Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) On another "thread", Gerry Hemming posted: This was Garrison's strategy -- especially where implemented against Hall, Howard, and Seymour !! All to cover Marcello's ass, while getting his "15-minutes of fame"!! There are those, of course, who believe, that it was indeed Garrison's strategy to deflect attention from Marcello. And that Marcello was indeed one of the principal conspirators. See, e.g. Davis, Mafia Kingfish and Blakey, Fatal Hour. It is interesting that with the publication of the eagerly awaited "Ultimate Sacrifice" that correctly identifies the true assassins (Trafficante, Marcello and Rosselli) there appears a book ("A Farewell to Justice") that attempts to resurrect Garrison's non-existent case against Shaw, thereby diverting attention from the case against the true assassins. Just as Garrison's case diverted attention from the Mafia, so does the pro-Garrison "AF2J" deflect from the attention and study that ought to be given to "Ultimate Sacrifice". (I do note that at least per Amazon sales of "Ultimate Sacrifice" appear to be far higher than sales of "AF2J".) In no way, of course, do I accuse Professor Mellen of being a "disinformation agent" but, unfortunately, her deeply flawed book (see the book section of the Forum for specific criticisms) does have the predictable result of dividing the assassination research committee. Whether Garrison was acting in good faith or not need not be decided. If his case served to prevent the apprehension and conviction of the true assassins during their lifetime, it was indeed an unfortunate circumstance. The other way to look at it is that Garrison did rekindle interest in the assassination and thus keep the case alive. But it is my opinion that it is time for the assassination research committee to unite behind the following propositions: 1. Garrison, ultimately, got it wrong (whether he did so innocently or not need not divide us). 2. Trafficante, Marcello and Rosselli were principal conspirators. What remains to be determined if there were sponsors or participants in the assassination beyond the mafia troika identified above. "Retrying" the Shaw case simply wastes the time and resources of the assassination research community, which are much better spent answering the issue noted in the preceding sentence. If we can reach an agreement on that issue in the coming years, then we ought to next figure out how to "rewrite" history to identify who truly killed JFK. I see Owen is posting. I knew he would love my statements! I commend him for being so quick to respond. Edited December 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Johnson, Nixon and Hoover were dominant conspirators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) "Non-existent case against Shaw?" Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand (there really shouldn't be any more debate about this). Using this alias, Shaw called attorney Dean Andrews, asking him to fly down to Dallas to represent Oswald (this is corroborated three times over, btw, it's not just Andrews saying this). Oswald, in the presence of Shaw and Ferrie, was driven down to Clinton/Jackson to obtain a job at a mental hospital. Shaw and Ferrie discussed the assassination in the presence of Perry Russo. And this is only what was presented in court. This claim that Garrison was covering for the Mafia is in conflict with the internal office memos, as I have pointed out time and time again. Also, I think you will have trouble rallying researchers around the Mafia-did-it banner. Just a heads-up. And... could you please answer whether or not you still maintain that Gus Russo's book was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize? Edited December 8, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 Well, Owen, so we can agree that the entire case against Shaw boils down to Russo's testimony? None of the other assertions you make demonstrates he was an assassin, as you surely must know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 The fact that Garrison was covering for the Mafia is clear and obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 As I said, it is not really necessary to debate that issue. Let's just put Garrison behind us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 As I said, it is not really necessary to debate that issue. Let's just put Garrison behind us! No, why don't we just watch you and Owen Pat each other on the back -quite entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Well, Owen, so we can agree that the entire case against Shaw boils down to Russo's testimony? None of the other assertions you make demonstrates he was an assassin, as you surely must know. He is indeed the overt witness to the conspiratorial act itself (there was never a witness to this effect against Castro, but that didn't stop you from going on and on and on), but one has to wonder why Clay Shaw would call Andrews to represent Oswald, why he would associate with Oswald and Ferrie, why he was involved with Ferrie in what looks very much like an attempt to sheep dip Oswald, and why he would perjure himself on all of these issues as well as his CIA associations. One also has to wonder why he initially had so much difficulty in getting his alibi straight or why this Kennedy liberal exhibited no reaction whatsoever when news of Kennedy's demise came in. Also, I don't think anyone maintains that Shaw was an "assassin." To be an assassin, he would actually have to pull the trigger. Please answer the question re: Russo and the Pulitzer Prize, it isn't difficult. Edited December 8, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Owen, I recall reading somewhere (on the book jacket or in a review) that "Live By the Sword" had been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. If I was wrong about that, so be it. I don't think that issue is that important to the entire assassination debate. Regarding your semantic issue, I would think it appropriate to call anyone who plans an asassination an assassin. Wouldn't you? The CEO of Ford Motor Company is a car manufacturer even though he does not personally pound sheet metal. Edited December 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 It was indeed (falsely) claimed that Russo was nominated for a Pulitzer on the dust jacket to The Outfit and various other places. This was also claimed on the ABC special and Russo did nothing to correct this falsehood. This raises issues about Russo's credibility. http://www.abclies.net/russo_pulitzer.html I do think there is a distinction between being a conspirator and being an assassin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 It was indeed (falsely) claimed that Russo was nominated for a Pulitzer on the dust jacket to The Outfit and various other places. This was also claimed on the ABC special and Russo did nothing to correct this falsehood. This raises issues about Russo's credibility. http://www.abclies.net/russo_pulitzer.html I do think there is a distinction between being a conspirator and being an assassin. The distinction is in your head Owen. If you want to learn something, read this. That will teach you what it means to be intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have no idea what that controversy is all about, but I think you are making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill. I asssume that, like John cannot, you cannot identify any factual errors in "Live By The Sword". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Alright, an error then: he says exit wounds have abrasion collars. The factual content isn't as important as how its presented and the conclusions drawn from it, anyway. I don't know how you can think an author being deceitful about his credentials isn't relevant. Edited December 8, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 Owen, I shall check that. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Tim, I would be a lot more comfortable with Russo if he hadn't mimicked Posner and tried to prove the Single Bullet Theory using grossly distorted drawings etc. If he'd have just stuck to Bobby and Castro his book would have carried a lot more weight, IMO. And then there's the strange coincidence that in The Outfit he claims Ruby's buddy Yaras was behind the Cermak hit. From this, I find it hard to believe Russo honestly believes Ruby's involvement was a coinky-dink. If you contact him, I wouldn't be surprised if he's changed his theory once again to incorporate the mob, a la Ultimate Sacrifice. Edited December 8, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now