Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bashing Garrison and Joan Mellen's book


Dawn Meredith
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been on this forum for over a year now and very little has been said about Jim Garrison until just recently. I find it more than a little coincidental that with the release of Joan Mellen's long anticipated Garrison bio, suddenly we have several posters of questionable character, all eager to trash Garrison at every opportunity. An attempt to undermine Ms Mellen's work?

Gratz, misrepresenting what she wrote, refusing to answer questions, twisting what others write, the usual with the ex- attorney. Suddenly, the arrival of Ms Foster, chiming in from Canada, that in HER opinion Garrison only tried to undermine the investigation, and further, those of us who support Garrison are really trying to impede the investigation. Now Hemming, with his inability to write a sentence clearly enough for most of us to even bother reading.

Oh, and the always lovable Mr Purvis....who by virtue of living in, or near to, NO is a self -styled "Garrison expert".

I think all of this may come to a head before too long, and we will see what is really going on.

Stay tuned.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do we posters do who haven't yet formed an opinion of Garrison? Or am I alone in that regard? I know that some good came out of the Garrison investigation (e.g. showing of the Z film, more testimony of assassination witnesses, and our introduction, I think, through Clay Shaw's affiliation, to that previously unknown and still mysterious entity Permindex - more evil than Wal-Mart?). In that sense I guess I can be called a Garrison "supporter." But since I haven't yet read one of the books about Garrison (except Garrison's own) (I'm sure Joan Mellen's book will be the first one I read), I still don't know much about Garrison the man and his motives. On the one hand he's Kevin Costner, knight in shining armor, on the other he's Garrison (I forget where I read this allegation, perhaps in a Lynne Foster post) the pedophile. Maybe Mellen will help me figure it all out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we posters do who haven't yet formed an opinion of Garrison? Or am I alone in that regard? I know that some good came out of the Garrison investigation (e.g. showing of the Z film, more testimony of assassination witnesses, and our introduction, I think, through Clay Shaw's affiliation, to that previously unknown and still mysterious entity Permindex - more evil than Wal-Mart?). In that sense I guess I can be called a Garrison "supporter." But since I haven't yet read one of the books about Garrison (except Garrison's own) (I'm sure Joan Mellen's book will be the first one I read), I still don't know much about Garrison the man and his motives. On the one hand he's Kevin Costner, knight in shining armor, on the other he's Garrison (I forget where I read this allegation, perhaps in a Lynne Foster post) the pedophile. Maybe Mellen will help me figure it all out.

Ron:

I think you may be able to find the Playboy iterview online. (I may also be wrong, I just seem to recall seeing something about it somewhere). That was really my introduction to him, when I was writing a paper in college in 75. There is also online correspondance between he and Prouty that is illustrative of his thinking.

Think about it for just a second in today's atmosphere: A DA, first saying a conspiracy killed JFK and actually going to trial on it??? He was stopped/ bocked by the FBI, CIA, the governors who refused his extraditions- (something unthinkable in "normal" trials). His office was bugged, infiltrated. He was accused of having ties to the Mob, taking bribes, everything under the sun.

Just can't imagine WHY? I mean aren't all DA's trying to get the real killers of JFK????

I do hope you real Mellen's book Tho I am too busy at the moment to get back to it- from what I have thus far real it's a real winner.

Dawn

and to GPH: It's nice to see you an open enemy of some- one who admired JFK and also the peace movement, instead of your emails to me- being so "pretend to be NICE". Such a phony SOB.

There are several here of your ilk, but SOOOOOO many more who are true seekers of the truth about this case. On this forum we greatly outnumber the disinformationists bud. Or as Al calls you: "wanna be".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we posters do who haven't yet formed an opinion of Garrison? Or am I alone in that regard? I know that some good came out of the Garrison investigation (e.g. showing of the Z film, more testimony of assassination witnesses, and our introduction, I think, through Clay Shaw's affiliation, to that previously unknown and still mysterious entity Permindex - more evil than Wal-Mart?). In that sense I guess I can be called a Garrison "supporter." But since I haven't yet read one of the books about Garrison (except Garrison's own) (I'm sure Joan Mellen's book will be the first one I read), I still don't know much about Garrison the man and his motives. On the one hand he's Kevin Costner, knight in shining armor, on the other he's Garrison (I forget where I read this allegation, perhaps in a Lynne Foster post) the pedophile. Maybe Mellen will help me figure it all out.

Mellen gives the full story on the pedophilia accusation and shows why it isn't all that credible. Doubtless, this will not stop those who already have it in for Garrison from using it, but what can you do?

Dawn: You're right of course, but you do realize this thread will become "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" part II, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on this forum for over a year now and very little has been said about Jim Garrison until just recently. I find it more than a little coincidental that with the release of Joan Mellen's long anticipated Garrison bio, suddenly we have several posters of questionable character, all eager to trash Garrison at every opportunity. An attempt to undermine Ms Mellen's work?

Gratz, misrepresenting what she wrote, refusing to answer questions, twisting what others write, the usual with the ex- attorney. Suddenly, the arrival of Ms Foster, chiming in from Canada, that in HER opinion Garrison only tried to undermine the investigation, and further, those of us who support Garrison are really trying to impede the investigation. Now Hemming, with his inability to write a sentence clearly enough for most of us to even bother reading.

Oh, and the always lovable Mr Purvis....who by virtue of living in, or near to, NO is a self -styled "Garrison expert".

I think all of this may come to a head before too long, and we will see what is really going on.

Stay tuned.

Dawn

This "self-styled" expert was "running in" New Orleans, probably long before you were born.

If recalled correctly, it was about 61 or 62 the first time that I ever got locked up down there during Mardi Gras and experienced the legal and judicial system.

In fact,, I once got "double cuts" in college for cutting classes as we NEVER missed a Mardi Gras in NO.

In addition, when working offshore, we always made several days in New Orleans upon returning in from the rig.

In fact, sometimes, we never even made it home, or had to call home to borrow money as NO cleaned us out.

Later years, the Playboy Club in New Orleans was a favorite hangout. And, in event you are not aware of it, (which you probably are not), it was run by one of the persons whom Jack Ruby called from Dallas.

I have relatives who reside all over and around New Orleans, and considering that it was always the closest City of any size with the many things available, those of us who had any money and a way, went there.

We came to early understand the "system" as it existed in New Orleans, as well as what one could and could not do and not be bothered by the local law.

My ex-wife's Uncle is one of those "Aristocracy" of New Orleans who has the French Descent, and as such I have witnessed first hand the political as well as social nature of the culture there.

These "ex" family members are members of such associations as the "Boston Club"; "REX", etc; etc; etc;

Tulane Graduate; "Alumni Club"; etc; ect;

In fact, in good ole "Hemming" style, when I volunteered for active duty (release from National Guard service into Regular Army active duty) in 1966, the first thing which I did was look at my bank account.

With approximately $300.00 in it, my volunteer status was "sign now", "go later".

The later was one-week later, as I figured that the $300.00 would hopefully give me one last good week in New Orleans prior to departure for active duty.

Tom

P.S. Not to mention a good friend who paid his way through medical school (Tulane) by providing abortion service to the hookers in the French Quarter.

P.P.S. The "self-styled" experts are those who sit off in other regions of the country and attempt to justify there erroneous conclusions when they in fact have less time in and know less about the social culture in New Orleans than did my younger brother who's only trip there was to be treated at Oschner's for a brain tumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I've always wondered about the Garrison investigation is that it took place right there in the backyard or bailiwick of Carlos Marcello, but you would never know from the investigation that Marcello himself was a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. One may legitimately ask exactly what was going on here. How could a New Orleans DA set out investigating this case with any confidence that it would not lead straight to Marcello (among the other usual suspects)? Would the DA have to ignore such a lead? Would Marcello even let him get that far? Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA? (Did the CIA in turn, through Blakey's HSCA, direct blame or suspicion back at Marcello and the Cosa Nostra?) And why would Marcello feel a need to do this? What heat was he, or anyone else, feeling about the JFK case at that time, that he, through Garrison, would pick a fight with the CIA? One question leads to another.

Perhaps I'm giving Marcello too much credit. Perhaps he was really just a "tomato salesman" after all. But it's odd that RFK would bother deporting tomato salesmen to Central American jungles. The Garrison investigation, while it left us knowing more than we knew before about the JFK murder, has the rather odd look of the mouse (Garrison) playing while the cat (Marcello) is not away. This seems surreal unless there was something going on beneath the surface. Why did the Jolly Green Giant have a green light from Carlos?

Perhaps Tom Purvis, so familiar with the NO "system," may provide some insight here, or perhaps Mellen's book deals with the Marcello aspect (or lack thereof) in the Garrison investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garrison did look into Marcello/Cosa Nostra connection to the assassination, Mellen shows this and I have cited a few examples in Lynne Foster's thread.

Mr. Purvis won't help you re: Garrison and Marcello. He apparently believes that Garrison was covering for some New Orleans law firm (he calls it the "Law Firm") of which one of Oswald's uncles was a member (just about the only connection between Oswald and the "Law Firm" that he has). He also believes that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I've always wondered about the Garrison investigation is that it took place right there in the backyard or bailiwick of Carlos Marcello, but you would never know from the investigation that Marcello himself was a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. One may legitimately ask exactly what was going on here. How could a New Orleans DA set out investigating this case with any confidence that it would not lead straight to Marcello (among the other usual suspects)? Would the DA have to ignore such a lead? Would Marcello even let him get that far? Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA? (Did the CIA in turn, through Blakey's HSCA, direct blame or suspicion back at Marcello and the Cosa Nostra?) And why would Marcello feel a need to do this? What heat was he, or anyone else, feeling about the JFK case at that time, that he, through Garrison, would pick a fight with the CIA? One question leads to another.

Perhaps I'm giving Marcello too much credit. Perhaps he was really just a "tomato salesman" after all. But it's odd that RFK would bother deporting tomato salesmen to Central American jungles. The Garrison investigation, while it left us knowing more than we knew before about the JFK murder, has the rather odd look of the mouse (Garrison) playing while the cat (Marcello) is not away. This seems surreal unless there was something going on beneath the surface. Why did the Jolly Green Giant have a green light from Carlos?

Perhaps Tom Purvis, so familiar with the NO "system," may provide some insight here, or perhaps Mellen's book deals with the Marcello aspect (or lack thereof) in the Garrison investigation.

Thank you very much!!!!!!!!

Had Garrison even hinted at pointing the finger at Carlos or any of his organization, the next time anyone would have seen Garrison would be if and when he turned up in the net of one of the shrimp trawlers off shore.

Rest assured, Garrison was not stupid.

Shaw, former OSS Agent, and still working in and for the "Stolen Art" recovery section, was a complete outsider to the New Orleans power structure.

In fact, he made many of those who had acquired pieces of this artwork (N.O. Aristocracy") quite nervous.

Therefore, the Garrison Side Show and Circus Act actually provided several functions:

As you have stated, N. O. was Garrison's home for a considerable length of time, therefore he most assuredly knew, as they say, "who's zooming who".

With Maumus Claverie and Louis B. Claverie being some on New Orleans top echelon attornies, Garrison was not about to "touch" the Claverie family line.

Especially since Louis B. was a member of one of the formost law firms in New Orleans.

With Marguerite Claverie's sister being married to a minor player in the N. O. (non-existant organized crime element) (according to Garrison), certainly can not pursue this line of investigation either.

With about 60% to 70% of the upper echelon of New Orleans society being direct descendents of Confederate Soldiers, certainly can not pursue this avenue either.

With Carlos & organization more than willing to sink you in the bayou, better leave this one alone also.

With Leander Perez being a former Judge and one of the local Political leaders of great power, best not mention his name and the fact that he ran one of the single most anti-racial and radical elements of N. O. and Southern society.

That left about only me and Clay Shaw, and I was out of town!

Tom

P.S. Marcello "ran" exactly what the wealth and power of New Orleans allowed him to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purvis: I would like to see your evidence that Shaw ever worked for the O.S.S. He did work in military intelligence during WWII, but the evidence of his O.S.S. connection appears to be non-existant. I would be fascinated to see whatever you may have.

The relevance of the Claverie's or Perez to the assassination is not readily apparent to me, even less so than the "Law Firm."

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I've always wondered about the Garrison investigation is that it took place right there in the backyard or bailiwick of Carlos Marcello, but you would never know from the investigation that Marcello himself was a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. One may legitimately ask exactly what was going on here. How could a New Orleans DA set out investigating this case with any confidence that it would not lead straight to Marcello (among the other usual suspects)? Would the DA have to ignore such a lead? Would Marcello even let him get that far? Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA? (Did the CIA in turn, through Blakey's HSCA, direct blame or suspicion back at Marcello and the Cosa Nostra?) And why would Marcello feel a need to do this? What heat was he, or anyone else, feeling about the JFK case at that time, that he, through Garrison, would pick a fight with the CIA? One question leads to another.

Perhaps I'm giving Marcello too much credit. Perhaps he was really just a "tomato salesman" after all. But it's odd that RFK would bother deporting tomato salesmen to Central American jungles. The Garrison investigation, while it left us knowing more than we knew before about the JFK murder, has the rather odd look of the mouse (Garrison) playing while the cat (Marcello) is not away. This seems surreal unless there was something going on beneath the surface. Why did the Jolly Green Giant have a green light from Carlos?

Perhaps Tom Purvis, so familiar with the NO "system," may provide some insight here, or perhaps Mellen's book deals with the Marcello aspect (or lack thereof) in the Garrison investigation.

Thank you very much!!!!!!!!

Had Garrison even hinted at pointing the finger at Carlos or any of his organization, the next time anyone would have seen Garrison would be if and when he turned up in the net of one of the shrimp trawlers off shore.

Rest assured, Garrison was not stupid.

Shaw, former OSS Agent, and still working in and for the "Stolen Art" recovery section, was a complete outsider to the New Orleans power structure.

In fact, he made many of those who had acquired pieces of this artwork (N.O. Aristocracy") quite nervous.

Therefore, the Garrison Side Show and Circus Act actually provided several functions:

As you have stated, N. O. was Garrison's home for a considerable length of time, therefore he most assuredly knew, as they say, "who's zooming who".

With Maumus Claverie and Louis B. Claverie being some on New Orleans top echelon attornies, Garrison was not about to "touch" the Claverie family line.

Especially since Louis B. was a member of one of the formost law firms in New Orleans.

With Marguerite Claverie's sister being married to a minor player in the N. O. (non-existant organized crime element) (according to Garrison), certainly can not pursue this line of investigation either.

With about 60% to 70% of the upper echelon of New Orleans society being direct descendents of Confederate Soldiers, certainly can not pursue this avenue either.

With Carlos & organization more than willing to sink you in the bayou, better leave this one alone also.

With Leander Perez being a former Judge and one of the local Political leaders of great power, best not mention his name and the fact that he ran one of the single most anti-racial and radical elements of N. O. and Southern society.

That left about only me and Clay Shaw, and I was out of town!

Tom

P.S. Marcello "ran" exactly what the wealth and power of New Orleans allowed him to run.

Tom, granted you certainly have knowledge in this far far exceeding mine. I'm curious about what's changed since those days? Why aren't you or anyone else going for the balls of the matter here, sleeping with the fishes today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purvis: I would like to see your evidence that Shaw ever worked for the O.S.S. He did work in military intelligence during WWII, but the evidence of his O.S.S. connection appears to be non-existant. I would be fascinated to see whatever you may have.

The relevance of the Claverie's or Perez to the assassination is not readily apparent to me, even less so than the "Law Firm."

Most of Shaws operational activities is stored in a box which is marked "I. G. Farbin" at the National Archives.

Shaw was not an "Operational Agent".

Rather, he was more of an investigator working with & for the OSS, in the "Recovery" section which was tasked to attempt to locate and recover much of the stolen treasures which NAZI Germany had taken.

In that regard, Shaw worked only within the section which dealt with "Art Recovery" and was engaged in attempted recovery of many of the stolen art "Masterpieces", as well as valuable works of art which were known to have been in the possession of wealthy Jewish persons of whom Hitler/NAZI Germany disposed of and kept the art treasures.

Many of these art treasures were being sold throughout the world at the same time as NAZI Germany was over-running countries and sending Jews to the gas chambers.

After separation from the service and move to N.O., Shaw continued to provide information in regards to this item (as well as others) due to his Latin/South American connections.

This, he accomplished through the company "Mississippi Valley World Trade Council" for which he was the "Registered Agent".

Of specifics, was reportedly the search for Art Treasures which the NAZI's may have gotten to Argentina.

Somehow, Shaw's files became boxed with those of the "I.G. Farbin" Company which had much of it's assets in the US siezed as a result of German ownership, etc;.

Unfortunately for Clay Shaw, Vice-President of the "Mississippi Valley World Trade Council" was one William T. Walshe.

Mr. Walshe, in addition to being "Old Louisiana" descendent of Civil War veterans, was also a member of the upper--elete. IE: Boston Club; REX; etc.

In addition, Mr. Walshe was also one of the founding members of the "CRUSADE TO FREE CUBA".

Therefore, with his prior "OSS" service and continued "informant status" to the CIA, there was little difficulty in making it appear that Clay Shaw was some sort of "SPOOK" who was engaged in "something".

Not unlike "FBI" status; "CIA" status; etc; etc; etc;, everyone automatically thinks only of those things which they see on TV.

The OSS had literally hundreds of persons who worked in the "War Recovery" section, attempting to track down all of the gold; art; monies; jewelry; national treasures; etc; etc; etc;, which NAZI Germany had captured.

This was the extent of Clay Shaw's OSS assignment/work.

Perhaps this "art appreciation" and the homosexual aspect go hand in hand.

Makes me thankful that I do not know "jack" about art!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I've always wondered about the Garrison investigation is that it took place right there in the backyard or bailiwick of Carlos Marcello, but you would never know from the investigation that Marcello himself was a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. One may legitimately ask exactly what was going on here. How could a New Orleans DA set out investigating this case with any confidence that it would not lead straight to Marcello (among the other usual suspects)? Would the DA have to ignore such a lead? Would Marcello even let him get that far? Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA? (Did the CIA in turn, through Blakey's HSCA, direct blame or suspicion back at Marcello and the Cosa Nostra?) And why would Marcello feel a need to do this? What heat was he, or anyone else, feeling about the JFK case at that time, that he, through Garrison, would pick a fight with the CIA? One question leads to another.

Perhaps I'm giving Marcello too much credit. Perhaps he was really just a "tomato salesman" after all. But it's odd that RFK would bother deporting tomato salesmen to Central American jungles. The Garrison investigation, while it left us knowing more than we knew before about the JFK murder, has the rather odd look of the mouse (Garrison) playing while the cat (Marcello) is not away. This seems surreal unless there was something going on beneath the surface. Why did the Jolly Green Giant have a green light from Carlos?

Perhaps Tom Purvis, so familiar with the NO "system," may provide some insight here, or perhaps Mellen's book deals with the Marcello aspect (or lack thereof) in the Garrison investigation.

Thank you very much!!!!!!!!

Had Garrison even hinted at pointing the finger at Carlos or any of his organization, the next time anyone would have seen Garrison would be if and when he turned up in the net of one of the shrimp trawlers off shore.

Rest assured, Garrison was not stupid.

Shaw, former OSS Agent, and still working in and for the "Stolen Art" recovery section, was a complete outsider to the New Orleans power structure.

In fact, he made many of those who had acquired pieces of this artwork (N.O. Aristocracy") quite nervous.

Therefore, the Garrison Side Show and Circus Act actually provided several functions:

As you have stated, N. O. was Garrison's home for a considerable length of time, therefore he most assuredly knew, as they say, "who's zooming who".

With Maumus Claverie and Louis B. Claverie being some on New Orleans top echelon attornies, Garrison was not about to "touch" the Claverie family line.

Especially since Louis B. was a member of one of the formost law firms in New Orleans.

With Marguerite Claverie's sister being married to a minor player in the N. O. (non-existant organized crime element) (according to Garrison), certainly can not pursue this line of investigation either.

With about 60% to 70% of the upper echelon of New Orleans society being direct descendents of Confederate Soldiers, certainly can not pursue this avenue either.

With Carlos & organization more than willing to sink you in the bayou, better leave this one alone also.

With Leander Perez being a former Judge and one of the local Political leaders of great power, best not mention his name and the fact that he ran one of the single most anti-racial and radical elements of N. O. and Southern society.

That left about only me and Clay Shaw, and I was out of town!

Tom

P.S. Marcello "ran" exactly what the wealth and power of New Orleans allowed him to run.

Tom, granted you certainly have knowledge in this far far exceeding mine. I'm curious about what's changed since those days? Why aren't you or anyone else going for the balls of the matter here, sleeping with the fishes today?

John;

The "balls" of the matter are difficult for most to swallow!

That being, that there was only a single/lone assassin, and to an extremely high degree of certainty, that assassin was LHO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is irrelevant as to whether one thinks "outside the box" to resolve the issues of this matter, however, in event that they do not take off their "blinders" and recognize that there are many and varied motives for all the items which they wish to combine into one "GIANT" conspiracy theory, then it all probability, they will still be lost 42 years from now as well.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I certainly have no objection to accepting this (it seems to fit in with the Shaw timeline), I have only your word to go on here. How Shaw's files became boxed with "I.G. Farbin" and how you found this out I don't know. How this would help in making Clay Shaw look like a spook is also a mystery, since no one prior to you ever brought this "Art Recovery" stuff up. As for Clay Shaw being a mere C.I.A. informant, Mellen has shattered this myth with actual C.I.A. documents which she quotes and cites. But of course, that pales next to your high standards (typically insinuation and innuendo).

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it "I.G. Farben" instead of "I.G. Farbin" ?

I just did a quick Google search and it would appear that you are right. That Purvis would make this kind of error after going through the I.G. Farben box is strange to say the least (yes, this is innuendo).

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...