Jim Garrison's OJ Simpson impression.

[Mark Knight]

Garrison's investigation was flawed.

Garrison's prosecution was flawed.

Garrison himself was flawed.

No argument from me on ANY of these points.

Garrison's principal contribution to the investigation of the JFK assassination was similar to Oliver Stone's:

HE FOCUSED THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THIS UNSOLVED MURDER.

So, in THAT respect alone, there was SOME value to Garrison.

Now, let the man alone...he can neither do good nor harm now.

Why must you keep playing this one-note song? Will it solve anything? Will it prove anyone's guilt in the assassination? WILL IT PERFORM EVEN ONE POSITIVE FUNCTION?

I think not.

[Owen Parsons]

I'd also like to note that the only real reason David Lifton is so anti-Garrison is because Garrison charged Oswald's Marine buddy Kerry Thornley with perjury for denying he knew Oswald while living in New Orleans, a thing he was almost certainly guilty of. David Lifton had been growing chummy with Thornley and went ballistic over this.

If I had to point the finger at any one person in the research community as being disinfo, it would be Lifton. In addition to his explicitly stated goal of clearing the Warren Commissioners of complicity, after the fact, in the cover up, he seems to point the finger of guilt at shadowy non-entities. Add to this his creation of the body alteration theory, the men-in-paper-mache-trees theory, his support of Zapruder film alteration, and his seemingly arbitrary belief that there were no shots from behind. I really can't find anything in this resume that will stand the test of time. Then there is his somewhat nasty disposition. I don't put much stock in David Lifton's judgements on what is and isn't fraudulent.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Gratz]

I concur wholeheartedly with Mark Knight's Post #16.

Garrison and Stone both focused attention on the assassination and of course "JFK" led to the opening of many sealed records and in that sense (perhaps in that sense only, but it is a most important sense) their contributions were positive.

[Lynne Foster]

I think that the best researchers have proved that Garrison was a TOTAL FRAUD.

[Dawn Meredith]

.

If I had to point the finger at any one person in the research community as being disinfo, it would be Lifton.

Lifton also has the distinction of getting someone potentially important to talk "off the record" then selling it to "Hard Copy". This is what I was told happened to Rachel Porter. I had talked to David in the 80's and I had a legal idea that involved the daughters of LHO. He poo pooed it (in writing) and years later, after I had moved to Austin and actually found Rachel and attempted to approach her with my idea she literally disappeared. (left the job in austin where I'd found her, and got an unlisted phone number.) I saw the Hard Copy show with she and Lifton and got it on excellent authority that she agreed to speak with him ONLY "OFF THE RECORD and was horrified when he sold it to Hard Copy. Now she intensely distrusts critics.

In the 80's Carl Oglesby told me that Lifton withheld information from HSCA to "write a best selling book". I asked LIfton if this was true and all he wanted to know was "who said this????" . Carl told me to go ahead and tell him, so I did. He never denied it. Oh he some ablique explanation....

So Liften is far from my favorite researcher. And Epstein? Please.

Dawn

[Lynne Foster]

Dawn, why do you defend a fraud artist?

Edited December 3, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Lynne Foster]

Garrison's investigation was flawed.

Garrison's prosecution was flawed.

Garrison himself was flawed.

No argument from me on ANY of these points.

Garrison's principal contribution to the investigation of the JFK assassination was similar to Oliver Stone's:

HE FOCUSED THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THIS UNSOLVED MURDER.

So, in THAT respect alone, there was SOME value to Garrison.

Now, let the man alone...he can neither do good nor harm now.

Why must you keep playing this one-note song? Will it solve anything? Will it prove anyone's guilt in the assassination? WILL IT PERFORM EVEN ONE POSITIVE FUNCTION?

I think not.

You miss the point. Garrison was not flawed. He was corrupt.

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

That's what you call a criminal conspiracy, when you are a District Attorney.

[Francesca Akhtar]

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?

No, shut up, go away and stop wasting everyone's time on this forum.

[Lynne Foster]

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?

No, shut up, go away and stop wasting everyone's time on this forum.

Thanks for your vote of support.

[Mark Knight]

So...you're saying that corruption does NOT qualify as a flaw? In case you weren't aware, a flaw is a defect; an imperfection; something that renders a person or object less than perfect. If I have a flaw, that means something is wrong with me.

"For all have sinned and fall short..." well, I would hope you know the rest of that quote.

Garrison is among those who are less than perfect, whether on purpose or by accident. You can argue the degree of his flaws until the cows come home, but that doesn't make his work worthless. And here's WHY:

Garrison's case focused the attention of the American public on the Kennedy assassination at a time when the assassination was NOT in the front of American consciousness. "Top-Of-Mind-Awareness," TOMA to the advertising people, did not apply to the assassination between the time of the WC report and the Garrison investigation. While Garrison may have pulled his punches for whatever reasons, his investigation still served a purpose...even if it DID turn attention from the "right" direction, it still focused attention on the assassination itself. To assert that this was without value whatsoever is disingenuous. Folks who failed to take up their own investigation of the facts upon hearing the WC's conclusions, folks who weren't inspired by Mark Lane's and Epstein's books...many of them WERE energized by Garrison's investigation. Most were convinced that Garrison was "barking up the wrong tree" in the prosecution of Shaw, but at least SOMEONE was doing SOMETHING.

To keep harping upon Garrison's corruption, and to continue to rant about him, only makes others--like me--wonder what your TRUE agenda is.

Garrison was wrong.

Garrison was NOT Kevin Costner, the epitome of the valiant crusader for truth.

But Garrison is dead. Continuing to call him names won't change anything he did or said. Consider your point as having been made, and GIVE IT A REST.

[And it's quite difficult for Garrison's act in the '60's to represent an impression of O.J. in the '90's, unless he was clairvoyant and could see into the future...are you thus claiming Garrison could see into the future, or was this merely another example of how your mind works? Besides, I don't recall O.J. saying that he knew who did it; O.J. simply said that his acquittal would allow him to find the real killers. BIG difference.]

Edited December 3, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Lynne Foster]

You sound obsessed.

[Frank Agbat]

You sound obsessed.

Hello Kettle, this is Pot... You're Black!

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Dec 2 2005, 01:24 AM' post='46950']

Dawn, why do you defend a fraud artist?

Because he was NOT. And if you knew anything beyond the crap you spew based on this Mat creep- or some other creep- you'd perhaps get a clue.

Lynne: Imagine, JFK blown away by his government.

Then some DA decides to DO something about it. How much decent press do

you think such a person will garner?? You know -i f you know anything- his office was bugged

by the FBI. Far from protecting anyone, he put his career and life and reputation on the line to be trashed the rest of his life by the paid off CIA- controlled Operation Mockingbird press. I met the man. I have studied his life.

You just parrot trash. Do some homework of your own little chickee and perhaps someone will take you seriously here.

I am not going to respond further to youir posts, but that was a direct question to me, so I answered as honestly and directly as I am able.

I am sure you will ridicule my response. But you just read little 'net articles and parrot them.

Ever try thinking for yorself?

Dawn

[Lynne Foster]

Jim Garrison protected New Orleans Mafia interests, Hoover's FBI didn't have to bug him.

Hoover's FBI shared his interests.

Maybe, you should get yer facts straight, I don't make fun of you, you either don't know what you are talking about or ... for some reason, you want to ignore the Kennedy assassination investigation by turning it into an argument about Jim Garrison.

The best critics who have spent their lives studying the Kennedy assassination, including Harold Weisberg, know that Garrison controlled every whorehouse in New orleans.

[Terry Mauro]

Jim Garrison protected New Orleans Mafia interests, Hoover's FBI didn't have to bug him.

Hoover's FBI shared his interests.

Maybe, you should get yer facts straight, I don't make fun of you, you either don't know what you are talking about or ... for some reason, you want to ignore the Kennedy assassination investigation by turning it into an argument about Jim Garrison.

The best critics who have spent their lives studying the Kennedy assassination, including Harold Weisberg, know that Garrison controlled every whorehouse in New orleans.

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

"The best critics who have spent their lives studying the Kennedy assassination, including Harold Weisberg, know that Garrison controlled every whorehouse in New orleans."

CITE THEM THEN, YOU DUMB, STUPID, BITCH!!! And, don't waste our time with another url to that asinine site with all those goddamned pop-ups, either. Get the xxxxing books, biblio them, and put them up, or shut up! And, quit using Weisberg to hide behind. He's probably rolling over in his grave with the likes of an idiot such as yourself quoting him out of context. Put it up, or shut it up, NOW! And BTW, nobody's making fun of you. Nobody has to. You make a spectacle out of yourself, all by yourself. Nobody has to lift a finger to do a damned thing.