Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book by Fred Litwin on Garrison


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tracy, he said he got the first group of files online.

He also said he got the files of Gus Russo, and Elmer Gertz--those are not Garrison files.

FYI, Len Osanic has a large amount of Garrison files, over one gig of them.  I will use them when I review your blog post.  

Yes, some of the files are online of course. But you're not even going to read the book? Just review my review?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is very good Steve. I am slowly working my way through and taking notes as I go so I can do a decent review. Excellent new material as well.

Yep, it’s enlightening for sure. I can tell you he really did some extensive research, despite what was said here in the comments. He travelled to many locations to view documents and records, plus some interviews. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

James DiEugenio, this is not an attempt to be argumentative but is an honest inquiry (actually two).

(1) Do you, personally, in your heart of hearts, believe that Clay Shaw had guilty witting active involvement in the assassination of JFK "beyond reasonable doubt"?

(2) In your view, is it conceivably reasonable and legitimate that some researchers who fully believe there was a conspiracy along other lines held by top researchers, might hold, in good faith and without ulterior agenda, that in the case of the prosecution of Clay Shaw for involvement in the murder of President Kennedy, a grave injustice was done to that man, that he was innocent of involvement in that murder; and that the only honest thing that should be done is to straight-up acknowledge and own it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Yep, it’s enlightening for sure. I can tell you he really did some extensive research, despite what was said here in the comments. He travelled to many locations to view documents and records, plus some interviews. 

Yes, and I was right-it is self-published and the research was done with his own funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes, and I was right-it is self-published and the research was done with his own funds.

Yes, you are correct. He took this project on fully self-funded and self published. That’s important to note because the old 70’s Garrison supporters will undoubtedly try to launch another conspiracy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

James DiEugenio, this is not an attempt to be argumentative but is an honest inquiry (actually two).

(1) Do you, personally, in your heart of hearts, believe that Clay Shaw had guilty witting active involvement in the assassination of JFK "beyond reasonable doubt"?

(2) In your view, is it conceivably reasonable and legitimate that some researchers who fully believe there was a conspiracy along other lines held by top researchers, might hold, in good faith and without ulterior agenda, that in the case of the prosecution of Clay Shaw for involvement in the murder of President Kennedy, a grave injustice was done to that man, that he was innocent of involvement in that murder; and that the only honest thing that should be done is to straight-up acknowledge and own it?

Has that really always been the main point of the New Orleans connection? The direct responsibility of JFK's death? I thought it was just proof that Oswald was an agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

James DiEugenio, this is not an attempt to be argumentative but is an honest inquiry (actually two).

(1) Do you, personally, in your heart of hearts, believe that Clay Shaw had guilty witting active involvement in the assassination of JFK "beyond reasonable doubt"?

(2) In your view, is it conceivably reasonable and legitimate that some researchers who fully believe there was a conspiracy along other lines held by top researchers, might hold, in good faith and without ulterior agenda, that in the case of the prosecution of Clay Shaw for involvement in the murder of President Kennedy, a grave injustice was done to that man, that he was innocent of involvement in that murder; and that the only honest thing that should be done is to straight-up acknowledge and own it?

Given the numerous links Shaw had to the CIA, as well as to men like David Ferrie and LHO, is it so unreasonable to think that he was guilty of what Garrison was trying to prove? The Clinton witnesses are enough for me to think there was a lot more going on with Shaw. Did Garrison do things I would have done differently? Definitely. But I don't think that he realised until too late what he had uncovered.

I think the support he received from news stations like NBC, newspapers and magazines, politicians, CIA etc. show Garrison was on the right track. As Micah has highlighted, was Garrison trying to prove that Shaw was the shooter on the grassy knoll? If that had been the case then I would agree with your sentiment 100%. I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen, but he certainly helped Oswald out as well as setting up the Oswald 'story' in Louisiana.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

Given the numerous links Shaw had to the CIA, as well as to men like David Ferrie and LHO, is it so unreasonable to think that he was guilty of what Garrison was trying to prove? The Clinton witnesses are enough for me to think there was a lot more going on with Shaw. Did Garrison do things I would have done differently? Definitely. But I don't think that he realised until too late what he had uncovered.

I think the support he received from news stations like NBC, newspapers and magazines, politicians, CIA etc. show Garrison was on the right track. As Micah has highlighted, was Garrison trying to prove that Shaw was the shooter on the grassy knoll? If that had been the case then I would agree with your sentiment 100%. I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen, but he certainly helped Oswald out as well as setting up the Oswald 'story' in Louisiana.     

My questions were an inquiry as to personal conviction concerning whether this moment today, with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, there exists belief that Clay Shaw was guilty of that with which he was charged and went to trial: conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, together conspiring to kill President Kennedy. Two or more planning to commit a crime = legal conspiracy. Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ferrie and others, planning in coordinated manner to murder JFK, the conspiracy for which Clay Shaw was charged. From the indictment of Clay Shaw:

"The Grand Jurors of the State of Louisiana, duly impaneled and sworn in and for the body of the Parish of New Orleans, in the name and by the authority of the said State, upon their oath, present that one Clay L. Shaw, late of the Parish of Orleans, between the 1st day of September and the 10th day of October, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand, Nine [sic!] Hundred Sixty-three, with force and arms in the Parish of Orleans aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans did wilfully and unlawfully conspire with David W. Ferrie, herein named but not charged, and Lee Harvey Oswald, herein named but not charged, and others, not herein named, to murder John F. Kennedy ..."

My question was not about debating the merits of this charge, but an inquiry of present degree of personal conviction concerning whether that charge--not some other charge or issue--was true or untrue, in the case of Clay Shaw, not any other person.

It is possible that a district attorney could in good faith for good reasons (as opposed to bad faith and bad reasons) make a wrongful charge of someone who is innocent. But that is a separate issue and is not the question here either. 

There never was a charge in court that Clay Shaw or any of the other conspirators were gunmen at Dealey Plaza, so that is a red herring. I believe at one point Garrison directly said that Oswald, though named in the charging document as being one of the conspirators with intent to murder John F. Kennedy, was not himself a gunman. Being a gunman personally therefore is not at all the issue in the prosecution of Clay Shaw which ruined his life. The issue was making concrete plans in concert with fellow-conspirator Oswald, and fellow-conspirator Ferrie, to carry out a murder of President Kennedy. That was the legal charge brought by Garrison against Clay Shaw. It is not so complicated. Simply put, either the charge was true or it was not, in the case of Clay Shaw, in the arc of history. It is not so complicated for anyone today to give an up or down, yes or no or undecided, answer to that question in terms of what one thinks most likely to be the truth of the matter in light of present knowledge as of this moment today, as distinguished from what Garrison or the grand jury or the jury thought fifty years ago or what another past or present commentator or researcher has judged.

In the link James DiEugenio gives of his Nov. 22, 2019 CAPA slide presentation, "The FBI, JFK and Jim Garrison", so far as I can discern, his answers to the two questions I asked appear to be "Yes" to #1 and unclear (that is, unclear to me) re #2. Starting at slide 60 to 62:

Jim Garrison said some things I wish he had not said. He did some things I wish he had not done, like the Edgar Eugene Bradley indictment.

But Jim Garrison was also in uncharted waters. That was a different world. People still believed in Chet Huntley and Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite. 

And here comes this DA from New Orleans saying that the CIA killed JFK, President Johnson helped cover it up, and Vietnam would not have happened if Kennedy had lived. 

This was a time when, each evening, most Americans watched TV shows like I Dream of Jeannie and The Beverly Hillbillies.

Jim Garrison did not fail because he had no case and was after the wrong people.

On the contrary, he failed because he had the right people. And the FBI knew it. 

Garrison commented on this later. He said his ideas about what happened had changed after the Shaw trial.

He only had one corner of the conspiracy.

In reality, he was not in any position to uncover the whole thing.

But he tried.

In the above not every action done by Garrison is defended, though Garrison's basic honor and good faith is defended. An error is judged to have been made in the case of Edgar Eugene Bradley. But because Clay Shaw was the major figure prosecuted, Clay Shaw is certainly included in the judgment that Jim Garrison "failed because he had the right people". The judgment is: Clay Shaw was one of the "right people" charged. The judgment appears to be that Clay Shaw did, as charged, "wilfully and unlawfully conspire ... to murder John F. Kennedy". 

What do you think, Kishan? You say, "I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen". Never mind "full extent of what was going to happen". Do you think that Clay Shaw "did wilfully and unlawfully conspire ... to murder John F. Kennedy"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

Given the numerous links Shaw had to the CIA, as well as to men like David Ferrie and LHO, is it so unreasonable to think that he was guilty of what Garrison was trying to prove? The Clinton witnesses are enough for me to think there was a lot more going on with Shaw. Did Garrison do things I would have done differently? Definitely. But I don't think that he realised until too late what he had uncovered.

I think the support he received from news stations like NBC, newspapers and magazines, politicians, CIA etc. show Garrison was on the right track. As Micah has highlighted, was Garrison trying to prove that Shaw was the shooter on the grassy knoll? If that had been the case then I would agree with your sentiment 100%. I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen, but he certainly helped Oswald out as well as setting up the Oswald 'story' in Louisiana.     

Here here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Joe.

There are very few people in the JFK case who, today, you can make a better case against than Shaw. Somehow, Greg left all of that out. Wonder why?

Anyone who provably lies  six times on the stand--and does so on material issues--thus risking 30 years in prison 1.) Has a lot to hide, and 2.) Knows he has friends in high places who will protect him.

"Garrison had something big, high persons were involved in the assassination conspiracy.  Shaw felt confident because he knew that these high persons would have to defend him."  Carlos Bringuier, April of 1967.

And did they ever.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Joe.

There are very few people in the JFK case who, today, you can make a better case against than Shaw. Somehow, Greg left all of that out. Wonder why?

Anyone who provably lies  six times on the stand--and does so on material issues--thus risking 30 years in prison 1.) Has a lot to hide, and 2.) Knows he has friends in high places who will protect him.

"Garrison had something big, high persons were involved in the assassination conspiracy.  Shaw felt confident because he knew that these high persons would have to defend him."  Carlos Bringuier, April of 1967.

And did they ever.

I don't remember ever reading the quote from Bringuier before.  That's pretty damning.  From the guy Oswald gave his Marine Guide to, got in in a "fight" with over the leaflets, then the "debate".  Do I have that right?

Is this something else I've forgotten out of Destiny Betrayed or from somewhere else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Destiny Betrayed, p. 286.

Its one of the chapter headers.  I worked hard finding the right one for each chapter.  I think its important to set the topic and mood as you are making a transition..

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was frivolous, as repeatedly claimed by non-lawyers such as journalist Tom Wicker, that would be reason to blame Judge Haggerty for agreeing to try it. I've never heard of anyone ever criticizing Haggerty. 

As far as Garrison's case against Shaw for conspiracy, the law says he only has to show that Shaw entered into an agreement with said people for a criminal purpose. Liability for any crime committed by any conspirator that is reasonably related to the original purpose is shared by all conspirators. That's why conspiracy is called "the darling of the prosecutor": it can typically be very broad. A "chain conspiracy" involves groups of conspirators, not one big conspiracy with a mastermind at the center.       

Garrison argued many things, collectively and in the alternative, including the illegal break-in at Schlumberger (which was easy to prove) as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise by the conspirators. 

Shaw's only defense was that he was not the "Clay Bertrand" that Dean Andrews claimed (in testimony before the Warren Commission) tried to hire him to be Oswald's lawyer. Shaw also denied even knowing Ferrie or Oswald, even though many (including the Clinton people) testified they saw him together with the two. We're also supposed to believe that Dean Andrews made up the whole story (giving false testimony to the Warren Commission) and that "Clay Bertrand" never existed. 

The biggest problem with Garrison's case was that his main witness died before he could testify. Had Ferrie lived and testified, I can't believe a jury would have acquitted Shaw. 

Garrison had the responsibility to vigorously prosecute Shaw based on the evidence against him. Compared to the way other prosecutors around the country operate (not to mention other certain DAs in New Orleans), Garrison's methods were perfectly sound.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

My questions were an inquiry as to personal conviction concerning whether this moment today, with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, there exists belief that Clay Shaw was guilty of that with which he was charged and went to trial: conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, together conspiring to kill President Kennedy. Two or more planning to commit a crime = legal conspiracy. Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ferrie and others, planning in coordinated manner to murder JFK, the conspiracy for which Clay Shaw was charged. From the indictment of Clay Shaw:

"The Grand Jurors of the State of Louisiana, duly impaneled and sworn in and for the body of the Parish of New Orleans, in the name and by the authority of the said State, upon their oath, present that one Clay L. Shaw, late of the Parish of Orleans, between the 1st day of September and the 10th day of October, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand, Nine [sic!] Hundred Sixty-three, with force and arms in the Parish of Orleans aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans did wilfully and unlawfully conspire with David W. Ferrie, herein named but not charged, and Lee Harvey Oswald, herein named but not charged, and others, not herein named, to murder John F. Kennedy ..."

My question was not about debating the merits of this charge, but an inquiry of present degree of personal conviction concerning whether that charge--not some other charge or issue--was true or untrue, in the case of Clay Shaw, not any other person.

It is possible that a district attorney could in good faith for good reasons (as opposed to bad faith and bad reasons) make a wrongful charge of someone who is innocent. But that is a separate issue and is not the question here either. 

There never was a charge in court that Clay Shaw or any of the other conspirators were gunmen at Dealey Plaza, so that is a red herring. I believe at one point Garrison directly said that Oswald, though named in the charging document as being one of the conspirators with intent to murder John F. Kennedy, was not himself a gunman. Being a gunman personally therefore is not at all the issue in the prosecution of Clay Shaw which ruined his life. The issue was making concrete plans in concert with fellow-conspirator Oswald, and fellow-conspirator Ferrie, to carry out a murder of President Kennedy. That was the legal charge brought by Garrison against Clay Shaw. It is not so complicated. Simply put, either the charge was true or it was not, in the case of Clay Shaw, in the arc of history. It is not so complicated for anyone today to give an up or down, yes or no or undecided, answer to that question in terms of what one thinks most likely to be the truth of the matter in light of present knowledge as of this moment today, as distinguished from what Garrison or the grand jury or the jury thought fifty years ago or what another past or present commentator or researcher has judged.

In the link James DiEugenio gives of his Nov. 22, 2019 CAPA slide presentation, "The FBI, JFK and Jim Garrison", so far as I can discern, his answers to the two questions I asked appear to be "Yes" to #1 and unclear (that is, unclear to me) re #2. Starting at slide 60 to 62:

Jim Garrison said some things I wish he had not said. He did some things I wish he had not done, like the Edgar Eugene Bradley indictment.

But Jim Garrison was also in uncharted waters. That was a different world. People still believed in Chet Huntley and Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite. 

And here comes this DA from New Orleans saying that the CIA killed JFK, President Johnson helped cover it up, and Vietnam would not have happened if Kennedy had lived. 

This was a time when, each evening, most Americans watched TV shows like I Dream of Jeannie and The Beverly Hillbillies.

Jim Garrison did not fail because he had no case and was after the wrong people.

On the contrary, he failed because he had the right people. And the FBI knew it. 

Garrison commented on this later. He said his ideas about what happened had changed after the Shaw trial.

He only had one corner of the conspiracy.

In reality, he was not in any position to uncover the whole thing.

But he tried.

In the above not every action done by Garrison is defended, though Garrison's basic honor and good faith is defended. An error is judged to have been made in the case of Edgar Eugene Bradley. But because Clay Shaw was the major figure prosecuted, Clay Shaw is certainly included in the judgment that Jim Garrison "failed because he had the right people". The judgment is: Clay Shaw was one of the "right people" charged. The judgment appears to be that Clay Shaw did, as charged, "wilfully and unlawfully conspire ... to murder John F. Kennedy". 

What do you think, Kishan? You say, "I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen". Never mind "full extent of what was going to happen". Do you think that Clay Shaw "did wilfully and unlawfully conspire ... to murder John F. Kennedy"?

I should have made clearer why I brought up the grassy knoll gunman point. One of the major critiques of the Garrison trial was that he was just a paranoid DA who was looking to indict every Tom, Dick and Harry with conspiracy to murder the president. Hence, I just wanted to make clear I think this is a bogus claim, although you yourself weren’t arguing this.

To answer your final question, yes I do believe Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK, due to the evidence today as well as what was available at the Shaw trial. His consistent lying throughout the build up in the trial for me doesn’t help prove his innocence. As a Brit I’m not fully aware of how your conspiracy laws work, so Dr Wager’s comment was especially useful. I certainly don’t think he’s as complicit as members of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service etc., but with these type of cases you have to start small and peel back the layers. It reminds of The Untouchables, where they start off small, then get the bookmaker, before finally getting Capone.

As has been pointed out Garrison had good reason to go after Shaw, based on the certain initial instances. Had the Dean Andrews debacle not happened, as well as David Ferrie’s weird story about his trip to Texas, I doubt Garrison would have even attempted to start investigating. As DA, he was well aware of Ferrie and Bannisters right wing leanings, which should make anyone question why so many people saw them hanging around ‘communist’ LHO. Even though he wasn’t privy to what we have available now, I believe he was right to charge Clay Shaw with conspiracy.

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...