Lynne Foster

I think the proof is in the pudding.

Johnson's Vietnam obsession was so extreme that he buried his principles to the point where he used a phantom battle to justify war.

Every motivation is possible, but only the Vietnam war proved to be the factor that defined a policy reveral which hinged on the death of the President.

If Kennedy was not killed to destroy strong opposition to the Vietnam war, I think Johnson would have committed ground troops in 1964 as he believed was necessary. Instead of dong that, he spent his time trying to create the phony impression that there was perfect continuity between the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but as Dean rusk aptly illustrates, that was clearly not the case.

Remember, it's not the crime, it's the attempt to cover it up...

More evidence of Garrison's deliberate deceptions:

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

NAME Jim Garrison Date 11/8/78 Time 11:00 am

Address Federal Court House Place New Orleans, La.

Interview:

Gary Cornwell, Bob Buras, and myself (Mike Ewing)

interviewed Garrison for approximately 45 minutes

in his office at the Federal Courthouse in New Orleans.

Garrison began the conversation with a lengthy recounting

of his efforts during 1967-69 to re-investigate the

Kennedy assassination and prosecute Clay Shaw. Garrison

spoke in general terms about the power of the CIA and FBI

and their ability to "control and evade" the

investigative resources of any other body, including a

District Attorney's office or a Congressional committee.

Garrison stated that he assumes that the Select Committee

has learned of this unchallengeable power and has met

with the same frustration that he did.

Garrison spoke in somber tones about his investigation,

saying that he had done his best under very difficult

circumstances, and had of course made a few mistakes in

the process.

During the course of Garrison's long monologue about the

power of the federal government, particularly the CIA, it

was most difficult to ask him specific questions;

Garrison would continue to talk without responding to a

question on most occasions when they were asked.

In response to the question of exactly when and why he

first began re-investigating the Kennedy in 1966,

Garrison gave a very vague answer, stating that he simply

became interested in some manner with David Ferrie and

Dean Andrews' 1964 story about a mysterious "Clem

Bertrand." Garrison would not elaborate.

In response to the question of how he came to obtain

David Ferrie's phone records of January to October of

1963, Garrison stated that he asked for and received them

from Marcello's attorney G. Wray Gill. He indicated that

he had long known Gill. He stated that Gill drew a line

through his own calls listed on the bills, and thus

Ferrie's calls were the other ones listed on the bill; as

they had not shared an office. When asked if he had ever

asked Gill why he had not turned over Ferrie's calls from

November 1963 (which were not included) Garrison at first

stated "I don't know." When the question was repeated,

with the comment that he must have viewed the absence of

the November 1963 calls disturbing, Garrison stated that

he thinks that he did ask Gill about the missing

November billing, and that Gill stated that they were

missing. When asked if he followed it up, perhaps by

asking Gill to make a further search for the records,

Garrison said he couldn't recall.

________________________________________

Notice the deliberate amnesia?

As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

...Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Now we have the "bizarre allegation" that Ferrie was murdered to suit Jim Garrison's purpose.

Tim

What's is so bizarre about the predictable death of David Ferrie? Do you think we have to wait until September 2038 A.D. to figure it out?

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

___________________________________________________________

Truth is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE ! How could he possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover was covering up the truth?

...Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Now we have the "bizarre allegation" that Ferrie was murdered to suit Jim Garrison's purpose.

Tim

Not too bizarre when you consider the Kennedy assassination cover up.

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

___________________________________________________________

Truth is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE ! How could he possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover was covering up the truth?

Key evidence regarding Jim Garrison: This is by Jay Epstein.

On January 21, 1969, after nearly two years of concocting and playing out hois charges in the national media, Jim Garrison finally tried the accused, Clay Shaw, in a court of law in New Orleans. Even though Garrison had announced on February 24, 1967, that he had "positively solved the assassination of President John F. Kennedy" -and one week later, arrested Clay Shaw for conspiring to kill the president -it now turned out that he had not yet found any evidence whatsoever of the putative conspiracy that he presented at the trial at the time he made this sensational claim, The conspiracy he laid out in court took place at a single meeting in late September 1963 in the apartment of David Ferrie in which three conspirators, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Lee Harvey Oswald, plotted the "cross fire" and triangulation of fire" in Dallas through which theyplanned to assassinate Kennedy, and this conspiracy was witnessed by the only other person in the apartment, Perry Raymond Russo...

The last known person to speak to Ferrie was George Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post, whom Ferrie had met with from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on February 22, 1967. During this interview, Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

I think you all ought to focus on the real critics.

WAY WAY WAY TOO HARSH

Garrison used his office to go after the Claw Shaw crowd and folllowed up on David Ferrie

Nobody knew the whole story and because his trial didn't prove everything down pat,

he still stood up and said "wait something is very wrong here"

He knew about Bannister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, 544 Camp street, the flights in and out

And what did you ever do?

slagging garrison

He also knew that Lyndon Johnson and Hoover were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and did a fine job covering it up.

Republicans are currently saying."this isn't about a CIA leak, it's about perjury."

You can believe them if you like, but most people are saying, "wait, there is something wrong here", they mean it and it isn't making any difference.

When Garrison said "wait, there is something wrong here" it was merely a misleading echo, because if you can't even find a pubic hair in a whorehouse, as Weisberg aptly illustrated, you are deliberately covering up the truth.

Despite all the Garison, hero-worship that has infected this thread, this is still the significant truth about the hoaxter and far as I am concerned, I don't understand anybody who thinks that Garrison deserves any credit for anything beyond successfully obscurring the truth about David Ferrie and others.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you want to cover up a crime and you are a corrupt DA, you arrest the wrong person.

WHY DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD & CLAY SHAW WERE ARRESTED?

Jay Epstein put it best:

"On the evening of June 19, 1967, NBC devoted an hour to a critical examination of Garrison's investigation, entitled "The JFK Conspiracy: The case of Jim Garrison." The first part of the program dealt with Russo's allegation that he had seen Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie plotting the assassiantion at a party in Ferrie's apartment in September 1963. The NBC reporters demonstrated that at least one other person presentat the party had not seen Shaw or Oswald there, and that Ferrie's bearded roomate, who Russo claimed was Oswald, had been identified by other people at the party as James Lewallen. The program then concentrated on Garrison's investigative methods, and a parade of witnesses was presented to allege that Garrison representatives had attempted to bribe or intimidate them. In addition, NBC revealed that both of garrison's key witnesses, Russo and Vernon Bundy, had failed lie-detector tests before testifying at the preliminary hearing...

During the time I studied Garrison's investigation and had access to his office, the only evidence I saw or heard about that could connect Clay Shaw with the assassiantion was fraudulent -some devised by Garrison himself and some cynically culled from criminals or the emotionally unstable."

WAY WAY WAY TOO HARSH

Garrison used his office to go after the Claw Shaw crowd and folllowed up on David Ferrie

Nobody knew the whole story and because his trial didn't prove everything down pat,

he still stood up and said "wait something is very wrong here"

He knew about Bannister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, 544 Camp street, the flights in and out

And what did you ever do?

slagging garrison

He also knew that Lyndon Johnson and Hoover were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and did a fine job covering it up.

Republicans are currently saying."this isn't about a CIA leak, it's about perjury."

You can believe them if you like, but most people are saying, "wait, there is something wrong here", they mean it and it isn't making any difference.

When Garrison said "wait, there is something wrong here" it was merely a misleading echo, because if you can't even find a pubic hair in a whorehouse, as Weisberg aptly illustrated, you are deliberately covering up the truth.

Despite all the Garison, hero-worship that has infected this thread, this is still the significant truth about the hoaxter and far as I am concerned, I don't understand anybody who thinks that Garrison deserves any credit for anything beyond successfully obscurring the truth about David Ferrie and others.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you want to cover up a crime and you are a corrupt DA, you arrest the wrong person.

WHY DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD & CLAY SHAW WERE ARRESTED?

Jay Epstein put it best:

"On the evening of June 19, 1967, NBC devoted an hour to a critical examination of Garrison's investigation, entitled "The JFK Conspiracy: The case of Jim Garrison." The first part of the program dealt with Russo's allegation that he had seen Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie plotting the assassiantion at a party in Ferrie's apartment in September 1963. The NBC reporters demonstrated that at least one other person presentat the party had not seen Shaw or Oswald there, and that Ferrie's bearded roomate, who Russo claimed was Oswald, had been identified by other people at the party as James Lewallen. The program then concentrated on Garrison's investigative methods, and a parade of witnesses was presented to allege that Garrison representatives had attempted to bribe or intimidate them. In addition, NBC revealed that both of garrison's key witnesses, Russo and Vernon Bundy, had failed lie-detector tests before testifying at the preliminary hearing...

During the time I studied Garrison's investigation and had access to his office, the only evidence I saw or heard about that could connect Clay Shaw with the assassiantion was fraudulent -some devised by Garrison himself and some cynically culled from criminals or the emotionally unstable."

[You are correct about Dean Rusk, the assassination of John F. Kennedy saved his job --which isn't to suggest that is why he was killed, but the fact that Johnson kept him on is certainly telling.

Garrison repeatedly told Harold Weisberg that the "smoking gun" evidence would be revealed at Shaw's trial, but he never delivered.

In the final analysis, Jim Garrison discredited himself.

His rhetoric proved to be absolutely meaningless, and you all should choose your heroes very carefully, because Jim Garrison proved to be an absolute failure.

Perhaps you are just Kevin Kostner fans, and you fail to understand the fact the Garrison, unlike Kostner, was all smoke and mirrors.

I think at this point I'll be renewing my vow of no-response to Foster and join Dawn, Terry, and Ron.

The point is, Jim Garrison did not expose any original truths about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

He merely reiterated the evidence that the critics developed, and if you take a historic perspective and acknowledge the criticism of competent researchers like Harold Weisberg, we know that he did not do anything to advance the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Why didn't Garrison record a statement from Ferrie, didn't he suspect his probable death in light of his involvement with Oswald?

Ferrie never made out an affidavit, to my knowledge, but the DA's office did interview him, and shortly thereafter, according to Ivon, Ferrie confessed to him that he, Oswald, and Shaw, were all CIA, and that Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand and hated Kennedy. Still no confession of involvement in the assassination.

Please read up a bit before making false statements.

You have to trust Garrison to consider that reliable. I inquired about tape recorded evidence.

Why didn't he tape record Ferrie.

Why didn't Garrison record a statement from Ferrie, didn't he suspect his probable death in light of his involvement with Oswald?

David Ferrie was a key witness to the fact that Oswald was just a patsy.

Silencing Ferrie was as significant as silencing Oswald.

Folks it's really time to just IGNORE this xxxxx. Maybe then she will go away.

Responding to her is like responding to a dog in heat...

She only have one thought and it's been beaten to death.

As for Ferrie he was NOT in Garrison's custody. Another lie.

________________________________________________

"She only have one thought"?

I don't think you are in any position to criticize me.

In my opinion, Jim Garrison was a white collar, Jack Ruby.

Jack Ruby silenced Lee Harvey Oswald and Jim Garrison silenced David Ferrie.

The opinion of Harold Weisberg is more reliable than the FBI.

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?

"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 . . "

"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.

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

-- Harold Weisberg

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.

"...unless, of course, Oswald wasn't supposed to get away but to be shot in the building."

Did Jim Garrison say anything about thispossibility?

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."

Thank You Very Much !

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.