Fred Litwins New Podcast

[Gerry Down]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me close with some new information as to why Shaw was probably grinning while reading Meagher’s letters. Doug Caddy is an attorney in Houston. He has a strong interest in the JFK case. He noted online that he had a friend who lives in Houston who had told him for years about a meeting he had with Shaw. His name is Phil Dyer, and at that time—late 1972—he would regularly visit an acquaintance of his in New Orleans who was an interior designer. It was usually on weekends. The reader must comprehend that, at this time, Garrison’s case had been thrown out of court. Shaw had now gone on the offensive and filed a civil suit against Garrison. Therefore, Shaw was in the clear as far as any legal liability went. Because of the two (phony) tax cases the Justice Department had filed against him, Garrison was not going to be DA much longer. In fact, in several months, he would be voted out of office.

Phil and his friend had a mutual female companion, who was a gynecologist. On the weekend under discussion, they were staying with her. Phil planned on leaving on Sunday after they had brunch. His friend had arranged for them to meet an acquaintance of his named Clay Shaw for that brunch. Since at this stage of his life Shaw was restoring homes and turning them over for nice profits, that relationship would make sense.

Shaw was impeccably dressed and had sharp blue eyes. He was accompanied by an older woman. Phil recalled the Shaw trial and he came from a family who practiced hunting. So, during the conversation, and over some drinks, he asked Shaw if he knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Shaw replied that yes he did, he knew him fairly well. Phil asked him what kind of a person he was. Shaw said that he knew him to be pretty active in the French Quarter, but he was always kind of quiet around him. Phil now asked his last question about Oswald. He told Shaw that he did not think that Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did, getting off those precise shots in that time sequence. Shaw said quite coolly that Phil had to understand. Oswald was just a patsy. He was also a double agent. When I told Phil that Shaw had denied knowing Oswald on the witness stand, he replied with words to the effect: if you were in his position would you have admitted knowing him? In other words, everything Shaw’s defense presented in court was false. And Shaw knew it was false. (Interview with the author on August 8, 2020)

In retrospect, how Sylvia Meagher could equate Oswald with Clay Shaw is both baffling and shocking.

This would fall into the category of hearsay.

Douglas Caddy says Phil Dyer said Clay Shaw said x,y,z.

And even then it might not be that straight forward as there appears to be other people involved, such as a number of women. So it’s not clear if Phil Dyer heard Clay Shaw say something of if it’s one of the women who said what (they thought) Clay Shaw said and Douglas Caddy took it up wrong from Phil Dyer and thought Phil Dyer himself heard Clay Shaw say something when it might have been one of the women who relayed to Phil Dyer what Clay Shaw said.

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

     Why were the CIA and FBI so deeply concerned about Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw?

      Why did they infiltrate and sabotage the investigation, and use their media assets to defame and discredit Garrison?

       Nothing to see here?  Move along now?

W., this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was evidence of foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.

I think the CIA felt very threatened by Garrison because he was a loose cannon and threatened to go into CIA secrets with his investigation. I think the CIA was covering up a CIA relationship with Clay Shaw. I absolutely believe the CIA infiltrated and was all over the Garrison investigation.

Now quit trying to smear by this kind of deflection. And I see DiEugenio is piling on, for absolutely no legitimate reason justified in my post to you.

None of the above constitutes evidence that Clay Shaw had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.

It just doesn't.

I was talking about evidence.

See, this is what is discouraging about the logic of some of the discourse here.

Edited Thursday at 09:09 PM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg D is a dyed in the wool Paul Hochian on the issue. Hoch is about as worthy on this subject as was James Kirkwood.

Look, there was so much suspicion about Clay Shaw in the wake of the assassination that the FBI had to lie about it.  And if it had not been for the ARRB, we would have never known about it. When Ramsey Clark said that Shaw had been investigated, he had to take that back--not because it was false, but because it was true. But the FBI would know that the obvious next question  would be : why was Shaw investigated?  And they did not want to reply to that, for good reason.

On March 2, 1967, DeLoach wrote a memo to Tolson saying:

"The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw.  I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." (my emphasis)

In other words, within a week of the assassination, the FBI had something like 6-7 leads coming in about Shaw and the assassination. Who else can we say that about? The only person who comes close is Ferrie.

And by the way, under oath at Shaw's trial, Regis Kennedy said that he was looking for Clay Bertrand as part of that FBI investigation.  Once he admitted that, AG John Mitchell told him not to answer any other questions.

I wonder why?

And this is evidence of what, exactly?

Is this like saying Ruth Paine family members had CIA connections, therefore she forged physical evidence in her garage against Oswald?

That kind of reasoning? 

[W. Niederhut]

26 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

W., this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was evidence of foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.

I think the CIA felt very threatened by Garrison because he was a loose cannon and threatened to go into CIA secrets with his investigation. I think the CIA was covering up a CIA relationship with Clay Shaw. I absolutely believe the CIA infiltrated and was all over the Garrison investigation.

Now quit trying to smear by this kind of deflection. And I see DiEugenio is piling on, for absolutely no legitimate reason justified in my post to you.

None of the above constitutes evidence that Clay Shaw had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.

It just doesn't.

I was talking about evidence.

See, this is what is discouraging about the logic of some of the discourse here.

Greg,

    Your comment here, frankly, doesn't pass the sniff test.

     Garrison was investigating Clay Shaw's pre-assassination contacts with Oswald, Ferrie, et.al., and you are claiming that the CIA was only concerned about "covering up their relationship with Clay Shaw?"

     How about Shaw's relationship with Oswald?  And Ferrie's?

     And that fact that Oswald was working out of Bannister's office, posing as a pro-Castro Marxist?

     Nothing to see here?

     One of us may be trying to "smear" someone, but it isn't me.

Edited Thursday at 09:32 PM by W. Niederhut

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg D is a dyed in the wool Paul Hochian on the issue. Hoch is about as worthy on this subject as was James Kirkwood.

There you go again with the ad hominem.

Garrison was threatening to the CIA but that doesn't mean he wasn't nuts. 

He didn't prove a thing, just made hundreds of allegations in every which direction, some of the byproducts of which have collaterally been of interest. 

I think there is approximately zero percent chance that Clay Shaw had any direct or witting role in the JFK assassination or would have knowingly gone along with it if he had been informed. There certainly is no evidence he did. That's my judgment as to probability in the absence of evidence.

What Clay Shaw's CIA relationship was, don't know, but there was one. Since he was international and involved with trade, that would be the obvious area to look. Or using domestic organizations in New Orleans as cover for CIA assets employment/cover, possibly (just speculating). None of that is evidence he was a conspirator in or had foreknowledge of the JFK assasination.

I think Clay Shaw did know Ferrie as part of the gay subculture, and had motive to deny it for two reasons, the gay outing issue, and agreeing to anything that would put him further into the tender mercies of Garrison's tentacles. So yes I think he probably was perjuring on that denial. On Oswald, I don't buy that he was the caller wanting to get a lawyer for Oswald; that call to Dean Andrews was no fiction but came from Marguerite's attempt to get a lawyer for Lee that weekend. Dean Andrews' attorney Monk Zeldon said so, and it makes sense. Clay Shaw as the caller to Dean Andrews doesn't make sense.

I doubt Clay Shaw had any serious dealings with Oswald, whether or not he knew him casually (New Orleans being a small world where a lot of people crossed paths with a lot of people casually, its possible). Oswald certainly wasn't gay and there is no other obvious reason why there would be a Clay Shaw Oswald connection.

I think Lee Oswald did go try to get a job in a hospital in Jackson, Louisiana, with intent to move there. The evidence is too strong that he did (I think), but I don't agree with the idea that he had been told to do so for a reason Oswald did not himself know, to have some black op change his records into being an inmate and discredit him for being insane! I think Melanson in his book gives the best explanation, and the only one that to me makes sense, both as to why Oswald was there and why he never came back: because he did seriously intend to make a move to Jackson, but the intention to try to move there was interrupted and abandoned by something more pressing elsewhere. I don't see anything that makes sense other than that, assuming Oswald was there which I think he was. Was Ferrie with him? I don't know, maybe. Was Clay Shaw? No chance. Could be Banister, don't know. This is all contested I realize. Not trying to convince anyone, just saying what I think on this, since its a major-ticket item in discussions of Oswald in New Orleans. 

I think the critics of the Warren Commission have done no favors for solving the JFK assassination case in a form other than Oswald-alone, by latching on to Garrison's claims and conclusions. Just because he drove the CIA bananas doesn't make Garrison right. Its not as simple as that. 

Edited Friday at 05:41 AM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg, Your comment here, frankly, doesn't pass the sniff test. Garrison was investigating Clay Shaw's pre-assassination contacts with Oswald, Ferrie, et.al., and you are claiming that the CIA was only concerned about "covering up their relationship with Clay Shaw?"

I did not claim what you are attributing to me ("only").

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

How about Shaw's relationship with Oswald?  And Ferrie's?

I don't buy the existence of a Shaw relationship with Oswald.

I buy a Ferrie relationship with Shaw as plausible but am sure it had nothing to do with the JFK assassination and doubt very much it had to anything to do with CIA.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

 And that fact that Oswald was working out of Bannister's office, posing as a pro-Castro Marxist? 

Understanding you to mean his use of the 2nd floor office of the building, the former anti-Castro Cubans' office space, for a few days, and a possible relationship with Banister, yes, I think the CIA would have motive to not want some things to be uncovered that Garrison might uncover.

But what are you saying? That that proves these people including Oswald had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination or that any of them, the issue of Oswald himself aside, did it?

Have you considered the CIA could be doing a lot of things, including some with Oswald, in a lot of places and that is not proof that the CIA was doing the JFK assassination in all those places? Do you see the logical leap in reasoning I am pushing back against?

You are assuming suspicion is grounds for a logical conclusion. This is the legitimate side of the criticism against conspiracy theorizing, the bane of what outsiders see wrong with so much conspiracy theorizing. It wouldn't be so bad if speculation was labeled speculation, conjecture conjecture, and not claimed as hard fact that it is heresy to question or point out is not proven. 

There is a theory that Garrison, who made a lot of accusations but never proved the CIA or anyone in New Orleans (the issue of Oswald himself aside) was involved in the JFK assassination, was carrying out, including with financial support, an agenda from fellow New Orleans-ite Carlos Marcello, grocery wholesaler and mob boss over Louisiana and east Texas including Dallas. With all of his investigative skills, Garrison could not figure out that Jack Ruby went back to Marcello, and seek to find out what that was about. Garrison claimed Ruby was working for the CIA! Garrison never once even interviewed or questioned Marcello! The same Marcello who later confessed that he did the JFK assassination!

The confession of Marcello isn't airtight, I know. People say he was losing his mind when he bragged that he had had JFK assassinated, said Oswald and Oswald's uncle used to work for him, told how he did it. But sometimes people losing their minds can speak uninhibited truth unfiltered. Too bad there was never an investigation of Marcello on JFK. Too bad Garrison didn't. Was he really in his bones certain Marcello was innocent? But was sure Clay Shaw wasn't? Talk about arbitrary! 

[James DiEugenio]

First of all, Shaw's relationship with the CIA has been declassified.

He was a well paid contract agent, and cleared for a covert security clearance.

And the CIA tried to cover this up for decades on end. Until the arrival of the ARRB. In fact, the guy on CIA records, concluded that the  CIA had ransacked Shaw's files.  Now if that does not smell of a cover up, what does?  And that is from the expert's own mouth.

Now do you want me to list all the times that Shaw lied about this?  Including under oath? Including with his pal FBI asset James Phelan in a printed interview?  In a BBC interview?  In fact, even the CIA was shocked by the fact that Shaw had not told his own lawyers about it.

If Shaw was innocent, then why did he lie so consistently on this subject?  And how did he know he would be protected on it?

I can tell you why.  The following quote is from Carlos Bringuier in April of 1967: "Garrison had something big, high persons  were involved in the assassination conspriacy.  Shaw felt confident because he knew that these high persons would have to defend him" (Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, p. 286)

If there was no intel relationship in New Orleans then how does one explain Jesse Core? And Garner? That was a really neat operation.  First,  Quiroga delivers the flyers to Oswald and Garner sees it--and Quiroga lies about it-- for Oswald's leafleting in front of the ITM. But before that, Shaw's right hand man, Core had picked up a flyer that Oswald had dropped on Canal Street.  He then drew an arrow to the 544 Camp Street address and sent it to the FBI!

Now, it that is not enough for you, according to the reporters at WDSU, the ITM event was on the schedule when they got into work that day!

Coincidence?  LOL🤫

Edited Thursday at 11:21 PM by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Greg,

     I'm responding to your comments in red (below.)

 

Greg Doudna wrote:

Understanding you to mean his (Oswald's) use of the 2nd floor office of (Banister's) building, the former anti-Castro Cubans' office space, for a few days, and a possible relationship with Banister, yes, I think the CIA would have motive to not want some things to be uncovered that Garrison might uncover.

Especially the JFKA patsy posing as a pro-Castro Marxist in the office of an ex-FBI agent, I should think!

Talk about bad optics...

But what are you saying? That that proves these people including Oswald had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination or that any of them, the issue of Oswald himself aside, did it?

It doesn't prove it, but it, certainly, raises questions.

Have you considered the CIA could be doing a lot of things, including some with Oswald, in a lot of places and that is not proof that the CIA was doing the JFK assassination in all those places? Do you see the logical leap in reasoning I am pushing back against?

The CIA's fingerprints are all over the JFKA-- and Oswald case-- which, again raises questions here.

What "logical leap" am I allegedly making?

You are assuming suspicion is grounds for a logical conclusion.

Potential grounds for a conclusion.  As a science guy (M.D.) I tend to think in terms of probabilistic hypotheses.

This is the legitimate side of the criticism against conspiracy theorizing, the bane of what outsiders see wrong with so much conspiracy theorizing. It wouldn't be so bad if speculation was labeled speculation, conjecture conjecture, and not claimed as hard fact that it is heresy to question or point out is not proven. 

Who claimed my theorizing is claimed as a "hard fact?"  I made no such claim.

I know all about the philosophical relationship between facts and theories.

There is a theory that Garrison, who made a lot of accusations but never proved the CIA or anyone in New Orleans (the issue of Oswald himself aside) was involved in the JFK assassination, was carrying out, including with financial support, an agenda from fellow New Orleans-ite Carlos Marcello, grocery wholesaler and mob boss over Louisiana and east Texas including Dallas. With all of his investigative skills, Garrison could not figure out that Jack Ruby went back to Marcello, and seek to find out what that was about. Garrison claimed Ruby was working for the CIA! Garrison never once even interviewed or questioned Marcello! The same Marcello who later confessed that he did the JFK assassination!

I know very little about Marcello, or Ruby's relationship with Marcello.

Giancana once said that the CIA and the Mafia were two sides of the same coin, didn't he?

And I vaguely recall reading that Ruby was involved (originally) with Giancana and the Chicago mob in some capacity.

There is also the case of the mobster in Oklahoma, Jack Zagretty, who had apparent foreknowledge that Ruby was going to kill Oswald.  He was found floating in a swimming pool with a gun shot to the mouth.

The confession of Marcello isn't airtight, I know. People say he was losing his mind when he bragged that he had had JFK assassinated, said Oswald and Oswald's uncle used to work for him, told how he did it. But sometimes people losing their minds can speak uninhibited truth unfiltered. Too bad there was never an investigation of Marcello on JFK. Too bad Garrison didn't. Was he really in his bones certain Marcello was innocent? But was sure Clay Shaw wasn't? Talk about arbitrary! 

Reasonable point about Marcello.  But did he also handle the Warren Commission cover up and the mainstream media (Mockingbird) psy op for the JFKA-- Life magazine, WaPo, NYT, CBS, et.al.?

Not likely.

Secondly, Clay Shaw wasn't the only CIA asset who was in contact with Oswald prior to the assassination.

George De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, and, possibly, David Atlee Phillips were also in contact with the designated JFKA patsy.

 

[James DiEugenio]

The Marcello accusation  is always the last bastion of the JG smear.

Bill Davy deals with this in his book,  Let Justice be Done, from pages 149-167.  This began with Aaron Kohn and Life magazine  back in the sixties and was continued by John Davis in the 80's.  The guy at Life who was charged with this was Dick Billings, who teamed up with David Chandler.  I found out through Billings' notes that he had, to be mild, misrepresented in that book Fatal Hour his questioning of Garrison on this point. That is how desperate Life was.

There was never anything to any of John Davis' charges either, e.g. that Garrison got some kind of deal on his house because the builder had an Italian last name. (Davy, p. 154)

There was never anything to the Davis accusation that Garrison somehow avoided Marcello's taverns in his raids in the French Quarter. At least four of them were padlocked by the DA. In fact, in the case of one of them, he told his assistant to shut it down for a year and prove that the ostensible owner was really a front for Marcello. (ibid, 154-55)

And Garrison did investigate the Mob angle. From an article in Newsday in 1967 :

"Garrison is trying to learn whether the Cosa Nostra and anti Castro Cubans may have been linked by mob controlled gambling operations in pre Castro Cuba...Garrison is trying to determine if there is a thread which binds the Cosa Nostra , anti Castro groups, the late David Ferrie, Oswald and Jack Ruby." He later wrote a memo to his staff on this subject. (ibid, p. 155).  

Aaron Kohn, an FBI employee who worked with Shaw's lawyers, tried to insinuate this smear during Garrison's investigation.  He would end up being indicted by a grand jury and convicted of contempt. (ibid, p. 159)

BTW, this whole Mob smear was also tried on Richard Sprague when he was HSCA chief counsel.(ibid, p. 164)

But none of this matters to Greg.  Neither does it matter that Blakey and Billings tried everything they could to somehow make a case against Marcello.  As Carl Oglesby notes in the Afterword to On the Trail of the Assassins, although the HSCA spent lots of time and money on the Mafia theory, what did they come up with? 

Drum roll please!

Oswald did shoot and kill JFK.  The Mafia figured that a guy who could not hit a barn door, and using the worst rifle a sniper could find, that was their best solution to rid the scourge of the Kennedys.

I mean please.  What this really means is that the HSCA could not find anything of any credence in their hopes of escaping an intelligence/Cuban exile plot.  People like Gus Russo have always bandied about the Brilab tapes. Jeremy Gunn had those and sent me the ARRB transcripts.  There is no there there.

So then came the Waldron termed Cam Tex transcripts. Waldron billed these as new.  They were not. The great Peter Vea sent them to me years prior. He billed them as the "Crazy Last Days of Marcello".  And they were.  Marcello's dementia was clearly manifest: as the guards in the prison observed, he was cracking his head against the wall. When he got out, he was pretty clearly gone around the bend, as even his relatives admitted.

But yet, any game is allowed in the Hochian goal to get Garrison.  Nothing is out of bounds, no foul or insult is too flagrant.  And remember, Clay Shaw was as pure as the driven snow. 

Which is why he lied his head off about everything.

 

Edited Friday at 06:10 AM by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The following quote is from Carlos Bringuier in April of 1967: "Garrison had something big, high persons  were involved in the assassination conspriacy.  Shaw felt confident because he knew that these high persons would have to defend him" (Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, p. 286)

Somebody correct me here, please.  This is the same Carlos Bringuier Oswald approached in his shop in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 as an anti-Castro supporter, providing his Marine Corps instruction booklet as to his Bonafide's.  Then confronting him on the street in front of his business as a pro-Castro supporter the next day, leading to fake fisticuffs and the arrest of both, in front of reporters, conveniently called to the scene in time to record it.  Then a televised debate, recorded, still available.  The literal lp, 33 1/3 record sent to Washington the afternoon of the assassination.

[James DiEugenio]

yep, that is him and he should know.

This did not last long. 

Very soon he and Quiroga began cooperating with Shaw's lawyers with some hilarious results.

[Robert Morrow]

I actually got Carlos Bringuier, born in 1934, on the telephone from his home in Texas about 10 years ago. He was probably about 80 years old then.

Actually my notes say I called Carlos on 2/17/2013 and he hung up on me immediately.

HE DID NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING.

Here are some bios on him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Bringuier 

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbringuier.htm

The number that I called him on 281-465-4741 has been disconnected.

Carlos was living at 46. S. Wynnoak Circle, Spring, TX 77382 at that time.

Edited Friday at 06:08 PM by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

yep, that is him and he should know.

This did not last long. 

Very soon he and Quiroga began cooperating with Shaw's lawyers with some hilarious results.

Carlos Bringuier called Oswald CIA in the NYT 11/23/63

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5196

John Navin:

 “Carlos Bringuier is quoted in the New York Times THE DAY AFTER the assassination that he thought Oswald was working for the CIA. It's on the front page. I have a copy of that paper sitting in a plastic wrapper in my closet. I've always felt that it showed how anyone could figure out the basics of what happened almost immediately. I'm sure a few intelligence folks in Washington freaked out.”

 John Navin:

 “Okay, here it is. I pulled it out of the closet and took it out of the plastic cover. Yes, it's the New York Times for Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. "Leftist Accused" is the headline on the top half of the front page. The reporter is Gladwin Hilll.
 

The quote from Bringuier appears in that article -- but further in the paper where the article continues from the front page onto page 4.

Amazing, huh? Next day, complete "leftist" profile with Bringuier making the intelligence connection.”

 AP

 11/22/63 New Orleans – [From interview with Carlos Bringuier, New Orleans delegate for the Cuban Student Directorate, a Miami-based anti-Castro organization]
 

Edited Friday at 06:11 PM by Robert Morrow

[Greg Doudna]

Jim DiEugenio, when W. asked your view on Clay Shaw having foreknowledge of the JFK assassination...

On 8/14/2024 at 7:38 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Jim, What is your opinion about Clay Shaw's possible foreknowledge of the JFK assassination plot?

... you replied "I would have to say I do not know."

On 8/14/2024 at 11:15 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Now, if this was all prearranged then I think the answer to your question would be yes. But although I think the evidence above would be preponderant, it would not be beyond a reasonable doubt.  So i would have to say I do not know.

If you do not know whether Clay Shaw had foreknowledge, does this mean you have backed off on belief that Garrison was correct that Clay Shaw helped kill JFK?

Can you be sure Clay Shaw was guilty of killing JFK if you do not know if he had foreknowledge?

Do you now think the jury did the right thing in acquitting Clay Shaw (based on the reasonable doubt standard)? 

Knowing what you know now, do you think Garrison did the right thing in charging Clay Shaw for the murder of JFK in the first place? 

~ ~ ~

One scenario has occurred to me as I ponder that CIA's reaction to a threat of possible unwanted exposure of pre-assassination intelligence connections related to Oswald, would be the same whether the CIA did the assassination or did not do the assassination.

You would get the same coverup, including agency support for an asset (such as, for example Clay Shaw), to perjure under oath in denial of such contacts. That is how I read former CIA chief Dulles in executive session with the Warren Commission explaining that even if the agency were innocent, he would still expect an agency director (overt reference was to Hoover but it reads to me as Dulles really speaking self-referentially of his own agency) to lie and deny, including under oath, and that that would be the right thing to do. 

I am sure there are individuals in every federal agency who are capable of lying under oath at times. But it is hard for me to imagine most federal agencies having an ethos that lying under oath is the moral and honorable thing to do. But that is how I read Dulles' explication of moral ethos, applicable specifically to the very point at issue: exposure of an agency relationship with Oswald.

But the punch line, and a nuance here: just because an agency is covering up on the Oswald issue, if so, including premeditated perjury under oath, if so, does not necessarily mean they are covering up they killed Kennedy. The reaction is going to be the same either way.

It could mean they are covering up a relationship with an assassin before the assassination but not that they did the assassination. It could mean they are covering up knowledge of identity of assassins but not that they did the assassination. It does not necessarily mean, unless further established independently, that they are covering up having done the assassination themselves. A coverup of an agency's contacts with Oswald does not go directly, in itself and alone, to solution to the case as to who did it or agency participation in doing the crime. 

As Dulles explained in that executive session to his fellow Commission members: If the agency admits they were working with Oswald even if the agency was innocent, "But that puts the man right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see ... if it [a hypothetical truthful admission that the agency was working Oswald] don't close the case [with conclusive proof that the agency was not involved in their operative's action], they are worse off than ever by doing this [the hypothetical truthful admission]."

Therefore, Dulles logically and reasonably concluded: if the agency can deny and succeed with the denial, whether or not it is truthful, they must, will, and not only that, it is the morally right thing to do, to deny it under oath. [Note: this paragraph is meant to represent Dulles' view and logic; is not my view--gd]

WARREN: Wouldn't he tell it under oath?

DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

WARREN: Why? 

DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but wouldn't tell it any other way.

~ ~ ~

It need not even be necessary to suppose deep connections between Clay Shaw and Oswald in such a scenario that would prompt a denial and coverup both of such contacts and of CIA agency involvement, on the part of Shaw. In the small world of New Orleans, any passing contact (or two or three or ten or whatever), admitted, would then open up more questioning and a choice could be made, with agency backing, to just take the zero-tolerance line for admitting anything of this nature. 

So this could be a possible context that could explain (a) Clay Shaw's denial of his CIA relationship, no matter what it was; (b) categorical denial of any contact with Oswald whether or not that was literally true. And without bringing cause to conclude from that that Clay Shaw was involved with assassinating JFK, or that his CIA work had anything to do with assassinating JFK.

It may be more complicated than the easy quick rush to condemnation of someone like Clay Shaw, charging him with killing JFK.

I don't see the slightest evidence that Clay Shaw killed JFK or plotted to do so. Or reasonable cause to suspect it either. I also hold the shocking belief that the vast majority of CIA employees and assets were not involved in the JFK assassination, and would refuse to be involved in it if asked.

That holds true even if certain elements or assets of the CIA, that mansion with many rooms as Angleton put it, might have been involved--"if".  

Edited 19 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Robert Morrow]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jim DiEugenio, when W. asked your view on Clay Shaw having foreknowledge of the JFK assassination...

... you replied "I would have to say I do not know."

If you do not know whether Clay Shaw had foreknowledge, does this mean you have backed off on belief that Garrison was correct that Clay Shaw helped kill JFK?

Can you be sure Clay Shaw was guilty of killing JFK if you do not know if he had foreknowledge?

Do you now think the jury did the right thing in acquitting Clay Shaw (based on the reasonable doubt standard)? 

Knowing what you know now, do you think Garrison did the right thing in charging Clay Shaw for the murder of JFK in the first place? 

~ ~ ~

One scenario has occurred to me as I ponder that CIA's reaction to a threat of possible unwanted exposure of pre-assassination intelligence connections related to Oswald, would be the same whether the CIA did the assassination or did not do the assassination.

You would get the same coverup, including agency support for an asset (such as, for example Clay Shaw), to perjure under oath in denial of such contacts. That is how I read former CIA chief Dulles in executive session with the Warren Commission explaining that even if the agency were innocent, he would still expect an agency director (overt reference was to Hoover but it reads to me as Dulles really speaking self-referentially of his own agency) to lie and deny, including under oath, and that that would be the right thing to do. 

I am sure there are individuals in every federal agency who are capable of lying under oath at times. But it is hard for me to imagine most federal agencies having an ethos that lying under oath is the moral and honorable thing to do. But that is how I read Dulles' explication of moral ethos, applicable specifically to the very point at issue: exposure of an agency relationship with Oswald.

But the punch line, and a nuance here: just because an agency is covering up on the Oswald issue, if so, including premeditated perjury under oath, if so, does not necessarily mean they are covering up they killed Kennedy. The reaction is going to be the same either way.

It could mean they are covering up a relationship with an assassin before the assassination but not that they did the assassination. It could mean they are covering up knowledge of identity of assassins but not that they did the assassination. It does not necessarily mean, unless further established independently, that they are covering up having done the assassination themselves. A coverup of an agency's contacts with Oswald does not go directly, in itself and alone, to solution to the case as to who did it or agency participation in doing the crime. 

As Dulles explained in that executive session to his fellow Commission members: If the agency admits they were working with Oswald even if the agency was innocent, "But that puts the man right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see ... if it [a hypothetical truthful admission that the agency was working Oswald] don't close the case [with conclusive proof that the agency was not involved in their operative's action], they are worse off than ever by doing this [the hypothetical truthful admission]."

Therefore, Dulles logically and reasonably concluded: if the agency can deny and succeed with the denial, whether or not it is truthful, they must, will, and not only that, it is the morally right thing to do, to deny it under oath.

WARREN: Wouldn't he tell it under oath?

DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

WARREN: Why? 

DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but wouldn't tell it any other way.

~ ~ ~

It need not even be necessary to suppose deep connections between Clay Shaw and Oswald in such a scenario that would prompt a denial and coverup both of such contacts and of CIA agency involvement, on the part of Shaw. In the small world of New Orleans, any passing contact (or two or three or ten or whatever), admitted, would then open up more questioning and a choice could be made, with agency backing, to just take the zero-tolerance line for admitting anything of this nature. 

So this could be a possible context that could explain (a) Clay Shaw's denial of his CIA relationship, no matter what it was; (b) categorical denial of any contact with Oswald whether or not that was literally true. And without bringing cause to conclude from that that Clay Shaw was involved with assassinating JFK, or that his CIA work had anything to do with assassinating JFK.

It may be more complicated than the easy quick rush to condemnation of someone like Clay Shaw, charging him with killing JFK.

I don't see the slightest evidence that Clay Shaw killed JFK or plotted to do so. Or reasonable cause to suspect it either. I also hold the shocking belief that the vast majority of CIA employees and assets were not involved in the JFK assassination, and would refuse to be involved in it if asked.

That holds true even if certain elements or assets of the CIA, that mansion with many rooms as Angleton put it, might have been involved--"if".  

Oh, so you are saying that it is morally right for the CIA to lie in an investigation in the murder of a U.S. President (just because some embarrassing ties might come out), even if the CIA did not do it but let's say for example, one of their former (or current) assets murdered the President without the sanction or involvement of key players in the CIA?

Did I get that correct? This is the morally right thing to do? Lying in a murder investigation? Or are you just giving us what you think might have been in the head of Allen Dulles?

QUOTE

Therefore, Dulles logically and reasonably concluded: if the agency can deny and succeed with the denial, whether or not it is truthful, they must, will, and not only that, it is the morally right thing to do, to deny it under oath.

QUOTE

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Robert Morrow