Owen Parsons

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

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.

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. Hoover himself is the one who gave the order to stonewall Garrison ("Give Garrison nothing!"). David Ferrie did not die in Garrison's custody, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain why implicating the CIA is any more of an odious crime than implicating LBJ and the FBI, as you do. As far as proving Oswald's innocence, the prosecution debunked the magic bullet and showed the Zapruder film, for the first time publically, to the jury. 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). I don't expect you to get on the "bandwagon," you are all too obviously not budging. I would like you to defend your position with something resembling fact, but I don't expect it.

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.

Mellen goes over the evidence linking Banister to Walker in a paragraph in the "An Unsung Hero..." chapter, which I have just finished reading. IMHO, this is one of the most significant nonfiction books I've ever read. It reads very well too (not surprising, considering Mellen's profession).

Well, I know I said I wouldn't respond to her again, but I can't help but voice my amusement: Ms. Foster has really shown her true colors now with that spirited defense of the CIA. Ditto with her advice to Bernice to "try and keep it short" because Bernice's posts are "pointless." Apparently Ms. Foster would like everyone to be like her and type up short, vitriolic, fact-free posts. She hasn't even bothered to reconcile the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison with her (actually Mat Wilson's) thesis, nor do I expect her to.

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out. In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them. That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent. I don't understand this. On what basis do you conclude this re: Garrison's Playboy interview? Is it his eloquence? His incisive analysis of the national security state means that he must have some sort of inside knowledge of it? This is nonsense. As for Garrison being loyal to Hoover; this is also nonsense. I refer you back to my original rebuttal. Again, you state what you "believe;" that Garrison spied on Warren Report critics. This speculation is unaided by any facts. You appear to be totally spellbound by this Mat Wilson person and his various articles (virtually everything you post is derived from one of these), he must be a close personal friend of yours. The only things I am finding disturbing are your posts, in that they are so reckless, baseless, and hard-headed. Consider this my last response to you.

Esterline doesn't look anything like the "Maurice Bishop" sketch, IMHO. In addition to that, there is also Frank Terpil's identification of Bishop and Phillips as being one and the same.

I think the New Orleans electorate disagreed with you re: Jim Garrison's "incompetence." It's nice to know that you are now at least holding out the option that Garrison was not mob connected. You seemed so totally sure of yourself just a short while ago. Perhaps Jim Garrison has proved useless to you because he doesn't help the LBJ/FBI/Mob (pick one, two, or all of these together) did it crowd, but that does not make any of what he uncovered "useless."

I am not persuaded by this new witness of Mel's. Having Sirhan's gun "arc" over Bobby's head does not place the gun behind his head where it needs to be. Unless you are suggesting that Sirhan twisted his hand around to do this which is still an event unsupported by any eyewitness testimony and would seem a strangely arbitrary and unnatural action. Nor does this account for the other wounds from behind, the bullet holes in the doorframe (please don't say it was the food carts, this is ridiculous), etc. As for Serrano, it is hard to believe the retraction the LAPD obtained from her if you've read the excerpts from her interrogation in "Shadow Play," which can only be described as "bullying." The stuff you quote only came after the repeated insistence that Serrano was a xxxx and contributing to the anguish of Ethel Kennedy. Needless to say, I don't have much respect for Hernandez. The LAPD made her say that she got her story from DiPierro and made DiPierro say that he got his story from her, which is a clear impossibility. Mel's political motive for Sirhan is the same one that has been provided for him from the very start with a new coat of modern relevance (Sirhan the arab terrorist).

I have a very high opinion of Mark Lane and his work (Rush to Judgement was one of my first JFK assassination books). He doesn't back down from anything (I was amused to learn from James Earl Ray's book that Mark was the best man at James' wedding). Somehow, though, despite the many biographical details he provides about himself, I feel that I know less about him than any other JFK researcher.

Then why did Marcello attempt to remove Garrison from office? Jeez. You aren't even trying to support this garbage anymore. How you can say Life is a good source after the information I have posted about their hit piece is beyond me. You have now moved into the stage of saying that you "think" or "genuinely believe" these allegations without bothering to support the validity of your belief. I also see that you have somehow gotten hold of Paris Flammonde's book. That's very selective quoting there. If you were honest with yourself you would know that Flammonde pretty much destroys Sheridan's whitepaper (with a point-by-point refutation) and reveals his unethical tactics (giving the full accounts of those witnesses Sheridan tried to bribe). If you are interested in any sort of truth, I suggest you take Dawn's advice and read Mellen's book.

Garrison did not charge Bobby with being behind the assassination, but obstructing his (Garrison's) investigation. I stated this all the way back in my original rebuttal and I am sick of repeating myself. Garrison did not pretend to investigate Marcello to control his critics, this information comes from the internal DA's office memos during the probe and Gordon Novel's Playboy deposition. This was not publically available at the time. The "evidence" of Garrison's "affiliation" with Marcello has been debunked. Your agenda is an anti-Garrison one, of course.

Garrison did look at Cosa Nostra and Marcello connections to the assassination (Davy, Mellen etc. I'm sick of citing pages by this point, but these names specifically). Garrison also wasn't able to do all that much about Marcello even if he wanted to. Somehow I doubt fear of death had any influence on Garrison, since he fully expected this to be his fate for investigating the assassination and prosecuting Shaw. I agree that Garrison did play "ball" however. Garrison did stop just short of prosecuting Marcello (though he padlocked his bars) during his early French Quarter sweep because Marcello provided him with useful information against his opponent during his original campaign for DA, as Mellen shows. Overall, I think you are right. This is much different than what Foster would like to believe however. My point is that the allegations of direct mob associations that Lynne likes to trumpet are bunk. By the time of OTA Garrison probably honestly believed this, after witnessing much of the Justice Department's propaganda on other issues. Funny how you didn't quote the reasons for Kohn's turnaround (ie, the Kennedy assassination probe). Kohn praised him for his efforts against organized crime, not for being "the great pretender." You really have nothing to go on but your agenda.

The Government didn't just fail to convict him, they suborned perjury and manufactured evidence. All of this was shown in court and Garrison was acquited. They took him to court again for failing to pay taxes on the bribery money he did not take. The Government again lost their case. If you bothered to look at that article I linked to, you would know this. Garrison could not have minded Posner trashing him because by the time Posner's book was out Garrison was dead. I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say in this paragraph in any case. Also, if you think so highly of Aaron Kohn, perhaps you would like to know that Kohn originally shared my opinion of Garrison and offered him much praise. His attitude changed after he learned of Garrison's then secret investigation from Chandler (Kohn had always been an ardent lone nutist and published a pamphlet featuring the "Backyard" photographs). It was then that he started making his absurd charges about Linda Brigette's (the stripper) "economic" importance to the mob and Garrison's connection to the mob because he wouldn't send her sent to jail (see Mellen on this, I'm not even going to bother to cite pages for you anymore).

Excuse me, but Posner did slander and bury Garrison, using the same garbage you are now using and more (BTW, I agree with you about Killgalen but we aren't talking about her). You are correct that Garrison wasn't killed, he got off easy, the Federal government only attempted to frame him for bribery and tax evasion. As for Garrison and organized crime, I have addressed it numerous times, but you don't seem interested in listening. The idea that Garrison's investigation was a "circus" is something invented by the various media assets of the CIA and FBI (Phelan, Sheridan, Aynesworth) and characters like Aaron Kohn. Do you honestly think that any other major independent investigation would come out looking differently? Kohn made many charges about organized crime, but didn't typically bother to back them; I have shown this and again you don't seem interested in listening. You can "genuinely" believe that Aaron Kohn was an honest individual and believe that Garrison wasn't, but that doesn't make it so. It seems to me that you were so taken with this idea that LBJ, Hoover, and the mob were behind Garrison that you are unable to relinquish it (and everything else on that website). The only one dancing around Garrison's record is you.

Apparently you did not read my post. Garrison could not get involved in the investigation of Marcello. Also, Joan Mellen's book, which I am now in the process of reading (up to chapter three now), has stated that Marcello pushed Governor McKeithen to get Garrison out of office. Edit: Since you are so taken with the Life stories, perhaps you will find this passage from Mellen enlightening, "'I made it up,' Chandler [note: Chandler the Life hack and Clay Shaw buddy] revealed later of his charge that Garrison was connected to organized crime. 'It was like throwing a pebble into a pool....'" (Mellen 259). In addition, Garrison did consider suing Life but decided against it because malice would be difficult to prove (Mellen 258-9).

I just bought the book today. I'm excited, to say the least.

Yes, Life magazine/Luce press got it dead wrong about Garrison just like the rest of the major media. I don't have time to dig up ancient Life magazine articles, but the main charge, as I understand it, is that the mob picked up Garrison's tab while at the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. Davy debunks this one: "Garrison provided evidence to the Life reporters that the 'hospitality' he recieved was nothing more than the standard loss-leader feature extended to most important personages who visited not only the Sands but most other hotels in Vegas. Garrison provided a copy of his Sands bill to the reporters and pointed out that there was a rather hefty valet and telephone bill that the hotel did not cover. As Garrison noted, 'Apparently I am not very highly regarded by the Mafia if they won't even pick up my phone bill.' Nevertheless Life went ahead with these charges." It should be noted that one of the people involved with this article was David Chandler, a personal friend of Clay Shaw's (Davy 153-4). I have already posted additional information showing that Jim Garrison was not a friend of Marcello or the mob. If you have any more charges of Mob/Garrison connections send them my way and I'll debunk them. This is pretty convincing: From 1965 through 1969, Garrison obtained just two convictions and five guilty pleas in police cases brought against Marcello's gangsters. He elected not to prosecute 84 such cases, including 22 gambling charges, one for attempted murder, three for kidnapping and one for manslaughter. Garrison even managed to hush up the fact that last June a Marcello bagman, Vic Carona, died after suffering a heart attack during a political meeting held in Garrison's own home. It reminds me of David Ferrie's death. If the Life allegations were not true, why didn't Jim Garrison sue the reporters? "Garrison, though he disdains trying to prove negatives, has stated that he never met Marcello in his life and pointed out that Marcello was the subject of Federal investigations in which Garrison could not interfere, and local investigations in Jefferson Parish, where Marcello lived, in which Garrison also could not participate" (DiEugenio p. 364 n.2). As for the Vic Carona thing, this is unsubstantiated. I can't prove a negative, however, so perhaps this will be revelatory: it's nearly identical to a charge made against Congressman Cornelius Gallagher after he began investigating the FBI's use of privacy encroaching technology on U.S. citizens. "DeLoach allegedly claimed the Bureau had 'incontestable' proof that a missing New Jersey gambler, Barney O'Brien, had died of a heart attack in the Congressman's house 'while lying next to Gallagher's wife'" (Davy 160, quoting Anthony Summers). This charge and all the other mob smears the FBI used on Gallagher were later discredited. I've already shown that the FBI was not friendly with Garrison. Senator Edward Long was also subject to a Life piece connecting him to the mob after looking into the same areas (Davy 159-63). Richard Sprague, the original Chief Counsel of the HSCA, was also smeared in this manner when he started pushing the envelope too much. Also, Aaron Kohn is the major (read only) source for Life's information about Garrison (Davy 157). I've covered him already. Kohn's act was shown for what it was when he was called before the Grand Jury. Kohn was also involved in an FBI wiretapping operation against Garrison and filed numerous reports to the FBI about Garrison during his investigation (Davy 163-64).

Yes, Life magazine/Luce press got it dead wrong about Garrison just like the rest of the major media. I don't have time to dig up ancient Life magazine articles, but the main charge, as I understand it, is that the mob picked up Garrison's tab while at the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. Davy debunks this one: "Garrison provided evidence to the Life reporters that the 'hospitality' he recieved was nothing more than the standard loss-leader feature extended to most important personages who visited not only the Sands but most other hotels in Vegas. Garrison provided a copy of his Sands bill to the reporters and pointed out that there was a rather hefty valet and telephone bill that the hotel did not cover. As Garrison noted, 'Apparently I am not very highly regarded by the Mafia if they won't even pick up my phone bill.' Nevertheless Life went ahead with these charges." It should be noted that one of the people involved with this article was David Chandler, a personal friend of Clay Shaw's (Davy 153-4). I have already posted additional information showing that Jim Garrison was not a friend of Marcello or the mob. If you have any more charges of Mob/Garrison connections send them my way and I'll debunk them. If the Life allegations were not true, why didn't Jim Garrison sue the reporters? The Life smear was a very small part of a multi-part Life series on the mob. Garrison was busy preparing the case of his career, which the defense team had suceeded in greatly delaying (see Flammonde on this). I don't pretend to know a great deal about the legal system, but I can't imagine suing Life would have sped things up. Most importantly, nothing Life wrote was technically untrue, it just wasn't the full story, as I've shown.

Yes, Life magazine/Luce press got it dead wrong about Garrison just like the rest of the major media. I don't have time to dig up ancient Life magazine articles, but the main charge, as I understand it, is that the mob picked up Garrison's tab while at the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. Davy debunks this one: "Garrison provided evidence to the Life reporters that the 'hospitality' he recieved was nothing more than the standard loss-leader feature extended to most important personages who visited not only the Sands but most other hotels in Vegas. Garrison provided a copy of his Sands bill to the reporters and pointed out that there was a rather hefty valet and telephone bill that the hotel did not cover. As Garrison noted, 'Apparently I am not very highly regarded by the Mafia if they won't even pick up my phone bill.' Nevertheless Life went ahead with these charges." It should be noted that one of the people involved with this article was David Chandler, a personal friend of Clay Shaw's (Davy 153-4). I have already posted additional information showing that Jim Garrison was not a friend of Marcello or the mob. If you have any more charges of Mob/Garrison connections send them my way and I'll debunk them.

In considering that "Purvis" just may have slightly more training, education, and experience related to the subject of assassination, then perhaps most of those who value education & learning, also perhaps can evaluate between the potential for reliability of information on the subject matter as presented by diffferent sources. Last time I wanted information related to clandestine/covert operations, I did not ask a "soccer mom" or even a "schoolteacher", who by virtue of lack of experience; education; and training; has nothing other than what they have read somewhere in providing their usually unreliable opinions. In this regards, there is one item which history will ultimately classify as an "Absolute". That being the fact that a SINGLE, (lone assassin) is responsible for the three shots which were fired in the assassination of JFK. That you obviously lack the capability to distinguish between a LA (Lone Assassin) who was a part of a conspiracy which resulted in the death of JFK, as opposed to a LN (Lone Nut) who merely had nothing better to do on 11/22/63, is your failing. \ Not mine! That you, not unlike many/most others, fail to grasp that there are reasons other than "assassination conspiracy" for the actions of the WC, is your failing. Not mine! That you can derive no other motive for the assassination other than the "well worn" VIETNAM motive, is your failing. Not mine. Suprisingly enough, there are persons who have the capability for their own "independent thought process", and are not likely to be lead down the merry path of Charles Manson; Jim Jones; Jim Garrison; Oliver Stone; etc; etc; etc. I would have hoped that someone who has studied law would therefore possess a far better grasp on the reality of presentation of "Fact". But then again, attorney's are merely "people" also, who happen to have studied their subject matter. And as most are now aware (the OJ Trial), "Fact" often has little to do with anything in the American Jurisprudence System". Just a few "Facts": 1. LHO had an uncle, (Louis B. Claverie) who was a member of a significant law firm in New Orleans, LA. 2. This Uncle, along with two other prominent members of the Law Firm, founded "FOR AMERICA", which was one of the far, far, far, right-wing radical elements in the American political spectrum. 3. The "Home Office" for this right-wing group was the exact same bldg. in Chicago, IL, from which LHO received financial aid upon his return from the Soviet Union. 4. In addition to the other connections, one of these members of the Law Firm, was also a representative for the United Fruit Company. 5. This association to United Fruit, also extends to this member of the Law Firm having met with revolutionary individuals who were seeking funding & backing for overthrow of the Guatemalean Government in the 1950's. 6. A large amount of the employment of LHO as well as his Mother, is directly traceable back to the associations of the members of this law firm as "Registered Agents" for the party for whom LHO & or his mother was employed. 7. LHO, as well as the "United Fruit" representative of this law firm, have direct family ties back to one of the single most prominent and respected families of the Civil War. IE: General PGT Beauregard. 8. This Law Firm, is itself, a direct descendent from a Confederate Civil War Officer in whose home Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of American, died. 9. This individual, who was an early founder of the law firm, also happens to have been the father of a New Orleans Stockbroker, who later merged with Merril Lynch, to become one of the largest stock brokerage firms in the US. (Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Beane) Now, the "Great Seeker of Truth, Justice, and the American Way)/aka Jim Garrison, lived in New Orleans and knew full well the social; political; and wealthy structural and family order of this region of the US. So: One must question exactly why it is that some poor ole ignoramus from South Mississippi can present this information to the American Public, whereas the Honorable (Watch my Hands) Jim Garrison, DA of New Orleans, LA, could not find this information when it was directly under his nose. There is little doubt as to what the "Circus" actions of Jim Garrison were about. That persons continue to follow the circus and heap "Praise" at the alter, does not mean that the "Religion" has validity. It is merely another demonstration of an aspect of human nature. Well, you've really put all your cards on the table with this one. Let me see if I can get this straight; Garrison was covering for some unnamed New Orleans law firm of which one of Oswald's uncles was a member (one of Oswald's uncles was also connected to organized crime, as Robert Blakey likes to state). This law firm was connected to United Fruit as well as some murky connections to players in the Civil War. Oswald's uncle was a rightwinger. His uncle co-founded a rightwing organization, which was in the same general area as the location from which Oswald recieved financial aid upon his return from Russia (so what? if you think this is significant perhaps you would be interested to know that Oswald purchased his ticket to go to Russia at Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart and registered as an import/export agent [DiEugenio p. 374 n. 63]). Oswald is the lone assassin, acting at the behest of this law firm. Garrison's failure to pursue your pet theory proves his true intentions. What is totally lacking here is any evidentiary link between the "Law Firm" and Oswald's actions. Also, unlike Manson or Jim Jones, neither Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison have killed anyone or been responsible for anyone's death. Enjoy your "'independent thought process.'"

Owen, I found your contribution well put together and very readable. It covers information I'm not overly familiar with. I have, as a result of hte video 'The Garrison Tapes' and the movie JFK a sympathetic view of Garrison. I'm open to being shown wrong as well as having these attacks on him refuted. (One little bit of advise, Don't bit on the personal attacks, they discredit the attackers in their own words. It is unnecessary. Please continue.) Thanks for your encouragement. If Jim Garrison overlooked or discounted any information because of his former FBI associations (I've cited one example to the effect that he didn't), it probably wouldn't be reflected in his files. I wouldn't really know where to look for this information.

Whatever is to be said of his credibility, none of the information that Martin gave was actually untrue. Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP together and Ferrie did go on his infamous ice skating/duck hunting trip on November 22. That document you posted is interesting but hardly relevant to anything, seeing as how the "Garrison-Intelligence-Agency" was formed in 1967 (and, if I am reading this correctly, closed down in 1968; this is probably nothing more than an abortive experiment by Garrison) and Martin gave his information regarding Ferrie in 1963 (shortly after being pistol-whipped by Bannister), so Garrison didn't pay Martin for anything. Martin made one affidavit when Garrison's probe was getting of the ground but that was about it. He didn't testify at the Shaw trial and pretty much disappeared from the scene. "That document you posted is interesting but hardly relevant to anything" Just perhaps you might run that by an attorney and see if he considers it "hardly relevant" that the person who reportedly started this (Martin/Suggs), became employed by the DA of New Orleans who was tasked to impartially evaluate the facts and determine if prosecution was warranted. Clay Shaw was arrested by Garrison on March 1, 1967. From at least 12/67 through 5/68, the principal person to initiate the claims was employed by the person who is responsible to prosecute, and who was ingaged in the prosecution throughout this time frame. Rest assured that had the Defense Counsel known of this association, the "stupidity" of these actions would have been brought out and Garrison would have been presented as a bigger clown then he was at the time. Your "High School" law experience is quite evident, as well as quite lacking. Kind of like the credibility of the claims of Garrison. Jack Martin never said a thing about Clay Shaw. He only gave information relevant to Ferrie/Banister/Oswald. Perry Russo was the chief witness against Clay Shaw at the time he was charged. Simple as that.

Whatever is to be said of his credibility, none of the information that Martin gave was actually untrue. Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP together and Ferrie did go on his infamous ice skating/goose hunting trip on November 22. That document you posted is interesting but hardly relevant to anything, seeing as how the "Garrison-Intelligence-Agency" was formed in 1967 (and, if I am reading this correctly, closed down in 1968; this is probably nothing more than an abortive experiment by Garrison) and Martin gave his information regarding Ferrie in 1963 (shortly after being pistol-whipped by Banister), so Garrison didn't pay Martin for anything. Martin made one affidavit when Garrison's probe was getting off the ground but that was about it. He didn't testify at the Shaw trial and pretty much disappeared from the scene.