Owen Parsons

Ramsey Clark may have later spun his remarks in this manner, but when viewed in the light of the evidence, this isn't really credible. As I (actually Bill Davy) have shown, Shaw actually asked Cartha DeLoach if Shaw had been investigated by the FBI. He recieved a response in the affirmative, that Shaw had been investigated in December 1963 (Ferrie had been interviewed and sent off in November) as a result of information from "several parties" (Only one source, Jack Martin, gave information on Ferrie at the time). Hoover didn't want Clark to "peddle" this information (Ferrie's investigation by the FBI was public knowledge). So it isn't really a matter of Clark confusing the two in his head. It should be noted that Clark has been a consistent defender of Shaw even to the present day, for instance here (this is in 1998) he states that Garrison scapegoated Shaw because he was homosexual. This is a charge frequently made, but with no evidence.

I need only note that you have not addressed one single point of my rebuttal. Until you do, your remarks will be given all the credence they deserve: none.

Thanks for all the kind words Dawn! It makes all the time I spent composing my rebuttal worth it.

To answer your rhetorical question, no, that article is not, in fact, the truth about Jim Garrison. I will now proceed to lay out why it is not the truth. I would like to start off by noting the author's contention that "ronically, it was not the CIA... which was responsible for the Kennedy assassination cover up." This strikes me as frankly bizarre. It was not the FBI or Lyndon Johnson who engineered the Oswald-in-Mexico-City deception, but our friends at the CIA. This should be kept in mind as we continue. I pass over the CIA's allegation that Jim Garrison was in contact with Johnny Roselli, which hardly deserves credence (Larry Hancock, who apparently has access to Joan Mellen's book, has stated in this thread that the story at first was that Garrison met with the CIA's own Robert Maheu), to address the seemingly more credible but no less false allegations of mob ties. Garrison was not "the most loyal Mafia ally imaginable." I quote here from Bill Davy's book, Let Justice Be Done, pages 154-155, "One has only to look at the New Orleans Times-Picayune of the day [Note: during Jim Garrison's "war on French Quarter vice"] to see through this charge. Garrison gave the green light to padlocking at least four Marcello connected bars: The Flamingo, The Old French Opera House, The 500 Club and The Sho-Bar. In the case of the Flamingo, Garrison sought to close that bar down for a year and directed his Assistant D.A., Denis A. Barry, to prove in court that the owner, Frank Sinopoli, was only a front for Marcello." Additionally, Garrison did look into Mafia connections during his assassination probe. Davy quotes from a four page memo Jim Garrison wrote to his staff in December 1967, titled, "Organized Crime Aspects of the Assassination": "It cannot be denied, for example, that there is evidence which appears to indicate some involvement of individuals who seem to have organized crime connections. Furthermore, we cannot arbitrarily assume that, even if the militant right wing factor continues to develop effectively, involvement of organized crime elements may not be an additional factor as a product of joint interest." (Davy 155) In addition to this, why would Garrison go after Ferrie, who was tied in with Marcello? I could cite many more example of Garrison's lack of connection to the mob and Marcello specifically, but this should be enough. Next, the author implies that the only evidence that Garrison really had against Clay Shaw were the items seized from Clay Shaw's residence. This ignores the testimony of Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, the Clinton Witnesses, Clay Shaw's booking card, and much else. Yes, Garrison did indeed state that he has great respect for the FBI, understandable as he had once worked for them, but this is not the full story. For instance, Garrison brought William Walter's information (which certainly doesn't make the FBI look good in regards to the assassination) to light in his appearance on the Johnny Carson show (this was rebroadcast on Black Op Radio and can be accessed at http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2005.html, go down to show #214). This also ignores the concentrated efforts on the part of the FBI to subvert Garrison's investigation. As an example, Joan Mellen quotes from an FBI document wherein J. Edgar Hoover directs his field agents to "Give Garrison Nothing!" (this can be found on the front page of Joan Mellen's website, http://www.joanmellen.net). Of course, this hardly fits with the author's contention that Garrison conducted his investigation on behalf of the FBI for the purposes of obfuscation. For the second time in the article we find the author exonerating the CIA from blame. The author quotes Jim Garrison's statements regarding the lack of involvement of Lyndon Johnson, but leaves out the more famous part of those comments, namely, "[Who is] the one man who has profitted most from the assassination-your friendly president Lyndon Johnson." Garrison made this statement to show what sort of conclusions could be drawn since the files were sealed, which he was advocating opening. If Lyndon Johnson was actually guilty of JFK's murder, as the author contends, Jim Garrison's advocation of the opening of the files could hardly help him in any case. The author next quotes convict Miguel Torres regarding alleged criminality on Garrison's behalf. What the author of this little essay does not inform the reader is that after Torres made these allegations on NBC's fraudulent white paper, he refused to repeat these charges before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury. He was subsequently cited for contempt of court and had his prison sentence extended. His grand jury appearance can be read here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...orres_0001a.htm. Garrison commented on him, as well as another giver of false testimony, John Cancler, in his famous Playboy interview as follows, "Of course, these two convicts have been used against my office in a variety of respects. Miguel Torres also claims I offered him a full pardon, a vacation in Florida and an ounce of heroin if he would testify that Clay Shaw had made homosexual overtures to him on the street. What on earth that would have established relevant to this case I still don't know, but that's his story. I think it was actually rather cheap of me to offer Torres only an ounce of heroin; that wouldn't have lasted out his vacation. A kilo would be more like it. After all, I'm not stingy. Torres' friend John Cancler, a burglar, has also charged that one of my investigators tried to induce him to burglarize Clay Shaw's house and plant false evidence there, but he refused because he would not have such a heinous sin on his conscience. I suppose that's why Cancler's prison nickname is 'John the Baptist.' I can assure you, if we ever wanted to burglarize Shaw's home --- which we never did --- John the Baptist would be the last man on earth we'd pick for the job. By the way, Mr. Cancler was called before the grand jury and asked if he had told the truth to NBC. He replied; 'I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer might incriminate me' --- and was promptly sentenced to six months in prison and a $500 fine for contempt of court" (http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html). Next under the author's cosshairs is Garrison's chief witness, Perry Raymond Russo. "Under repeated cross- examination," Russo did not "basically admitted the fact that he did not know anything about the Kennedy assassination" and that "he disseminated rehearsed lies." This can be easily verified by reading his trial testimony. The author makes it seem as though Russo was approached by Garrison to give false testimony when, in fact, Russo approached Garrison with his testimony first. As for the "demanding press that essentially exposed the fact that his testimony was not genuine," that was one James Phelan, an FBI informant [the documents are reproduced here: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/media/phelan.htm]. Again, this undercuts the author's charge that the FBI was behind Garrison probe. As for Phelan's charges, Lisa Pease rebuts them at http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo3.htm and http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo4.htm. Davy and Jim DiEugenio also rebut these charges in their respective books, and soon Joan Mellen will do the same to an even greater extent, if her Taking Aim interview is anything to go on. Also of interest is this interview with Russo: http://www.redshift.com/~damason/lhreport/...cles/perry.html. As for the allegation that former CIA/NSA "newsman" Walter Sheridan trying to bribe Russo is "absurd", well, it really isn't. Russo made out an affidavit to this fact (as did many other witnesses, ie Fred Leemans and Marlene Mancuso, who Sheridan and his buddy Richard Townley attempted to bribe). Regarding William Gurvich, he was an infiltrator who pilfered many of Garrison's files and turned them over to the defense team (there were no discovery laws in La. at the time). He said he had no confidence in Garrison's investigation, despite many statements to the press to the contrary prior to his defection. Read his Grand Jury testimony for a laugh here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...rvich_0001a.htm and here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...vich2_0001a.htm. He is unable to substantiate any of his charges of illegal acts on Garrison's part.. An example: "Q: You don't know the names of the 2 members of the staff who did illegal acts that you were referring to in your telecast? A: I am sure I can think of them. Q: Well would you please think of them now and give us the names? A: Well, if you will continue I will think while you talk" (page 62 of the 1st transcript). Later, "Q: Did 2 members of Garrison's staff perform illegal acts on his orders? A: I don't remember - I am having trouble with that - Q: Do you know? Is the answer yes, no, or I don't know? A: I don't remember" (page 72 of the 1st transcript). And again, "Q: Give us one fact, you are supposed to be an investigator. You have not given us one single fact. I am trying to lay it on the line. You go around and say what all these people are saying - that is unimportant. I think every one of the Jury are thinking what I am telling you and I think I am speaking for all of them when I say you don't have nothing. You haven't given us one thing to go on. A: Well, they are entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. Of course I did not expect you to act on this, but I thought they were serious things" (p. 86.1). Garrison did not charge RFK with being behind the assassination of his brother, but rather obstructing his investigation. This doesn't seem all that unlikely as Walter Sheridan was RFK's right hand man in his war against Hoffa. During Sheridan's all-out assault on Garrison's investigation, RFK vouched for his integrity. More on Sheridan and his NBC white paper can be found in "'Shoot Him Down' NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison" by Bill Davy, which is a very condensed version of his chapter in Let Justice Be Done, minus the footnotes, on the media assault on Garrison (the link is here: http://www.abclies.net/nbc_cia.html). Particularly laughable is this passage, "On March 2nd, shortly after Garrison arrested Shaw, Attorney General Ramsey Clark indicated that Shaw had been investigated and cleared of any connection to the assassination. But on June 2nd, the Justice Department, obviously on the prodding of J. Edgar Hoover, indicated that Clay Shaw had never been investigated. In other words, despite the Warren Commission investigation, Justice Department Czar J. Edgar Hoover was giving Jim Garrison the official green light to "investigate" the Kennedy assassination." This is a half-truth at best. The unusual thing was that prior to Ramsey Clark's statement, officially Clay Shaw had never been investigated by the FBI (Clark did not say it was the Warren Commission who investigated Shaw, as the article falsely states). Ramsey Clark stated that not only had Clay Shaw been cleared by this investigation, but that, in fact, he and Clay Bertrand were one and the same (Clay Bertrand is the person who called attorney Dean Andrews to represent Oswald prior to his being shot by Ruby and who Garrison had charge with being an alias of Clay Shaw's). The Justice Department subsequently confirmed this. The New York Times of March 3, 1967: "A Justice Department official said tonight that his agency was convinced that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man, and that this was the basis for Mr. Clark's assertions this morning." Once it had been realized what kind of blunder had been made, it was retracted. Billy Davy, in his book, quotes from a memo by Cartha DeLoach to Clyde Tolson on March 2, 1967, "The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." Hoover himself signed off on the memo as follows, "I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H." (Davy 170) Well, this pretty much undercuts the article's assertions, doesn't it? In fact, it shows them to be the reverse. Number three man in the FBI Cartha DeLoach gave this information to Ramsey Clark. He recounted this to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's no. 2. Hoover, understanding what Cartha had done, hopes that Clark doesn't "peddle" the information he has recieved. When he did, he is made to recant, thus undercutting any help Clark's statements might have inadvertantly given Garrison. The intention of Clark's statements had been to help Shaw by clearing him, and the FBI had him withdraw them because they actually helped Garrison and violated the official history. Next, it is recounted how Garrison had made comments about possible "racketeering influences of our eight vacationing judges." The reader is not told that these comments came about because the judges refused to fund his organized crime investigations (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, page 9 - this is still a very good book with an immense amount of detail and information despite its age). Again, isn't Garrison supposed to be flacking for the mob? Subsequently he had his right to criticize the judges upheld in the Supreme Court. Does anything more really need to be said about this incident? As for the conflict between Garrison and Police Chief Giarrusso, Mellen notes in Black Op Radio #144 (not currently accessible) that Giarrusso was the one who actually took the bribes that the federal government brought Garrison to court over (and of which he was subsequently acquited). Despite their not being on good terms, Giarrusso investigated and cleared Garrison's Assistant D.A.'s of bribery charges brought against them and also cleared Officer Habighorst (who took Clay Shaw's booking card, wherein Shaw gave Clay Bertrand as an alias) of any misconduct (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, pages 245 and 298). Aaron Kohn. Aaron Kohn and Garrison were once on good terms, but had a falling out after Kohn recklessly charged that Garrison and Governor McKeithen were under the mob's influence (he contended that the aforementioned stripper, Linda Brigette, was Marcello connected). He resurfaced with more unsubstantiated allegations of Garrison's mob connections after Garrison's probe went public. It was at this point that he was called before the Grand Jury. I quote Davy here, "When one of the executives of Kohn's Crime Commission appeared before the Grand Jury, he admitted, 'No, we have nothing, we have no evidence to present before the Grand Jury'" (Davy 158). Kohn was not squashed by the Grand Jury, he simply didn't present any evidence, as Garrison said. As for perjury charges against Kerry Thornley, these were accurate. Thornley denied having any contact with Oswald while both were in New Orleans. As Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy note, "Garrison had no less than eight witnesses who said they had seen Oswald and Thornley together in New Orleans in 1963. And some of them went beyond just noting the association between the two. Two of these witnesses, Bernard Goldsmith and Doris Dowell, both said that Thornley told them Oswald was not a communist. This is amazing since, as noted earlier, the Warren Commission featured Thornley as its key witness to Oswald's alleged commie sympathies" (http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr599-lambert.html). Next, we come to a charge that is totally false. Garrison did not, ever, have a witness who claimed to be Julius Ceasar and wore a toga. This claim originates with Robert Sam Anson, who wrote that this alleged witness appeared in court and testified to that effect (Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 370, note 101). Just take a look through the trial transcripts. You will find absolutely nothing like this. I repeat, this charge is a 100% fabrication. We are told of "psychiatric patients who offered hypnotically induced testimony." Garrison did not have witnesses who were psychiatric patients. The only witness who underwent hypnosis was Perry Russo, and he told Garrison's investigators his story before the hypnosis sessions. The hypnosis was to verify Russo's conscious recollections, one of the "independent verifying tests, including polygraph examination, truth serum and hypnosis," as Garrison stated in his Playboy interview. "We thought this would be hailed as an unprecedented step in jurisprudence; instead, the press turned around and hinted that we had drugged our witnesses or given them posthypnotic suggestions to testify falsely." Lastly, the author says that "when Garrison was arrested on bribery and tax evasion charges, he claimed that the American government had framed him because it did not want him to continue to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy." The reader is given only half the story. Garrison was acquitted and the Federal Government did, in fact, attempt to frame him. Peter Whitmey wrote a good, lengthy article about this scheme, "Pershing Gervais and the Attempt to Frame Jim Garrison" (it can be read here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/W...ey/Gervais.html). So, in all, there is really nothing to the article but smoke and mirrors, falsehoods and half-truths. The article contains "factual assertions," as Tim Gratz puts it, only in that these charges were made against Garrison. That is, indeed, factual. What are not factual are the charges themselves and the way in which the author spins things, such as Ramsey Clark's comments to the press, which can only be described as deceptive. In addition, two blatantly false charges are made ("Julius Caesar" and alleged hypnotically induced testimony provided by psychiatric patients). The article is, indeed, "rubbish." I also note that I have independently come to the same conclusions as Dawn Meredith. So now it is two-to-two, and by your logic, I (and Dawn Meredith) know just as much about JFK's assassination as you and Thomas Purvis. Not that there is any scientific weight whatsoever to that contention. edit: cleaned post up and corrected chronology re: Kohn

Owen Parsons is a high school senior with an interest in the JFK assassination that started probably a month after the 40th anniversary. His first real assassination books were Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement and Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins, which were ordered used. He has subsequently checked out many books on the subject from the local college library and bought many more. Owen has an overall strong interest in contemporary American history. He is most specifically interested in Jim Garrison's investigation, which he learned about via Probe Magazine's website. This has had the most effect on his thinking regarding the assassination. Politically, he regards himself as progressive.