Jump to content
The Education Forum

Garrison's Application of Models


Recommended Posts

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY Vo.. 9, 1 May 31, 1987

Paul L. Hoch : ...Garrison is rather candid about his methodology

and the fundamental perception of the case which compels it:

"In the final analysis, as I mentioned during our conversations here,

the most effective progress to be made in perceiving a professional clandestine operation -- which is, of course, what you are dealing with,

is by the successive application of models

until one finds the model which fits.

After that, the acquisition of forensic evidence will follow rather routinely.

Such an approach is necessary, of course, because the clandestine structure,

the covers of its participants and the indirection of their pursuits

are specifically designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search

(without an applicable model, a working hypothesis, in mind)

for forensic evidence."

Hoch: That sounds pretty sensible, and it need not be a recipe for paranoia

provided one applies rigorous standards to the "routine" acquisition of evidence,

and does repeated reality testing of one's underlying assumptions.

What can be said of Garrison's belief that the assassination was

"of course...a professionally clandestine operation"

in light of his analysis of specific, manageable, and verifiable bits of evidence...

(8 EOC 2.7, #68)

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY Vo.. 9, 1 May 31, 1987

Paul L. Hoch : ...Garrison is rather candid about his methodology

and the fundamental perception of the case which compels it:

"In the final analysis, as I mentioned during our conversations here,

the most effective progress to be made in perceiving a professional clandestine operation -- which is, of course, what you are dealing with,

is by the successive application of models

until one finds the model which fits.

After that, the acquisition of forensic evidence will follow rather routinely.

Such an approach is necessary, of course, because the clandestine structure,

the covers of its participants and the indirection of their pursuits

are specifically designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search

(without an applicable model, a working hypothesis, in mind)

for forensic evidence."

Hoch: That sounds pretty sensible, and it need not be a recipe for paranoia

provided one applies rigorous standards to the "routine" acquisition of evidence,

and does repeated reality testing of one's underlying assumptions.

What can be said of Garrison's belief that the assassination was

"of course...a professionally clandestine operation"

in light of his analysis of specific, manageable, and verifiable bits of evidence...

(8 EOC 2.7, #68)

Hoch : "...methodology..."

He (Reasonable assumption: Garrison) said: "... the most effective progress to be made in PERCIEVING a professional clandestine operation -- which is, of course, what you are dealing with. ..."

ie dealing with pervieving or identifying

! a hypothesis (model), followed by the search for supporting evidence...."will follow rather routinely."

Hoch: "That sounds pretty sensible..."...+

" repeated reality testing of one's underlying assumptions."

together, a hypothesis, search, and continual "reality testing" of "underlying (ie fundamental building blocks) assumptions.

The continual referral to the fundaments and when one is found potentially faulty it follows that the work derived therefrom is potentially flawed and no "law"can be formulated until the fundaments are resolved, (sometimes by ditching the lot and sarting again).

In whatever case, data is derived and may apply to different hypothesis. ie not futile.

The futility is taking a potentiallly faulty fundament and conclusions derived therefrom and deriving conclusions. Any further (by others, at any time) work flowing from there sans 'reality check' is equally fundamentally flawed.

This does not mean that the hypothesis or conclusions NECESSARILY are flawed. "...the clandestine structure, the covers of its participants and the indirection of their pursuits are specifically designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search..." Catch 22? Not necessarily. Rather sophisticated methods are proposed by various persons to clear the smoke and smash the mirrors to percieve the next door.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Weisberg's assessment of Garrison.

Reading "Breach of Promise" showed me what yeoman's work Weisberg did. I have yet to read any of his books but I want to and intend to.

Tim, I'm not looking to assess Garrison or judge him, or why you even bring up Weisberg, but would like to analysize his statement, as quoted by Paul Hoch, that various matrix models should be devised until one fits the crime.

J.D. gets it.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY Vo.. 9, 1 May 31, 1987

Paul L. Hoch : ...Garrison is rather candid about his methodology

and the fundamental perception of the case which compels it:

"In the final analysis, as I mentioned during our conversations here,

the most effective progress to be made in perceiving a professional clandestine operation -- which is, of course, what you are dealing with,

is by the successive application of models

until one finds the model which fits.

After that, the acquisition of forensic evidence will follow rather routinely.

Such an approach is necessary, of course, because the clandestine structure,

the covers of its participants and the indirection of their pursuits

are specifically designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search

(without an applicable model, a working hypothesis, in mind)

for forensic evidence."

Bill,

On other threads I've written of the immense usefulness of the application of the creative process -- in particular, what might best be called "storytelling" -- to the investigations of intelligence operations, and how, by their nature, intel ops are impervious to dissections by Occam's Razor.

As I understand Garrison, his "application of models" is synonymous with what I would term "creative investigation."

And when he notes how the "clandestine structure ... [is] designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search ... " Garrison is acknowledging the utter uselessness of the principle of parsimony as a tool for investigating intel ops -- which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the principle's principals.

Do you agree?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY Vo.. 9, 1 May 31, 1987

Paul L. Hoch : ...Garrison is rather candid about his methodology

and the fundamental perception of the case which compels it:

"In the final analysis, as I mentioned during our conversations here,

the most effective progress to be made in perceiving a professional clandestine operation -- which is, of course, what you are dealing with,

is by the successive application of models

until one finds the model which fits.

After that, the acquisition of forensic evidence will follow rather routinely.

Such an approach is necessary, of course, because the clandestine structure,

the covers of its participants and the indirection of their pursuits

are specifically designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search

(without an applicable model, a working hypothesis, in mind)

for forensic evidence."

Bill,

On other threads I've written of the immense usefulness of the application of the creative process -- in particular, what might best be called "storytelling" -- to the investigations of intelligence operations, and how, by their nature, intel ops are impervious to dissections by Occam's Razor.

As I understand Garrison, his "application of models" is synonymous with what I would term "creative investigation."

And when he notes how the "clandestine structure ... [is] designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search ... " Garrison is acknowledging the utter uselessness of the principle of parsimony as a tool for investigating intel ops -- which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the principle's principals.

Do you agree?

Charles

Charles,

I was think of you when I read that excerpt from Hoch's EOC, and how in a post a few months ago you talked about a three tiered conspiracy of the mechanics, middlemen and ringleaders or something like that.

What was your model again?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK,

Thanks for the quick reply.

"My" model is in fact an Evica/Drago co-production. Most of the work was done by George Michael before I met him; I added a few ideas and provoked some re-imaginings, if I might use the appropriate term.

In its simplest (overly so?) form, then:

TIER ONE -- Sponsors. No sub-divisions. Those with the ultimate authority and resources to give the order, expect it to be carried out, and support the operation through multiple layers of buffers. Suspect (chosen more for illustration of type rather than likely player): David Rockefeller.

CONNECTIVE TISSUE: Douglas MacArthur, Charles Willoughby.

TIER TWO -- Facilitators. Three sub-divisions, from the top and as follows, (with probable overlap): Overseers; Managers; Field Operatives. Suspects (in order, and only for illlustration of type): David Atlee Phillips, Ed Landsdale, Carlos Marcello; David Sanchez Morales, John Rosselli, Napoleon Valeriano, Lucien Conein; Carlos Bringuier, David Ferrie, Rip Robertson. NOTE: This is the level from which some, but not all, FALSE SPONSORS emerge.

CONNECTIVE TISSUE: William Bishop.

TIER THREE -- Mechanics. All that can be known for certain, at least at this point in time, is that they were the best hunters of humans in all the world.

Again, I do not necessarily level charges at any of the above-named individuals.

This is perhaps too bare-bones, but at least it's a start.

Hope it helps.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi Bill,

When, as kids, one of us would knock the ball out into the field that was full of weeds we had a way to locate it. The boy who hit the ball would turn his back to the field and throw the bat over his shoulder. It would land, naturally with one end pointing one way and the other end the opposite way.

We would line up at each end of the bat where it fell and walk in those directions. If we didn't find the ball in the tall grass then we would repeat the process until we did.

Hoch's method seems simular. A starting point is needed.

jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Hoch is referring to is a letter from Garrison to Jonathan Blackmer of the HSCA. And there is a quite a story behind this. And it tells us a lot of why Fensterwald once wrote, "The HSCA sure went to hell in a hand baskeet didn't it? One wonders if it did by its own accord or if it had lots of help."

Blackmer was one of the original team of lawyers hired by Tanenbaum and Sprague. Tanenbaum assigned him to New Orleans. So he went down and interviewed Garrison for several hours. Garrison and he struck up a good relationship and trusted each other. To his credit, Blackmer never bought into that whole phony "discreditation" operation run by Phelan, Aynseworth, Sheridan and James Kirkwood. (Who, BTW, was handpicked by Shaw to write American Grotesque after James Herlihy declined.)

So he and Garrison developed a good working relationship. Garrison trusted him enough to actually open up what was left of his archives in order to back up certain points of elucidation that Blackmer wanted.

This particular letter that Garrison wrote to Jonathan concerned Thomas Beckham. A figure who the local investigators Buras and Delsa had discovered on their own. Blackmer inquired about him and so Garrison sent him several documents he had left from his files. The documents were quite interesting, including an anonymous letter written by Beckham to Fensterwald. That was a real eye opener. And these documents completely undermine the whole phony "discreditation" apparatus I mentioned above.

Anyway, to guide him through the documents, and to give him the benefit of his experience, Garrison wrote this letter. Of which Hoch only quoted a small part. This part came toward the end. Garrison was trying to explain to Blackmer that although Beckham was an interesting character, he was nothing but a pawn in a much larger game. Garrison said what you did with someone like Beckham is you had to find who his controller was. Garrison though it was Crisman. And he said that whatever they got from Beckham, they would get much more from Crisman. (Garrison did not know that Crisman had passed away around this time.)

The overall point he was making was that the big mistake many people from law enforcement make when they study the JFK case was that they try and embrace conventional means of crime detection in a case that was anything but conventional. It was a clandestine operation. (As Garrison said in his Playboy interview, the JFK case made Dr. No and Goldlfinger look like auditor's reports.) The latest example of this, and a very clear and dramatic one, is Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.

Garrison was telling Blackmer that in solving this case, one could not trust the first day or crime scene evidence since it had been shown to be so flawed and questionable. One had to find a theoretical construct which fit all the circumstances of the crime. And one had to repeat this process over and over until it became a paradigm that fit either all aspects or as much as possible. That was how one would eventually solve the JFK case. Garrison's letters to Blackmer are a real treasure trove. The thing that makes them so interesting is that JG is trying hard to keep his own biases out of the way. For instance, in this letter, he never tries to color the overall illustration--that is tell John B which paradigm is the best. He clearly is saying that he has to find out himself.

What happened was this: Blackmer found Garrison's evidence, of which JG sent him a lot of, quite compelling. I mean, after all, no one had seen this stuff since 1969. Or even then. Since Garrison had held much of it back at the Shaw trial, since he was preparing for a series of trials which would eventually pyramid to the upper levels of the plot. Because of this, when Blakey and Billings came in, they decided to ostracize Jonathan since they wanted no part of either Garrison or a CIA plot. So they removed him from New Orleans and sent in a crew of inexperienced investigators who knew very little of that area. They even sent in an investigator from the King side! Blackmer was actually moved to the medical part of the inquiry. And they did a concluding interview with Garrison that was a disgrace. Reminiscient of Sheridan. Who, of course, was now a quasi consultant to the HSCA.

Blackmer got the message. There was no career advancement in this case, especially if you are perceived as being close to Garrison. He has never given an interview to anyone or shown anyone whatever files he got from his HSCA days or Garrison.

So to answer Fensterwald, the HSCA had a lot of help going to hell. And much of it came from Blakey and Billings.

That is the back story behind this memo from JG to Blackmer.

Jim,

"He has never given an interview to anyone or shown anyone whatever files he got from his HSCA days or Garrison."

Do we know for sure that he kept any materials from his HSCA investigation days, and did the ARRB try and contact him to see what files he migt have?

Would it be worth the effort for someone to try and contact him today?

I'm very interested in having as many of the Garrison files available for researchers as possible.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He won't talk to anyone about his experience.

Joan Mellen and Bill Davy have both got in contact with him. He will not consent to an interview.

Do I know if he kept anything for sure from his HSCA days? No I am not positive. But he did have this extensive correspondence with JG. Unless Blakey asked him to turn it all over, he should still have it, that is unless he destroyed it on his own.

As per the ARRB, I never saw anything in either Gunn or Blackmer's work file which indicated they got in contact with him.

An online search of the Archives kicks back 92 documents with Blackmers's name, most of them appear to be Garrison/new orleans related. There at least 5 letters to Blackmer from JG, including one about Beckham - are these the letters you refer to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

This must be from the HSCA collection right?

But if there are only five, this seems to be not the whole thing.

Yes, it all seems to be from the HSCA colelction.

There are also items listed from Blackmer to Blakey regarding New Orleans/Garrison as late as May of 1978 and others from summer of 1978 to as late as fall of 1978 showing Blackmer working on NO. He also seems to have worked on Walker and Genevea Dees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened was that Blakey suspended Delsa and Buras and started moving Blackmer around. The clear reason is that Blakey percieved all three as becoming too close to Garrison.

To give you some idea of what he did, he actually sent in Patty Orr to do the listing of the Garrison files still held in Connick's office. When of course, she would have little understanding of that as compared to those two men. Orr also wrote the reports in the HSCA volumes on Ferrie, Cheramie and 544 Camp Street.

To understand this one has to know that Patty Orr was working mostly in Washington and as an assistant to Blakey himself. To put her in the field to summarize the Garrison files or do reports on Ferrie, this makes little sense from an investigative view. And Peter Vea actually found a document which revealed that Blakey even moved an MLK researcher into New Orleans.

FInally, after Blackmer was pulled out, and Buras and Delsa were suspended, Blakey sent Mike Ewing to do an interview with Garrison.

Ewing was a thorough dyed in the wool, Mob did it type, reminiscient of Dan Moldea. Later on, he became a trash JFK guy also. This is why he was originally teamed up with Sy Hersh to do that horrendous hatchet job on Kennedy, the Dark Side of Camelot.

Blakey did everything he could to 1.) bury Garrison and 2.) to puff up a Mob did it scenario.

The effects on this case were almost fatal.

After all these years there is one area, where ostensible good information, in my opinion has been more or less ignored. The book The Man On the Grassy Knoll,

John R Craig and Philip A Rogers, received its obligatory fifteen minutes of fame, but was relegated to the assassination scrap heap, after the litmus test of "correctly ID'ing the three tramps, to everybody's satisfaction;" something that was virtually impossible to begin with, failed despite the fact that Lois Gibson applied the models of Charles Frederick Rogers, Charles Harrelson and Chauncey Holt, and according to the authors, they matched, I am not going to go into the details, that is just

a generalization of the books conclusion.

I am not endorsing or saying I agree that the three were the tramps, by any means.

The point I am trying to make, is that it can be argued that the information contained in the book, has glimmers of being incredibly pertinent to the assassination, especially in regards to the Ferrie trip to the Winterland Skating rink, although this is nothing more than my opinion, but it is an opinion based on a very thorough look at the book.

There is another drawback to the book, which, in my estimation hurt it considerably. And that is the fact that the book, while having an appendix, does not have, neither an index nor footnotes, which I believe hurt the books impact, in a very considerable manner.

As for "application of models" the aforementioned, as well the whole Clay Shaw area deserves a closer look. Why would I besmirch my own reputation by making such a claim?

Mainly because utilizing the same Archival documents that John Armstrong used when he spent a considerable amount of time at the Archives, I have some of what are in the Archives, Jim Garrison's notes and phone numbers on the assassination; there seems to be an incredible disconnect between who and what was being researched, and what

made it to trial, any veteran researcher who knows how pertinent information has been discovered since 1963, will tell you the truth about a single aspect of the assassination is often very complex, the devil in the details, so to speak.

Garrison, in my opinion was sort of screwed before he got started. Just look at some of his researchers, Bill Boxley to name just one.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened was that Blakey suspended Delsa and Buras and started moving Blackmer around. The clear reason is that Blakey percieved all three as becoming too close to Garrison.

To give you some idea of what he did, he actually sent in Patty Orr to do the listing of the Garrison files still held in Connick's office. When of course, she would have little understanding of that as compared to those two men. Orr also wrote the reports in the HSCA volumes on Ferrie, Cheramie and 544 Camp Street.

To understand this one has to know that Patty Orr was working mostly in Washington and as an assistant to Blakey himself. To put her in the field to summarize the Garrison files or do reports on Ferrie, this makes little sense from an investigative view. And Peter Vea actually found a document which revealed that Blakey even moved an MLK researcher into New Orleans.

FInally, after Blackmer was pulled out, and Buras and Delsa were suspended, Blakey sent Mike Ewing to do an interview with Garrison.

Ewing was a thorough dyed in the wool, Mob did it type, reminiscient of Dan Moldea. Later on, he became a trash JFK guy also. This is why he was originally teamed up with Sy Hersh to do that horrendous hatchet job on Kennedy, the Dark Side of Camelot.

Blakey did everything he could to 1.) bury Garrison and 2.) to puff up a Mob did it scenario.

The effects on this case were almost fatal.

After all these years there is one area, where ostensible good information, in my opinion has been more or less ignored. The book The Man On the Grassy Knoll,

John R Craig and Philip A Rogers, received its obligatory fifteen minutes of fame, but was relegated to the assassination scrap heap, after the litmus test of "correctly ID'ing the three tramps, to everybody's satisfaction;" something that was virtually impossible to begin with, failed despite the fact that Lois Gibson applied the models of Charles Frederick Rogers, Charles Harrelson and Chauncey Holt, and according to the authors, they matched, I am not going to go into the details, that is just

a generalization of the books conclusion.

I am not endorsing or saying I agree that the three were the tramps, by any means.

The point I am trying to make, is that it can be argued that the information contained in the book, has glimmers of being incredibly pertinent to the assassination, especially in regards to the Ferrie trip to the Winterland Skating rink, although this is nothing more than my opinion, but it is an opinion based on a very thorough look at the book.

There is another drawback to the book, which, in my estimation hurt it considerably. And that is the fact that the book, while having an appendix, does not have, neither an index nor footnotes, which I believe hurt the books impact, in a very considerable manner.

As for "application of models" the aforementioned, as well the whole Clay Shaw area deserves a closer look. Why would I besmirch my own reputation by making such a claim?

Mainly because utilizing the same Archival documents that John Armstrong used when he spent a considerable amount of time at the Archives, I have some of what are in the Archives, Jim Garrison's notes and phone numbers on the assassination; there seems to be an incredible disconnect between who and what was being researched, and what

made it to trial, any veteran researcher who knows how pertinent information has been discovered since 1963, will tell you the truth about a single aspect of the assassination is often very complex, the devil in the details, so to speak.

Garrison, in my opinion was sort of screwed before he got started. Just look at some of his researchers, Bill Boxley to name just one.

As further argument for the legitimacy of the Garrison model, take John Connally, as an example. In Jim Garrison's experiences with the issue of extradition of Sergio Aracha Smith see

Sergio Aracha Smith

http://educationforu...?showtopic=4365

Which brings us to an interesting passage in James Reston's biography of John Connally.

Connally Request for Oswald letter; George Christian letter to Paul Nitze secretary of the Navy, October 12, 1967 also Houston Post, November 29, 1987.

Connally's fascination with Oswald's letter may well have gone back to the very first moment he received it in 1962. His aide when he was Secretary of the navy, Captain Andy Kerr (USNR Ret.) published a book in 1987 in which he asserted that Connally, had, in fact, paid considerable attention to Oswald's letter when it was first received.

"Connally recalled me. . . to ask a couple of questions about the Oswald case, which seemed to interest him." Kerr recalled about a day early in 1962. "He [felt] that the case had overtones which he wanted to be sure he understand, but after talking about it he agreed that the referral to the Commandant [of the Marine Corps], which was basically a kiss off, was the way it should be handled, and he initialed the buck slip." Additionally, Kerr asserted that, when Connally came to Washington to testify to the Warren Commission, he made a special trip to the navy secretary's office and asked for the original of the Oswald letter. Kerr looked for the letter in the navy's files but could not find it, because, of course, it had been sent to the Warren Commission.

It remains both a mystery and a clear oversight as to why the Warren Commission did not pursue a line of questioning with Connally about the Oswald letter.

(Kerr - Journey Amidst the Good and the Great, and his oral history, Chester W Nimitz Library, Annapolis, Md.)

from page 646 Notes Lone Star: The Life of John Connally - James Reston, Jr.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting point you bring up about the Shaw trial.

See, this is something I did some work on. For the simple matter that I could not understand why the so called critical community's "leading lights"--Sylvia Meagher, Paul Hoch, TInk Thompson, Peter Scott, Harold Weisberg--all started to bury Garrison after 1969. Actually it started before that. If you listen to the audio tape DVP had of TInk from I think 1968, you will see that he ridicules Garrison calling the JFK murder a coup d'etat. This is really something I think. Because in retrospect, Garrison was correct and TInk was wrong. If one thinks of a coup as the murder of an elected head of state for the purpose or reversing some kind of policy--that is exactly what happened. JFK's VIetnam withdrawal policy was replaced by LBJ's escalation policy.

Question: How did Garrison understand that that early? One of the things I discovered in his files was that a professor from Ohio University wrote him a very long handwritten letter, about 25 pages. In a nutshell, it was John Newman's book. And the thing about Garrison is, he was not so arrogant to think he knew everything. So he read this stuff.

Now getting to the trial. You are correct, there is a disconnect between what Garrison had and what was presented. This is something that Bugliosi even acknowledged to me in a phone conversation. How does one explain it?

1. Garrison acknowledged that he made an error in holding back on much of his evidence. As I mentioned earlier, he had planned on a series of trials which would pyramid upwards to the top level of the plot.

2. Garrison was really sick and could not conduct the day to day tactics of the trial. He had a horrendous back injury at the time combined with the Hong Kong flu. I have little doubt that this is why Shaw's lawyers agreed to go to trial at this time after using every delay tactic in the book for two years. No one in his office knew what was in Garrison's files better than he did.

3.The infiltration, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation of Garrison and his witnesses peaked. This had been an ongoing process since the Walter Sheridan attack in the summer of 1967. One of the chief agents in this effort was Dave Perry's buddy Hugh Aynseworth, who tried to bribe everyone under the sun, even the marshall up in Clinton, Manchester. The other thing that happened was the CIA combining with conservative governors like Reagan to be sure that certain witnesses would not be returned to New Orleans, like Perry Russo's girlfriend, like Sergio Arcacha Smith, like Gordon Novel. And if they were returned, they had baby sitters who rehearsed them in advance as to what to say.

At the time of the trial, this effort peaked. Nagell had a hand grenade thrown at him in NYC. One of the Clinton witnesses had the windows on his truck blown out with a rifle. Another had a prowler on his grounds. Alyosius Habighorst was rammed by a pick up truck. Clyde Johnson was physically attacked and beaten to a pulp. This last really shook up Garrison because he had made certain arrangements to hide him out. This told him just how infiltrated and wired his office was. I strongly suspect the go-between for the surveillance and the attacks was Perry and Gary Mack's good friend Aynseworth. And I will be glad to debate this point with either one of them. Maybe Gary will arrange such an evening at the SIxth FLoor for the edification of his visitors.

But its an open question as to if Garrison had been unobstructed if he could have convicted Shaw. Certainly the CIA thought he could since we have that in their own documents. I say this for two reasons. First, trying to uncover a covert operation of this magnitude by a local DA of a mid sized city was quite a task. I mean for a point of comparison, the Senate could not completely uncover the Iran/Contra scandal. Also, the Spiesel disaster clearly poisoned the jury. Whether or not that was planned, it seems that Angleton had a back up plan if Alcock didn't fall for it. That is the monitoring and name traces on the jury. Recall, Helms had a teletype machine moved into the local New Orleans CIA office and they were monitoring the trial in real time.

Now, to Garrison's credit, he learned his lesson the hard way. At Shaw's perjury trial, he was going to throw everything he had at him to prove he was a xxxx--which he was. But that was waylaid by that unbelievably biased judge Christenberry. Why do I say that? Because the Christenberrys were friends of Charles Thrasher, Shaw's commanding officer in Army intelligence during WW 2. Christenberry's wife actually wrote Shaw a congratulations letter after the trial. Christenberry should have recused himself, but he did not. Therefore, that trial never happened. Contrary to popular belief, Garrison kept on investigating the case up until that trial was called off. Not as extensively as before, but he was still coming up with interesting stuff.

Now, please show me where any of the above was ever written about by any of Garrison's critics inside the so-called critical community. It was not. Therefore, this aspect of the case--which had so much interesting evidence--was shunted aside for the likes of Dan Moldea, John Davis, and Bob Blakey. I will never forget the comment by Paul Hoch at the end of the HSCA saying that he liked Blakey's approach better than the first HSCA counsel RIchard Sprague's. To me, this was topsy turvy. What happened to Sprague was similar to what happened to Garrison. Therefore we know he was on the right track.

But that is one of the indications of why I fell out of infatuation with the vaunted and self-licking research community.

I try to read many of your posts, Jim, but I reckon that's one of the best. It's just jampacked with stuff to absorb put very succcinctly. I do have one notion though (which I suppose if valid could take all that and see some things in a different light) when you write quote in part ''. ...If you listen to the audio tape DVP had of TInk from I think 1968, you will see that he ridicules Garrison calling the JFK murder a coup d'etat. ...''. What do you think of the idea that possibly even earlier than 1953 a coup was under way already and JFK got in the way. So it wasn't a coup against something established but rather a hickup in an already happening coup. I suppose, in a way, everyone was in on it. It wasn't just the right that hated JFK. Castros overt flaming of JFK was mirrored through a huge chunk of the left. (I just don't think we (meaning those of a like mind) did it. It's not the done thing. Simple. But I wouldn't say the same of the right.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly that which the previous president warned of and possibly a correlation of a series of events that all had a starting point in that year in particular, and an end of an era too when at least a struggle was being waged on a high level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...