Question: Do You Discount Everything About New Orleans?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Garrison realized that the JFK assassination was just part of a much larger conspiracy. The creation of a warfare state.

Of course I beg to differ about Garrison. IMHO, anything of value that Garrison had to say was stuff he cribbed, usually without attribution, from real researchers and writers. The warfare state idea was cribbed from Fred Cook, among others. Garrison simply made up all the rest and then scrounged up witnesses to testify that his imaginings were actually true. Of course the witnesses he did scrounge up were laughed out of court. But I thought eveyone knew all this by now.

You guys should do some research instead of watching movies.

[Owen Parsons]

Garrison realized that the JFK assassination was just part of a much larger conspiracy. The creation of a warfare state.

Of course I beg to differ about Garrison. IMHO, anything of value that Garrison had to say was stuff he cribbed, usually without attribution, from real researchers and writers. The warfare state idea was cribbed from Fred Cook, among others. Garrison simply made up all the rest and then scrounged up witnesses to testify that his imaginings were actually true. Of course the witnesses he did scrounge up were laughed out of court. But I thought eveyone knew all this by now.

You guys should do some research instead of watching movies.

Garrison's understanding of the conspiracy developed as his investigation progressed. He didn't bring in witnesses after the fact. This charge of yours is unsubstantiated and baseless.

I started my research on Garrison long before I ever watched JFK. Please read my postings in the thread I linked to above. Your charges are little different than Lynne Foster's, save that they have better grammar and spelling.

I also think that saying that Shaw was probably uninvolved has more to do with embarassment at Shaw's acquittal than the evidence against him (including all of the new material that has come to light).

Edited May 29, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

This charge of yours is unsubstantiated and baseless.

We are getting close to agreement here. We agree that SOMEBODY"S charges are unsubstantiated and baseless.

Your charges are little different than Lynne Foster's, save that they have better grammar and spelling.

Thank you for noticing the care and attention I try to give to grammar and spelling, even though I usually write in haste.

Actually, despite outward appearances, I seriously doubt if Lynn Foster and I share many views in common. But speaking of outward appearances, you must admit that Lynn appears to be quite a cute little number.

aying that Shaw was probably uninvolved has more to do with embarassment at Shaw's acquittal than the evidence against him (including all of the new material that has come to light).

I have just finished a quick read of Joan Mellen's new book on Garrison. I am taking the liberty of assuming that the new material you speak of is referenced in Mellen's book. I am sad to say that Mellen's book is scandalous and a disgrace to the research community, IMHO.

[Owen Parsons]

aying that Shaw was probably uninvolved has more to do with embarassment at Shaw's acquittal than the evidence against him (including all of the new material that has come to light).

I have just finished a quick read of Joan Mellen's new book on Garrison. I am taking the liberty of assuming that the new material you speak of is referenced in Mellen's book. I am sad to say that Mellen's book is scandalous and a disgrace to the research community, IMHO.

I speak of her book and William Davy's (published in 1999). I don't know what is scandalous about it. There is the red herring about the footnotes going out of whack half-way through the book, but this problem is a minor one that will be fixed in the next printing. If you are referring to something else, you'll have to specify what that something else is. As for the book being a disgrace to the research community, I refer you to the many endorsements from prominent JFK assassination researchers on the back cover. They would seem to disagree with you.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[i speak of her book and William Davy's (published in 1999). I don't know what is scandalous about it.

I admit that I have not yet read William Davy's book. I promise to do so After I get the chance to read the new books by Gerald McNight, Vince Palamara and Ian Griggs.

My problem with Joan Mellen's book has nothing to do with the footnotes. It has to do with her logically fallacious personal attack on Clay Shaw's sex life, with her abysmal inability to discriminate between credible and incredible witnesses, and most importantly with her failure to read the trial record with the care and attention it deserves.

As for her book being a disgrace to the research community, I refer you to the many endorsements from prominent JFK assassination researchers on the back cover. They would seem to disagree with you.

This sounds like an Argument from Authority, and I don't see where you have established the rightful authority of those who endorse Mellen's book, beyond the fact that they they are all Garrison supporters.

[Owen Parsons]

[i speak of her book and William Davy's (published in 1999). I don't know what is scandalous about it.

I admit that I have not yet read William Davy's book. I promise to do so After I get the chance to read the new books by Gerald McNight, Vince Palamara and Ian Griggs.

My problem with Joan Mellen's book has nothing to do with the footnotes. It has to do with her logically fallacious personal attack on Clay Shaw's sex life, with her abysmal inability to discriminate between credible and incredible witnesses, and most importantly with her failure to read the trial record with the care and attention it deserves.

I have read the trial record (not in full, but a great deal of it) and I can't find much fault with her presentation. Re: Her treatment of Shaw's sex life, as I have noted before, typically relates to his use of the Bertrand alias (such as the Clement Bertrand society) or to corroborate other witnesses (e.g. Shaw's missing nipple). In one place it is used to debunk a part of Shaw's assassination alibi. As for credible and incredible witnesses, she puts all the information on the table (as with Beckham), so that is up to readers to decide and debate.

As for her book being a disgrace to the research community, I refer you to the many endorsements from prominent JFK assassination researchers on the back cover. They would seem to disagree with you.

This sounds like an Argument from Authority, and I don't see where you have established the rightful authority of those who endorse Mellen's book, beyond the fact that they they are all Garrison supporters.

Its not an argument from authority. I am just pointing out that these individuals (Fonzi, Russell, Aguilar) are research community heavy weights (as I'm sure the majority of the people here, pro-Garrison or not, would agree), and they clearly don't think that the book has brought disgrace on the "research community."

Edited May 29, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have read the trial record (not in full, but a great deal of it) and I can't find much fault with her presentation.

Mr. Parsons, thank you for the courteous way you have conducted this discussion. I hate to pull rank on a valued forum member, but I feel I have no choice. I have read the entire record of the Clay Shaw trial, and I have read the entire record of the Preliminary Hearing where Clay Shaw was (wrongfully) indicted.

I earned my first law degree in 1971, while Joan Mellen has yet to take her first course in the subject, judging by her book.

I stand over the assertions I made in previous posts on this thread.

Edited May 29, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

I have read the trial record (not in full, but a great deal of it) and I can't find much fault with her presentation.

Mr. Parsons, thank you for the courteous way you have conducted this discussion. I hate to pull rank on a valued forum member, but I feel I have no choice. I have read the entire record of the Clay Shaw trial, and I have read the entire record of the Preliminary Hearing where Clay Shaw was (wrongfully) indicted.

I earned my first law degree in 1971, while Joan Mellen has yet to take her first course in the subject, judging by her book.

I stand over the assertions I made in previous posts on this thread.

If you have any particular issues you'd like to adress, please raise them. Your expert opinion is all fine and good, but I note a dearth of evidentiary backing for said opinion. Simply asserting a thing will not make it so.

I also stand over my previous posts.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you have any particular issues you'd like to adress, please raise them. Your expert opinion is all fine and good, but I note a dearth of evidentiary backing for said opinion. Simply asserting a thing will not make it so.

I also stand over my previous posts.

I'll keep it short and sweet. Jim Garrison's bullxxxx case was laughed out of court, with very good reason, and for all the world to see. I really don't need to say much more, because neither you, nor Bill Davy, nor Joan Mellen nor Oliver Stone can do a single damned thing to change that historical fact. I repeat the word fact, in case you you might have missed it the first time.

I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face.

From your previous posts you make it seem like you have no respect for the courts of justice. Is that really the case?

Edited May 29, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Dawn Meredith]

If you have any particular issues you'd like to adress, please raise them. Your expert opinion is all fine and good, but I note a dearth of evidentiary backing for said opinion. Simply asserting a thing will not make it so.

I also stand over my previous posts.

I'll keep it short and sweet. Jim Garrison's bullxxxx case was laughed out of court, with very good reason, and for all the world to see. I really don't need to say much more, because neither you, nor Bill Davy, nor Joan Mellen nor Oliver Stone can do a single damned thing to change that historical fact. I repeat the word fact, in case you you might have missed it the first time.

I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face.

From your previous posts you make it seem like you have no respect for the courts of justice. Is that really the case?

Why get nasty just because Owen happens to disagree with you? He has done his homework and needs no defense here. It seems that the party losing a given argument is the one who stoops to name calling. Up til this last post above, this was an interesting debate, but you have just cheapened it by resorting to attempting to be condescending and leveling put downs. Owen you take the high ground and I trust you won't respond in kind because you never have.

Dawn

ps Good to see you back posting Owen. I have missed you. And SHOULD you ever decide to go to law school I think you'd make an excellent lawyer. I have read all your debates here on the forum and you argue like a pro!!

Normally I am very impressed with Ray Carroll as well, so the above post seems quite out of character.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It seems that the party losing a given argument is the one who stoops to name calling.

I suppose I was a bit tough with Owen, but I did not call him names; I challenged him to face facts. Nor was I losing the argument. Is it not a historical fact that Garrison's case was laughed out of court? How long

will it take for that very simple fact to sink in?

Normally I am very impressed with Ray Carroll as well, so the above post seems quite out of character.

Maybe so, and I have no doubt you are right that Owen is the makings of a fine lawyer, should he so desire. But he will have to learn to face facts squarely, and not seek to manipulate them as Garrison did.

There are indeed some impressive names on the dust-jacket of Mellen's book, and it makes me woder whether they read all of the stuff inside. There are parts of Mellen's book that contain some of the most gratuitously disgusting material I have ever read anywhere in my entire life, and that certainly does not belong in any discussion of the JFK assassination.

Joan Mellen's book, assuming it belongs in a bookstore, belongs in the pornography department, IMHO.

Edited May 29, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mark Knight]

Had Mr. Garrison's case against Shaw been dismissed before going to trial, THEN you might say that "Garrison's case was laughed out of court." Instead, the case DID go to trial, and it was there that Mr. Garrison did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

To be fair, the trial DID take on a carnival sideshow atmosphere, as I recall. In hindsight, I'd say that better cases have been made on this very forum than Garrison did in the courtroom. But then, Garrison didn't have access to much of the information that's available today.

My personal opinion is that Garrison may have started on the right track, but it didn't take long for him to get sidetracked, for whatever reasons. The case didn't live up to its billing, and Garrison has to bear the responsibility for that...as much for exaggerating expectations as for anything else.

My take on Garrison is kinda neutral...from an automotive-related standpoint, he got the buyers into the showroom, but he couldn't sell his product. Folks in the window cleaner business know you don't sell consumers on a "streak-free shine" by showing them a window with streaks and NO shine. But that's how Garrison's case comes across to me even today.

[Owen Parsons]

I suppose I was a bit tough with Owen, but I did not call him names; I challenged him to face facts. Nor was I losing the argument. Is it not a historical fact that Garrison's case was laughed out of court? How long

will it take for that very simple fact to sink in?

Facts? What facts? You have cited almost zero. You simply assert that there is nothing to Garrison's case without bothering to prove it. If you want to discuss actual details of the case against Shaw, rather than making broad and sweeping pronouncements, feel free to do so.

Garrison's case was not "laughed" out of court. In fact, most jurors thought that conspiracy was proved, just not involving Clay Shaw. I would note that the Judge's rather nonsensical ruling concerning the booking card seriously hurt Garrison's case against Shaw, as well as the unwise use of Speisel. I think these two issues are what lost the case. And anyway, no one denies that Garrison lost his case in court, as you seem to hyperbolically assert.

If we were to go by nothing more than the outcomes of various "courts of justice," then Bruno Hauptmann, Alger Hiss, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray would all be guilty of the charges leveled against them (but then, you may think this is the case). Its not an infallible institution.

Maybe so, and I have no doubt you are right that Owen is the makings of a fine lawyer, should he so desire. But he will have to learn to face facts squarely, and not seek to manipulate them as Garrison did.

There are indeed some impressive names on the dust-jacket of Mellen's book, and it makes me woder whether they read all of the stuff inside. There are parts of Mellen's book that contain some of the most gratuitously disgusting material I have ever read anywhere in my entire life, and that certainly does not belong in any discussion of the JFK assassination.

Joan Mellen's book, assuming it belongs in a bookstore, belongs in the pornography department, IMHO.

I have already explained that the details of Shaw's sex life serve purposes other than demonization. Mellen may have gone overboard in one or two places (its been months since I've read her book, so I can't say for sure), but it usually serves a real purpose and in no way invalidates the book as a whole.

ps Good to see you back posting Owen. I have missed you. And SHOULD you ever decide to go to law school I think you'd make an excellent lawyer. I have read all your debates here on the forum and you argue like a pro!!

Thanks Dawn. School's out, so I have much more time to post (and sleep). I don't know where I'll be going from here, but I have considered law in the past (as well as journalism and history writing). It could happen.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If we were to go by nothing more than the outcomes of various "courts of justice," then Bruno Hauptmann, Alger Hiss, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray would all be guilty of the charges leveled against them (but then, you may think this is the case). Its not an infallible institution.

We are on exactly the same page on this one, and I'm sure we could mention many many other examples just in the last century. Probably no case in recent times has shown up the fallibility of the courts better than the case of OJ Simpson, who got away with two savage murders despite overwhelming evidence of guilt (If you have not read Bugliosi's "Outrage" then I strongly recommend it). Yet examples of miscarried justice are distinctly rare, though they constantly remind us of Burke's warning that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Compare the evidence against OJ as set out in Bugliosi's book with the evidence against Clay Shaw. You mention the judge's refusal to allow officer Habighorst to testify that Clay Shaw told him that he used the alias Clay Bertrand. In her book Joan Mellen asserts that the judge "stammered" that he did not believe Officer Habighorst, as though the judge was confused or something.

Suppose for a moment that Clay Shaw actually WAS involved in the assassination, and suppose that he really DID use the alias Clay Bertrand in his clandestine activities, how likely is it that he would reveal this incriminating fact to the booking officer?

Judge Haggerty was born during the day, but he wasn't born yesterday. The ostensible basis of his ruling was the Miranda warning, if I recall correctly, but he made it fairly clear that it was really based on his lifetime of experience among his fellow man. The trial record itself, and reports of actual observers in the courtroom, do not bear out that Judge Haggerty "stammered." What observers heard was a voice full of conviction. Judge Haggerty said "I do not believe officer Habighorst," and when Alcock? objected that he was improperly judging the credibility of a witness in front of reporters from around the world, Haggerty replied that it was outside the presence of the jury. He repeated: "I do not believe officer Habighorst." In case there was any doubt in the world, the judge leaned forward on the bench and delared emphatically: "I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst!"

If that's a stammer, then I am the legitimate heir to the throne of Mary Magdalene.

As it was at the preliminary hearing, Garrison's whole case against Clay Shaw boiled down to the uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo. Garrison supporters will say that Garrison was thwarted by the refusal of Iowa? to extradite Sandra Moffett, who supposedly would have corroborated Russo. As I mentioned in a private email today to our mutual friend Dawn Meredith, I would not accuse my worst enemy of jaywalking on the say-so of Perry Russo, even if his girlfriend backed up his story.

Garrison's case was not "laughed" out of court. In fact, most jurors thought that conspiracy was proved.

If I recall correctly, the Clay Shaw trial took place in the early part of 1969. Public opinion polls showed, long before Jim Garrison opened his mouth publicly about the assassination, that a majority of Americans believed that a conspiracy was proved. I can only assume that most (if not all) of the jurors in the Clay Shaw trial felt that way long before they were called to perform their solemn duty.

Owen, best wishes in your future career. I hope the choice you make will bring you fulfillment.

[Mark Stapleton]

Owen,

Whether it's law school, journalism, or whatever, if anyone finishes ahead of you, I'd like to know their names . You possess a remarkable lucidity and clarity of expression.

You nailed that brief argument about Garrison like a sharpshooter. The only thing I would add is that, despite Garrison's errors of judgement, he was the only member of the legal establishment who had the balls to stand up and say the WC and the official line on the assassination stank. He did this in the only forum that mattered--the courtroom. IMO, this is the most important fact that his detractors must "face squarely".

Edited May 30, 2006 by Mark Stapleton