My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Fred Litwin]

A Heritage of Nonsense contains nine stories that illustrate Jim Garrison’s malfeasance, his paranoia, and his conspiratorial mindset. There is a commonality that runs through this book: the insidious nature of conspiracy theorists, gullibility that stretches the imagination, and a smattering of mental illness. For the first time ever, you’ll read about the East German Stasi files of Richard Case Nagell, a man who desperately needed psychiatric help; the truth about Rose Cherami who supposedly had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination; a gay rights activist who channeled Lee Harvey Oswald at a séance; a Las Vegas entertainer who became a suspect in Garrison’s investigation because of one phone call; and the search for a lost map of Dealey Plaza. I even solve a longstanding JFK assassination mystery. And a whole lot more.

“In the late 1960s, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison spoon-fed the public scenario upon scenario of implausible JFK assassination conspiracy theories, many of which have been adopted by well-known Warren Commission critics. Using actual evidence, clear reasoning, and common sense, Fred Litwin masterfully debunks many of the more popular vignettes of Garrison's theories. A Heritage of Nonsense is a must-read for anyone who wants to be properly informed.”

— Robert A. Wagner, Author of JFK Assassinated: In the Courtroom: Debating the Critic Research Community

 

“For anyone harbouring lingering doubts that Garrison was a deluded charlatan, this book nails that coffin shut tight. With a strong commitment to first-hand testimony and primary source analysis, Fred Litwin is the highest form of amateur investigator writing about the Kennedy assassination, setting the record straight against the leading peddlers of conspiracist nonsense. Fred’s meticulous research, his compassion for the victims of shameless witch hunts, and his low tolerance for paranoid hogwash, make him a formidable opponent to anyone who places their ego and ideology ahead of clear facts and sound logic.”  

— Michel Jacques Gagné, Author of Thinking Critically About the Kennedy Assassination, and host of the Paranoid Planet podcast.

 

“No reasonable person can possibly take any of Jim Garrison's conspiracy theories seriously after reading this book. Good job, Fred Litwin!”

— David Von Pein, Author of Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report and Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt and Motive 50 Years on [with Mel Ayton]

 

“Litwin exposes JFK assassination absurdities the way The Amazing Randi exposed spoon bending illusionists. His latest is a necessary source book illuminating an abomination in US history where a libel was cloaked in an enthralling conspiracy theory. Litwin challenges us to ask ourselves: do we want the truth or to believe what feels more exotic than the truth?”

— Eric Dezenhall, author of Wiseguys and the White House and Best of Enemies [with Gus Russo]

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-heritage-of-nonsense

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Congratulations Fred and I look forward to reading your latest addition to the anti-conspiracy literature.

[Jonathan Cohen]

Fred, I also look forward to reading this, particularly the section on Richard Case Nagell.

[Fred Litwin]

Jonathan: I think you will find it interesting. I got a copy of his Stasi file from Germany, and that included a 26-page psychiatric report.

 

fred

[W. Niederhut]

Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.

Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?

If Garrison was a kooky conspiracy theorist, why were the CIA and the FBI so determined to infiltrate and sabotage his investigation of Oswald's associates Clay Shaw and David Ferrie?

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

If Garrison was a kooky conspiracy theorist, why were the CIA and the FBI so determined to infiltrate and sabotage his investigation of Oswald's associates Clay Shaw and David Ferrie?

Agree.

I believe Garrison felt compelled to look into way more tips and leads ( hundreds if not thousands ) more than even he ever imagined he would. Probably because he was finding solid ones mixed in with dead ended or false lead planted ones. And in this historically important epic case he simply could not over-look anything. 

He was so continually sabotaged by false lead tips it's amazing he kept it all together enough to get Clay Shaw to trial.

Garrison publicly offered some of the more convoluted theoretically scenarios than I think he should have. But not a kooky amount. Why, I don't know. Maybe he was purposely throwing out baited false stories to see the reactions of those he felt may have been involved in a peripheral way and/or those who were intent on destroying him? Playing with false leads they were feeding him?

But the man wasn't some flawless person professionally and maybe even personally. Please tell us who was back then?

IMO however, he "was" an extremely intelligent individual. Even an intellectual in many ways.  His writing skills are obvious. No ghost writer for him. And imagine the massive years long commitment he took on along with taking a beating from our highest power groups who felt threatened by his investigation.

His sacrifices were many...including his marriage and for years, his reputation.

Garrison and his investigative case became a cause celebre'. Thousands of famous people passionately seeking the truth of the JFKA offered their support.

They wouldn't have stuck by Jim Garrison for years if he truly was simply some mentally off-balanced and/or star struck attention seeker.

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Joe Bauer

[Fred Litwin]

The CIA and the FBI did not infiltrate and sabotage Garrison's investigation. He did that himself.

You really should read some non-conspiracy books.

The plain fact of the matter is that Garrison came up with absolutely nothing. 

And Garrison wasn't sabotaged by false lead tips! He was the one who continually believed every wacky theory to come his way. From the sewer shot, the ridiculous notion of code linking Oswald with Shaw, the indictment of Edgar Eugene Bradley for conspiring to kill JFK, using sodium pentothal and hypnosis to implant false memories, believing the silly Slidin' Clyde Johnson, thinking that Kerry Thornley was the second Oswald.

I could go on an don. There is nothing that Garrison wouldn't believe.

 

fred

[W. Niederhut]

8 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:

The CIA and the FBI did not infiltrate and sabotage Garrison's investigation. He did that himself.

You really should read some non-conspiracy books.

The plain fact of the matter is that Garrison came up with absolutely nothing. 

And Garrison wasn't sabotaged by false lead tips! He was the one who continually believed every wacky theory to come his way. From the sewer shot, the ridiculous notion of code linking Oswald with Shaw, the indictment of Edgar Eugene Bradley for conspiring to kill JFK, using sodium pentothal and hypnosis to implant false memories, believing the silly Slidin' Clyde Johnson, thinking that Kerry Thornley was the second Oswald.

I could go on an don. There is nothing that Garrison wouldn't believe.

 

fred

C'mon, Fred.

Don't worry unnecessarily about my reading habits.

I was never a teenaged conspiracy freak.

In fact, I have read most of the great history classics over the years-- from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus to Gibbon, Burckhardt, and Braudel.

(I confess that your propaganda sales pieces have never been on my history reading list.)

As for Garrison, the CIA was greatly alarmed by his investigation of their CIA asset, Clay Shaw.

They went to considerable lengths to infiltrate and sabotage his investigation of Clay Shaw, and to falsely impugn his reputation with their Mockingbird media assets.

It sounds like they're still at it, more than a half century later.

 

  

[Fred Litwin]

It's easy for you to say that the CIA infiltrated and sabotaged his investigation. So show us some evidence.

Harold Weisberg wrote Joan Mellen, "The CIA did not have to penetrate Garrison. He provided his own endless insanities."

In another letter he wrote, "Nobody had to do a think to him. He did more than enough to himself."

fred

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.

Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?

Are these type of putdowns really necessary, especially from a moderator? Do you have any specific evidence or refutation to offer here? If not, why post?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:

It's easy for you to say that the CIA infiltrated and sabotaged his investigation. So show us some evidence.

Harold Weisberg wrote Joan Mellen, "The CIA did not have to penetrate Garrison. He provided his own endless insanities."

In another letter he wrote, "Nobody had to do a think to him. He did more than enough to himself."

fred

I think the problem here is that the Garrison supporters have not read anything that goes against their beliefs. If they would actually take the time to read Fred's books, they might understand how defending Garrison's nonsense is not a tenable position. Weisberg and Lifton immediately understood back in the day that Garrison was out to lunch. Unfortunately, many will not even admit it today.

[Greg Doudna]

I just read most of the kindle version. Litwin always does his research and is interesting.

Highlights:

— debunking of the Nagell story with new material on his mental illness history. Debunking is convincing.

— debunking of the Rose Cheramie story. Debunking is convincing.

— debunking of Broshear’s story (the gay activist in San Francisco) in its entirety as completely made up. Debunking is convincing. Litwin doubts Broshears ever was in Louisiana, let alone knew Ferrie, Clay Shaw, et al. 

— On Craford, rehearses known facts, claims there is no basis supporting suspicions of his involvement in Tippit killing. Rejects Craford’s claim to have been a hitman for a mobster in California in 1962, told to Whitmey, as a fabrication of Craford. L cites no evidence that was a fabrication but L says it was, as distinguished from could have been. One of the oversights in my recent talk with a daughter of Craford was I forgot to ask her what she and other family members thought of the hitman story that her father told Whitmey.

I can also parenthetically add here that  Craford comes across to me as capable of lying or dissembling or giving false explanations about things, but I see no real sign he just made up stuff for the fun of it. Not really a raconteur type. More of a type who doesn’t talk much about things consequential.

All L establishes with Craford is he could be innocent. Not convincing in concluding he therefore was. If one knows as a fact that Oswald killed Tippit, then Craford is not in the picture. If, however, hypothetically, Oswald is an Innocence Project genre case of a false conviction on Tippit, Craford is probably the lead non-exonerated suspect, and L does not give anything that materially alters that calculus or show why Craford would not be a prime suspect given that prior conditional. That is, the real argument for Craford’s exoneration is Oswald did it, not a whole lot more or other than that. 

— Joan Mellen does not come across well in being accurate in reporting. Convincing. 

Each chapter is self-contained and all are well-written, easy to read, entertaining, and draw on archival research and citations from documents.

Edited 14 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Are these type of putdowns really necessary, especially from a moderator? Do you have any specific evidence or refutation to offer here? If not, why post?

Even though the LNs are outnumbered by about 99 to 1 some individuals can't tolerate even a single post by one of them. They want this to be a sandbox where the CTs can play unobstructed by outside irritants.

[Jean Ceulemans]

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I just read most of the kindle version. Litwin always does his research and is interesting.

Highlights:

— debunking of the Nagell story with new material on his mental illness history. Debunking is convincing.

— debunking of the Rose Cheramie story. Debunking is convincing.

— debunking of Broshear’s story (the gay activist in San Francisco) in its entirety as completely made up. Debunking is convincing. Litwin doubts Broshears ever was in Louisiana, let alone knew Ferrie, Clay Shaw, et al. 

— On Craford, rehearses known facts, claims there is no basis supporting suspicions of his involvement in Tippit killing. Rejects Craford’s claim to have been a hitman for a mobster in California in 1962, told to Whitmey, as a fabrication of Craford. L cites no evidence that was a fabrication but L says it was, as distinguished from could have been. One of the oversights in my recent talk with a daughter of Craford was I forgot to ask her what she and other family members thought of the hitman story that her father told Whitmey.

I can also parenthetically add here that  Craford comes across to me as capable of lying or dissembling or giving false explanations about things, but I see no real sign he just made up stuff for the fun of it. Not really a raconteur type. More of a type who doesn’t talk much about things consequential.

All L establishes with Craford is he could be innocent. Not convincing in concluding he therefore was. If one knows as a fact that Oswald killed Tippit, then Craford is not in the picture. If, however, hypothetically, Oswald is an Innocence Project genre case of a false conviction on Tippit, Craford is probably the lead non-exonerated suspect, and L does not give anything that materially alters that calculus or show why Craford would not be a prime suspect given that prior conditional. That is, the real argument for Craford’s exoneration is Oswald did it, not a whole lot more or other than that. 

— Joan Mellen does not come across well in being accurate in reporting. Convincing. 

Each chapter is self-contained and all are well-written, easy to read, entertaining, and draw on archival research and citations from documents.

Keep going Greg, you´re on a roll. This is a contribution that says something, that´s how it should be here! Pro and con with respect for other opinions 👍

[Ron Bulman]

Much of what is discussed above is addressed in this article, backed up with facts.

The CIA’s secret files on Jim Garrison, the prosecutor celebrated in ‘JFK’ – JFK Facts