JFK Revisited and Homophobia

[James DiEugenio]

BTW Bob, even the CIA was surprised when they learned that Shaw had not even told his lawyers about his work for them. 

This is how determined Shaw was to deny everything.

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW Bob, even the CIA was surprised when they learned that Shaw had not even told his lawyers about his work for them. 

This is how determined Shaw was to deny everything.

 

It really doesn't add up. It's clear to me that the CIA seemed to be making quite a fuss over something they simultaneously were claiming was nothing. At the same time the CIA was running a domestic operation against a state legal authority when the clear choice was to refer any objections they may have to political representatives overseeing his office or a Judge in court.

They opted for a risky, possibly illegal strategy and bypassed those options for a reason. By their own claims it wouldn't have been a national security issue as Shaw was merely a "Domestic Contact". Or maybe he wasn't...

[James DiEugenio]

LOL. 

Good one again Bob.  You're on a roll.

[Steve Roe]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:47 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Does anyone else know of any evidence that is claimed to show Clay Shaw had a witting role in killing President Kennedy? Proof of intent, proof of foreknowledge, proof of entering into agreement to kill a president?

Just to be clear, I asked. Did not answer the question. I asked again. Again did not answer the question, said the question had already been answered, long ago, and was not about to answer again now, get lost ("on ignore").

There was no answer to that question long ago any more than there was an answer this time. Instead a lot of other things got cited none of which have anything to do with evidence of participation in a plot to kill Kennedy. All over the map. Clay Shaw did this. Clay Shaw did that. Lied over here. Did that over there. All these other things in New Orlean. Stitch that man up! Show he knew Oswald two months before Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy in a different city!

None of that is evidence that Clay Shaw plotted to kill Kennedy. Can't people here see that? Clay Shaw even, it is alleged, did legal voter registration of blacks in Clinton with Oswald and Ferrie!!!!! And if legally registering blacks to vote in a deep southern state is not the most incriminating, sinister evidence that Clay Shaw was plotting to kill President Kennedy, what else is there to say? Is this the Twilight Zone? 

Clay Shaw is alleged to have sought to arrange legal counsel for Oswald at a time when Oswald was badly in need of legal counsel in Dallas. Ruth Paine has been condemned for not taking responsibility for Oswald getting a lawyer. Clay Shaw is condemned on the allegation that that is what he did do. When getting someone a legal defense, or attempting to cover up that one did so, is not evidence that one is guilty of the crime the defendant is charged with. That is not logical. That is medieval witchhunt logic. And Lifton's articles blow even the allegations to pieces on the level of fact. 

Is it Alice in Wonderland logic, when legal registration of blacks to vote in Clinton is considered criminal conduct and obvious evidence of plotting to assassinate a president? 

"I won't even go into the Clinton-Jackson incident which to me is so incriminating as to be off the charts. But this is the way a covert action works. Its why Shaw called Andrews-again consciousness of guilt."

Unbelievable.

Three persons legally registering blacks to vote, with not even an allegation of any criminal activity done that day by those three, "is so incriminating as to be off the charts". Twilight Zone. Incriminating of what?

Is it Alice in Wonderland logic, when asking for the footnote, the evidence, undergirding a central claim is considered improper, verboten? Where there is an Index of written information forbidden to the faithful to read? Where reference to a point of data or argument in some source on the Index is responded not to the substance and content of the point, but in scorched-earth ad hominem and discrediting of the author, the publisher, of that point? 

Let it be plain: the reason no claim of evidence is disclosed purporting to show Clay Shaw was a witting participant in planning to carry out the assassination of Kennedy, is because there isn't any. It is like belief in the Trinity--for those who understand no explanation is necessary. For those who don't no explanation is possible. For those who know Clay Shaw, one of New Orleans' leading citizens, attempted to assassinate the president he voted for and supported, no naming of evidence is necessary. For those who don't know what that evidence is, no explanation is possible.

It is character assassination to accuse someone of assassinating JFK --such a horrible, lethal accusation!--without disclosure that there is just zero evidence or plausibility of that when it comes to Clay Shaw of New Orleans, who did so much for that city and for whom no criminal act in any other way was ever proven in court either. What is done to Clay Shaw, and to Ruth Paine by assassination conspiracy researchers, has been utterly shameful. Neither of them had the slightest thing to do with intent or planning or participation in the horrible crime of the assassination of President Kennedy. Medieval village witchhunt logic, burning of scapegoats at the stake logic... They didn't do it. The real assassins of President Kennedy were not them.  

Now I've said my piece and will get out of this thread and return to work in my own niches. 

"[Clay Shaw] was in fact innocent ... he did not conspire to kill the president ... in retrospect I don't think they should have prosecuted him ... Garrison never should have done it"

--Perry Russo

(Lambert, False Witness [2000], 173-4)

"I believe that Shaw is innocent. I do not disagree with the jury. I agree with it. The bottom line is that history must recall that Shaw is innocent. If I was on the jury, I would have come to the same conclusion"

--Perry Russo

(Posner, Case Closed [2013], 451n)

(For any who do not know, Perry Russo was Garrison's only witness purporting to claim Clay Shaw was involved in plotting and planning to assassinate President Kennedy, based on some things Russo heard at a party.)

(For any who do not know, the tall man Perry Russo remembered at the party where Perry heard talk that Kennedy ought to be whacked in common with talk at a hundred other parties on any given Saturday night in the Deep South, was not remembered to be named Clay Shaw but rather Clem or Clay Bertrand.)

(For any who do not know, there was a real live Clay Bertrand, of that name, living in New Orleans at that time, who was never investigated or excluded by the Garrison investigation as to whether he may have been the identity of Clay Bertrand.)

(For any who do not know, Perry Russo identified a young man with a mustache at that party as Oswald, an identification universally considered in error today.)

(This is why the testimony of Perry Russo is not claimed by anyone today as evidence that Clay Show entered into concrete agreement to plan and carry out the murderous criminal act of killing President Kennedy. And why with testimony claim of Perry Russo gone, who had credibility issues from the beginning, no one who claims Clay Shaw is guilty of active participation in planning to assassinate JFK is willing to even claim any specific evidence supports that claim, for there is none now even to claim.)

Well stated Greg, and of course nobody steps forward to identify what Clay Shaw did in a plot to kill the President......NOBODY. The same mentality was applied to Ruth Paine, countless and baseless innuendoes that go absolutely nowhere. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

What roll do you suspect Ferrie and Shaw played in the CIA's assassination plot?

I've long thought that the CIA plotters assigned Ferrie and Shaw et al to prepare an assassination plan that the CIA secretly had no intention of implementing. The purpose of this maneuver was to have a group of (fake) plotters to point to if government started investigating the CIA for the murder. That way, if necessary, Ferrie and the others could be painted as the "rogue CIA elements" who had the president killed rather than the true ones, Angleton and David Philips et al.

In the end, the CIA was never investigated. So the CIA plan to implicate Ferry and Shaw was unnecessary and not carried out. Later Garrison stirred things up, and the CIA potters didn't want their plan revealed. So they suicided Ferrie. The couldn't also suicide Shaw because two suicides would look suspicious. So instead they sabotaged the Shaw trial. And besides, Shaw was a more valuable asset than Ferrie.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Sandy Larsen
Just to be clear, I wrote and posted this before reading Roe's post.

[Denny Zartman]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've long thought that the CIA plotters assigned Ferrie and Shaw et al to prepare an assassination plan that the CIA secretly had no intention of implementing. The purpose of this maneuver was to have a group of (fake) plotters to point to if government started investigating the CIA for the murder. That way, if necessary, Ferrie and the others could be painted as the "rogue CIA elements" who had the president killed rather than the true ones, Angleton and David Philips et al.

That is an interesting theory, one that I had considered for the Mafia and the Texas oilmen. The real conspirators work through these groups by proxy, and then afterwards retract their claws so that any honest investigations would lead to these front groups and not the actual perpetrators.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

That is an interesting theory, one that I had considered for the Mafia and the Texas oilmen. The real conspirators work through these groups by proxy, and then afterwards retract their claws so that any honest investigations would lead to these front groups and not the actual perpetrators.

Thanks Denny. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who thinks the theory is plausible. Of course I'm assuming there are no fatal flaws in it, which there very well may be given that I don't know all the evidence forward and backward like some researchers here do.

[James DiEugenio]

That is an interesting and original view of the New Orleans aspect Sandy.

But it leaves out Banister.  Who Garrison thought was the most important of the three.

My thinking on this today is that since Banister likely knew Phillips from the telethon meeting at his office,  Phillips arranged to send Oswald to New Orleans in his campaign to discredit the FPCC.  That is how Banister ends up giving him a room to work out of at 544 Camp Street.  Oswald does his low level undercover stuff first with Reismann and at Tulane. Then Phillips, likely through Joannides, gets the DRE, which David helped create, to engage in this playlet with Oswald-- exposed by Oswald's landlady Jesse Garner, and Quiroga's polygraph, plus Nagell's interview with Martin.  This playlet first takes place on Canal Street, for Act One, the one which Oswald wrote about before it happened, and Act Two is at the ITM, with Shaw's aide de camp guiding it for his boss.

The Clinton /Jackson incident was meant to top off the commie angle, by having Oswald's files switched at an asylum to show he was really disturbed. This could  have been done by Dr. Silva (through Sergio Arcacha Smith), or Alton Ochsner, who had a wing there, (through Shaw or Banister).  That disturbed, sociopathic aspect is something the WCR could not nail down, and that part of the WCR is actually almost ludicrous. The problem with Clinton/Jackson was that Shaw and Ferrie were not aware of the CORE sign up going on at the time.  Therefore too many people saw them there.  Someone even snapped a photo.  So that was too dangerous to be utilized.

IMO, this was what the overall planners meant to use from New Orleans.  And Phillips would know how to use it since his forte was psy war. And its probably him who gave the Oswald file to Hal Hendrix for that fast dissemination.

The Shaw, Ferrie, Banister ring, and their own attempts could be typified by what you are saying.  They were kind of Keystone Kops scenarios. 

(Although I will always recall Banister's idea of sending a dead rat to the White House as a warning.)

But Shaw took them seriously enough to call Andrews.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is an interesting and original view of the New Orleans aspect Sandy.

But it leaves out Banister.  Who Garrison thought was the most important of the three.

My thinking on this today is that since Banister likely knew Phillips from the telethon meeting at his office,  Phillips arranged to send Oswald to New Orleans in his campaign to discredit the FPCC.  That is how Banister ends up giving him a room to work out of at 544 Camp Street.  Oswald does his low level undercover stuff first with Reismann and at Tulane. Then Phillips, likely through Joannides, gets the DRE, which David helped create, to engage in this playlet with Oswald-- exposed by Oswald's landlady Jesse Garner, and Quiroga's polygraph, plus Nagell's interview with Martin.  This playlet first takes place on Canal Street, for Act One, the one which Oswald wrote about before it happened, and Act Two is at the ITM, with Shaw's aide de camp guiding it for his boss.

The Clinton /Jackson incident was meant to top off the commie angle, by having Oswald's files switched at an asylum to show he was really disturbed. This could  have been done by Dr. Silva (through Sergio Arcacha Smith), or Alton Ochsner, who had a wing there, (through Shaw or Banister).  That disturbed, sociopathic aspect is something the WCR could not nail down, and that part of the WCR is actually almost ludicrous. The problem with Clinton/Jackson was that Shaw and Ferrie were not aware of the CORE sign up going on at the time.  Therefore too many people saw them there.  Someone even snapped a photo.  So that was too dangerous to be utilized.

IMO, this was what the overall planners meant to use from New Orleans.

The Shaw, Ferrie, Banister ring, and their own attempts could be typified by what you are saying.  They were kind of Keystone Kops scenarios. 

(Although I will always recall Banister's idea of sending a dead rat to the White House as a warning.)

But Shaw took them seriously enough to call Andrews.

 

Thanks Jim.

(P.S. I didn't really leave out Banister. He was part of the "et al" when I said "Ferrie and Shaw et al.")
 

[David Andrews]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:13 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

What roll do you suspect Ferrie and Shaw played in the CIA's assassination plot?

I've long thought that the CIA plotters assigned Ferrie and Shaw et al to prepare an assassination plan that the CIA secretly had no intention of implementing. The purpose of this maneuver was to have a group of (fake) plotters to point to if government started investigating the CIA for the murder. That way, if necessary, Ferrie and the others could be painted as the "rogue CIA elements" who had the president killed rather than the true ones, Angleton and David Philips et al.

In the end, the CIA was never investigated. So the CIA plan to implicate Ferry and Shaw was unnecessary and not carried out. Later Garrison stirred things up, and the CIA potters didn't want their plan revealed. So they suicided Ferrie. The couldn't also suicide Shaw because two suicides would look suspicious. So instead they sabotaged the Shaw trial. And besides, Shaw was a more valuable asset than Ferrie.

I think you've got a useful note here, but the scenario depends on Shaw being judged a sacrifice if the USG investigated for conspiracy, yet preservable when it was only "that kook/glory seeker" Garrison.  When Garrison went public, the whole thing could have been shut down if Shaw were suicided.  Even Ferrie would have fallen into quietude, maybe left the country.  But there was apparently some loyalty to Shaw for past service, as Helms ended up on the record as helping him.  So if there were a motion to use Shaw-Ferrie-Banister as patsies, it probably originated at a level below Helms and Angleton, and perhaps even below Philips.  In other words, nothing CIA was bound to honor to the letter.  Still, you have a point worth investigating.  And institutional objectives do change with time and circumstance.

Edited February 8, 2022 by David Andrews

[Dennis Berube]

On 2/3/2022 at 4:22 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

My opinion is Garrison's probe was based on homophobia for the reasons given by Fred, Kirchick and Alecia Long.

I pity anyone who forms opinions based on those three.

 

Was there a coup that overthrew America and put it in the hands of psychopaths who think they are the chosen ones for humanity? Nope, it was just some homophobe out to get gays.

 

My opinion is this line of propaganda is only meant to scare off people who are new to the case, particularly left leaning individuals who are extremely susceptible to emotional control. The current attempt at world control requires almost complete ignorance of deep state activities on the left. This kind of crap helps towards that end.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Dennis.

Recall, only homosexuals were given Russian tests in the Marines, and only homosexuals printed 544 Camp Street on their Corliss Lamont flyers.

 Man, was Banister upset about that.  And Jesse Core tipped off the FBI about that slip up also.  Which helped prepare Hoover for the cover up afterwards.

Edited February 8, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Well, Wecht is making some headlines across the pond. Oswald worked for the CIA and the Magic Bullet is crapola.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-cia-b2009149.html

[James DiEugenio]

In reference to my point about what Oswald was really doing in New Orleans in relation to the FPCC, I hope everyone read this milestone two parter by Paul Bleau.  It is a model of what can be garnered today with the ARRB files and the work of Malcolm Blunt.

Sergio Arcacha Smith was in Tampa waging war against the FPCC branch there.  Oswald wrote the FPCC in 1962. Stuckey was calling the FBI in 1962 to locate any FPCC sympathizers in 1962!

By 1963, the FPCC was a shell of what it had been. So it was the perfect pretext with which to incriminate Oswald.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/exposing-the-fpcc-part-1

 

[Benjamin Cole]

I always thought the N.O. crowd were some sort of mid-stage handlers. Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Thornley, some others. 

John Newman has written only James Angleton had the skill, foresight and administrative position implant into LHO the "WWIII virus" --so these guys in N.O were just cut-outs, working indirectly for Angleton (in this scenario). They likely did not know what was planned for LHO, and never even talked to Angleton. Maybe  worked through Joannides and another guy whose name I forget. Or through cut-outs. 

Seems likely another crew moved into Dallas to implement the JFKA. Maybe as few as two or three people, who somehow secured the unwitting cooperation of LHO.  Probably JMWAVE guys, not direct officers, but Cuban exiles, again lots of cut-outs. 

Was it a semi-rogue operation? Opportunistic?  Still a mystery.