because they are well informed, intelligent people who bothered to do their homework."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we have waited for awhile and Mike "Mr. RIfleman" Williams has yet to come up with anything, either in what he read or specific examples of malfeasance.

So let us educate Mr. Williams. Below is from my discussion of the only biography of JIm Garrison by Joan Mellen.

Example Number One: Garrison turns down a judgeship.

"Returning to New Orleans, Garrison now broke into politics. Eberhard Deutsch (who Garrison named his last son after) introduced him to the Mayor of New Orleans, a man named DeLesseps "Chep" Morrison. Impressed by young Garrison, Morrison appointed him to the Public Safety Commission to govern over Traffic Court. (p. 41) The young lawyer did a bang up job. Unlike his predecessors, he took refusals to appear in court seriously. So he jacked up the fines for doing so and he pursued those who did not pay. He even got a bill passed to suspend the licenses of habitual offenders. As a result, in just one year, revenue from traffic fines nearly doubled. (ibid) And in his first run in with local judges, he assailed Judge Sperling for being too soft on failures to appear. Garrison was so successful that a new separate traffic court now opened with its own judge. (p. 44) Garrison turned down the judgeship. He told Morrison he would rather be appointed as an assistant on the District Attorney's staff. Which he was. And he confided to a friend at the time that his ambition was one day to be the DA of New Orleans." (ibid)

"So he jacked up the fines for doing so and he pursued those who did not pay. He even got a bill passed to suspend the licenses of habitual offenders."

Now here is a man, who in a different context I would not even like. "The Man", as it were. A man who upheld the law, that was who Mr. Garrison was. Then, when he goes against the very government he worked for ( I realize he was a parish D.A. and Washington killed Kennedy ) , all of a sudden, "The Man" is a nut.

Edited by Peter McGuire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a great turn out of responses. How would I have ever guessed that Jimmy D. would be a worshiper of Garrison?

Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.

Why am I not surprised that he has so many supporters?

The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT Sylvia Meagher:

. . as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment (Accessories After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).

CT Harold Weisberg:

as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour" (Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991; reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, 221). "Garrison was a tragedy," Weisberg wrote in a letter in 1998.

Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy (First Paragon House paperback edition, 1989), in "Update . . . November 1991:"

Those who have long labored to uncover the truth about Dallas might be expected to be happy about [the movie] J.F.K. In a sense they are . . .

[but] three-time Oscar winner Oliver Stone . . . has made some bizzare decisions. From a vast array of scholarship, he picked a book by Jim Garrison, former District Attorney of New Orleans, as his main source work. . . .

You will find only a sprinkling of references to Garrison in this book. His probe has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles. As Esquire magazine pointed out this November, there were things director Stone did not at first know about Garrison. About his separation from the U.S. Army, "following diagnosis that he was in need of long-term psychotherapy." About his "close association with organized crime, whose soldiers and capos he rarely prosecuted . . . " About "the bribery and income-tax evasion trials in which he was exonerated."

Yet, even when he did learn these things, Stone persisted in his association with Garrison and a bunch of other buffs, so-called witnesses and experts whom serious observers dismiss as cranks or worse. . . .

Can anybody rationally explain how Jim DiEugenio endorses Garrison and defends him almost religiously? Of course DiEugenio also believes in 8-10 shots from three different locations. Leads me to ask....who's the more serious "nut".......Garrison or DiEugenio?

Thoughts on this from CT's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes for interesting reading, I find: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm.

This quote always makes me chuckle, for some reason:

"[Oswald] was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and was obviously drawn into a scapegoat situation and made to believe ultimately that he was penetrating the assassination. And then when the time came, they took the scapegoat ... and killed him real quick. And then the machinery, disinformation machinery, started turning and they started making a villain out of a man who genuinely was probably a hero."

- Jim Garrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes for interesting reading, I find: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm.

This quote always makes me chuckle, for some reason:

"[Oswald] was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and was obviously drawn into a scapegoat situation and made to believe ultimately that he was penetrating the assassination. And then when the time came, they took the scapegoat ... and killed him real quick. And then the machinery, disinformation machinery, started turning and they started making a villain out of a man who genuinely was probably a hero."

- Jim Garrison

Paul,

Only Jim Garrison could claim a zero like Oswald, was a hero.

I share in your chuckle at that quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a great turn out of responses. How would I have ever guessed that Jimmy D. would be a worshiper of Garrison?

Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.

Why am I not surprised that he has so many supporters?

The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.

I still dont see a single example of why he was a corrupt DA or why he was unstable mentally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a great turn out of responses. How would I have ever guessed that Jimmy D. would be a worshiper of Garrison?

Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.

Why am I not surprised that he has so many supporters?

The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.

I still dont see a single example of why he was a corrupt DA or why he was unstable mentally

That is new to me too, Dean.

And the comment about "Oswald being a zero." This after page after page showing what his life was really about. Sometimes I think people like this idiot can't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT Sylvia Meagher:

. . as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment (Accessories After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).

CT Harold Weisberg:

as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour" (Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991; reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, 221). "Garrison was a tragedy," Weisberg wrote in a letter in 1998.

Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy (First Paragon House paperback edition, 1989), in "Update . . . November 1991:"

Those who have long labored to uncover the truth about Dallas might be expected to be happy about [the movie] J.F.K. In a sense they are . . .

[but] three-time Oscar winner Oliver Stone . . . has made some bizzare decisions. From a vast array of scholarship, he picked a book by Jim Garrison, former District Attorney of New Orleans, as his main source work. . . .

You will find only a sprinkling of references to Garrison in this book. His probe has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles. As Esquire magazine pointed out this November, there were things director Stone did not at first know about Garrison. About his separation from the U.S. Army, "following diagnosis that he was in need of long-term psychotherapy." About his "close association with organized crime, whose soldiers and capos he rarely prosecuted . . . " About "the bribery and income-tax evasion trials in which he was exonerated."

Yet, even when he did learn these things, Stone persisted in his association with Garrison and a bunch of other buffs, so-called witnesses and experts whom serious observers dismiss as cranks or worse. . . .

Can anybody rationally explain how Jim DiEugenio endorses Garrison and defends him almost religiously? Of course DiEugenio also believes in 8-10 shots from three different locations. Leads me to ask....who's the more serious "nut".......Garrison or DiEugenio?

Thoughts on this from CT's?

we understand your lone nut confusion... a simple statement will clear this up for you and other lone nuts (and trolls),

"perhaps now you can fathom the cancer that has infected this country since 1963..."

and, you'll notice Harold was the only 'professional' investigator (with appropriate credentials and understood how governmental investigations went) of the bunch above. Having discussed a few issue of this case with Harold, I can say, he may of been a tad jealous and frustrated with Jim Garrison who basked in the lime-light, later, not to mention Stone (a highly decorated Vietnam veteran-101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles) who, as you know, at the drop of a hat could raise millions for ANY of his film project(s)... and Harold after all, had to self-publish his books? You can figure it out, yes?

Closest we have these day's to Harold, probably Jimmy Di... today's lone nut nightmare, as your interest displays...

Carry on Sgt Mikey.

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
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...