Kerry Thornley: A New Look

[Ron Bulman]

I never realized how little I knew about Thornley.  Maybe I read a little more than I remember but either forgot it, seemingly irrelevant, or it went right over my head.

I remembered him as a guy in the Marines who associated with Oswald somewhat and wrote a book about the connection that never got published.  That he was trying to make a buck by telling his story After the assassination.

Nothing about him potentially helping set Oswald up then helping frame him for the Warren Omission.  Maybe I read that he had testified for them but i don't remember any detail about it.  33 pages when other Marines got a half page?  Curious.  In a real trial of Oswald no prosecuting attorney would have called Thornley as a witness.  Any reputable defense attorney would have destroyed his innuendo.  This makes Jenner look even worse than I remember.  More specifically:

I didn't know Ferrie worked for Sergio Arcacha Smith at Belle Chase.  Knew Ferrie was a pilot, about Belle Chase a little, but not that he was working for SAS out of it.

Nor did i know anything about the Friends of Democratic Cuba other than maybe seeing their name a few times.

That Bannister helped incorporate it.

That president of it McAulife was an associate of SAS.

Or that commission member Dalzelle was CIA/friends with Clay Shaw/Bertrand.

Didn't realize either that Thornley had shown his manuscript of The Idle Warriors to Bannister or this McAulife well before the assassination.

Thornley leaving New Orleans for Arlington Virginia a few days after the assassination seems a real tell to me.  As well as his celebratory singing afterwards. 

 

[Matt Allison]

Great article, Jim, thank you for writing it. So much in there I never knew... fascinating stuff.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Robert, will file it away.  Buckley was so dirty underneath that urban veneer.  With Kilpatrick and those racist screeds.  That the MSM forgot about.

[James DiEugenio]

Robert:

Thornley was so far right that people would not talk to him in New Orleans.  He was an Ayn Rand zealot who attended LeFever's school.  Despised Kennedy, actually said he was going to urinate on his grave in Arlington.  And somehow blamed JFK for Katanga.  Ignoring the murders of Dag and Lumumba.

But then, when he is under investigation a second time, with Garrison, he switches philosophies.  Now he makes up Zenarchy, about ten years late. And no one can find him.  And he keeps this up more or less until he dumps that pile of disinfo on JG at Georgia State.  Talk about a piece of pulp fiction.  The only people who can believe that pile of tripe would  be his pals Robert Anton Wilson and Greg HIll, I don't even think Gorightly buys into it. He can't because its a pile of malarkey.  Meant only to disguise what Thornley was actually doing in New Orleans.

I don't know if Thornley was CIA for sure. He was in the military reserve until 1962,  But I do know he lied continuously about his relationship with Oswald. From the very beginning, through to New Orleans. And then for the Warren Commission.  I am not certain as to his motivation for this, but there is no arguing that Jenner got just what he wanted from him and Thornley was eager to please in any manner he could.  And at the same time, Jenner was willing to bypass certain problems with Thornley's background.

Let me add one point here about the Unitarian Church.  If Thornley was such a rightwing nut, why was he attending that liberal church--which had  cooperated with the Dulles' brothers so often? Garrison thought that Thornley was lying about when he started writing The Idle Warriors. Garrison thought he started it before the defection, which would indicate Thornley knew about the defection in advance. If Thornley gave Oswald the ASC brochure what would be strong evidence this was correct.

[James DiEugenio]

RB:A Great American Hero was exactly how Mort Sahl described Garrison during a short conversation I had with him in Mill Valley CA last year.

Mort speaks from his own experience and what happened to him.  I think I have said this before, but it deserves repeating.  At the time the Garrison inquiry broke, Mort had two shows in LA, one on radio and one on TV.  He was making tens of thousands per months, which would be hundreds of thousands per month today. He had  been on the cover of TIme, and co-hosted the Oscars. He went down to see Garrison in 1967 since he was interested in the case.

When he came back, he told his producers he wanted to talk about the JFK case and Garrison.  They discouraged him and said if he did so he had to knock Garrison--which is what everyone else was doing.  He said he could not do that because JG was for real.  He was really trying to solve the case and had turned up significant   evidence.  That was the beginning of the end for one of the most prominent, and influential comedy stars of that era.

It got to the point that within a year he lost both positions and could not get a job.  He was blackballed by Johnny Carson because he brought Garrison on his show and Garrison showed up Carson to the point that after, Carson said to Sahl, "You will never be on this show again!"  And he was not until Jay Leno took over.  But this is what happened to you if you thought the JFK case was a plot in those Dark Years of 1967-1974

As per Mort, Watergate brought him back.

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that Robert, will file it away.  Buckley was so dirty underneath that urban veneer.  With Kilpatrick and those racist screeds.  That the MSM forgot about.

You're welcome sir!

I would categorize Buckley as a strict eugenicist, anything to advance the order of battle for the pale-faced goons who were the bigots in the South for the benefit the Eastern Establishment Cliveden Set/Georgetown Set gang in the North. A true puppet master, WIlliam F. Buckley was.

45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know if Thornley was CIA for sure. He was in the military reserve until 1962,  But I do know he lied continuously about his relationship with Oswald. From the very beginning, through to New Orleans. And then for the Warren Commission.

Let me add one point here about the Unitarian Church.  If Thornley was such a rightwing nut, why was he attending that liberal church--which had  cooperated with the Dulles' brothers so often? Garrison thought that Thornley was lying about when he started writing The Idle Warriors. Garrison thought he started it before the defection, which would indicate Thornley knew about the defection in advance. If Thornley gave Oswald the ASC brochure what would be strong evidence this was correct.

I will say this much, if Thornley's actions advanced a certain operational goal for CIA, he certainly he did not have to be affiliated with them, the CIA simply would step aside and let Thornley operate independently, thereby giving CIA full deniability.

Simple tactic, yet very effective. Similar to the actions of Gerald Patrick "Jerry" Hemming Jr. and his "Intercontinental Penetration Force". Hemming is not CIA, however, since he is serving their goals, CIA did nothing to stop him and his men.

As for the Unitarian Church, CIA always use religious establishments as a cover.

Gives them certain diplomatic immunities. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[James DiEugenio]

Remember what CIA said about Priscilla Johnson, they classified her as  a "willing collaborator".

[James DiEugenio]

In this document, Thornley implies he went to Mexico in early summer of 1963,

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62271&relPageId=129&search=thornley_mexico

 

later for the grand jury, he changes it to late August early September.

 

Above via, Matt Harris, as was document on Thornley's live in girlfriend.

Edited June 22, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

One of the things to notice is how Thornley and his backers, to this day, use his case to disparage Garrison.  Gorightly uses all of them, and Thornley himself to do so.  

So I thought at the end, with the revelations of the ARRB, it would be good to not just show how this reflects on Thornley but how those revelations reflect on Garrison.

And there is no doubt that Thornley and his backers did a great job against Garrison.  I mean Sylvia Meagher contributed money to Clay Shaw's defense team, and inquired how to do so to Thornley.  Which makes me wonder how closely she read Thornley's testimony.  Because even back then, it was pretty bad.

On his book tour, Tink Thompson questioned Garrison calling the JFK case a coup d'etat.  Tink then defined the term as a sudden turn in government policy.

Consider what happened  1963-68: Sukarno overthrown, Mobutu in charge in Congo, Bosch rebellion thrown back in Dominican Republic with US troops,  US tilts toward Israel and against Egypt. hundreds of thousands of combat troops in Vietnam. Were these all not twists, turns and reversals of JFK's policies.

Why is it that only Stanley Marks understood about this, and yet no one knew of Stanley.  Until 55 years later.  This was the price of concentrating on Dealey Plaza.  Until  your nose was pressed down on the grass in front of the GK.

Its like Mr. X says in the film JFK. Its all to detract from the Big Picture: what's happening right in front of your eyes e. g. the Living Room War on television was now raging out of control.

Garrison understood that. So did Marks.  So did no one else.

Edited June 23, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

On 6/20/2020 at 11:40 PM, David Lifton said:

((edited and modified, 6/21/2020 - 430 AM PST)).

The numbered list you provided --while attempting to be "comprehensive" --does not provide an accurate picture.  The idea that what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63 represented a coup was first voiced by M.S. Arnoni in a series of articles in his publication "The Minority of One," (TMO).  TMO was available at the UCLA Research Library and I spent hours studying his writings back in 1965/1966.  Another pioneer was Vincent Salandria who (along with Thomas Stamm) went to the National Archives, and viewed the Zapruder film and then came his (Salandria's) articles in Liberation magazine. Still another "first generation" researcher was Josiah Thompson, who --in 1966 (approx) --was hired as a consultant by LIFE, visited Dallas, interviewed witnesses, and had "early access" to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, and speaking only for myself, I learned a lot from speaking with--and meeting with - Raymond Marcus, during that same period.  Another member of the SoCal "group" was Maggie Field, and still another Lillian Castellano.  All of this activity by "first generation" researchers--this complete immersion in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, and the realization that the Warren Commission was not just "wrong" but perhaps deliberately so (i.e., an outright fraud) --- took place between 1964 and late 1966. (Furthermore, all of it was "pre-Internet," by several decades).  District Attorney Garrison entered the scene in February 1967, making his headline-producing announcement that he had "solved" the Kennedy assassination; and then, in March, charging New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy.  It was around May 1967 (or perhaps a bit later)  when I first met with him --- more than once, and for several hours.  

(The chronology of my own involvement is laid out, in detail, in the opening chapters of Best Evidence, which was first published (in hardcover) in Jan 1981, which was a Book of the Month Club selection;  and then (again) by three more publishers: Dell [1982], Carroll and Graf ["Trade paper," 1988], and Signet [paperback, 1993]).  Your point number 8 --that Garrison was "[the] first critic who said JFK's murder was a coup d'etat," is incorrect-- completely incorrect.  I had any number of conversations with Ray Marcus on this very subject (back in 1964/1965).  Also, and on the subject of "coup," a most important book is (i.e., "was") "Coup d'etat," by Edward Luttwak,  first published by Harvard University Press in 1968, and reprinted a number of times since.   That book provided a methodical way to examine the JFK assassination (from the standpoint that it was a coup); and led me to focus on the Secret Service -- specifically, the White House Detail ("WHD") of the Secret Service as the key to understanding the mechanics of any plot. 

Bottom line: there's a very solid published record about how thinking developed --among early JFK researchers --about the JFK assassination; and, should you wish to get an overview, there are two lengthy articles in Esquire Magazine --one in December 1966, and then a follow-up several months later  (Just Googe "Esquire" and "assassination theories").  Garrison was not the progenitor of the ideas on your numbered list,  and to believe that is a gross oversimplification.  The original books on this case -- "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy," by Joachem Joesten (1964 or 1965),  Inquest (by Edward Epstein, July 1966), and Rush to Judgement (by Mark Lane, August 1966); marked the beginning.  Two other "first generation" researchers were Ray Marcus and Maggie Field.  Later (in 1968, I believe) came Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, and my own work (Best Evidence ) was published in 1981.  My final chapter -- Ch. 32 ("The Assassination as a Covert Operation")-- explicitly argues that the assassination was an "inside job" and leaves little doubt that we are talking about a coup.  FWIW-- and this is admittedly subjective --it was always my impression that Garrison's "political theory" (i.e., his very public talk about a "coup") emerged after a Spring 1967 trip to Los Angeles, and the extensive contacts that he had--at that time--with Ray Marcus and Maggie Field (mentioned above).  In particular, your point #9 --that a purpose of JFK's murder was to change the foreign policy of the U.S. (a polite way of saying, "to escalate the Vietnam War", e.g., starting with Tonkin Gulf, august 1964) -- is developed in The Minority of One (TMO), and was a subject of intense discussion among the two Southern California researchers (mentioned above, along with another,  Lillian Castellano) with whom I was in contact back in those days. A good "snapshot" of the situation can be found in a New Yorker article published in June 1967, called "The Buffs," by writer Calvin (Bud) Trillin.  Years later (circa 1992), some of this history blossomed into a Ph.D. thesis of John Newman, which then (in 1992/93) became his published book, "JFK and Vietnam."  If you will study the materials I have mentioned, and arrange everything in "chronological order," you will have a much more accurate understanding of how the JFK controversy emerged, and the role played by District Attorney Garrison. 

I am not taking issue with some of the "particulars" you raise; rather, I'm trying here to focus on "the big picture."

In many ways, Garrison can be viewed as "just another JFK researcher" --the big difference being that, as D.A. of New Orleans, he could charge people with crimes, and actually present evidence to a Grand Jury (which he did). Unfortunately (and this was the serious downside of his investigation) the principal person he charged --businessman Clay Shaw--was, IMHO, completely innocent of any wrong doing. The result was legal proceedings which produced national publicity and historically important testimony (e.g., the Shaw Trial testimony of Col. Finck, one of the Bethesda autopsy doctors) and much other testimony and documentation-- all if which led to a "not guilty" verdict (Spring 1969). The trial also led to the first public showing of the Zapruder film (in a New Orleans courtroom)  which shows that JFK was thrust "back and to the left" by the force of a shot to JFK's head (which received world wide publicity, and was featured in Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, "JFK").  Personally, I don't believe the Clay Shaw had a blessed thing to do with JFK's death, but his prosecution --the prosecution of an innocent man, and a situation that was right out of Kafka -- became the center of Garrison's "quest" for the truth.

Even if the New Orleans suspects didn't plan the actual assassination, would you say they at least point to Oswald being an agent?

[James DiEugenio]

I have Lifton on ignore.  Thanks Micah😀

I was very specific in my list, I said Americans and then I named the most popular American authors at that time . 

As I recall it, Salandria's article in Liberation is not about these matters.  Arnoni was Dutch and left the US in 1969,  Joesten was not an American by birth either. You could have thrown in Sauvage also. But again, he's French.

 

Finally, I really hope you are not referring to that December 1966  Esquire article titled something like "Primer on Assassination Theories". That article was penned by Epstein, who was about to morph into his "Garrison is a fraud and the WC was correct adjustment". That article, is a smorgasbord of summaries of different angles of the case and its set up by like a bookie marker: Proponents, Thesis, Selling Point, Drawback , it then categorizes things like  the FBI Theory , Underground man theory etc It then includes a chart of how the major writers assess each of the idea. It then sets up a Rube Goldberg graph illustrating all these ideas and how they may connect with each other.

That article, for me, was the beginning of the end for any real discussion of the case in the MSM.  And there were very few exceptions after.  The piece  was such a smartass, quasi satirical, mish mash designed to confuse and obfuscate, while making the critics look like a retinue of fools in revue, that I have tried my best to forget it.  What makes it worse is that  I heard that  Meagher worked on this with Epstein. It was not until later, that  she was convinced he was a spook.

Again, thanks Micah, I have to answer the guy who thinks I do not think I write my own articles.

Edited June 23, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I guess I should add to this to explain why I made a demarcation .

See, people from Europe would have a wider  background and experience in how something like the JFK murder could happen, and be a plot.  To use just one example: the numerous attempt to kill DeGaulle. Or all the assassinations that took place under Mussolini and Hitler, not to even mention The  Night of the Long Knives, or 1956 in Hungary.

But the reason the WC was set up was just to camouflage what had happened here so it could not be compared to those examples from abroad.  Or as McCloy had said:America was not  A Banana Republic.

But it was because of that history that Castro understood what had happened in five days.

In my talk at Dallas last year, I addressed this problem specifically. I noted that the American Culture back then was not at all like it is today.  So here comes this DA from the Big Easy, and he is saying 1.)  JFK was killed by a conspiracy,  2.) LBJ was in on the cover up and 3.) Vietnam would not have happened if Kennedy had lived.

I then said, " This is while people are watching this:" I flashed a slide on the screen that was split between I Dream of Jeannie and The Beverly Hillbillies. As Al Capone said in The Untouchables, It got a big laugh because it was funny and true.

The JFK case was the first real Shock to the System.  It was very hard to swallow.  In addition to all the investigative work he was supervising, Garrison accumulated a library of 600 books in order to understand the Power Elite and what had really occurred.. Two of his favorite authors were C. Wright Mills and Seymour Melman.

[John Butler]

Apologies to Jim DiEugenio,

I just noticed I made an error.  I copied this to a word doc from Jim DiEugenio's article, part 2 and had it this way:

Jim DiEugenio says:

Let me list just ten achievements of the deceased DA in comparison to work by Americans that came before him between 1964-67.

1. Garrison was the first critic to declare that Oswald was an agent provocateur, probably in the employ of the CIA.
2. The DA was the first critic to find out just what the stamp 544 Camp Street on Oswald’s pamphlet meant.
3. Garrison was the first person to make a solid connection between Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw, at the above Clinton/Jackson incident.
4. The DA was the first critic to understand that Mexico City was a central part of the plot to kill Kennedy.
5. Garrison was the first critic to comprehend that the escalation of the Vietnam War was a direct result of Kennedy’s murder.
6. First critic to prove that Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw (DiEugenio, pp. 387-88)
7. Garrison’s leads were paralleled and backed up by the FBI (Click here for details)
8. First critic who said JFK’s murder was a coup d’etat
9. First critic who said the murder of JFK was designed to roll back JFK’s foreign policy. (Click here for details)
10. First critic to say the murders of MLK and RFK were related to JFK.

But, when I posted I failed to copy the Jim DiEugenio says.

And, an apology to David Lifton for giving the wrong impression on whose this is.  I will state again Jim Garrison was a Great American.  On this I agree more with DiEugenio than Lifton. 

[John Butler]

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 1:37 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Exactly.

Imagine if Jim Garrison had never taken on his investigation?

The entire important and revealing history of Oswald in New Orleans the summer of 1963, as well as the nefarious covert doings of so many other intelligence connected major characters there before and during Oswald's time, would be forever buried in the graveyard of hidden secrets and truths.

Garrison paid a price for his incredible effort to seek the broader truth.

It came with real and heavy personal sacrifice losses including family stress, criminal indictment, long term personal integrity and reputation public scorn and attack and on and on. 

Honestly, if the only investigation of Oswald and his 1963 time in New Orleans was left to our main corporate media and Hoover, probably the only thing we would know is Oswald's filmed leaflet passing and radio and TV appearance where he claimed he was a Marxist and later claims of a mutual love affair by Judyth Vary Baker.

No Bannister, Ferry, Shaw, Jackson visit, Sergio Smith, hip talkin', shrimp cocktail slobbering, gay boys defending Dean Andrews, Jack Martin, etc.

And no Oliver Stone "JFK" film.      What a loss.

Joe,

I don't think I could say that better if I thought about in for a long time.  Jim Garrison was the only person who tried to uphold the law in the Kennedy Assassination in court.  We need more Great Americans like Jim Garrison.

[Matt Allison]

I think I've mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating: Imagine how much less we would know about the case, were it not for Garrison. That is simply a frightening thought.