JFK Revisited and Homophobia

[W. Tracy Parnell]

21 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

I pity anyone who forms opinions based on those three.

Why?

Let's review. You have a professor of History at LSU who specializes in writing about sexuality. She has written a book on Garrison that is backed up with solid evidence and arguments.

Faculty - Alecia P. Long | LSU Department of History

You have Fred, a gay man, who has written three books-two about the JFK case. 

You have Kirchick, another gay man, who is a journalist and is somewhat controversial but so what?

All three seem to me to be perfectly qualified to say what they have about Garrison. And let's not forget that Garrison has been criticized for many years by the majority of those who have looked at his investigation. It is only recently that people are catching on to the fact that his investigation was not only improper and wrong-headed but also homophobic (as was much of society at the time).

Jim D. has too much into this now to ever quit. But no one can redeem Garrison at this point. History has shown he was wrong, and it is only going to get worse for him.

[James DiEugenio]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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. 

 

I find it interesting that Sergio Arcacha Smith reportedly had a map of the sewer system in his place in Dallas.  And that Bernardo De Torres reportedly had pictures of Dealey Plaza in his safe.  

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I find it interesting that Sergio Arcacha Smith reportedly had a map of the sewer system in his place in Dallas.  And that Bernardo De Torres reportedly had pictures of Dealey Plaza in his safe.  

Gordon Novel is also interesting. 

Of the many, many sad aspects of the JFKA is that dozens of such individuals should have been aggressively interrogated in the aftermath of the JFK, and many  literally never were, or with kid gloves on. Now most are dead. 

The CIA told the HSCA they had no info on David Morales, and he was not even interviewed by the HSCA or WC.

What should have been the most intense, coordinated, heavily staffed, no-holds-barred murder investigation in US history was instead...well, you know the WC story. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/8/2022 at 10:25 AM, David Andrews said:

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.

 

Thanks for your astute comments, David.

The way I imagine it worked was that Ferrie (or one of his cohorts) was instructed by his CIA handler to gather together a group of trusted right-wing extremest friends and devise an assassination plan. This was not a compartmentalized plan, just one that the planners would naturally keep secret to save their own skins. The CIA didn't brief Clay Shaw on the project... he accidentally became aware of it from Ferrie or one of the others.

Of course this is all speculation at this time. Trying to make sense of what we do know.

[James DiEugenio]

Gordon got out of town pretty fast once he discovered that Garrison was going to try and  indict him.

He sold his interest in a bar, and also a race track.  Where, he told me, he once hid munitions for the CIA.

They had him do a phony polygraph in Virginia, and then hid him away in a safehouse in Columbus under that rightwing governor Rhodes who they knew would not extradite him. From there, the CIA set him up with a network of Mockingbird assets who he used to trash Garrison in the press.

The guy who safehoused him in Columbus said that there was an undercover car outside the place monitoring Gordon's comings and goings equipped with a radio transmitter.  Gordon sent the owner to a local electronics store with a list.  When he came back, in no time flat, they were listening to the guys in the car.   

After Shaw was acquitted, Gordon went from driving a 7 year old Lincoln to leasing a brand new luxurious Continental Mark III, for which did not lay out a down payment.  I have it on good authority that he was later living in a beautiful estate home with a pool in a suburb north of New Orleans.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The way I imagine it worked was that Ferrie (or one of his cohorts) was instructed by his CIA handler to gather together a group of trusted right-wing extremest friends and devise an assassination plan. This was not a compartmentalized plan, just one that the planners would naturally keep secret to save their own skins. The CIA didn't brief Clay Shaw on the project... he accidentally became aware of it from Ferrie or one of the others.

Of course this is all speculation at this time. Trying to make sense of what we do know.

 

Assuming there is some truth to my theory, I wonder if Ferrie and his ragtag team (Keystone Kops, as Jim D. put it) actually tried to pull off their plan and were stopped by Tosh Plumlee. Recall, Tosh said that the CIA (or was it military intelligence?) had been tipped off to the plot by some anti-Castro Cubans and his mission was to go to Dealey Plaza and abort it.

[David Andrews]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for your astute comments, David.

The way I imagine it worked was that Ferrie (or one of his cohorts) was instructed by his CIA handler to gather together a group of trusted right-wing extremest friends and devise an assassination plan. This was not a compartmentalized plan, just one that the planners would naturally keep secret to save their own skins. The CIA didn't brief Clay Shaw on the project... he accidentally became aware of it from Ferrie or one of the others.

Of course this is all speculation at this time. Trying to make sense of what we do know.

I dunno...I think Shaw was tight enough with CIA and Gladio, internationally, to be wired pretty high.  This is what makes it surprising that he'd put himself just one remove from Oswald, with only Ferrie between them - just damn bad tradecraft if you're already high-visibility as a homosexual in those days. 

If, as Jim says, Shaw-Banister-Guy Johnson were the IC in NOLA, maybe (old party photography to the contrary) Ferrie stood between Shaw and Oswald not because Shaw relied on Ferrie, but because he was the best handler Banister could provide.

Bad news, if you can be linked to your cut-out, and make a public appearance with him and the patsy in a little town with too much unexpected excitement (Clinton).  Again - Shaw wasn't dragged in because he was a homosexual with questionable associations; he was implicated because homosexual life provided an extra point of identification for a man who got too close to the patsy and the cut-out. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by David Andrews

[Joe Bauer]

9 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I dunno...I think Shaw was tight enough with CIA and Gladio, internationally, to be wired pretty high.  This is what makes it surprising that he'd put himself just one remove from Oswald, with only Ferrie between them - just damn bad tradecraft if you're already high-visibility as a homosexual in those days. 

If, as Jim says, Shaw-Banister-Guy Johnson were the IC in NOLA, maybe (old party photography to the contrary) Ferrie stood between Shaw and Oswald not because Shaw relied on Ferrie, but because he was the best handler Banister could provide.

Bad news, if you can be linked to your cut-out, and make a public appearance with him and the patsy in a little town with too much unexpected excitement (Clinton).  Again - Shaw wasn't dragged in because he was a homosexual with questionable associations; he was implicated because homosexual life provided an extra point of identification for a man who got too close to the patsy and the cut-out. 

Makes sense.

Driving Oswald to Clinton ( not quite sure of the town name ) so Oswald could register to help himself find work and then sitting in his black fancy car parked nearbye where he was seen by some locals while Oswald was in line to do so is a little too close for such a higher up don't you think?

[David Andrews]

12 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Makes sense.

Driving Oswald to Clinton ( not quite sure of the town name ) so Oswald could register to help himself find work and then sitting in his black fancy car parked nearbye where he was seen by some locals while Oswald was in line to do so is a little too close for such a higher up don't you think?

Shaw was probably trying to convince Oswald that the voter registration thing was legit, not some kind of trap.

On the other hand...if Shaw and Ferrie didn't expect a CORE registration drive in Clinton that day, what could be the reason they gave Oswald for shipping him out to a remote town to register, except that he'd be doing it alongside African-Americans, and thus increasing his sheep-dip as a left-winger?  And could they really rely on Oswald using a doctor's name to get and keep a job in a mental hospital?  How could he play the NOLA street provocateur from out in the boonies, several parishes away?

Edited February 10, 2022 by David Andrews

[Steve Roe]

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Why?

Let's review. You have a professor of History at LSU who specializes in writing about sexuality. She has written a book on Garrison that is backed up with solid evidence and arguments.

Faculty - Alecia P. Long | LSU Department of History

You have Fred, a gay man, who has written three books-two about the JFK case. 

You have Kirchick, another gay man, who is a journalist and is somewhat controversial but so what?

All three seem to me to be perfectly qualified to say what they have about Garrison. And let's not forget that Garrison has been criticized for many years by the majority of those who have looked at his investigation. It is only recently that people are catching on to the fact that his investigation was not only improper and wrong-headed but also homophobic (as was much of society at the time).

Jim D. has too much into this now to ever quit. But no one can redeem Garrison at this point. History has shown he was wrong, and it is only going to get worse for him.

I agree Tracy, hitching your wagon to a Garrison's fraud trial, is on the wrong side of history. Nobody has any proof that Shaw was involved in the assassination. Although Jim D. wrote he was a low-level asset......but soon edited it out. Embarrassing, especially when Shaw had his trial and acquitted quickly.   

[John Butler]

On 2/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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 think a point is being missed here.  If someone makes this later on please forgive my laziness for not reading more than 3 pages of this homophobia topic.  I believe Jim Garrison, as far as homophobia goes, is being tainted with a southern brush from the past.  The Garrison events were 50+ years in the past.  It seems folks are looking at Jim Garrison through a modern lens.  Not the lens of the time period.  Jim Garrison would seem to be a liberal in the 1960s with a tolerant view on sexuality. 

New Orleans is about as far south as one can go geographically and socially.  Times are different now.  Things were different then.  50+ years ago almost everyone in the south was bigoted, and homosexuals were not excluded from that bigotry.  I grew up in Central Kentucky in the 1950s and 1960s.  Central Ky. at that time was as far south as any place.  I did not know a single person who was not racist or homophobic.  I have traveled through SC, Ga, Ala, La, and Miss in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.  Things begin to change by the 80s.    

My environment at that time in no ways compares to Jim Garrrison's behavior.  He was not a typical southerner.  What I am trying to say is Jim Garrison's behavior in those days was superior to most.        

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I think a point is being missed here.  If someone makes this later on please forgive my laziness for not reading more than 3 pages of this homophobia topic.  I believe Jim Garrison, as far as homophobia goes, is being tainted with a southern brush from the past.  The Garrison events were 50+ years in the past.  It seems folks are looking at Jim Garrison through a modern lens.  Not the lens of the time period.  Jim Garrison would seem to be a liberal in the 1960s with a tolerant view on sexuality. 

New Orleans is about as far south as one can go geographically and socially.  Times are different now.  Things were different then.  50+ years ago almost everyone in the south was bigoted, and homosexuals were not excluded from that bigotry.  I grew up in Central Kentucky in the 1950s and 1960s.  Central Ky. at that time was as far south as any place.  I did not know a single person who was not racist or homophobic.  I have traveled through SC, Ga, Ala, La, and Miss in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.  Things begin to change by the 80s.    

My environment at that time in no ways compares to Jim Garrrison's behavior.  He was not a typical southerner.  What I am trying to say is Jim Garrison's behavior in those days was superior to most.        

Agree totally JB.

Blacks voted for Big Jim.

I think they sensed he wasn't a generational deep South racist in the way you described them.

I also don't think Garrison was any more homophobic than most white Southern males during that time and probably less so.

And don't forget Garrison was charged with sham crimes himself later on. Pure harassment and get back for his Shaw indictment.

If Shaw's trial was unfair, what do you call Garrison's phony charges one?

Like Shaw, Garrison was also acquitted right away.

Every time I read "Poor Clay Shaw" postings I cringe.

Garrison lost his marriage in great part because of his massive time and energy commitment to his JFK/Oswald investigation.

What did Clay Shaw really lose because of Garrison's charge against him and the resulting trial?

Shaw was a long time highly paid person ( by whom is not certain ) who lived a very grand, indulged and privileged life. 

Beautiful antique filled living quarters, fancy expensive cars, first class international travel, the finest apparel and probably dining ... butler too?

Unlike Shaw, Jim Garrison never lied about his background and true political leanings which in many ways were old fashioned patriotic conservative. 

And how important is it to anyone who cares about the JFK truth and wanting to know as much as they can about the person labeled as his killer - Lee Harvey Oswald - and his background and motivations including his suspiciously highly visible political activity life in NO in the months just before he moved back to the Dallas area?

In the greater scope of the JFK assassination of which Lee Oswald was charged, was the information Garrison's investigations uncovered and revealed about him not important? Not at all or even just a little bit?

If Jim Garrison never existed, think of what we would "never know" about Oswald in that time period. Practically nothing. No one else in this country would've ever picked up this truth seeking mantel and done any meaningful investigation.

There would just be one deep dark whole missing from the Oswald background truth seeking story. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

39 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

What did Clay Shaw really lose because of Garrison's charge against him and the resulting trial?

His life savings and his good reputation (at least partially).

[James DiEugenio]

David:

It was not Shaw and Ferrie's idea to have Oswald register.

This was done at the bequest of Reeves Morgan, the second person Oswald saw up there. He told Oswald when LHO visited his home that he would likely have a better chance of being hired if such was the case.

So that is what Oswald told Shaw , who was outside waiting for him in the car as witnessed by Reeves' son, Van, who was playing in the front yard.

That is why he went to the voter registrar's office.  But they did not know about the CORE rally going on.  And it was not just the people signing up, but two other factors.  First, the registrar's office was on what was probably the  main street in Clinton, across from the large, stately  court house. Second, CORE was expert at this kind of thing, so they had observers there.  And then, when Sheriff Manchester walked up to the car, and asked Shaw who he was and he produced an ID, well that kind of blew it.  The HSCA thought so highly of Manchester they had him testify in executive session.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

His life savings and his good reputation (at least partially).

Shaw became poor?

Living in some middle class apartment somewhere with spartan furniture and loud neighbors on the other side of his walls?

Shaw had no pension? Others didn't pay his legal fees?

Wasn't he close to retirement age at that time anyway?

Shaw lost his reputation?

Now there's a totally subjective debate.

He wasn't invited anymore to the highest social circle events?

Was he avoided by previous friends? Sounds like had never had any "real" close friends anyway. 

Many saw Shaw as a victim, even a hero.

If he felt repercussions from homosexual inferences that came out in the trial ( S&M whips, chains and black hood found in his home ) you could say this was unfair.

I haven't studied how his life changed after his trial in the income and lifestyle department so I can't say for sure how much he lost in that realm.

Guy Bannister and David Ferry also took huge hits to their reputations, even without trials. However, when you are investigating one of the greatest and most important crimes against our nation and society in our history and it was reported by many people that these specific people may have been in contact with the main guilt labeled suspect you have no choice but to dig deeper into their backgrounds and activities even with the risk of exposing personal things about them that may effect their public reputations.

In this case and context with Shaw, Ferry, Bannister etal ... you have no choice if you have committed to the full truth - imo anyway.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Joe Bauer