Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Garrison's OJ Simpson impression.


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So did J. Edgar Hoover.

The only person to ever bring an innocent person to trial for conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was J. Edgar Hoover's pal, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison

Need I say more?

Oh, and I forgot, what the "respectable" Judge Garrison says about his pal, Johnny Roselli is a hoot !

Judge Garrison -1986

And there's a new C.I.A. book,

REASONABLE DOUBT and Henry Hurt has about thirty pages

working me over and attacking....I don't know why anyone

would be attacked at all for being the only public official

in the country who tried to do something about it to begin

with. But that doesn't matter. Their point is

discreditation. They wanted to get the message across --

don't believe what Garrison's been telling you about the

C.I.A. We're telling you he's wrong. He's involved with the

mob. And this one also by Summers said that I was involved

with the mob and I had a secret meeting with Joe Tosselli

at a Las Vegas hotel that he had. Can you imagine me

meeting with Joe Rosselli - your remember the guy that was

killed with a bullet in his stomach and his legs cut off -

and put in a barrel and dropped in the Bay off Florida?

Edited by Lynne Foster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Why didn't Judge Jim Garrison sue secret agent man, Henry Hurt, for conspiring to stimy his incredible, Kennedy assassination investigation?

Ohhh, Ying tong ying tong ying tong ying tong ying tong idel I po, ying tong ying tong ying tong idel I po idel I po. Naaa yacky taky Yah dadle a dah, tiddle tiddle tucy tiddle ta ta Naa Naa naa naa naa naa.

"Bwing us a shrubery" The Knights who like to say NI!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Turner is obviously trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Judge Garrison was an ignorant xxxx.

Here he is in 1986:

MS. TOOLE:

I have one book, called THE GARRISON CASE. I'm not

sure who wrote it.

JUDGE GARRISON:

Milton Brenner. It was a surprising venomous book...I

had heard about it. I made him an Assistant District

Attorney. He was an Assistant D.A. About a year out of my

office and he seemed to feel that it was inconceivable that

the federal government would do anything like that so he

wrote a book attacking me which I never bothered to read.

Garison claimed that he hadn't bothered to read it because it was all true, Garrison was as big a fraud as the Warren Commission, and it is not possible to learn anything about the Kennedy assassination until that is clarified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did J. Edgar Hoover.

The only person to ever bring an innocent person to trial for conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was J. Edgar Hoover's pal, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison

Need I say more?

Showing our utter ignornange again are we Ms disinformationist? Now you're an apologist for the CIA.

Get a clue will you. NO-ONE takes you seriously here. You're a moron.

Dawn

You'd like to be a prosecutor??? I doubt you've made it thru college, you'd never get into any law school, so dream on. Maybe Santa Clause can help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did J. Edgar Hoover.

The only person to ever bring an innocent person to trial for conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was J. Edgar Hoover's pal, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison

Need I say more?

******************************************************

Why, pray tell, do you persist in posting the same url with that goddamned "Yahoo" pop-up? Don't you have anything else to show for your obvious lack of adequately researched material, but that worn out piece of tripe. You're the Yahoo, Ms. Linda Byrd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ron Ecker' date='Nov 26 2005, 06:45 PM' post='46534']

She is obviously enjoying it and the fact that it upsets people and is a distraction on this forum.

Ron

Ron:

You're right. Let's PLEASE all just ignore this twit. I promise I will.

I apologise for allowing this distraction.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, pray tell, do you persist in posting the same url with that goddamned "Yahoo" pop-up?

Terry,

She is obviously enjoying it and the fact that it upsets people and is a distraction on this forum.

Ron

*************************************************************

You're right, Ron. I'm going to take your advice, which is what I intended to do last month. I can't believe John allows this itinerate pseudo-educator to continue to post her pure unadulterated B.S. Must be for the comedy relief, or something.

I think I'll cruise out onto the 101 and listen to the Jackson Browne CD I just burned, as I make my way to Ventura. It's too beautiful a day to waste, in paradise. :rolleyes:

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the truth [Jim Garrison: in his own words] so distracting?

I think this is a legitimate question. Why are you all so determined to turn a paranoid crackpot like Jim Garrison into a hero?

I am not stating my opinion, Garrison's own words betray the optical delusion that he produced to bury the truth.

Is this message board all about targeting anybody who is not a Garrison groupie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 30, 1992, this is what jay Epstein wrote about Jim Garrison,in a n article that appeared in the New Yorker: TOO BIZARRE !

Garrison himself rarely appeared at the trial -- not even for the testimony or cross-examination of the man he had accused of conspiring to kill the President. When he finally made his closing statement, he mentioned the defendant's name only once in a disjointed 25 minute speech. Instead, borrowing from Kennedy's celebrated rhetoric, he told the jury "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". Even though it was past midnight, it took the jury less than an hour to unanimously reach its verdict: Shaw was not guilty. Two years to the day had elapsed since Shaw's arrest and he was nearly bankrupt from the cost of his legal defense. Although Shaw left court on March 1, 1969 an acquitted man, he was not yet free of Garrison who, despite the hoary principle of double jeopardy, re-arrested Shaw and attempted to re-try him for perjury. Eventually, a Federal court intervened and quashed the re-indictment. (Shaw, wearied by more than four years of prosecution, died in 1973).

So ended the evidence part of Garrison's process, which the New York Times called, "one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American jurisprudence." Even assassination buffs were dismayed by the dearth of evidence it produced. The local press, which Garrison had tried so hard to win over, now condemned him; with the States-Item calling for his resignation, on the grounds that "his persecution of Clay L. Shaw was a pervasion of the legal process such as has not often been seen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to David Lifton:

Jim Garrison was one of the biggest frauds that ever came down the pike. He

prosecuted innocent people, did an enormous disservice to the movement, and

when the jury acquitted Shaw, it was "good riddance."

Lynne, seriously, do you have anything to ADD to this case, besides attacking Garrison?

If you knew anything about this case you'd know that Epstein discredited himself by joining with former CIA agents to try and claim Oswald was a Russian agent. You'd also know that Lifton is pretty much in the same ballpark as Garrison: a well-intentioned guy whose attempts at solving the case proved as much a distraction as a help.

At the very worst, Garrison deflected attention away from the mob and onto the CIA. Do you honestly believe that was such a bad thing? I mean, we had the chance to nail the mob ten years later and guess what? The "Justice Department" under Ronnie Raygun REFUSED to investigate. So why not go after them? As far as the CIA, the facts that have come out over the years have pointed more and more to the involvement of a number of its agents, if not in the killing itself, at least in the cover-up. Was Garrison a bad guy for pointing this out? As far as Clay Shaw, while I believe he was probably innocent of murder, he was

ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY of perjury and obstruction of justice. Screw Clay Shaw. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a man put in his position--having to face the heat for something he didn't do--I can't say I'm sympathetic to a man who refuses to tell the truth when it could save him and HARM NO ONE. Who would have been damaged if he'd admitted he'd been in contact with the CIA and had told them of his trips overseas? LIKE THE RUSSIANS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE DOMESTIC CONTACT SERVICE? No, the only people in the whole world who weren't allowed to know about the DCS were the American people!!! Clay Shaw was part of an ongoing conspiracy to deny to the American people that we'd become the kind of country that has a shadowy secret police keeping track of every citizen. I repeat, SCREW HIM. If Jim Garrison had to prosecute Clay Shaw to get the Zapruder film showed in court, and to expose the sloppiness of the autopsy, and to show the possible connections of Oswald to Bannister and Ferrie, then I wish he'd tried ten Clay Shaws.

As much as you claim to hate Nixon, by your attitude towards Garrison, one would think you blame Mark

Felt for Watergate. Garrison is to the Kennedy assassination what Mark Felt was to Watergate: a complicated man with unclear motives who nevertheless helped expose the truth. Give him his props and move on.

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...