Owen Parsons

The only person who has utilized evidence as "thin as a reed" here is you. Your "nonexistent" case for Castro's culpability (which has since morphed into the slightly more solid case for the Mob's culpability) in the assassination is/was based entirely on could-haves and would-haves. I find it particularly humorous that you fault Garrison's case because his only witness to the overt act of conspiracy was Perry Russo* (leaving aside the other evidence against Shaw). This a good deal better than the smoke from which you constructed your theory. Your thesis that the reason "left-wingers" implicate the CIA in the assassination is to harm the United States is so laughable, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It speaks for itself. *Russo, by the way, was an extreme right-winger, probably more so than yourself. This makes his testimony all the more compelling to me, because I find it doubtful that he would fabricate a right-wing conspiracy to murder JFK (whom he despised).

Alright, an error then: he says exit wounds have abrasion collars. The factual content isn't as important as how its presented and the conclusions drawn from it, anyway. I don't know how you can think an author being deceitful about his credentials isn't relevant.

It was indeed (falsely) claimed that Russo was nominated for a Pulitzer on the dust jacket to The Outfit and various other places. This was also claimed on the ABC special and Russo did nothing to correct this falsehood. This raises issues about Russo's credibility. http://www.abclies.net/russo_pulitzer.html I do think there is a distinction between being a conspirator and being an assassin.

He is indeed the overt witness to the conspiratorial act itself (there was never a witness to this effect against Castro, but that didn't stop you from going on and on and on), but one has to wonder why Clay Shaw would call Andrews to represent Oswald, why he would associate with Oswald and Ferrie, why he was involved with Ferrie in what looks very much like an attempt to sheep dip Oswald, and why he would perjure himself on all of these issues as well as his CIA associations. One also has to wonder why he initially had so much difficulty in getting his alibi straight or why this Kennedy liberal exhibited no reaction whatsoever when news of Kennedy's demise came in. Also, I don't think anyone maintains that Shaw was an "assassin." To be an assassin, he would actually have to pull the trigger. Please answer the question re: Russo and the Pulitzer Prize, it isn't difficult.

"Non-existent case against Shaw?" Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand (there really shouldn't be any more debate about this). Using this alias, Shaw called attorney Dean Andrews, asking him to fly down to Dallas to represent Oswald (this is corroborated three times over, btw, it's not just Andrews saying this). Oswald, in the presence of Shaw and Ferrie, was driven down to Clinton/Jackson to obtain a job at a mental hospital. Shaw and Ferrie discussed the assassination in the presence of Perry Russo. And this is only what was presented in court. This claim that Garrison was covering for the Mafia is in conflict with the internal office memos, as I have pointed out time and time again. Also, I think you will have trouble rallying researchers around the Mafia-did-it banner. Just a heads-up. And... could you please answer whether or not you still maintain that Gus Russo's book was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize?

I am sure that Humberto's various articles (hosted on newsmax, no less) and books accurately represent the feelings of the reactionary extreme right-wing sector of the exile community. Phillips aside (I haven't read his book), JFK "canceling" the air strike has been the standard CIA line. Deadly Secrets has a good discussion on JFK's refusal to authorize the CIA's promised air strike.

...and what a lovely bit of propaganda it is. Hits all the right notes. JFK's "criminal idiocy" in "canceling" the air strike, etc. etc.

I stopped taking Gerry seriously after he posted that Garrison had placed David Ferrie under house arrest, seemingly to provide aid and comfort to Lynne Foster, who likes to claim that David Ferrie was in Garrison's "custody" (the implication being that Garrison had Ferrie whacked). Needless to say, this is contrary to all the other available information.

It is true that Lynne Foster has some strange views on Jim Garrison. I have also found her attacks on Owen Parsons unpleasant. However, it would be wrong to dismiss everything she says as nonsense. In fact, she has made some very good contributions, especially when she is quoting other people. I don't think it is sensible to block all the postings of one individual. If I did this, I would block the postings of Tim Gratz. I am glad I did not do this. If I did, I would have missed this excellent posting today. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5546 She hasn't just attacked me, she has also attacked Mark Knight as a "hippie killer" (in a post she had the good sense to edit out) and made up some phony conversation she had with Harold Weisberg, where he allegedly told her that Garrison was covering up for Nixon. And really, the only other person I have ever seen her quote (aside from Daniel Sheehan, once) is "Mat Wilson," who is a plagiarist and apparent purveyor of spy ware. She has attempted to hijack numerous threads with this garbage. I'm enjoying the Ignore function quite well.

I think Mellen is referring to pages 17 through 18 of the Helms transcript of the 16th of September. The information about the Lansdale memo to Harvey comes from the interviewers, not Helms himself. The trick here is that she cites other sources besides Helms. She cites FBI memos about this and also her interview with Ramsey Clark where he tells her that he found Lansdale assassination memos left over in Bobby's files. I find this more credible than the Harvey stuff (i.e. that the White House approved the Roselli operation).

I saw that review. The guy indicts the entire book based on two minor errors that aren't crucial to anything. Its true that the Kirkwood account does not have Kirkwood himself in Clinton, but the entire point is that the account probably isn't true anyway, because it gives an inaccurate description of Corrie Collins' father, which apparently bases its physical description on his nickname, "Snowball." He even says that this particular error isn't important. [Kirkwood's book, btw, is a very good source of information, even if its thrust is wrong. I would use it with caution, however. Perry Russo, for instance, maintains that Kirkwood misquoted him.] Jeff Biddison/Arthur J. Bidderson is only listed once for each name, and certainly wasn't a major witness. It isn't even in and of itself indicative that she doesn't realize that they are the same person, just that she used both spellings and the indexer didn't catch it. They are real errors, though. He doesn't go off into Ayton/Lambert territory, so I'll give him credit for that.

I do fault Mellen for that, actually. I'm not having it both ways. And yes, you WERE being dishonest because you did not note that that is not the document Mellen cited and presented it as if it was. I might tussle with you about the Helms stuff (which you speak of from memory) tommorow, but its high time I got some sleep. I'll just note that if Helm's testimony does make RFK a fool, it hardly means anything as Helms is a proven perjurer and not worthy of belief.

Mellen gives enough information in her citation that you can drive down to NARA and check it for yourself. This is no excuse for dishonestly representing something that she does not cite as what she cites. Probably because they had information from other, better, CIA sources, like Lawrence Houston, that directly contradict the Harvey account.

More to the point, you have been waving this Belin transcript around as if it was the actual source she cites when it would become obvious very quickly to any person who bothered to read the footnotes that it isn't. Can you please explain yourself? And you call me "misleading?" Well, you have been misleading, at the very least.

Hey Tim, I did a bit of checking, and it looks like you screwed up. Mellen typically cites Harvey as "Testimony of William Harvey, June 25, 1975, afternoon session." Your interview transcript is dated April 10th, 1975. The record numbers don't match either. This is probably the reason you aren't finding what you're looking for. I don't even think you're talking about the same thing. And you accuse me of being "misleading!"

Sorry I didn't word my reply properly. I said it is "from" his trial testimony, not that he said it. Yes, clumsy, but no misleading was intended. I should have said "derived" or something like that. There is still a disrepancy between when he supposedly left and when he arrived. Shaw actually says he was in L.A. from the 18th to the 20th. The 15th date is only mentioned in a question put to him. There really isn't any way he could have left New Orleans via plane to Los Angeles and arrived three days later. And like I said, the exact date isn't really all that important anyway. I also note that you haven't taken any interest in the material I posted about Shaw's shifting alibi or J. Monroe Sullivan's account of the luncheon. I assume the reason Mellen hasn't replied yet is because she is still teaching classes and doing a book tour. There is really nothing of interest about it.

I didn't say I missed the transcript, I just missed that particular part. There was a certain inelegance to how I worded my reply, but you are really just nitpicking here, at the expense of the rest of my posts. Its a deduction I made from the transcripts. No need to sound so indignant. I know its an issue of Mellen's credibility, but I don't feel its my job to deal with every problem you have with the book. Its really not something I have an urge to defend. Going through the entirety of Harvey's interview will probably take much more time than I am willing to devote to it.

Tim: Ah, I missed that excerpt somehow. No intention of dishonesty whatsoever. I simply assumed that since it is stated therein that Shaw went from New Orleans to Los Angeles, and knowing that he went there by plane, that he arrived on the 18th, since Shaw said he was in L.A. from the 18th to the 20th under oath. I don't know of many plane flights that take three days to arrive at their destinations. Either way, I think you are being to rigid about when the loan was signed. While I think specific details may be easy to recall, dates fade quickly. It could be the week of, or maybe the week before. I know this from my own experience. Also, I'm not going to bother to check up on the William Harvey issue, because I would not believe him even if he did say that. I'll leave that one to Mellen to handle.

Did Ferrie ever get a new certificate for his Taylorcraft? A student taking a test flight in it is one thing, but travel across state lines seems another. Also, I think Ferrie may not have wanted to involve his friend's Cessna in assassination related activities. BTW, it is apparent to me (and has been for some time) that you have done a great deal of serious Ferrie research (versus me, who just reads books). I look forward to your tome.

I am going to quote this foolishness before you have a chance to think it over and edit it out, like you did for another recent post. So Harold Weisberg told you that Garrison was covering for Nixon, huh? I have no hesitation in calling you a xxxx. Do you actually expect anyone to take this seriously?

And if you really want to talk about the "best critics who have spent their lives studying the Kennedy assassination," here are some pioneers that support Garrison: Vincent Salandria, Carl Oglesby, Mark Lane, Bill Turner. Isn't cherry picking fun?

Oh right, a high school student with all the answers, pardon me. LOL You're disgusting. Yeah, uh huh, I'm sure Mark Knight is covering up the truth and possibly killed hippies. And unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers. Edit: Oh, really cute. Edit out the post (#3) where you insinuate that Mark Knight is a hippie killer and make it look like I'm attacking one of your Mat Wilson articles instead.

No one can possibly be as dense as you're acting.

It will probably be in John Simkin's hands by Sunday, actually. LOL

Lynne, from whom did you appropriate that passage?