JFK Revisited and Homophobia

[Greg Doudna]

James, speaking of Clay Shaw, can you say if Oliver Stone still thinks Clay Shaw was a participant in the planning of the assassination of JFK? I know you do, but I did not notice any actual statement in JFK Revisited to that effect. If so, I know this has been asked before but the reason I ask again is because I remain unaware of an answer to the question, and would like to know: do you and Oliver Stone today consider there is evidence that Clay Shaw participated in the planning of the JFK assassination, and if so what is that claimed evidence of that exactly? 

I hope it is clear that claims that Clay Shaw had a CIA association, or that he knew Oswald, or that he sought to assist Oswald in obtaining legal counsel, or that he knew Ferrie or Banister, or was in Clinton doing voter registration, or perjured in his testimony, however true those may or may not be, legitimately may make him a suspect or a person of interest or legitimate target of investigation--not disputing the logic of that--but that is not the question--that is not the same as a claim of having evidence that Clay Shaw himself was involved in planning to assassinate JFK. Do you make that claim today, that there is evidence of that? That you believe there is evidence in Clay Shaw's case that he conspired to assassinate JFK, beyond simply considering him a suspect? If so could you say what that evidence is? Saying that he lied after being accused is evidence that the accusation is true is not good enough, that is medieval inquisition logic. The question is is there an evidential basis for the accusation prior to the accused's response and if so what is it? (Even if it is not claimed or part of JFK Revisited, which as you say you recommended to Oliver Stone not to argue for specific solutions to the case, such as Clay Shaw.) 

i mean, the assassination occurs in a different city and two months after Oswald left New Orleans. What do you suppose Clay Shaw did exactly to help bring about this assassination two months later in a different city? (And what do you see as the evidence?)

I agree with you there is no homophobia issue in JFK Revisited that I can see.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Since solving the JFK case was never a part of the planning of JFK Revisited , I never had a discussion like that with Oliver.

But from what I could tell, he thought that Shaw was an entry point for Garrison.  That Shaw had called Andrews, that he was part of the setting up of Oswald that summer,  that the Trade Mart was a staged event, that Shaw was with Ferrie and Oswald in Clinton (we did a nice interview with McGehee up there that was cut from the fllm).

As I said in an address I did with Oliver in the audience, as Garrison progressed in the inquiry, he began to understand that  he had only one part of the plot in New Orleans.  He came to think that it was really a four sided affair, the other three sides being Mexico City, Washington and Dallas.

The idea that the murder happened in Dallas, and that therefore New Orleans was somehow not important, that is not how a covert action works and that is not how the law of conspiracy works.  As Richard Sprague, the first chief counsel of the HSCA once said, in a conspiracy case the rules of evidence change.

 

[Micah Mileto]

edit

Edited July 24, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

...there is a lineage here from Garrison to JFK to JFK Revisited. If the grandfather is rotten (rotten meaning based on homophobia which is proven now by two books) then the father and son are rotten as well.

 

Tracy, can you tell me what Garrison has done or what happens in the movie JFK that makes them homophobic? Is he afraid of homosexualism? Does he try to paint homosexuals as evil people? (BTW I intentionally have not watched the film yet.)

I don't see how you can rule the documentary as homophobic simply because it is related to Garrison and the movie JFK. If the documentary were homophobic, that would necessarily mean that Jim D is a homophobe himself given that he wrote the script. I watched the documentary twice and there was nothing in it about homosexualism.

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

My opinion is Garrison's probe was based on homophobia for the reasons given by Fred, Kirchick and Alecia Long. Stone's 1991 film was homophobic and he faced protests at the time. The current film is homophobic by omission since it is not honest with the viewer and does not repudiate the homophobic elements of the previous film. Anyone can read the articles I linked to find out more or read the books by Long and Fred.

Kirchick has been criticized for denying that Shaw worked for the CIA but not mentioning the statement by CIA historian McDonald that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" until 1956. I agree to the extent that Kirchick would have been better off to include this information and Fred's rebuttal of it. This would have averted criticism on that issue. Otherwise, I agree with him.

While I agree with you some of the time, Tracy, this is not one of those times. That Garrison's prosecution of Shaw was fueled by homophobia is just nonsense, IMO. Yes, he said some things that indicate he at one point thought Shaw/Ferrie/Ruby/Oswald were all part of homosexual cult, or whatever. But he went down this alley after Shaw became a suspect, and Shaw became a suspect based upon Andrews' statements and Shaw's own statements. 

Let me make an analogy. An investigator of crimes conducted over the internet discovers the identity of someone he believes is behind mass fraud. He then discovers that this man is black--and muses that maybe this scammer was angry at white people and that that was why he was targeting them. Now, this secondary thought may or may not be racist. But claiming this man was targeted because of his race is not in line with the facts.

It bothers me that Garrison's supposed "homophobia" is being used to discredit an investigation that we all know was not built upon homophobia, but upon some (often sketchy) eyewitness evidence, and the underlying problems with the Warren Report. This focus on his supposed homophobia is just a distraction, IMO. It's kinda like claiming Warren failed to give Oswald a fair shake because Oswald was from the South and Warren didn't like Southerners. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Pat and Sandy,

My reply would be that the experts say that Garrison's case was built on homophobia. I think we should listen to the experts who have studied the matter in this instance, and we can all learn. I have posted some links in this thread and mentioned two books on the subject. Doubters should avail themselves of that material.

Aside from the issue of homophobia, I can't think of a thing to recommend the Garrison investigation. I believe it was 100 percent wrong and financially destroyed an innocent man for no reason.

As for Stone, it is primarily the over-the-top orgy scenes which the experts find homophobic. The argument is that the homosexuals are portrayed as crazy and amoral while Garrison (who was effectively declared crazy in real life at one point) is the guy on the white horse. The current film, as I mentioned above, is dishonest in its omissions and uses dubious witness statements made years after the fact.

Pat, I do appreciate that you are aware of at least some of the problems with Garrison and willing to admit that.

 

[Richard Price]

I will make this one comment on Jim Garrison's investigation/homophobia.  The following is as everyone knows the definition of phobia:  an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

Jim Garrison was an District Attorney, what he looked for, just as anyone in his position would do, is "connections" between various players in his investigation.  If he found that a number of the individuals were homosexual, that would be a link he would have to follow, just as he would if they were linked to organized crime, drug dealers, CIA, or any other.  To not do so would be to fail as an investigator.  As someone in another link mentioned, Columbo or even Sherlock Holmes would have followed the same leads.  That does not reflect a "phobia", but rather an attempt to find possibly linked individuals who may or may not have additional information on the facts of the case you are investigating.  In the search for truth, you must go wherever the facts lead you, period, end of statement.

[David Andrews]

The Shaw associates were only a corner of an assassination conspiracy that operated in Garrison's legal bailiwick, not a mainstay of the assassination plot realized in Dallas, except in the sense that Shaw, in his international connections (Italy to NOLA to Canada) served as a facilitator of the consensual logistics that got Kennedy killed.  Shaw's error was to be the corner that turned up from flush and became obvious to the eye, through the potential for exposure among his associates, who were of the local homosexual milieu - including the attorney Andrews, by his clients.

Shaw was not made a vulnerable homosexual, but became vulnerable to investigation and discovery because he was homosexual - as was, at the time, a liability in clandestine work.  Nobody refuting the homophobia charge is seizing on this obvious, historically familiar point.  I'm sure it became obvious to Shaw, in retrospect. 

It's difficult to conceal a truly fatal covert life when a second, innocuous covert life provides an entree to one's secrets, and one's associates overlap the borders.  And it's plain bad tradecraft to go slumming among the low-level operatives.  Whoever permitted Shaw to do so should have known better

Now I really must get back to tonight's recipe: stir-fry angel hair pasta.

• Liquify thin-sliced garlic in enough olive oil to minimally coat the pasta when added.  Add minced fried ground beef, or one can of crabmeat.  Stir in spices.
• Add two servings of cooked angel hair pasta, stirring in one diced green onion, one-half can petite diced tomatoes, and chili pepper flakes to taste (some like it hot!)
• Add one-half cup of mushroom-garlic flavored pasta sauce, and one cup or less vodka sauce.
• Stir-fry until sauce thoroughly coats pasta.  Turn off heat and let bake on the burner under a pan lid for 10-15 minutes.

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by David Andrews

[Bob Ness]

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Nor does the film mention the Christenberry decision that prevented Garrison from prosecuting Shaw further and noted the violation of his constitutional rights.

Christenberry disallowed the prosecution of Shaw for perjury and yet we know for a fact - undisputed by anyone - that Shaw DID commit perjury and the Judge side-stepped the issue. This is indisputable and confirmed over and over again through records, recordings and depositions which Christenberry either a) had no knowledge of or b) conveniently refused to enter in the HEARING. That was after the GRAND JURY said "Yeah, this should go to trial." Grand Juries are given a clear unobstructed view of the prosecutor's case and don't go to dinner parties with the accused.

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Finally, there is a lineage here from Garrison to JFK to JFK Revisited. If the grandfather is rotten (rotten meaning based on homophobia which is proven now by two books) then the father and son are rotten as well.

This rhetorical flourish means nothing in the context of the underlying issues which the CIA, Shaw and several others felt was imperative to lie about to the extent that they (at least Shaw) were then guilty of perjury. I won't mention the witness intimidation and tampering, obstruction and all the other grand methods that were used to derail Garrison (which would be difficult to prove beyond doubt). Shaw's and the CIA's shenanigans aren't disputable. We have that in their own handwriting. Even the most biased of people shouldn't be in doubt about that.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

45 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

we know for a fact - undisputed by anyone - that Shaw DID commit perjury

No, it's disputed:

Clay Shaw, Perjurer: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK assassination investigation: Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination (jfk-online.com)

Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

David Ferrie | On The Trail of Delu (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

 

[Bob Ness]

18 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, it's disputed:

Clay Shaw, Perjurer: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK assassination investigation: Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination (jfk-online.com)

Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

David Ferrie | On The Trail of Delu (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

 

He lied about his relationship with the CIA. The others may be disputable but that isn't.

Either way the Grand Jury forwarded it and a Judge with a personal relationship with the accused stepped in, held a hearing and overruled the indictment.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

He lied about his relationship with the CIA. The others may be disputable but that isn't.

Either way the Grand Jury forwarded it and a Judge with a personal relationship with the accused stepped in, held a hearing and overruled the indictment.

He had a relationship with the CIA as a domestic contact. But he was asked if he "worked" for the agency. Working means being paid. Now, there is the matter of the claim by CIA historian McDonald who said he was a "highly paid contract agent." But McDonald relied on a review of documents in the HSCA CIA Segregated Collection. Those documents are now available, and no one has been able to produce a document that matches McDonald's claim. But there is another document saying that Shaw was not a paid agent. This is explained by Fred at the link I posted above. So, the issue is still open.

I tend to think that if the document were there, someone would have found it. So, the explanation provided by Fred-that McDonald's researchers made a mistake-is the most plausible. But even if Shaw worked for the CIA and was paid, according to McDonald the relationship ended in 1956. So, I don't see how that has anything to do with a CIA-backed plot to kill JFK in 1963. 

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

Just to assure you, what Litwin did is he rewrote a CIA memo that was discovered by Joan Mellen.  He changed the word contract to contact.  In other words, the CIA did not know the difference but Fred did. I don't think so.

As per the others, for example, the FBI proved out that Shaw was lying about not knowing Ferrie. They also knew he used the alias of Bertrand. And the FBI also knew about Shaw and Ferrie being in Clinton with Oswald. 

In my reply to Kirchick, I suppled about a dozen sources for Shaw using the Bertrand alias.  And there are more I could have used. Both the FBI and the DOJ knew Shaw was Bertrand.

Again, this is why I have Parnell on ignore. 

And I am not done with Kirchick.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just to assure you, what Litwin did is he rewrote a CIA memo that was discovered by Joan Mellen.  He changed the word contract to contact. 

Wrong. Again, if you will just read the article I linked you will see that he suggested that McDonald's people could have misread the document and saw the words "domestic contact" and turned that into "contract agent." It makes no sense that Shaw would be a "highly paid" agent during the time he was working for the International Trade Mart. He wouldn't have had the time to do enough work to be "highly paid." In any case, if someone will just produce the document McDonald referenced, I'll gladly admit that Shaw was a paid agent. But I still won't believe he killed JFK.

[Micah Mileto]

Has Max Holland ever responded to Pat Speer? Seems to me like Speer pretty much proved that Holland is a loser for life.