Kishan Dandiker

Wecht’s description of the absurdities of the magic bullet was perfect. When I saw the film in the cinema the whole audience was laughing at his descriptions of what supposedly happened. It was a good moment of levity in an otherwise serious film. As Ben said, earnest, persistent and to the point analysis for 60 years.

It's a stark contrast to the families of MLK and Malcolm X who very publicly made their opinions known.

I think an intelligent screenwriter could write a ‘Death of Stalin’ dark comedy about the foundation and activities of the Warren Commission. I still find it hilarious that guys like Fonzi were pro Warren Commission until they heard Specter try and explain the unexplainable first hand.

He was such a nut the CIA, FBI, DOJ, LIFE (and Johnny Carson) were running around like headless chickens trying to discredit him 🤣 If he was so crazy why spend all the time and money trying to discredit him?

Hi Sandy, Couldn’t distinguish much in terms of nationality but it was quite a mixed bag in terms of age. I would say I was probably the youngest (early 20s), then there were a couple of couples who would’ve have been maybe early 30s and the rest would’ve have been 40+. The woman I was sitting next to would’ve been around 50, and the couple sitting behind me were in their 60s.

I’ll definitely be looking to watch it in a cinema here in the UK, but so far have been struggling to find somewhere in London showing it. Is there a available list of where it will be showing in the UK Jim? Edit: Have found a place now, will be seeing it opening night.

Joe Rogan also mentioned it on his podcast.

Watched JFK as a teen but only became interested after reading On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison when I was 18. I remember reading it at lunchtime at school engrossed. As Stone has said, it read like a thriller, only the case and its characters were all real. While studying in Ireland I found a copy of Gaeton Fonzi's Last Investigation I the university library and I thought it was as impressive (if not more) than Garrison's book. Surprisingly, I laughed quite a lot - mainly at the absurdity of some of the situations Fonzi, Tanenbaum and others went through.

I wouldn’t want to promote something a friend wrote that had a blatant disregard for the truth, but each their own.

Up there with On the Trail of the Assassins as, in my opinion, the best book on the subject. I remember watching a speech Tanenbaum gave where he said that one of the people he was reporting to was so nonplussed about the whole thing that he asked how the investigation into RFK’s murder was going. I would’ve walked as well if I was working hard like Sprague and Tanenbaum only for the investigation to be controlled by incompetents.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/richard-sprague-obit-death-philly-20210405.html Things may have been very different had he not left the HSCA. RIP

After a little look online apparently it was RFK. He was talking to an old family friend. It was quoted in Talbot’s ‘Brothers’ on pg 268.

Thanks for the link, been meaning to listen to this for some time now. Two greats of the research community.

I should have made clearer why I brought up the grassy knoll gunman point. One of the major critiques of the Garrison trial was that he was just a paranoid DA who was looking to indict every Tom, Dick and Harry with conspiracy to murder the president. Hence, I just wanted to make clear I think this is a bogus claim, although you yourself weren’t arguing this. To answer your final question, yes I do believe Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK, due to the evidence today as well as what was available at the Shaw trial. His consistent lying throughout the build up in the trial for me doesn’t help prove his innocence. As a Brit I’m not fully aware of how your conspiracy laws work, so Dr Wager’s comment was especially useful. I certainly don’t think he’s as complicit as members of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service etc., but with these type of cases you have to start small and peel back the layers. It reminds of The Untouchables, where they start off small, then get the bookmaker, before finally getting Capone. As has been pointed out Garrison had good reason to go after Shaw, based on the certain initial instances. Had the Dean Andrews debacle not happened, as well as David Ferrie’s weird story about his trip to Texas, I doubt Garrison would have even attempted to start investigating. As DA, he was well aware of Ferrie and Bannisters right wing leanings, which should make anyone question why so many people saw them hanging around ‘communist’ LHO. Even though he wasn’t privy to what we have available now, I believe he was right to charge Clay Shaw with conspiracy.

Given the numerous links Shaw had to the CIA, as well as to men like David Ferrie and LHO, is it so unreasonable to think that he was guilty of what Garrison was trying to prove? The Clinton witnesses are enough for me to think there was a lot more going on with Shaw. Did Garrison do things I would have done differently? Definitely. But I don't think that he realised until too late what he had uncovered. I think the support he received from news stations like NBC, newspapers and magazines, politicians, CIA etc. show Garrison was on the right track. As Micah has highlighted, was Garrison trying to prove that Shaw was the shooter on the grassy knoll? If that had been the case then I would agree with your sentiment 100%. I doubt Shaw would have known the full extent of what was going to happen, but he certainly helped Oswald out as well as setting up the Oswald 'story' in Louisiana.