Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

Evidence of collaboration between Garrison and RFK?

Recommended Posts

Please, any evidence of collaboration between Garrison and RFK? Thanks in advance for your help 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Please, any evidence of collaboration between Garrison and RFK? Thanks in advance for your help 

It's my understanding that RFK did a number of things that ended up sandbagging Garrison, including putting Walter Sheridan on his tail, so I doubt they worked together...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

It's my understanding that RFK did a number of things that ended up sandbagging Garrison, including putting Walter Sheridan on his tail, so I doubt they worked together...

I heard RFK Jr. address this, without naming Sheridan. It’s in one of the recent posted video interviews, I think the one Paz posted. If I recall this correctly, he lays the blame for Sheridan’s actions not on RFK but on NBC. Is there really any proof that RFK sent Sheridan to stop Garrison? Without that proof it becomes a logical mistake - RFK sends Sheridan, ergo Sheridan’s actions were with RFK’s approval. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I heard RFK Jr. address this, without naming Sheridan. It’s in one of the recent posted video interviews, I think the one Paz posted. If I recall this correctly, he lays the blame for Sheridan’s actions not on RFK but on NBC. Is there really any proof that RFK sent Sheridan to stop Garrison? Without that proof it becomes a logical mistake - RFK sends Sheridan, ergo Sheridan’s actions were with RFK’s approval. 

Agree. Thank you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I heard RFK Jr. address this, without naming Sheridan. It’s in one of the recent posted video interviews, I think the one Paz posted. If I recall this correctly, he lays the blame for Sheridan’s actions not on RFK but on NBC. Is there really any proof that RFK sent Sheridan to stop Garrison? Without that proof it becomes a logical mistake - RFK sends Sheridan, ergo Sheridan’s actions were with RFK’s approval. 

We might want to read between the lines here.  But I do agree that more definition is needed to make a real case for this.  At this point, I'm just giving my opinion. It is my understanding, however, that Garrison believed Sheridan had been sent by RFK to destroy his investigation.

Looks like there is a thread on Garrison and Sheridan that was started when David Talbot's book BROTHERS was published: 

 

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

We might want to read between the lines here.  But I do agree that more definition is needed to make a real case for this.  At this point, I'm just giving my opinion. It is my understanding, however, that Garrison believed Sheridan had been sent by RFK to destroy his investigation.

Looks like there is a thread on Garrison and Sheridan that was started when David Talbot's book BROTHERS was published: 

 

Interesting thread you have shared Pamela. I gave it a once-over and will return to it.

Thanks to recent document releases I can look at this topic In a manner which I would not have recently been able. 

If RFK was suspect of Garrison, I must consider the possibility the he was, or RFK believed him to be, a diversion, or possibly led down a false path.

The recent documents to which I am referring are pushing me, with regard to the extent of Mob complicity, control and initiation, to Los Angeles. I am thinking of Frank DiSimonne, Nicole Licata, David Yaras, Los Angeles and Vegas kingpins and politicians, and Jewish mobsters with their interests and assets in Havana and Miami, respectively. 

If RFK knew or believed this to be true, he would have seen NOLA and Garrison as a diversion. He would also have know, like JFK in Dallas,  the danger in which he placed himself by going there in 1968.

The Jewish mob connection to the assassination is one which has not been on my radar; despite Jack Ruby's near hysterical warnings and expression of fear for his people when he said "Now there will be pogroms. They will kill all the Jews.". The whole motivation of Ruby is more clear than it was before the recent document release.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paul is correct about this.

That was not RFK onto Garrison via Sheridan, and Garrison--if he ever really thought that-- was wrong about this.

I have been through as many of Sheridan's communications as I can find in the ARRB releases, including those with CIA.  There is never any mention of RFK in them.

Also, the CIA was covertly funding his inquiry--through the New Orleans law firm of Monroe and Lemann, the WDSU legal representative-- in addition to funds by NBC.  What many people do not know is that the NBC hatchet job was originally planned as a two part, two hour program.  So I would love to find the outtakes from it.  But according to the ARRB, Sheridan's family would not cooperate. 

And there was some communication between RFK and Garrison, but these were indirect.  This was through people like Weisberg and Lubic.  And later, RFK himself tried to get some info on Garrison through Mort Sahl's wife at the time.  He had all kinds of questions about it.

RFK took New Orleans seriously, that is why he called the coroner about Ferrie's autopsy.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/26/2007 at 4:18 PM, David Talbot said:

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

My book acknowledges Bobby's flaws – his intemperate stance towards Castro (particularly in the early days of the administration), his arrogance, his absolutist tendencies (again, particularly early on), etc. And as for Sheridan, I make no effort to defend his investigative methods – except to say that in his and Bobby's minds, the evil of their organized crime targets merited this zealousness on their part. I think Sheridan's Irish-Catholic, ex-G man, pro-Kennedy intensity clearly carried over into his dealings with Garrison, which, as I write in the book, was tragic. Sheridan was unable to recognize Garrison's legitimate contributions to solving the case, once he concluded he was tainted.

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

My own view of Garrison, as I've tried to make clear, is that he was a flawed hero. He was enormously brave to reopen the case and withstand the ferocious counterassault from the government and the media --and yes from RFK and Sheridan, who feared that he would expose Kennedy secrets and also contaminate the investigation, which they were intent on keeping under their control.

.........Garrison .....did indeed have puzzling blinders on when it came to Carlos Marcello – he thought the godfather of New Orleans, a venomous enemy of the Kennedys, was a "respectable businessman." I don't think Marcello was the architect of the assassination -- I think it came out of U.S. intelligence. But I think Mafia bosses like him (and I would also include Trafficante and Rosselli) played a supporting role in the crime -- and in the Ruby hit on Oswald. And we can argue all day about Clay Shaw, and whether – after losing Banister and Ferrie as targets – Garrison should have built his whole case on him. But the bottom line is that a jury didn’t buy it, and the result – as Bobby and Sheridan feared – was to contaminate the case for many years to come. 

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

To sum up, Garrison and Sheridan were both motivated by a deep and genuine desire to crack the case. But they were both doomed to clash, considering their polar-opposite personalities and agendas. This was a tragedy for the entire country.

The above quoted from the thread that was shared by Pam.

I wonder if Talbot provides more insight, elsewhere, into any RFK interference into the Garrison investigation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 7:57 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul is correct about this.

That was not RFK onto Garrison via Sheridan, and Garrison--if he ever really thought that-- was wrong about this.

I have been through as many of Sheridan's communications as I can find in the ARRB releases, including those with CIA.  There is never any mention of RFK in them.

Also, the CIA was covertly funding his inquiry--through the New Orleans law firm of Monroe and Lemann, the WDSU legal representative-- in addition to funds by NBC.  What many people do not know is that the NBC hatchet job was originally planned as a two part, two hour program.  So I would love to find the outtakes from it.  But according to the ARRB, Sheridan's family would not cooperate. 

And there was some communication between RFK and Garrison, but these were indirect.  This was through people like Weisberg and Lubic.  And later, RFK himself tried to get some info on Garrison through Mort Sahl's wife at the time.  He had all kinds of questions about it.

RFK took New Orleans seriously, that is why he called the coroner about Ferrie's autopsy.

David Talbot says on p330 of BROTHERS that, "It is certain Walter Sheridan was acting on Robert Kennedy's behalf, not as an intelligence agent, when he went to New Orleans," so it would seem that whether he acted under RFK's direct orders or not would be a valid topic for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 8:15 PM, Michael Clark said:

 

 

The above quoted from the thread that was shared by Pam.

I wonder if Talbot provides more insight, elsewhere, into any RFK interference into the Garrison investigation.

 

Chapter 7, starting on p 309 of the pb version of BROTHERS, has a good discussion of RFK, Sheridan and Garrison.  Talbot's hypothesis is that RFK felt Garrison was going in the wrong direction, and would interfere with what he wanted to do when he was elected president, which, of course, is mostly hypothetical imo.  But the chapter itself is well worth reading.  Talbot is more objective than I would have thought, even though he does skewer the Garrison investigation at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, something that just bugs me about the Garrison investigation is that here we have a duly elected official with the capacity as DA to subpoena witnesses and follow due process.  This is someone who has come to believe, and I think rightly so, that NOLA is at the center of the plotting of the assassination.  But other elected or appointed officials such as RFK, Sheridan, and news outlets such as NBC, have no trouble treating Garrison and his investigation as though they came out of the sewers and had no legality at all.  There is not the slightest modicum of respect.  I remember watching the "White Paper" and Garrison's interview on the Tonight Show and wondering who these people think they are.  I still do, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if RFK Jr. has anything to add that would shed light on Sheridan and RFK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Wonder if RFK Jr. has anything to add that would shed light on Sheridan and RFK?

Paul your question would be a great one for a responsible researcher/journalist to address him with.  I doubt anyone in the MSM would, none of them know enough about the subject to ask the question.  Jim D, Lisa Pease and David Talbot are all mentioned in his book.  One of them might have his e-mail.  An actual interview by any one of them might be a National Treasure in terms of True History.  While I'm sure they would be polite, it wouldn't be softball.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talbot is simply wrong on this issue and I criticized his book for this:

From my review:

By page 325, we see why Talbot has set things up this way. And this directly relates to Talbot's portrait of Walter Sheridan. I was going to write that it is so warm and fuzzy that it could have been written by Sheridan's family. But I can't write that because, in large part, it was written by Sheridan's family. Namely his widow and son. Talbot interviewed the woman five times and uses her profusely and without question. Now if you are going to use people like Guthman, and Sheridan's family to profess to his good character, it leaves you with a serious problem. You now have to explain all the ugly and unethical things Sheridan did to destroy Garrison. Talbot achieves this in two ways: 1.) By recycling debunked mainstream media deceptions, and 2.) By leaving out integral parts of the story.

Concerning the former, Talbot tries to excuse Sheridan by saying that Sheridan thought Garrison was ignoring mobster Carlos Marcello. He even goes as far as saying that Garrison gave Marcello a "free pass" and referred to him as a "respectable businessman" (p. 327) This canard has been exposed for years, in fact for over a decade. Garrison busted at least three bars in New Orleans which were run either by Marcello or his associates. (Davy, pgs 154-155) Talbot does not source his "businessman" quote, but it appears he has confused Garrison with one or more local FBI agents. And it is not true that Garrison never investigated the Mafia aspect, he did. (He actually wrote a memo on it.) But he came to the conclusion, as many others have, that the Mob was a junior partner in the crime, not the engine running the machine.

Talbot then writes something even more unsubstantiated. He says that what really got Sheridan upset with Garrison is that Garrison had somehow discovered the CIA Castro assassination plots, and how they might have backfired against JFK. For one, in the book's own terms, this is illogical. For this chapter, Talbot now writes that the plots had been "supervised by Bobby". Yet, he has clearly established previously, and convincingly, that this was not the case. The CIA had done them on their own. Secondly, I have been through a large part of the extant Garrison files. His son Lyon Garrison allowed me to copy them in New Orleans. I then had them shipped to Los Angeles and filed them in chronological and subject order. I found no evidence that Garrison himself had discovered these CIA managed plots in early 1967, which would have to be true if Talbot's thesis is to hold water. Interestingly, Talbot gives no source for Sheridan's knowledge of what Garrison was on to or how he discovered it. Even more interesting, he avoids mentioning the famous Jack Anderson/Drew Pearson story, which aired at the time. This story actually did mention the CIA plots, and did say that RFK was involved with them. And considering Anderson's role as an FBI informant on Garrison, it was probably done to confuse the DA. But there is no evidence Garrison ever took the (false) insinuation of RFK's involvement seriously.

Having no factual basis for this concept, Talbot then uses the bare assumption as the excuse for why Sheridan went to the CIA to get their input on Garrison. By this time, I had become quite curious as to why Talbot was cutting Sheridan so much slack. So I flipped a few pages forward and discovered the reason. The book maintains that Sheridan in New Orleans was not acting as any kind of intelligence operative, but rather on RFK's behalf. He goes on like this for a couple of paragraphs -- quoting Sheridan's reliable wife again--and then comes this stunning statement: "And there is no evidence Sheridan and agency officials did in fact end up joining forces against the DA." (p. 331) When I read that my eyes popped. Consider: in a legal deposition, among other places, Gordon Novel admitted that he was being paid by Sheridan on a retainer basis for spying on Garrison. Since Novel was writing letters to people like Richard Helms at the time, it's fair to say he was working with the Agency. Further, Garrison discovered that Sheridan was getting the expense money for people like Novel through a local law firm, which was laundering it for the CIA. And a declassified FBI memo reveals that NBC had given instructions that the special was meant to "shoot him [Garrison] down". Further in Robert Kennedy and his Times, Arthur Schlesinger quotes Kennedy as saying that it was NBC who sent Sheridan to New Orleans, and further that he felt Garrison might be on to something. (p. 616) As many commentators have noted, including Carl Bernstein -- who Talbot uses (p. 390) -- the major networks worked with the CIA on issues like defending the Warren Report. And the chairman of NBC at the time, General David Sarnoff, had worked in intelligence during World War II. In a further imbalance, Talbot barely discusses Sheridan's intelligence background, devoting all of two sentences to it. (p. 330)

I could go into much more length about Sheridan's activities in New Orleans, and how they continued even after RFK was dead. And I could point out even more errors Talbot makes on this issue. For instance, he writes that Garrison "turned the tables" on Sheridan and arrested "him for bribing witnesses. (The charges were later dropped.)" (p. 329) Thus he insinuates that it was Garrison who was bribing witnesses and not Sheridan. Which is exactly wrong. (Davy on pgs 135-137 chronicles some of Sheridan's efforts in this aspect.) Further, the charges were not dropped. Sheridan got an entourage of proven CIA affiliated lawyers for his defense. (Ibid, p. 143) And in a recurrent tactic, they got the charges switched to federal court where they were eventually thrown out. Finally, let me make one more cogent observation about Sheridan. He clearly did not like Garrison's focus on the CIA in the JFK case. He then worked a lot with the HSCA, Dan Moldea, and Robert Blakey pushing the Mafia/Hoffa angle, which was certainly prominent in the HSCA Report and volumes. Yet on the day the report was issued Marcello's lifelong friend, lobbyist Irving Davidson, told an acquaintance that he had talked to Sheridan and that he agreed that the HSCA report was a piece of crap too. (Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 1175) So if Sheridan did not believe the CIA was involved, and he thought Blakey's focus on the Mafia was B.S., what did he believe then? The Warren Report maybe?

The mystery of Walter Sheridan -- who he was, and why he did what he did -- is a long, serious, and complex one. Talbot does not even begin to plumb its depths. For that reason, among others, I believe -- and I can demonstrate -- that every tenet of this chapter is just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let me add two things, as I said, Sheridan's family refused to turn over the outtakes on his NBC hatchet job to the ARRB.  Which makes it odd that Talbot would trust them.

Secondly, he was authorized to do what he did--bribe and intimidate witnesses--directly by the Sarnoff family who owned NBC.

I spent a lot of time and work on this whole NBC issue for Destiny Betrayed, Second edition,( see pp 237-49)  But since no one reads my books I have to keep on recycling this info. 

Also, according to RFK Jr, his father was very interested in what Garrison was digging up. He remembers him picking up a magazine at a newsstand with Garrison on the cover and asking his aides what they thought about the case he had.

Edited by James DiEugenio

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

×