Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

Absolutely, Stephen. To me it's clear Garrison was brave, but flawed and somewhat reckless. He stirred up a lot of dust, and found a few nuggets.

When one studies this case, it's easy to see that ANYONE who tries to get at the truth, who questions what they've been told, is asking for trouble. Some will fight back because they believe they are right. Some will fight back because they can't accept the possibility they could be wrong. But fight they will. With gloves off.

While some would like to believe those who turned on Garrison were "plants," it seems entirely possible that they turned on him because they lost faith in HIM. That's the problem. It should never have been about HIM.

Those doubting Garrison's methods, and annoyed by his boasts and flights of fancy, IMO, should have realized that his investigation was nevertheless the last chance this country would have at getting at the truth, and given their support. But this is Monday morning quarterbacking. For the likes of Meagher and Weisberg, watching Garrison's investigation run in circles must have been agonizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

it's a shame JFK was murdered, dies in a very public way, sitting next to his wife... yet you say its a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized? Little righteous indignation goes a long way here, me thinks.

Creating intellectual POV's concerning investigation of this case is, to me not only futile, but a complete waste of time... and certainly does NOT do justice to history... this is murder, plain and simple... plain old detective work, that's the ticket!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

it's a shame JFK was murdered, dies in a very public way, sitting next to his wife... yet you say its a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized? Little righteous indignation goes a long way here, me thinks.

Creating intellectual POV's concerning investigation of this case is, to me not only futile, but a complete waste of time... and certainly does NOT do justice to history... this is murder, plain and simple... plain old detective work, that's the ticket!

You seem to miss the point. A person can sometimes be good at some things and not so good at others. Indignation doesn't give a license to ignore that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The CIA and the Garrison Probe

The ill-fated investigation of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison into the Kennedy assassination was not running for long before it started to pull CIA assets into its sights. An internal CIA memo from September 1967 lists those claimed by Garrison to have Agency ties: Clay Shaw, Lawrence LaBorde, Emilio Santana, Victor Manuel Paneque, Alberto Fernandez Hechavarria, Carlos Bringuier, Gerald Patrick Hemming, Jack Rogers, William Dalzell, Schlumberger Corp., Donald Norton, and Gordon Novel. Only in the latter two cases did the CIA claim absolutely no relationship; others were at least contacts or in some cases more (Carlos Bringuier's DRE anti-Castro organization was "conceived, created, and funded by the CIA").

Clay Shaw, the man Garrison charged with conspiracy in the JFK murder, testified under oath "No, I have not" to the question "Mr. Shaw, have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?" The truth of this answer may depend on the meaning of the word "work." It was later revealed that Shaw had been an informant to the CIA's Domestic Contacts Service during the period 1948 to 1956. More interestingly, a document surfaced which seemed to imply that Shaw was cleared for "Project QK/ENCHANT." Other persons cleared for this project include J. Munroe Sullivan, Shaw's "alibi," Peter Maheu (son of Robert), and no less than CIA officer E. Howard Hunt. The nature of this project is still classified; what little information there is suggests that those cleared for the project may possibly have been "unwitting," and that it may have been related to gathering information from businessmen. Certainly there is no indication it was assassination-related. Author Bill Davy (Let Justice Be Done) also uncovered a CIA memo which appears to confirm Shaw's use of the alias "Clay Bertrand," which was central to the trial.

Whether Shaw had any deeper relationship with the Agency, perhaps related to the International Trade Mart he was Director of, remains unsubstantiated though disputed. Certainly the CIA was worried about his prosecution - CIA Director Helms' assistant Victor Marchetti revealed in the 1975 that Helms held meetings where he would ask "are we giving them all the help they need?" Counterintelligence officer Ray Rocca held meetings on 20 Sep 1967 and 26 Sep 1967, and incorrectly predicted that "Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw" (Shaw was acquitted after an hour of deliberation). The Agency also produced a series of 9 numbered memos tracking the Garrison investigation (see sidebar), and circulated to station chiefs a guidebook for defending the Warren Report, with specific strategies for refuting the critics.

Beyond the monitoring of Garrison, there have long been allegations that CIA agents infiltrated the DA's staff, which certainly produced its share of defectors and leakers. Many stories swirled around William Martin (who had been a former CIA contact), William Wood aka "Bill Boxley" (also former CIA, though known as such by Garrison), and anti-Castro exiles Bernardo de Torres and Alberto Fowler. The truth of the level of infiltration of Garrison's staff remains murky. The real attack on Garrison came from the mainstream media, including an NBC reporter who had formerly worked for the CIA, NSA, and Robert Kennedy - Walter Sheridan. The Justice Dept. also played a role, including taking the step of flying JFK autopsy doctor Boswell to New Orleans during the trial to be ready to rescue his floundering colleague, Dr. Finck.


Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clay L. Shaw's Trial and the CIA

by Lawrence R. Houston

29 September 1967

MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence

SUBJECT: Clay L. Shaw's Trial and the Central Intelligence Agency

1. This memorandum is for information

2. The investigation of District Attorney Garrison of New Orleans into the assassination of President Kennedy, and his attack on the Warren Commission report, now focuses on one facet--the trial of Clay L. Shaw, who has been indicted for conspiracy to assassinate the President. In his public announcements Garrison has been careful not to reveal his theory of the trial. Technically, he could restrict himself to an attempt to prove a conspiracy among Shaw, Oswald, the pilot Ferrie, and possibly others without involving CIA at all. As we understand Louisiana law, Garrison will have to prove at least one overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and with Oswald and Ferrie both dead, we do not at the moment know of such an act which he could prove.

3. We speculate, therefore, that he will try to involve others and bring out testimony that they were involved in such things as the movement of arms and money in pursuance of the conspiracy. Again, conceivably, this could be done without involving CIA. Indeed, in his most recent pronouncements, Garrison has been concentrating on an unidentified group of Dallas oil men of the extreme right-wing type, who he says were the instigators, backers, and real controllers of the conspiracy.

He plays the recurring theme, however, that those who actually carried out the assassination were people who had been associated with CIA and that CIA had set up Oswald as the "patsy" to detract attention from the true assassins. He also says that CIA is a part of a giant conspiracy on the part of "the establishment" and the Dallas oil men to conceal the true facts. It would seem probable, therefore, that Garrison would attempt to involve CIA in the Shaw trial, and from what we know, he should be able to produce witnesses who can testify at least to some peripheral connection with his case. Despite the fact that Garrison's theories are basically and preposterously false, therefore, he may well be able to involve CIA in the Shaw trial.

4. Garrison has thrown out so many theories, names, and efforts in different contexts that it is difficult to construct a clear scenario, but the following speculations will serve to illustrate the problems with which we will be faced if Garrison pursues this course:

a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, might testify that Ferrie was a friend of Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was associated with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front (CDRF) until January or February 1962 and that Ferrie and Arcacha Smith were involved in a cache of arms in 1961. Garrison attempted to extradite Arcacha Smith from Texas to testify before the Grand Jury but was not successful. [REDACTED]

b. Rudolph Ricardo Davis might testify about a training camp across the lake from New Orleans, possibly at Lacombe, Louisiana, run by a Cuban exile group (MDC) not affiliated with CIA, and that connected with this camp were Victor Paneque and Fernando Fernandez. Davis claims he met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection with anti-Castro activities. Paneque was also identified by Quiroga, the possible witness mentioned above, as having been in charge of the training camp at Lacombe, which Garrison falsely asserts was run by CIA. [REDACTED]


c. Garrison has questioned a Cuban named Santana after which Garrison inferred that Santana owned a rifle like Oswald's. Garrison alleges that Santana was in Dealy [sic] Plaza at the time of the assassination on orders of the alleged conspirators Shaw, Oswald, Ferrie, and Arcacha Smith. [REDACTED]

d. Garrison's office has questioned a Carlos Bringuier, who denied any CIA contact. But, according to reports, Garrison will try to introduce evidence that Bringuier had knowledge of an alleged affiliation of Oswald with CIA. Also, according to the Warren Commission report, there was an altercation and fight between Oswald and Bringuier in August 1963 and a radio debate between them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald identified himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had some contact with the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office [REDACTED]

e. Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CIA. Garrison says he can prove that Novel, along with Arcacha Smith and others, robbed a munitions bunker at Houma, Louisiana at the instigation of CIA. Garrison may claim that this robbery was one of the overt acts of the conspiracy. Actually, Novel has never at any time had any association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin.

f. Donald P. Norton has been questioned at length by Garrison, and Norton has falsely claimed in a newspaper article that he worked for CIA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $50,000, which he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald. Here again Garrison may claim that this is the overt act in the conspiracy. There is no truth in Norton's story in any respect.

5. We could continue to speculate about some of the other names involved, but the forgoing is sufficient to illustrate the potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA's connections and interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly.

Shaw's lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no Government information which they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are wholly untrue, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana, and possibly Paneque, Bringuier, and others.

Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either the prosecution or defense to involve CIA in the trial, the Government will claim executive privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and particularly by CIA.

No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to be available, however. To protect the Government's position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison's claims and the testimony of his witnesses, as the Louisiana judge would almost certainly take the position that any such public statement would negate the privilege.

6. At the present time, therefore, there is no action we can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. There is one positive aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the U.S. press and public opinion appear to be extremely skeptical if not scornful of Garrison's allegations. We can only wait and see whether the trial will influence this attitude either way.


General Counsel


Link to comment
Share on other sites

ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS lists several critical evidence issues seemingly obstructed by the Warren Commission and later congressional committees in the House and Senate.

While attorney and author Mark Lane was researching his book Citizen's Dissent, he broke a major story involving prior knowledge of the assassination, according to New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

"...he [Lane] happened to meet a former FBI employee named William S. Walter. During their conversation Walter mentioned that on Novermber 17, 1963—five days before the assassination—he had been the night clerk on duty at the Bureau's New Orleans office when a warning about a possible presidential assassination attempt came chattering through on the teletype machine. Walter immediately called five agents and considered his work done."

According to Garrison, "In 1976, Walter gave a copy of the text of the FBI telex to the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. After the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed Lane also obtained a copy of the warning telex and made it available to me. This is what it said:

"URGENT: 1:45 AM EST 11-17-63 HLF 1 PAGE




"...when the assassination occurred, he [Walter] was eating lunch but immediately ran back to the New Orleans Bureau office. In the file he found the warning telex along with a duplicate which had soon followed it. At the time he copied the exact phraseology of the telex warning and kept it. Shortly afterwards he checked the file again to see if the warning was still there. It had been removed."

"The telex had been most explicit, naming both a place and dates for the attempt to assassinate the President. It was addressed to all special agents in charge, which meant every on the country, including Dallas. And yet the FBI did nothing. There is no record that it notified anyone—not even the Secret Service, which as the President's bodyguard should have been informed immediately....nearly five years had passed since the assassination. But in that time none of the five agents Walter had called that morning of November 17 ever hinted to the American people or to the Warren Commission that the FBI had received a specific warning about the assassination five days before it occurred."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike quick question

Have you ever read "A Heritage of Stone" or "On the Trail of the Assassins"?

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike quick question

Have you ever read "A Heritage of Stone" or "On the Trail of the Assassins"?


I have read a little bit of them, but not in entirety.

I just find it interesting that the bedrock CT's such as I posted earlier have such harsh things to say about him.

How so many people here hail him a hero is just lunacy in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here we go again. Williams does his usual Chaplin's cannon routine. He makes a big claim and produces just about nothing of substance. Except tired old accusations from decades ago. While he ignores all the new material I quoted showing that it would be impossible for JG to be corrupt, since he passed up many opportunities to capitalize on his position--including making tons of money-- and then threw away a promising political career that would have resulted in the governorship. To Kamikaze Mike, that just bounces off. Because it undermines his point completely.

What does he come up with? Three mildewed quotes from Meagher, Weisberg, and Summers. Yawn.

But let us deal with them. Since he won't.

1. Even Sylvia Meagher's close friends, colleagues and idolators thought she was just irrational when it came to Garrison. This includes Ray Marcus, Roger Feinman, Jerry Policoff, and Margie Fields. Some of these people were with her before the news of Garrison's probe ever broke. In fact, Margie was in her kitchen with Sylvia when they heard the radio announcement.

As time went on, and Garrison began to be frustrated and obstructed by the huge and complex covert operation that had been assembled in New Orleans and within the MSM to make sure Shaw was acquitted and Garrison was discredited, Sylvia began to drink the Kool Aid. Understand, there is no doubt that JG made some big mistakes, that he listened to people he should not have,that he said things he should not have, that he trusted people he should not have. But also understand that the operation assembled against him was pretty much unprecedented at the time. So its true that JG made some major errors. But its also true that many of these were either created or magnified by the other side. ANd it is those that the MSM played up.

Well Sylvia made no allotment for that. In fact, Ray Marcus finally decided she was too far around the bend on JG and they split up after five years of friendship. In his letter to her, he specifically harped on that particular point: the unfairness of her judgment. In other words, whenever JG made a mistake e.g. the Bradley imbroglio, she would blast him for it. But whenever his witnesses were harassed or attacked or suborned or bribed, or when a governor refused to return a witness or suspect, she said nothing. He went on like this with specifics for over a page in his single spaced typewritten letter. He then concluded that although it was painful to do so, he would not talk to her again until it was all over. In fact he did not talk to her again for ten years.

Question for Mr. Williams: Did you read this letter? Did you talk to Ray or Margie?

2. Mr. Weisberg: Anyone who knows anything about the Garrison office, which neither DVP or Kamikaze Mike do, understands that there came to be a rivalry there for Garrison's ear. This occurred in about the middle of 1968. Garrison had become so frustrated by the number of infiltrators who had betrayed him--especially in the wake of Epstein's long New Yorker article--that he called in everybody's deputy badge. THis was a very low point for JG.

Now, at about this time there began to be friction between Harold and Salandria over the direction the inquiry and JG should go in. Wesberg, as always, was very micro oriented, a detail guy, who wanted to accrue as many pieces of evidence as possible. VInce was beginning to grow out of that and into a combination micro/ Big Picture view: that is, What were the forces who killed Kennedy, and why did they do it, and why did they do it in such a spectacular way? Around this time, Salandria smelled another rat in the office. It was Boxley. JG was not convinced. And neither was Harold (even though Boxley had tried to sandbag Harold already by denying that the proprietor of a print shop identified Thornley and not Oswald as the guy who had picked up some flyers.) Salandria had brought an essay by Trotsky about how he understood that Stalin had boxed him in back in 1927. Garrison read it and understood. Salandria asked him to call Boxley now and ask him to come down to the office. The rest of the scene played out just like in Garrison's book. Boxley disappeared, and it turned out that he never lived at the address he gave JG. This was a turning point for JG. From here on in VInce had his ear and Harold did not. And it was VInce who supervised the (impressive) Dealey Plaza portion of the trial, not Harold--even though that was his metier. Weisberg never got over this, and he and VInce were never friends again.

Question for Mr. Williams: Did you interview Vince or Harold on this point?

3. Mr. Summers: Its funny that Tony says there are very few references to JG in his book. That may be technically true. But his whole New Orleans aspect is right out of Garrison: David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clinton/Jackson, and in fact he begins it with the famous 544 Camp Street Flyer that Garrison discovered!

As for the rest, well to use someone like Anson, I mean are you serious? The whole Mafia influence angle has been shown to be nothing but a fraud created by JG's enemies. (See Bill Davy's excellent take down of this in his book Let Justice be Done pgs. 149-167) As per the charges of "psychotherapy", Garrison suffered from battle fatigue when he volunteered for Korean War duty. If you ever read what he did in WW 2, you would understand why it gave him nightmares.

And I was really disappointed to see Tony use those income tax evasion trials. Anyone who studies them will see that this was part of the CIA's years long effort not just to acquit Shaw but to bury Garrison--literally. For once Shaw was acquitted the CIA began to plan to get JG out of office so what he did could never happen again. But they knew they could never do it on the up and up, since JG was too popular. So they found a guy who was in trouble: Gervais. They then bought him and suborned him and wired him. THey then altered the tapes, since in their original form there was nothing to them. THey then got him out of the country so he could not be deposed. But even with all that, the whole thing fell apart at trial. It was just too obvious. What is important though is that teh CIA was ready to frame and send to a jail an innocent man over his crusade on the JFK case.

But the point is that this weakened JG so badly since it was on the eve of the election. So the guy the CIA got, Connick--who helped present Shaw's lawyers' case--got in. What did he do? HE set about to literally incinerate what was left of Garrison's JFK case files. And if it had not been for the courageous Gary Raymond, we may never have found out about this. He refused to burn what Connick told him to burn. ANd when I went down to interview Connick I discovered that he had missed some more stuff the HSCA had discovered.

Question for Kamikaze Mike: Did you talk to Gary Raymond, I mean do you know who he is? Did you study what the government did with Gervais at the trial? Did you read the interview with him in the local New Orleans papers? Or did you just buy Summers because that is what you wanted to hear?

4. As for little Mike, Pauly, I mean to dredge up something from daffy John McAdams' web site and present it with no background? I mean McAdams has even less credibility than Gary Mack. I mean would you quote Allen Dulles or DIck Helms if they were alive?

There is next to no doubt in any objective person's mind today that LHO was a CIA agent provocateur. And he doubled as an FBI informant. Which is why he was perfect for Angleton to set up since it made sure Hoover would cover his ass. Which he did. If you know anything about the Chicago Plot, you know that the informant who tipped off the FBI was "Lee". And JG also thought that Oswald tried to thwart the Dallas plot through the Walter telex. If it was Oswald in Chicago, then by blowing the whistle, he made sure Dallas would go through. Which assured his own death.

That is one definition of the heroic.


Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Jim Garrison? Great guy. Garrison did not have enough evidence to take Clay Shaw to trial for the JFK Assassination; however Garrison was rapidly uncovering the roots of the JFK assassination and that made him a very dangerous man to the murderers in government. By 1967 or 1968 Jim Garrison was openly telling Americans that the CIA had murdered the President. Bingo! And he was asking simple questions like "Cui bono?" ... meaning "Who benefitted?" implying that Lyndon Johnson might have had something to do with the JFK assassination.

So we Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Jim Garrison for his investigation into the JFK assassination.

Important point - even though the Clay Shaw jury voted to acquit Clay Shaw, the jury was CONVINCED that Garrison had made the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination; the jury was just not prepared to pin it on Clay Shaw. In fact, if I had been on the jury that is how I would have voted, based on the knowledge available to them.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Important point - even though the Clay Shaw jury voted to acquit Clay Shaw, the jury was CONVINCED that Garrison had made the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination; the jury was just not prepared to pin it on Clay Shaw. In fact, if I had been on the jury that is how I would have voted, based on the knowledge available to them.


The jurors took just under an hour to acquit Clay Shaw. Taking into account the time taken shuffling in and out of the courtroom, settling down, the time to select a foreman and taking a single unanimous vote, I think it's clear that they were convinced. Not in the way that Mark Lane would have us believe though. (Did he ever publish his interviews with the jurors?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You ignored my first post showing how Garrison could not be corrupt.

Now you ignore this one showing, with primary sources, what was behind the mildewed accusations by the three people you recycled from decades ago.

Good, because its pretty clear you don't do any research.

But you like to publicize the fact that, on almost any aspect of this case, you are an ignoramous. :hotorwot


From what I have read so far, you have not been very convincing. Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long. You have yet to prove otherwise.

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

  • Create New...