Jim Garrison and the Cuban Operation

[Stephen Roy]

Believe it or not, Garrison made some significant mistakes about Ferrie in his books.

And it was all very deliberate, to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Are you new at this? I have lots of issues with Garrison, but he sincerely believed he had solved the assassination. But I think he was wrong.

There are no mistakes in the zeal to cover up the truth.

Nice phrase, but wildly inaccurate.

[Lynne Foster]

"he sincerely believed he had solved the assassination"? LOL

That has to be the biggest joke I have ever heard, in my opinion.

I tend to believe people like Katzenback, who claimed that Jim Garrison was nuts.

In fact, however, Katzebach was wrong, Garrison was not nuts. He did whatever he had to do to cover up the truth, and that is why he appeared to be nuts.

____________________________________

On November 25, 1963, Garrison arrested David Ferrie, questioned him, and handed him over to the FBI.

Wednesday 30 June 1971: Jim Garrison is arrested, he is charged with violating the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Garrison and two police officers are accused of accepting bribes from gamblers in New Orleans involving illegal pinball machines.

Do you know anything about garrison's 1971 arrest?

[Stephen Roy]

This is no mistake, it reflects J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Garrison's obsession to seal the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

There are a number of inaccuracies and misperceptions in this passage. You should read my book on Ferrie when I finish it.

[Lynne Foster]

These are Jay Epstein's observations and he is one of the best:

On the evening of June 19, 1967, NBC devoted an hour to a critical examination of Garrison's investigation, entitled "The JFK Conspiracy: The case of Jim Garrison." The first part of the program dealt with Russo's allegation that he had seen Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie plotting the assassiantion at a party in Ferrie's apartment in September 1963. The NBC reporters demonstrated that at least one other person presentat the party had not seen Shaw or Oswald there, and that Ferrie's bearded roomate, who Russo claimed was Oswald, had been identified by other people at the party as James Lewallen. The program then concentrated on Garrison's investigative methods, and a parade of witnesses was presented to allege that Garrison representatives had attempted to bribe or intimidate them. In addition, NBC revealed that both of garrison's key witnesses, Russo and Vernon Bundy, had failed lie-detector tests before testifying at the preliminary hearing... During the time I studied Garrison's investigation and had access to his office, the only evidence I saw or heard about that could connect Clay Shaw with the assassiantion was fraudulent -some devised by Garrison himself and some cynically culled from criminals or the emotionally unstable.

Indeed, as Jay Epstein further indicates, Garrison's staged ineptitude was absolutely consistent.

On January 21, 1969, after nearly two years of concocting and playing out his charges in the national media, Jim Garrison finally tried the accused, Clay Shaw, in a court of law in New Orleans. Even though Garrison had announced on February 24, 1967, that he had "positively solved the assassination of President John F. Kennedy" -and one week later, arrested Clay Shaw for conspiring to kill the president -it now turned out that he had not yet found any evidence whatsoever of the putative conspiracy that he presented at the trial at the time he made this sensational claim, The conspiracy he laid out in court took place at a single meeting in late September 1963 in the apartment of David Ferrie in which three conspirators, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Lee Harvey Oswald, plotted the "cross fire" and triangulation of fire" in Dallas through which theyplanned to assassinate Kennedy, and this conspiracy was witnessed by the only other person in the apartment, Perry Raymond Russo...

The last known person to speak to Ferrie was George Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post, whom Ferrie had met with from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on February 22, 1967. During this interview, Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Clearly, Jim Garrison was not the hero that Oliver stone made him out to be. Indeed,he was the villain who deliberately covered upthe truth about the kennedy assassination, but we if we are not attuned to the historical record, our short memories tend to distort the truth. In particular, as Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends." Not surprisingly, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

When anybody exposes the real Jim Garrison, a legion of imposter assassination buffs continue to promote the hollywood version of Jim Garrison, and they are so absolutely obsessive and aggressive about it, that their only conceivable purpose is to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Indeed, that is why the hollywood version of Jim Garrison continues to be a dominant impression.

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

______________________________________________________

Jim Garrison creatively danced around the truth that is not supposed to be exposed, but the fact is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE! How could Jim Garrison possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover deliberately made the truth inaccessible?

MORE EVIDENCE THAT JIM GARRISON WAS DELIBERATELY COVERING UP, RATHER THAN EXPOSING THE TRUTH.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

NAME: Jim Garrison Date: 11/8/78 Time: 11:00 am

Address: Federal Court House Place: New Orleans, La.

Interview:

Gary Cornwell, Bob Buras, and myself (Mike Ewing) interviewed Garrison for approximately 45 minutes in his office at the Federal Courthouse in New Orleans.

Garrison began the conversation with a lengthy recounting of his efforts during 1967-69 to re-investigate the Kennedy assassination and prosecute Clay Shaw. Garrison spoke in general terms about the power of the CIA and FBI and their ability to "control and evade" the investigative resources of any other body, including a District Attorney's office or a Congressional committee. Garrison stated that he assumes that the Select Committee has learned of this unchallengeable power and has met with the same frustration that he did.

Garrison spoke in somber tones about his investigation, saying that he had done his best under very difficult circumstances, and had of course made a few mistakes in the process.

During the course of Garrison's long monologue about the power of the federal government, particularly the CIA, it was most difficult to ask him specific questions; Garrison would continue to talk without responding to a question on most occasions when they were asked.

In response to the question of exactly when and why he first began re-investigating the Kennedy in 1966, Garrison gave a very vague answer, stating that he simply became interested in some manner with David Ferrie and Dean Andrews' 1964 story about a mysterious "Clem Bertrand." Garrison would not elaborate.

In response to the question of how he came to obtain David Ferrie's phone records of January to October of 1963, Garrison stated that he asked for and received them from Marcello's attorney G. Wray Gill. He indicated that he had long known Gill. He stated that Gill drew a line through his own calls listed on the bills, and thus Ferrie's calls were the other ones listed on the bill; as they had not shared an office. When asked if he had ever asked Gill why he had not turned over Ferrie's calls from November 1963 (which were not included) Garrison at first stated "I don't know." When the question was repeated, with the comment that he must have viewed the absence of the November 1963 calls disturbing, Garrison stated that he thinks that he did ask Gill about the missing November billing, and that Gill stated that they were missing. When asked if he followed it up, perhaps by asking Gill to make a further search for the records, Garrison said he couldn't recall.

It's called deliberate amnesia.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Stephen Roy]

"he sincerely believed he had solved the assassination"? LOL

That has to be the biggest joke I have ever heard, in my opinion.

And in my opinion it is true. I've been studying the Garrison case since it happened, including many interviews and documents.

I tend to believe people like Katzenback, who claimed that Jim Garrison was nuts.

Katzenbach. Yes, he did believe Garrison was nuts. But Garrison did sincerely believe he had solved the case.

In fact, however, Katzebach was wrong, Garrison was not nuts. He did whatever he had to do to cover up the truth, and that is why he appeared to be nuts.

I think you're wrong.

____________________________________

On November 25, 1963, Garrison arrested David Ferrie, questioned him, and handed him over to the FBI.

He wasn't arrested, he was "held for FBI and Secret Service". Garrison didn't question him, Frank Klein and several police investigators did. Garrison was not present.

Wednesday 30 June 1971: Jim Garrison is arrested, he is charged with violating the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Garrison and two police officers are accused of accepting bribes from gamblers in New Orleans involving illegal pinball machines.

Do you know anything about Garrison's 1971 arrest?

I do. There is an unfavorable account in False Witness and a sympathetic account in A Farewell To Justice.

With all due respect, you strike me as a "newbie", one who has seen limited material and come to conclusions based on it. Your repeated citations of things that are demonstrably wrong indicate that you have not read widely on this case or studied primary source material. I have.

Yet even with limited study, you state your opinions in an uncategorical way. I don't have the kneejerk reaction that some do, because I have issues with Garrison, too. But his sincerity is not one of them. He didn't protect Marcello: He simply decided early on that it was the CIA and the national security state, and looked no further.

You would do well to LISTEN, to study a bit more, consider all POVs on Garrison before so forcefully advocating one theory. There may be people who have a much more detailed knowledge of Garrison than you do.

There is no misperception in the fact that Garrison said that.

Example: He is completely wrong about Ferrie's post-assassination trip, and I will cite chapter and verse.

By the way, can you answer my question about Garrison's 1971 arrest?

See Post 20.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen, as one who has appreciated your knowledgable and thoughtful posts on all things Ferrie can I just say, save your breath, Lynne is not here to learn. you will find debate with her is akin to banging your head against a brick wall, your damn pleased when it stops. Steve.

[Lynne Foster]

There is no more detailed knowledge than Jim Garrison, in his own words. With all due respect Stephen, I really do not think that you know what you are talking about.

I really think that given the fact that Ferrie was evidently murdered to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, you should know better than to defend a lunatic like Jim Garrison.

I hope your book sells, because I certainly am not interested in reading the mythology of another Garrison apologist.

I think John has posted more relevant facts about David Ferrie than you have -he'd probably do a better job writing a book here:

"In March 1962 Ferrie began work as a private investigator for G. Wray Gill,Marcello's New Orleans attorney. This arrangement continued through 1963. Eventually Ferrie worked extensively for Marcello and a New Orleans private investigator, Guy Banister, an ex-FBI agent, anti-Communist, who kept an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans, a location known as a hot-bed of sinister activities surrounding right-wing and anti-Castro organizations. He worked with Banister the same time he was employed with Gill. It was at 544 Camp Street that Lee Oswald kept company with Banister and Ferrie."

Like J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Garrison, David Ferrie protected the Mafia and disclosed as little as possible about the "Cuban Operation" which was their major preoccupation until Robert Kennedy declared war on the Mafia.

Will your book reveal this.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Lynne Foster]

You have to be pretty gullible to believe anything that Garrison says. For example, he claims that he trusted the Warren report until 1966 -what a joke !

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

[Owen Parsons]

Stephen, as one who has appreciated your knowledgable and thoughtful posts on all things Ferrie can I just say, save your breath, Lynne is not here to learn. you will find debate with her is akin to banging your head against a brick wall, your damn pleased when it stops. Steve.

I second this. Don't waste your time on her. She is an automaton that posts the same things over and over and is totally incapable of changing her opinion one iota. I spent about 2000-3000 words in a single post rebutting her over a month ago to no avail.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

Owen, students like you should appreciate this:

Truth is about situation, it is not about all the false stories that these control freaks promoted to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

JIM GARRISON,

RICHARD NIXON,

J.EDGAR HOOVER

[Dawn Meredith]

What can you say about someone who needs to start about 10 threads a day,

that she alone responds to? That says it all.

Dawn

[Lynne Foster]

Jim Garrison was just as bad as J. Edgar Hoover was. Sorry, YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY !!!!!! Edited December 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Stephen Roy]

There is no more detailed knowledge than Jim Garrison, in his own words. With all due respect Stephen, I really do not think that you know what you are talking about.

Apparently not. I guess those things I read in Garrison's book that don't exactly jibe with the contemporaneous documents of his investigation must be accurate after all.

I really think that given the fact that Ferrie was evidently murdered to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, you should know better than to defend a lunatic like Jim Garrison.

Evidently murdered? How did they induce a berry aneurysm?

I hope your book sells, because I certainly am not interested in reading the mythology of another Garrison apologist.

Apologist? Are you listening? I have issues with Garrison, based on facts, not what I read on a few web sites.

I think John has posted more relevant facts about David Ferrie than you have -he'd probably do a better job writing a book here:

I guess you're right. I'll just fold up and junk the book.

"In March 1962 Ferrie began work as a private investigator for G. Wray Gill,Marcello's New Orleans attorney. This arrangement continued through 1963. Eventually Ferrie worked extensively for Marcello and a New Orleans private investigator, Guy Banister, an ex-FBI agent, anti-Communist, who kept an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans, a location known as a hot-bed of sinister activities surrounding right-wing and anti-Castro organizations. He worked with Banister the same time he was employed with Gill. It was at 544 Camp Street that Lee Oswald kept company with Banister and Ferrie."

Like J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Garrison, David Ferrie protected the Mafia and disclosed as little as possible about the "Cuban Operation" which was their major preoccupation until Robert Kennedy declared war on the Mafia.

Will your book reveal this.

Will my book reveal a garbled interpretation of history? No. Your time frame is completely wrong.

[Lynne Foster]

Why don't you explain this then?

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

Even

Dorothy Kilgallen clearly understood the fact that Oswald was just a Patsy, and that was in 1963.

Why did Jim Garrison pretend to be clueless until 1966?

[Tim Gratz]

Look where it got her.