Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone

[Ron Ecker]

Some of the CT researcher/writer/groupie element have long ago cast their ballots for "Guilty on all counts", but when queried [as some jurors are on 60 minutes, etc.] they fail to explicate or expound upon what was the crucial piece(s) of evidence which convinced you to vote out "Guilty" ??

With respect to the CIA, I feel like the judge and jury did in an old Snuffy Smith comic strip. Snuffy was going on trial for stealing a chicken or something. As soon as the jury saw Snuffy in the courtroom, the jury hollered "Guilty!" The judge angrily rapped his gavel and said, "Will the jury shut their tater traps till it's time to holler 'Guilty'?"

Edited November 7, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Terry Mauro]

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

Sounds spirited to me. The fact that you would dismiss the CIA's connections to the assassination as "preposterous" says a lot about the opinion you hold them in.

Also, please explain how the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison fit into your "Hoover is behind Garrison" scenario.

I know I'm just kicking at the pricks here, but refuting you has become such an effortless action at this point.

I think everything is relative. Compared to the wholesale assault on the CIA, a single sentence is a rather muted response.

As for the FBI, even J. Edgar Hoover could not control all his agents. If there were a number of "spirited" ones who investigated Garrison the hoaxter, kudos to them as well.

As far as I am concerned, Garrison was useless because he did not even prove Oswald's innocence. Instead, David Ferrie died in his custody.

I am sure that J. Edgar Hoover did not have to investigate Garrison, he was too busy investigating real, Kennedy assassination investigators. He didn't bother with a hoaxster like Garrison because he knew what he was all about.

I really do not understand all this hero-worship regarding Jim Garrison, maybe you are all Kevin Costner fans or something... but don't expect me to get on your bandwagon.

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

Ms. Lynne:

You got real close to getting it right. I have been a member of the South Florida Research Group for many years. One of the leading members is a co-founder of C.O.P.A. along with John Judge. However, I am not so sure about Judge sometimes, he reminds me of quite a few seemingly intelligent and skilled researchers [but not skilled pro-Invstigators of the Fonzi class] -- but somewhere along the line they have found it either convenient or urgent to team up with some very strange folks -- and since I include myself as strange; I know them well !!

Oftentimes they have reached the "burnout point" [as John Newman told me years ago -- had happened to him]; so they network with people that operate on their "wavelength" -- which some "shrinks" claim is a form of "holding on to their Linus blankets".

Some indeed actually do see Kostner as the "real" Garrison, and because they never dealt with the actual man; they quickly become "music" and "movie star" groupies. Much of this is quite positive, as close friends [and many on this forum] only began their quest because of Oliver Stone's courage in undertaking the filming of "JFK". While I was working on the movie, I had arguments with folks who had worked on other films with Stone -- were almost family to him; but ranted that: "....This whole project is a bunch of phony bullxxxx!!"

I first thought, yeah guys, your just probing to see if I am a "team player"; and this is your technique for uncovering dissidents or disgruntled employees who might want to do a "Lardner" and sabotage the "Camelot Project". WRONG !! They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker.

Two of these folks joined us from having just finished putting "Backdraft" in the can, and I was a bit upset that they, having arrived just few some weeks into filming, had quickly formulated any opinion at all. I later discovered that working with the Chicago Fire Department, and seeing famous actors doing their own very dangerous stunts ["Gags"]; they must have expected a more serious-faced crowd on the lots and sets.

Maybe they had other reasons, but one still owes me a "Backdraft" black T-shirt !!

I have received dozens of e-mails from people who "lurk", and members who post. Some forward articles of a psychology 101 nature, which I have trouble relating to; while others send items such as: the "Internet xxxxx" article; which I found easy to read and grasp. However, as I stated in a different thread, somehow the wrong party was being identified as "Trolling" -- but, then again -- I might just be misinterpreting things.

Others have put it more simply: You have people that are obviously very bright, and who have invested enormous amounts of time [and money]; and what do they face? More questions than answers. So, they take the easy way out -- enough is enough, I've arrived at a definite conclusion; here is what happened to JFK, and here is who did it, and here is the WHY !!

Hell, both petit and grand juries do it all the time -- the "O.J. Case" is the classic example. However, many forget that the burden is on the prosecution in a criminal case.

And that burden is to "prove-guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt"!!

Moreover, the defendant doesn't have to "prove" anything. Using the term "found innocent" is a misnomer, nobody is EVER found innocent -- they are found "Not Guilty"; and innocence has nothing to do with the case at all. The prosecution failed to "prove" its case to the jurors [or judge in a Bench trial] that its case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some of the CT researcher/writer/groupie element have long ago cast their ballots for "Guilty on all counts", but when queried [as some jurors are on 60 minutes, etc.] they fail to explicate or expound upon what was the crucial piece(s) of evidence which convinced you to vote out "Guilty" ?? Or, what was the admixture of singular pieces of evidence [which includes testimony not stricken as hearsay] and after finally having been thrown together, swung your vote -- that is: if you didn't lie on voire dire that you had no bias or preconceived notions of guilt ??

So far, for over 40 years, I have yet to see, or hear for that matter: any of their alleged solid evidence!! Just endless speculation and wild guesswork theorems. And whose fault is that, pray tell ?? Why you know, it's all a gigantic cover-up by hundreds of Cabals [not just individuals or entities]; but seeming "Cartels" of evil demons who have conspired, one with the other, to commit horrendous crimes -- and then blatantly proceed to cover it all up with lies and thousands of shredding machines !!

Evidence ?? One scribbler confabulates "insider" [almost whistle-blower level] tips in a tabloid, a magazine, a book, and shortly thereafter; more scribblers hit their keyboard and repeat the same "evidence", but with more page-filling embellishments. And once again another "Eric Brockevitch" clone is off to save the world.

My feeble conclusions, albeit rather limited in scope -- don't want to keep you up all night.

The first major myth: The CIA [per the 1947 statutes, as later amended] "expliciitly" states a prohibition against "investigating U.S. Citizens, especially those who are domiciled within the U.S., its Territories, and Possessions.

WRONG !! The whole of the CIA "charter" forbids investigations for "law enforcement purposes", and this has been unchanged -- even after the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Even Congress has shown displeasure with that last "catch-all" caveat in the Charter: "...and other matters of which the President shall so direct"!!

But, they have never seen fit to repeal or amend those few words. Far too many people, with absolutely not even the barest grasp of either law or government -- rant that: "...It is all a conspiracy !!" Could be, but I am still awaiting that sworn conclusive testimony and other evidence which proves same.

The CIA does exactly what the President directs it to do, and oftentimes this is amended via the National Security Council; just as the statutes command.

An old phrase comes to mind; '...There are no bad Regiments...only bad Colonels". If the CIA violates its charter under orders, than file a "Bill of Impeachment" in the House of Representatives" -- even Cynthia McKinney knows how to type one up !!

Finally, pay no mind to the real TROLLS, and continue with any iconoclastic missives; and don't feel sorry or pity for the gullible idol worshipers; you didn't force them to buy the wrong books, or listen to the bullxxxx artists, they screwed up -- TOUGH !!

From one who is: "....the prime suspect [along with his buddies] in this whole matter"...er.. for a while I thought that I was the guy that Posner described as "self-interposing into a matter not related to him at all".

Even the ad hominems are confusing and contradictory -- Imagine that.

Keep on truckin'

Gerry Hemming

__________________________

*********************************************************************

"While I was working on the movie, I had arguments with folks who had worked on other films with Stone -- were almost family to him; but ranted that: "....This whole project is a bunch of phony bullxxxx!!"

I first thought, yeah guys, your just probing to see if I am a "team player"; and this is your technique for uncovering dissidents or disgruntled employees who might want to do a "Lardner" and sabotage the "Camelot Project". WRONG !! They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker."

Well, maybe you missed your calling, Mr. Big Shot. If you're an "actor" maybe you should've stayed in Hollyweird. But, if you're an actor, then you're nothing more than a faker. If anyone's a corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker, it's yourself! So, why don't you go ride off into the sunset with Foster, and the rest of your fascist cohorts, to the tune of "Bonanza". Showboater!

My apologies to the rest of the forum. I'm writing myself out of this thread.

[Frank Agbat]

I'm sure Garrison was no saint... Few of us are, and like most people, I'm sure he had his good and bad points.

However, apart from this, several facts make his contribution to the JFK case unquestionable.

1) Unless I'm mistaken, he is still the only person who ever mustered enough cojones to actually bring a trial *of any sort* relating to the JFK assassination.

2) In the course of this trial, he was at least somewhat indirectly responsible for the public seeing the Z-film. Groden's bootleg copy originated, I believe, via the Shaw trial. How long would that have been hidden had this copy not found its way to the public?

3) Movie accuracy/quality issues aside, he re-kindled the public's interest in the case.

4) This re-kindled interest lead to the release of additional documents, etc.

5) the resulting movie reduced the Bacon number for countless actors (see the "oracle of Bacon")

http://oracleofbacon.org/

[Owen Parsons]

I've become disabused of Hemming after reading Mellen's account of the many false leads he proffered to Garrison, to say the least.

I'm sure Hemming will respond with a post full of either vitriol or amusing (and often unverifiable) anecdotes. Maybe both.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker."

I agree, and I would equate "mentally disturbed" with "psycopath". That's why I started this thread by highlighting the link, "the real truth about Jim Garrison."

Edited November 7, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Owen Parsons]

They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker."

I agree, and I would equate "mentally disturbed" with "psycopath". That's why I started this thread by highlighting the link, "the real truth about Jim Garrison."

Every contention of which I have debunked and which you have failed to engage in any serious fashion.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker."

I agree, and I would equate "mentally disturbed" with "psycopath". That's why I started this thread by highlighting the link, "the real truth about Jim Garrison."

Every contention of which I have debunked and which you have failed to engage in any serious fashion.

You cannot debunk the truth. If Garrison was a serious investigator, he would have conclusively proved that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot the President of the United States.

[Owen Parsons]

I started studying the Garrison investigation long before I watched JFK. Though I liked the movie, I really wasn't all that impressed with Costner's performance as Garrison (I thought Tommy Lee Jones was very good as Clay Shaw, though). (Owen Parsons)

Hi Owen,

Not to distract from the thread, but in fairness to Kevin Costner, I think he was miscast. You are right about Jones though, he was very good.

BTW, a belated welcome to the forum. I very much enjoy your posts as they are intelligent and well crafted. I am happy to see that along with yourself and the other young people contributing to this most important aspect of history, the future of JFK assassination research is in most capable hands.

James

Thanks. I hope that there is a substantial new generation of JFK assassination researchers. I sometimes fear that my generation, not having been alive when the assassination occured, will be taken in by the phony computer models and the like that the media enjoys trumpeting. That, coupled with what strikes me as the increasing insularity of the research community, is worrying. This has already occured with another interest of mine, the Alger Hiss case, which was buried by very loud assertions of Alger Hiss' guilt and lack of interest on the part of the public. Hopefully time proves my pessimism wrong.

They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker."

I agree, and I would equate "mentally disturbed" with "psycopath". That's why I started this thread by highlighting the link, "the real truth about Jim Garrison."

Every contention of which I have debunked and which you have failed to engage in any serious fashion.

You cannot debunk the truth. If Garrison was a serious investigator, he would have conclusively proved that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot the President of the United States.

The "truth," as you fashion it, is very easy to debunk when it is not, in fact, truthful.

Garrison did as good a job as anyone in proving Oswald's innocence, especially considering that he was prosecuting Clay Shaw and not defending Lee Harvey Oswald (who was, of course, dead).

[Lynne Foster]

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

[Owen Parsons]

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend.

[Lynne Foster]

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend.

With all due respect, there was absolutely nothing cranky about Harold Weisberg --his response was very appropriate, when you consider the subject matter.

[Owen Parsons]

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend.

With all due respect, there was absolutely nothing cranky about Harold Weisberg --his response was very appropriate, when you consider the subject matter.

Notice I said "latter-day." Weisberg produced a great deal of very good work. One of his books, Oswald in New Orleans, had a foreward by Jim Garrison and supported the case against Clay Shaw. I haven't really looked into his change of heart, but his original position is very factually based. Maybe he thought by that point that disavowing Garrison would increase his credibility, since the Sheridan-NBC viewpoint had pretty much become the dominant one. Who knows? Point is, he offers no factual support for your position.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend.

With all due respect, there was absolutely nothing cranky about Harold Weisberg --his response was very appropriate, when you consider the subject matter.

Notice I said "latter-day." Weisberg produced a great deal of very good work. One of his books, Oswald in New Orleans, had a foreward by Jim Garrison and supported the case against Clay Shaw. I haven't really looked into his change of heart, but his original position is very factually based. Maybe he thought by that point that disavowing Garrison would increase his credibility, since the Sheridan-NBC viewpoint had pretty much become the dominant one. Who knows? Point is, he offers no factual support for your position.

I disagree. Weisberg's "Case Open" supports every good investigator, and distinguishes the difference between hoaxters like Garrison and serious investigators like Weisberg.

And Weisberg is not alone, he is merely THE BEST !

Author, Anthony Summers, writes that the Garrison investigation "has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles."

"What angers investigators about . . . Jim Garrison," Summers writes, "is that his cockeyed caper in 1967 was more than an abuse of the justice system. It was an abuse of history, and -- more than any other single factor -- [responsible] in discrediting . . . genuine researchers for a full decade . . "

Edited November 7, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Owen Parsons]

The opinions of Summers' and Weisberg are no more than their opinions. Like I have said, the Garrison investigation was made into an albatross around the necks of the critics by the media (see Summers passage, which you quote, about "discrediting... genuine researchers for a full decade.."). I have asked you to deal with the facts.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

The opinions of Summers' and Weisberg are no more than their opinions. Like I have said, the Garrison investigation was made into an albatross around the necks of the critics by the media (see Summers passage, which you quote, about "discrediting... genuine researchers for a full decade.."). I have asked you to deal with the facts.

The FBI says Harold Weisberg knows more about the Kennedy assassination than the FBI itself. Who do you work for?