Why Did Jim Garrison Use Charles Spiesel as a Witness?

[Michael Griffith]

Let me start by saying I believe that Jim Garrison was on the right track, that some of the leads he developed were historic and crucial, and that his acts of misconduct were less serious and fewer in number than those of his enemies. However, I have always wondered what led Garrison to commit the catastrophic mistake of calling the nutcase Charles Spiesel as a witness against Clay Shaw.

Although Garrrison did not know about Spiesel's paranoid fear that his daughter was in danger of being replaced by a lookalike, he did know about Spiesel's equally nutty claim that the NYC police and others had repeatedly hypnotized him over a period of 16 years, and that Spiesel had filed a $16 million lawsuit against NYC over this alleged hypnosis (and other alleged offenses).

Here is some of what Spiesel alleged in his lawsuit:

          . . . the defendants, during a period from January 1, 1948, to July 5, 1964, a total of sixteen years, had used a new police technique to torture him and conspired with others to torture the plaintiff in New York, New Jersey, Washington DC, New Orleans and various other places. Spiesel claimed these defendants also harassed him, annoyed, tailed him, tapped his phones, and prevented him from having normal sex relations. . . . The defendants also kept him hypnotized for periods of time, caused him to make errors in his work because of their hypnotic control, wreaked psychological terror upon him, prevented him from making business deals and from borrowing money from public agencies, surrounded him with competitors in the tax return business, and hired "plants" to work in his office, who then acted intoxicated and annoyed and frightened his customers.

           . . . accused the defendants of using disguises in their attempts to pass themselves off as his relatives for the purpose of gaining entrance to his home and also "to quickly pass by the plaintiff in public places."

          The defendants also were accused of attempting to create the impression that Spiesel and his family were communists, attempting to link the plaintiff with various crimes, interfering with sign carriers advertising the plaintiff's business, conspiring to make Spiesel break the law, depriving him of his civil rights, mentally torturing, humiliating and financially ruining him. In a bar below Spiesel's office, near the building's main light switch, they also supposedly planted a man who enacted the equivalent of scenes out of Angel Street. Add this all up and Spiesel claimed the results forced him out of his own income tax business in 1963.

Clearly, Spiesel was a genuine nutcase. Spiesel had also had 15 lawsuits filed against him for fraudulent tax returns.

What led Garrison to put such a dubious, unreliable person on the witness stand? Sheer desperation? The belief that the defense did not know about Spiesel's whacky hypnosis claims and his bizarre lawsuit? Both?

[Joe Bauer]

Garrison's overall effort in trying to uncover sinister doings among politically extreme New Orleans characters regards some culpability in the JFKA including a connection to Lee Harvey Oswald during the spring and summer of 1963 is heroic imo.

Without Garrison's years long investigation, we would never have known anything about Guy Banister, David Ferry, Clay Shaw ( AKA Clay Bertrand ), Jack Martin, Dean Andrews, Reilly Coffee, JFK hating Cuban agents and all their training activity, etc. and all their connections to Lee Oswald.

Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" is the one and only seminal reveal read on that world of intrigue surrounding Oswald's New Orleans activities and connections in the super important time period just months before his move to the Dallas area in the fall of 1963.

Imagine if Garrison's investigation and published findings never happened?

Yet, Garrison did make some mistakes ( a few in my opinion ) in his years of working to find the truth. With all the stone walling, misdirection and actual sabotage efforts ( planted spies, planted recorders, planted evidence ) to destroy him and his investigation on the highest levels of agency involvement, who wouldn't have stumbled into some contrived traps and dead ends and fell for some false leads like he did?

Charles Speisel was Garrison's worst trial mistake for sure.

Still can't understand how that guy wasn't vetted more by Garrison's team.

In the Oliver Stone film "JFK" there is a scene where Garrison's lead investigator Lou Ivon expresses great concern for his boss's decision not to protect David Ferry more right after Ferry's name made it to the press regards his involvement in the Garrison investigation.

Ferry was freaking out after his exposure. In the film a frantic Ferry tells Ivon he ( Ferry ) is a dead man now.

Ivon, sensing great danger toward Ferry including his deteriorating mental state, pleads with Garrison to not leave Ferry alone at that critical time.

Ivon tells his boss that Ferry is the entire case!

Garrison decides to ignore Ivon's pleading concerns regards Ferry's personal safety.

Within hours of Garrison letting Lou Ivon's warnings go...Ferry turns up dead in his apartment and is forever lost in the later trial doings.

I don't know if this scene in Stone's film was made up for dramatic effect, or was based on a true part of the real story.

If it was a true account...Garrison's ignoring of Lou Ivon's pleading concerns about Ferry's safety was perhaps his greatest mistake in the case.

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Garrison's overall effort in trying to uncover sinister doings among politically extreme New Orleans characters regards some culpability in the JFKA including a connection to Lee Harvey Oswald during the spring and summer of 1963 is heroic imo.

Without Garrison's years long investigation, we would never have known anything about Guy Banister, David Ferry, Clay Shaw ( AKA Clay Bertrand ), Jack Martin, Dean Andrews, Reilly Coffee, JFK hating Cuban agents and all their training activity, etc. and all their connections to Lee Oswald.

Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" is the one and only seminal reveal read on that world of intrigue surrounding Oswald's New Orleans activities and connections in the super important time period just months before his move to the Dallas area in the fall of 1963.

Imagine if Garrison's investigation and published findings never happened?

Yet, Garrison did make some mistakes ( a few in my opinion ) in his years of working to find the truth. With all the stone walling, misdirection and actual sabotage efforts ( planted spies, planted recorders, planted evidence ) to destroy him and his investigation on the highest levels of agency involvement, who wouldn't have stumbled into some contrived traps and dead ends and fell for some false leads like he did?

Charles Speisel was Garrison's worst trial mistake for sure.

Still can't understand how that guy wasn't vetted more by Garrison's team.

In the Oliver Stone film "JFK" there is a scene where Garrison's lead investigator Lou Ivon expresses great concern for his boss's decision not to protect David Ferry more right after Ferry's name made it to the press regards his involvement in the Garrison investigation.

Ferry was freaking out after his exposure. In the film a frantic Ferry tells Ivon he ( Ferry ) is a dead man now.

Ivon, sensing great danger toward Ferry including his deteriorating mental state, pleads with Garrison to not leave Ferry alone at that critical time.

Ivon tells his boss that Ferry is the entire case!

Garrison decides to ignore Ivon's pleading concerns regards Ferry's personal safety.

Within hours of Garrison letting Lou Ivon's warnings go...Ferry turns up dead in his apartment and is forever lost in the later trial doings.

I don't know if this scene in Stone's film was made up for dramatic effect, or was based on a true part of the real story.

If it was a true account...Garrison's ignoring of Lou Ivon's pleading concerns about Ferry's safety was perhaps his greatest mistake in the case.

I agree with 95% of what you say about Garrison.

Lou Ivon did urge Garrison to take Ferrie into custody. Instead, Garrison chose to put Ferrie in a hotel after Ferrie said he feared for his life, but Garrison did not assign people to guard Ferrie. 

[Joe Bauer]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I agree with 95% of what you say about Garrison.

Lou Ivon did urge Garrison to take Ferrie into custody. Instead, Garrison chose to put Ferrie in a hotel after Ferrie said he feared for his life, but Garrison did not assign people to guard Ferrie. 

Ivon correctly sensed the true frantic mental state of Ferry after Ferry called him to tell him he" Ferry" was a dead man walking because his name came out in the press.

How and why Garrison dismissed Ivon's desperate level of concern for their star witness, was both baffling and frustrating for me to watch in the film depiction of it.

Sometimes I wonder if there wasn't some arrogance involved in Garrison's demeanor as "the boss."

Not enough to sway my opinion of him as a brave and courageous hero in his hugely personal sacrificing effort to find the truth.

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Ivon correctly sensed the true frantic mental state of Ferry after Ferry called him to tell him he" Ferry" was a dead man walking because his name came out in the press.

How and why Garrison dismissed Ivon's desperate level of concern for their star witness, was both baffling and frustrating for me to watch in the film depiction of it.

Sometimes I wonder if there wasn't some arrogance involved in Garrison's demeanor as "the boss."

Not enough to sway my opinion of him as a brave and courageous hero in his hugely personal sacrificing effort to find the truth.

Garrison was certainly a brave man who unearthed a great deal of important information. He had the entire might of the FBI, the CIA, and the White House arrayed against him, planting spies in his office, bugging his office phones, killing some of his witnesses, pressuring governors not to honor his extradition requests for witnesses, smearing him in the press through their media allies, etc., etc.

And while Garrison was battling to reveal the truth about the assassination, RFK did not lift a finger to help him. In fact, RFK's Justice Department actively opposed Garrison's investigation.

[Joe Bauer]

Yes, RFK's actions regards Garrison and his investigation were perplexing.

Several theories there. None of which embraced by a clear majority consensus.

Also curious to me was how limited Garrison's focus on Carlos Marcello was in the over-all thrust of his investigation direction.

JFK and RFK hater ( to a murderous degree ) Marcello owned and ran Texas and Louisiana organized crime with an absolute iron grip.

Nothing involving high level criminal doings in his fiefdom went down without his approval.

New Orleans was his Royal Court home turf.

Marcello's influence was everywhere. From Mayorships to Governorships.

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:13 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Lou Ivon did urge Garrison to take Ferrie into custody. Instead, Garrison chose to put Ferrie in a hotel after Ferrie said he feared for his life, but Garrison did not assign people to guard Ferrie. 

Ferrie if he had been further pursued by Garrison would have put the investigation right at the doorstep of Marcello. Garrison refused protection to Ferrie (cut him loose from protection after several days). Hours later by coincidence Ferrie is dead. 

Did Garrison ever express regret for not better ensuring Ferrie’s security?

It is pretty clear Garrison was pulling his punches on Marcello, the elephant in the JFK assassination New Orleans room. Garrison denied Marcello was involved in organized crime in his (Garrison’s) jurisdiction, said with a straight face he believed Marcello to be in the lettuce business with a few unproven allegations of criminal behavior not worthy of prosecution but nothing to see there re JFK.

Even though Ferrie, one of Garrison’s top suspects, was working for Marcello at the time of the assassination. 

Ferrie, without protection from Garrison, dead. Garrison does not go after Marcello, while generating and going after thousands of other leads at the end of which produced not one actionable thing linking the CIA to the JFK assassination apart from rhetoric and suspicion and argument from propinquity. All that work for no proof for his major claim in the end. Blame it all on sabotage of his investigation!

And Marcello does not knock off Garrison, the loose cannon (except never aimed at Marcello) in his backyard. 

I think RFK knew Garrison was a demagogue and wasn’t helpful to bringing his brother’s killers to justice, one suspect of whom in New Orleans a lot of organized crime experts believed had district attorney Garrison in his hip pocket along with many other politicians in Louisiana. 

Is there any record of anguish or remorse from Garrison over failure to ensure Ferrie’s security? Especially when Garrison was among those who found the death suspicious, and not the predictable fate of an already sick man.

If there is I missed it. 

And Garrisons mistake in failing to ensure Ferries security is the most favorable way to put it. 

And if Garrison did believe Ferrie had been the victim of foul play, why not a word breathed from Garrison of suspicion of the man in New Orleans with very possibly the most motive: Marcello? 

Why was that dog not barking in Garrison’s investigation?

[Benjamin Cole]

What led Garrison to put such a dubious, unreliable person on the witness stand? Sheer desperation? The belief that the defense did not know about Spiesel's whacky hypnosis claims and his bizarre lawsuit? Both?--MG

I have wondered about this for decades. 

After Spiesel was exposed as a nut, Garrison himself said his "case flew out the window like a tom turkey." 

Was Spiesel planted? Did Garrison, under time conditions, limited budgets and stress, bungle matters? 

 

[Tom Gram]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:57 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Ferrie if he had been further pursued by Garrison would have put the investigation right at the doorstep of Marcello. Garrison refused protection to Ferrie (cut him loose from protection after several days). Hours later by coincidence Ferrie is dead. 

Did Garrison ever express regret for not better ensuring Ferrie’s security?

It is pretty clear Garrison was pulling his punches on Marcello, the elephant in the JFK assassination New Orleans room. Garrison denied Marcello was involved in organized crime in his (Garrison’s) jurisdiction, said with a straight face he believed Marcello to be in the lettuce business with a few unproven allegations of criminal behavior not worthy of prosecution but nothing to see there re JFK.

Even though Ferrie, one of Garrison’s top suspects, was working for Marcello at the time of the assassination. 

Ferrie, without protection from Garrison, dead. Garrison does not go after Marcello, while generating and going after thousands of other leads at the end of which produced not one actionable thing linking the CIA to the JFK assassination apart from rhetoric and suspicion and argument from propinquity. All that work for no proof for his major claim in the end. Blame it all on sabotage of his investigation!

And Marcello does not knock off Garrison, the loose cannon (except never aimed at Marcello) in his backyard. 

I think RFK knew Garrison was a demagogue and wasn’t helpful to bringing his brother’s killers to justice, one suspect of whom in New Orleans a lot of organized crime experts believed had district attorney Garrison in his hip pocket along with many other politicians in Louisiana. 

Is there any record of anguish or remorse from Garrison over failure to ensure Ferrie’s security? Especially when Garrison was among those who found the death suspicious, and not the predictable fate of an already sick man.

If there is I missed it. 

And Garrisons mistake in failing to ensure Ferries security is the most favorable way to put it. 

And if Garrison did believe Ferrie had been the victim of foul play, why not a word breathed from Garrison of suspicion of the man in New Orleans with very possibly the most motive: Marcello? 

Why was that dog not barking in Garrison’s investigation?

Do we know for sure that Garrison actually pulled surveillance from Ferrie? Garrison hired a private detective company to keep tabs on Ferrie (actually the same questionable bunch that later went to work for Shaw’s legal team, and had previously investigated Ferrie for Eastern Airlines) and had a “continuous stakeout” going on Ferrie for “a long period”.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/F Disk/Ferrie David William Stories On/Item 30.pdf

Like do we have a source for when exactly Garrison shut down the stakeout? He may have denied full time protection, but I’ve never seen anything on Garrison pulling surveillance. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:57 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Ferrie if he had been further pursued by Garrison would have put the investigation right at the doorstep of Marcello. Garrison refused protection to Ferrie (cut him loose from protection after several days). Hours later by coincidence Ferrie is dead. 

Did Garrison ever express regret for not better ensuring Ferrie’s security?

It is pretty clear Garrison was pulling his punches on Marcello, the elephant in the JFK assassination New Orleans room. Garrison denied Marcello was involved in organized crime in his (Garrison’s) jurisdiction, said with a straight face he believed Marcello to be in the lettuce business with a few unproven allegations of criminal behavior not worthy of prosecution but nothing to see there re JFK.

Even though Ferrie, one of Garrison’s top suspects, was working for Marcello at the time of the assassination. 

Ferrie, without protection from Garrison, dead. Garrison does not go after Marcello, while generating and going after thousands of other leads at the end of which produced not one actionable thing linking the CIA to the JFK assassination apart from rhetoric and suspicion and argument from propinquity. All that work for no proof for his major claim in the end. Blame it all on sabotage of his investigation!

And Marcello does not knock off Garrison, the loose cannon (except never aimed at Marcello) in his backyard. 

I think RFK knew Garrison was a demagogue and wasn’t helpful to bringing his brother’s killers to justice, one suspect of whom in New Orleans a lot of organized crime experts believed had district attorney Garrison in his hip pocket along with many other politicians in Louisiana. 

Is there any record of anguish or remorse from Garrison over failure to ensure Ferrie’s security? Especially when Garrison was among those who found the death suspicious, and not the predictable fate of an already sick man.

If there is I missed it. 

And Garrisons mistake in failing to ensure Ferries security is the most favorable way to put it. 

And if Garrison did believe Ferrie had been the victim of foul play, why not a word breathed from Garrison of suspicion of the man in New Orleans with very possibly the most motive: Marcello? 

Why was that dog not barking in Garrison’s investigation?

These attacks ignore the fact that Ferrie also had extensive CIA connections, and that in previous CIA assassination plots the Mafia had been the hired gun, not the other way around. Clay Shaw and Guy Banister were intelligence assets, not Mafia assets. 

Your attacks also ignore the many valuable, historic leads that Garrison developed, such as the Clinton-Jackson witnesses who saw Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw. 

I reject the idea that the Mafia was the main force behind the assassination. The Mafia could not have rigged the autopsy, suppressed medical evidence, altered the autopsy skull x-rays, removed Oswald's name from the FBI's watch list, suppressed Oswald's intelligence connections, impersonated Oswald in Mexico City, suppressed the existence of extra bullets (such as the one handled by Dr. Young), etc., etc. The Mafia certainly played a role, but not the leading role. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your attacks also ignore the many valuable, historic leads that Garrison developed, such as the Clinton-Jackson witnesses who saw Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw. 

Like I stated, Garrison's heroic effort investigation revealed so much important information about Lee Oswald and who he interacted with in his time in New Orleans, without which there would be a huge black hole in the entire story.

The Clinton/Jackson event was just another important reveal part of his investigation.

I simply couldn't list every aspect of his investigative discoveries. Too many for a one or two post entry.

I spend a decent amount of time reading about the American Sicilian Mafia. It's history of origin, progression and influence.

The "Godfather" film trilogy provided a romanticized Hollywood enhanced treatment of the American Sicilian Mafia experience and history. Focused primarily on one powerful leadership family's personal journey it was limited in it's broader historical coverage scope, yet told in such a well scripted, acted, choreographed and scored way it couldn't help but generate more interest in the subject historically.

However, it is an amazing and amazingly ominous fact how the American Sicilian Mafia grew to such levels of power, wealth and influence that they had corrupted every level of government, industry and finance to degrees that are hard to believe. All in a space of just 50+ years!

Presidents, vice presidents ( Agnew ), governors, senators, congressmen, federal agency heads, mayors, city councils, police forces, judges, military and intel agency influence, presidential elections, wealthiest private industry icons ( Texas oil? ), the film industry, labor unions, ... nationwide! 

Stop and think for a minute about that shocking power, wealth and influence growth reality!

RFK's book "The Enemy Within" tried to warn about this unbelievable growth of organized crime and it's influence in the lives of Americans beyond anything the average person could contemplate.

For years, I have proposed many times my opinion that organized crime corruption in America was one of it's top 4 legacies during the 20th century. The century of organized crime at it's peak.

Still, on it's own the American Mafia, even in it's entirety, could not have organized and carried out the JFKA imo.

The whacking of Lee Harvey Oswald right inside of a major police department's own building and in the middle of 70 armed security personnel is another matter ... imo anyways.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

These attacks ignore the fact that Ferrie also had extensive CIA connections, and that in previous CIA assassination plots the Mafia had been the hired gun, not the other way around. Clay Shaw and Guy Banister were intelligence assets, not Mafia assets. 

Your attacks also ignore the many valuable, historic leads that Garrison developed, such as the Clinton-Jackson witnesses who saw Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw. 

I reject the idea that the Mafia was the main force behind the assassination. The Mafia could not have rigged the autopsy, suppressed medical evidence, altered the autopsy skull x-rays, removed Oswald's name from the FBI's watch list, suppressed Oswald's intelligence connections, impersonated Oswald in Mexico City, suppressed the existence of extra bullets (such as the one handled by Dr. Young), etc., etc. The Mafia certainly played a role, but not the leading role. 

“The Mafia certainly played a role, but not the leading one.”

Thank you Michael for supporting the point! Yes, from the Ruby connection, and the reach of Marcello’s power into control over Civello and Dallas, it’s pretty obvious Marcello (who also had motive in spades), was a suspect for a role as you say contrary to the position of the Garrison investigation. That is not counting that Ferrie and Oswald’s attorney Dean Andrews working directly for Marcello, and Oswald’s uncle and surrogate father, Dutz Merrett, worked for the Marcello organization much of his life. Or that Marguerite was in thick with persons close to Marcello and said she called Marcello-linked attorney Clem Sehrt in New Orleans the weekend of Oswald’s arrest trying to get Lee legal counsel. Wasn’t Banister also alleged to work for Marcello? I forget. 

So I am glad you agree that Marcello should have been investigated. And obviously it’s easy to speculate how unimportant the suspected involvement might have been prior to investigating and finding out. The question is: if it is obvious to you and everyone else to see Marcello as suspected involved, how did Garrison not see that? It’s not as if there was a jurisdiction issue. He was right there in New Orleans. 

Garrison didn’t even think there was Mafia activity happening in New Orleans! (Can you believe he would seriously believe that?) And his interpretation of Ruby was Ruby was CIA, of all things!— instead of mob and Marcello.

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your attacks also ignore the many valuable, historic leads that Garrison developed, such as the Clinton-Jackson witnesses who saw Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw. 

I did not ignore the leads. I said Garrison developed thousands of leads. Some of much interest. On the Clinton-Jackson presence of Oswald and probably Ferrie (I am doubtful the big man driving the black Cadillac was Shaw or Banister either, was it a mobster?), all interesting.

But with Clinton-Jackson, I’ve always wondered where that goes. The “so what?” question. So what if somebody is seen with Oswald somewhere in rural Louisiana. It’s interesting but where does it go. What does it have to do with relevant to the jfk assassination in Dallas. What’s the connection. I know, a hundred possibilities “could be”’s. Here’s one more: was it a contact with a Marcello man, Marcello who told a witness FBI informant that he had made contact with Oswald via Ferrie?

Just like Clay Shaw being mixed up with the CIA in some op name and the CIA and Shaw covering that up. Sure, I, you, we all would like to know what that was about. But we don’t know do we. Garrison despite rhetoric didn’t. Just because someone is CIA who is in the international trade business and circles which the CIA was very thick in, that doesn’t translate to that classified op was a formal CIA op to assassinate jfk in Texas! 

I see an “ends justify means” mentality, that it was ok to go after an innocent man in court, railroad him into a prison sentence if that were possible (innocent of the jfk assassination), plus recklessly accuse and smear who knows how many other innocent persons on the flimsiest of bases for suspicion, if it serves the good of raising public suspicion. 

I think Garrison probably did take the payoffs he was accused of, despite beating the charges in court. He seems like a variant of the Huey Long populist demagogue southern pol type, who often have redeeming and sympathetic and humanitarian qualities mixed in with the demagoguery and corruption. Gotta love those populist southern pols. 

Were the leads of interest, the wheat among the chaff, in the Garrison investigation, valuable? Yes (I say yes). But that’s like crediting LBJ for the civil rights act passage. That was true, and I do not believe it was all for show on LBJ’s part on that, but it doesn’t change LBJ was one of the most outstanding corrupt southern pol types in Americas history. 

And I believe Garrison didn’t go after Marcello on JFK because Garrison was compromised. How is that not just obvious. It was useful to some people for Garrison to die on the Clay Shaw hill, a “look over here” spectacle that went nowhere because, well, not that it mattered, but the man was innocent.

It was an Innocence Project case of a wrongful conviction, a Dreyfus Case analogy, in the making, if the jury had not gone against Garrisons wishes and acquitted before it became that.

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

“The Mafia certainly played a role, but not the leading one.”

Thank you Michael for supporting the point! Yes, from the Ruby connection, and the reach of Marcello’s power into control over Civello and Dallas, it’s pretty obvious Marcello (who also had motive in spades), was a suspect for a role as you say contrary to the position of the Garrison investigation. That is not counting that Ferrie and Oswald’s attorney Dean Andrews working directly for Marcello, and Oswald’s uncle and surrogate father, Dutz Merrett, worked for the Marcello organization much of his life. Or that Marguerite was in thick with persons close to Marcello and said she called Marcello-linked attorney Clem Sehrt in New Orleans the weekend of Oswald’s arrest trying to get Lee legal counsel. Wasn’t Banister also alleged to work for Marcello? I forget. 

So I am glad you agree that Marcello should have been investigated. And obviously it’s easy to speculate how unimportant the suspected involvement might have been prior to investigating and finding out. The question is: if it is obvious to you and everyone else to see Marcello as suspected involved, how did Garrison not see that? It’s not as if there was a jurisdiction issue. He was right there in New Orleans. 

Garrison didn’t even think there was Mafia activity happening in New Orleans! (Can you believe he would seriously believe that?) And his interpretation of Ruby was Ruby was CIA, of all things!— instead of mob and Marcello.

I did not ignore the leads. I said Garrison developed thousands of leads. Some of much interest. On the Clinton-Jackson presence of Oswald and probably Ferrie (I am doubtful the big man driving the black Cadillac was Shaw or Banister either, was it a mobster?), all interesting.

But with Clinton-Jackson, I’ve always wondered where that goes. The “so what?” question. So what if somebody is seen with Oswald somewhere in rural Louisiana. It’s interesting but where does it go. What does it have to do with relevant to the jfk assassination in Dallas. What’s the connection. I know, a hundred possibilities “could be”’s. Here’s one more: was it a contact with a Marcello man, Marcello who told a witness FBI informant that he had made contact with Oswald via Ferrie?

Just like Clay Shaw being mixed up with the CIA in some op name and the CIA and Shaw covering that up. Sure, I, you, we all would like to know what that was about. But we don’t know do we. Garrison despite rhetoric didn’t. Just because someone is CIA who is in the international trade business and circles which the CIA was very thick in, that doesn’t translate to that classified op was a formal CIA op to assassinate jfk in Texas! 

I see an “ends justify means” mentality, that it was ok to go after an innocent man in court, railroad him into a prison sentence if that were possible (innocent of the jfk assassination), plus recklessly accuse and smear who knows how many other innocent persons on the flimsiest of bases for suspicion, if it serves the good of raising public suspicion. 

I think Garrison probably did take the payoffs he was accused of, despite beating the charges in court. He seems like a variant of the Huey Long populist demagogue southern pol type, who often have redeeming and sympathetic and humanitarian qualities mixed in with the demagoguery and corruption. Gotta love those populist southern pols. 

Were the leads of interest, the wheat among the chaff, in the Garrison investigation, valuable? Yes (I say yes). But that’s like crediting LBJ for the civil rights act passage. That was true, and I do not believe it was all for show on LBJ’s part on that, but it doesn’t change LBJ was one of the most outstanding corrupt southern pol types in Americas history. 

And I believe Garrison didn’t go after Marcello on JFK because Garrison was compromised. How is that not just obvious. It was useful to some people for Garrison to die on the Clay Shaw hill, a “look over here” spectacle that went nowhere because, well, not that it mattered, but the man was innocent.

It was an Innocence Project case of a wrongful conviction, a Dreyfus Case analogy, in the making, if the jury had not gone against Garrisons wishes and acquitted before it became that.

I think Garrison may have feared Marcello, since he was smack dab in the middle of Marcello's territory. I agree that it is possible that Garrison was compromised by Marcello; if so, I think fear would have played a role in his being compromised. But I think it is also quite possible that Garrison simply believed that the main force behind the assassination was the CIA and other intelligence entities, and that he should focus his attention on them.

[Matthew Koch]

19 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

“The Mafia certainly played a role, but not the leading one.”

Thank you Michael for supporting the point! Yes, from the Ruby connection, and the reach of Marcello’s power into control over Civello and Dallas, it’s pretty obvious Marcello (who also had motive in spades), was a suspect for a role as you say contrary to the position of the Garrison investigation. That is not counting that Ferrie and Oswald’s attorney Dean Andrews working directly for Marcello, and Oswald’s uncle and surrogate father, Dutz Merrett, worked for the Marcello organization much of his life. Or that Marguerite was in thick with persons close to Marcello and said she called Marcello-linked attorney Clem Sehrt in New Orleans the weekend of Oswald’s arrest trying to get Lee legal counsel. Wasn’t Banister also alleged to work for Marcello? I forget. 

So I am glad you agree that Marcello should have been investigated. And obviously it’s easy to speculate how unimportant the suspected involvement might have been prior to investigating and finding out. The question is: if it is obvious to you and everyone else to see Marcello as suspected involved, how did Garrison not see that? It’s not as if there was a jurisdiction issue. He was right there in New Orleans. 

Garrison didn’t even think there was Mafia activity happening in New Orleans! (Can you believe he would seriously believe that?) And his interpretation of Ruby was Ruby was CIA, of all things!— instead of mob and Marcello.

I did not ignore the leads. I said Garrison developed thousands of leads. Some of much interest. On the Clinton-Jackson presence of Oswald and probably Ferrie (I am doubtful the big man driving the black Cadillac was Shaw or Banister either, was it a mobster?), all interesting.

But with Clinton-Jackson, I’ve always wondered where that goes. The “so what?” question. So what if somebody is seen with Oswald somewhere in rural Louisiana. It’s interesting but where does it go. What does it have to do with relevant to the jfk assassination in Dallas. What’s the connection. I know, a hundred possibilities “could be”’s. Here’s one more: was it a contact with a Marcello man, Marcello who told a witness FBI informant that he had made contact with Oswald via Ferrie?

Just like Clay Shaw being mixed up with the CIA in some op name and the CIA and Shaw covering that up. Sure, I, you, we all would like to know what that was about. But we don’t know do we. Garrison despite rhetoric didn’t. Just because someone is CIA who is in the international trade business and circles which the CIA was very thick in, that doesn’t translate to that classified op was a formal CIA op to assassinate jfk in Texas! 

I see an “ends justify means” mentality, that it was ok to go after an innocent man in court, railroad him into a prison sentence if that were possible (innocent of the jfk assassination), plus recklessly accuse and smear who knows how many other innocent persons on the flimsiest of bases for suspicion, if it serves the good of raising public suspicion. 

I think Garrison probably did take the payoffs he was accused of, despite beating the charges in court. He seems like a variant of the Huey Long populist demagogue southern pol type, who often have redeeming and sympathetic and humanitarian qualities mixed in with the demagoguery and corruption. Gotta love those populist southern pols. 

Were the leads of interest, the wheat among the chaff, in the Garrison investigation, valuable? Yes (I say yes). But that’s like crediting LBJ for the civil rights act passage. That was true, and I do not believe it was all for show on LBJ’s part on that, but it doesn’t change LBJ was one of the most outstanding corrupt southern pol types in Americas history. 

And I believe Garrison didn’t go after Marcello on JFK because Garrison was compromised. How is that not just obvious. It was useful to some people for Garrison to die on the Clay Shaw hill, a “look over here” spectacle that went nowhere because, well, not that it mattered, but the man was innocent.

It was an Innocence Project case of a wrongful conviction, a Dreyfus Case analogy, in the making, if the jury had not gone against Garrisons wishes and acquitted before it became that.

Greg, I'd recommend you read @James DiEugenio's Dentiny Betrayed Second Addition

it would anwser your questions here, and you would learn alot about the case since you are saying things like NO Evidence instead of Circumstancial Evidence