Nancy Eldreth Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Because of Garrison so much more has come out. We may not even have any forum's or topics on JFK to this day because if it wasn't for his stand. Was Garrison on the rigth track? If Jim Garrisson acted sooner would he have had more information? Could it have been stopped from many being killed like Dave Ferrie had Garrison acted out far sooner? I have more questions than I do answers or even my own theories on this. I respect Jim Garrison, think he was in the right directions. I do think to this day that Clay Shaw was involved. Now, we do see more. Had certain people come forward way sooner in time would this have helped Jim Garrison's case more? Such as Judyth Baker, or would Garrison been up a creek on it more? Wonder where Judyth was and doing at the time of the trial going on? What are her thoughts on this? Also, why in the world didn't Jim Garrison question her and have heard about her someway or somehow? After all, Clay Shaw was to have brought Judyth Baker and Lee H. Oswald together ect ect? Wouldn't a DA's job be to check out all of Shaws doings and I would think it would be to check out hotels and see if his name registers in any of them? That would be a must do situation on Garrison's job ot check that fact out. So, why didn't Jim Garrison come up with Judyth Baker? I am afraid Judyth this does lead to a Big Question about you, why were you never heard by a good DA in an aftermath of time. Also, What did Jim Garrison do about Bobbie Baker? So, if Jim Garrison did act out sooner much sooner would he have had better results or if he had waited longer say he were alive today and then started this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 So, why didn't Jim Garrison come up with Judyth Baker? ----------------------------- See bold text: Closing arguments by James Alcock: Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in gaining employment in the East Louisiana State Hospital at Jackson, Louisiana; Mr. McGehee directed Lee Harvey Oswald to Reeves Morgan, who was then the State Legislator for East Feliciana Parish. Lee Harvey Oswald arrived, gentlemen, or at least Mr. McGehee deduced he arrived in an old battered automobile and there was a young lady in the automobile. Now I want to at this time make it abundantly clear that the State does not claim that it identified that woman at all. The State is certainly not coming before this Jury and saying that it was Marina Oswald, now Marina Oswald Porter, that drove him. I wish we could have identified her, I wish we could have brought her into the courtroom and presented her to you. But nevertheless he did appear on that occasion. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/alcockc.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 Jim Garrison was tipped about Judyth and couldn't get a fix on who for sure she was. Thank you, Wim this is very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I think Jim Garrison is one of the heros of this case, it was extremely brave of him to bring forward his investigation and perhaps had David Ferrie and Guy Banister survived and if Garrison had gotten all the subpaena's he wanted we could be looking at a very different case today. The man was a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Was Garrison on the right track? Yes. That is what I have been arguing on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2591 Garrison is one of the heroes in this case and Oliver Stone was right to focus on the New Orleans investigation in his film JFK. Garrison might not have got the right men (Ferrie, Banister and Shaw) but he got the right plot. He also realised that organized crime had nothing to do with the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) Garrison might not have got the right men (Ferrie, Banister and Shaw) but he got the right plot. He also realised that organized crime had nothing to do with the assassination. ----------------------------------------- I think he had the right men but the wrong plot. Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw were definitely involved in the kill- Castro- with- cancer- plot , led by Alton Ochsner. Garrison didn't know about that, which was why he was so puzzled about the Shaw-Ferrie-Oswald sightings in Clinton, LA, where prisoners were to be tested in the nearby Eastern Louisiana State Hospital. I believe that is why Dean Andrews told Garrison: You've got the right ha-ha , but the wrong ho-ho ! It's very possible that Ferrie and Shaw had side roles in the JFK plot, but they would have been limited, which is why Garrison convinced the jury that there had been a conspiracy, but failed to convince them that Shaw was part of it. Wim Edited December 17, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I believe that is why Dean Andrews told Garrison: You've got the right ha-ha , but the wrong ho-ho ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That quote is taken out of context. Andrews was in the process of training Garrison to be a Salvation Army Santa... Merry Christmas to all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I believe that is why Dean Andrews told Garrison: You've got the right ha-ha , but the wrong ho-ho ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That quote is taken out of context. Andrews was in the process of training Garrison to be a Salvation Army Santa... Merry Christmas to all! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ________________________________________-- Jim Garrison had the right plot and the right players, just not all the evidence that has come out since that trial. He is a true hero, as is Oliver Stone. Garrison lost the case against Shaw because of sabotage. His extraditions were blocked, his office was infiltrated by the Feds, trusted associates were in fact plants. (Time mag. trying to "break the case"??? HA!). The media went after him with a vengence and, as usual, the adoring public bought it, just like today. Same story, different decade. To better understand the Garrsion case read "Destiny Betrayed" by Jim DiEugenio. Then read Let Justice Be Done" by Bill Davy. Then for "balance"- (disinformation)- read Patricia Lampert's False Witness, but only do so if you read the clarifying article "False Witness: Aptly Titled", by Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy in PROBE magazine (Vol. 6 No4 May-June 1999). And of course read Jim's own words, On The Trail of the Assassins". His interview in Playboy, in 67, is probably online, or at a liab, where I obtained it in 1973. (From liab. at Harvard, where the only books on this subject were the Warren commsission's 26 books of "interest". The liab cards indicated other books critical to the WC but none were to be found in the stacks. Wonder if that has changed?). As my researcher pal warned me a few nights ago, re staying off forums such as these because you "can't tell who the liars are", I am herein stating my opinion as to where the readers may find truth and disinformation. There's a LOT of both in this case. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 He also realised that organized crime had nothing to do with the assassination. John, Did Garrison realize this, as you say, or did he turn a blind eye to any organized crime involvement? I believe Hemming has implied that Carlos Marcello put Garrison up to the whole thing, the idea being to deflect attention away from Marcello and the Mafia. Not that I believe everything that Hemming says or implies, but the Garrison investigation indeed looks like a "limited hangout" (to borrow a Watergate term from John Ehrlichman), considering what Garrison himself had to say about Carlos Marcello. I looked up Marcello in the index of Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins. According to the index, Marcello is mentioned exactly once by Garrison in his book, in a footnote on page 337. (He is mentioned again in an afterword by Oglesby, not by Garrison.) Here is what Garrison says about Marcello: "I do not even know Carlos Marcello, the man with whom I am most frequently linked by my detractors. Nor, for that matter, did I ever in my years as district attorney come upon any evidence that he was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is." So is all that business about Carlos Marcello as a Mafia don just a myth? Clearly the New Orleans DA was of the "tomato salesman" school of thought on Marcello. Does this inspire your confidence in Garrison and his investigation? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Did not James Files say something about Marcello actually being the number two man behind someone else or am I confusing mafioso? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Did not James Files say something about Marcello actually being the number two man behind someone else or am I confusing mafioso? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________________ Ron: If you think Marcello killed JFk that's you're right. Jim Garrison was tired of responding to the endless lies that he was the Mob's man. Period. Garrison was not on that trail as he knew better. He felt rather than address this himself, and be further libeled, he would ask Carl Oglesby to deal with the question: "Is The Mafia Theory a Valid Alternative?" in Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. Whether or not Marcello was the mafia kingpin is not central to who killed jfk. Perhaps it is to you, but that's a different issue. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 I didn't say that Marcello killed JFK. But until someone explains to me why Ruby made all those unusual phone calls to mobsters including Marcello men, and who gave him no choice but to shoot Oswald ("There are no alternatives to Mob directives" - Jim Marrs), and what Jim Braden was doing at Dealey Plaza and in LA on a certain night 5 years later, I will believe there was Mafia involvement in the plot, and that any investigation that would ignore this factor was less than a full and honest investigation, though we do owe Garrison a debt for uncovering as much as he did or was allowed to. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Did not James Files say something about Marcello actually being the number two man behind someone else or am I confusing mafioso? --------------------------- No John, you must be confusing something. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson Vendettuoli Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 In Mr. Geraghty (sp?)'s case, right ta-ta, wrong ho-ho. I thought he said something about Giancana and Accardo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 thats the one gibson, thanks john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now