Question: Do You Discount Everything About New Orleans?

[Owen Parsons]

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.

The word Mellen uses is "sputtered," in reference to "I do not believe Officer Habighorst. I don't believe Officer Habighorst!," which certainly sounds like sputtering, due to its excited and repititious nature. Your quick reading was perhaps too quick.

In any case, this is a very minor point.

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?

Probably because Shaw had never read the Warren Commission or the testimony of Dean Andrews regarding the "Clay Bertrand" call, besides the fact that the Bertrand alias was primarily used for activities unrelated to the assassination. He probably didn't give it any thought at the time. But who can know the mind of Clay Shaw?

Shaw obviously lied when he said he had been given a blank card to sign and that he had not been asked any questions during the finger printing (even Butzman contradicted this).

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!"

So what you are saying here is that Haggerty's reasons had very little to do with legality (he apparently had issues with both Habighorst's brother and two of his uncles, if I recall correctly). Miranda wasn't really valid, as Shaw had already been read his Miranda rights in the presence of his lawyers. It was rather a strained reading of Escobedo upon which Haggerty based his ruling.

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.

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Russo and many reasons to believe him. I'll leave it at that.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Russo and many reasons to believe him. I'll leave it at that.

And I've seen no reason to disbelieve Marina Oswald Porter, who testified categorically that her husband was home every night when they lived in New Orleans, except for the single night that he was imprisoned for the horrendous crime of believing that America is a country where freedom of speech is tolerated. If Marina told the truth, then the "conspiratorial" meeting described by Russo could not have happened.

I can only infer that you believe that Marina was lying to protect the conspirators. If so, I must then infer that you believe she should now be arrested and charged with murder. Do you really have the stomach for that kind of nonsense?

Edited May 30, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Russo and many reasons to believe him. I'll leave it at that.

And I've seen no reason to disbelieve Marina Oswald Porter, who testified categorically that her husband was home every night when they lived in New Orleans, except for the single night that he was imprisoned for the horrendous crime of believing that America is a country where freedom of speech is tolerated. If Marina told the truth, then the "conspiratorial" meeting described by Russo could not have happened.

I can only infer that you believe that Marina was lying to protect the conspirators. If so, I must then infer that you believe she should now be arrested and charged with murder. Do you really have the stomach for that kind of nonsense?

Leaving aside whether "Leon Oswald" is really Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina's credibility is not so good on many issues (who doesn't know the Nixon incident?). I think much of her testimony amounts to lying to protect herself more than to protect the conspirators. In any case, as Richard Billings writes in his diary, "Russo his star witness, but also has friends -- Kenny Carter, Niles Peterson, Ted & Jerry Kirchenstein -- who corroborate identification of Oswald as the bearded roommate . . ." (source).

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Marina's credibility is not so good on many issues..

If you look at the John Armstrong thread, there is some discussion about Marina's credibility. Marina is not a perfect witness (actually a perfect witness has never existed in history) but Marina has a hell of a lot more credibility in the long run than Jim Garrison ever will.

I think much of her testimony amounts to lying to protect herself more than the conspirators.

You must be proud of your bravery, Mr. Parsons. It must take some kind of courage to make scurrilous accusations like these against a poor defenseless woman who has been so cruelly abused by your oh-so powerful government for the past 40-odd years. Take a bow, why don't you.

In any case, as Richard Billings writes in his diary, "Russo his star witness, but also has friends -- Kenny Carter, Niles Peterson, Ted & Jerry Kirchenstein -- who corroborate identification of Oswald as the bearded roommate . .

And the reason poor old Jim Garrison could not call a single one of these witnesses at trial was because the judge would not let him, or the FBI interfered with his investigation.....?

[Owen Parsons]

If you look at the John Armstrong thread, there is some discussion about Marina's credibility. Marina is not a perfect witness (actually a perfect witness has never existed in history) but Marina has a hell of a lot more credibility in the long run than Jim Garrison ever will.

She is far from a perfect witness. The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

I have followed the discussion you speak of, and it appears to consist of the same emotional outbursts you are now making in this thread.

You must be proud of your bravery, Mr. Parsons. It must take some kind of courage to make scurrilous accusations like these against a poor defenseless woman who has been so cruelly abused by your oh-so powerful government for the past 40-odd years. Take a bow, why don't you.

You act like I am saying that she participated in the assassination. What I am arguing is that she has been "cruelly abused by [my] oh-so powerful government," which is why she had to make up phony stories.

And the reason poor old Jim Garrison could not call a single one of these witnesses at trial was because the judge would not let him, or the FBI interfered with his investigation.....?

Well, the FBI did interfere in his investigation...

I would note that the Sheridan White Paper got ahold of Peterson. The other witnesses might also not have wanted to get involved in such a case... there are many reasons. I'd also like to point that Billings was something of a provocateur (John posted about this earlier), so his information is against interest.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

[Owen Parsons]

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

This is weak. How am I defending the Warren Commission? I am just pointing out that that particularly incident she recounted was so blatantly phony and false that "[n]ot even" the Warren Commission wanted it, even though it could potentially help them in their effort to portray Oswald as a violent political extremist.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

This is weak. How am I defending the Warren Commission? I am just pointing out that that particularly incident she recounted was so blatantly phony and false that "[n]ot even" the Warren Commission wanted it, even though it could potentially help them in their effort to portray Oswald as a violent political extremist.

Please stop accusing and abusing Marina. She is a a beautiful person and a friend of mine. You can cite the Warren Commission and Jim Garrison till you are blue in the face, but I sincerely hope that no self-respecting person will ever believe you.

[Pat Speer]

The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

I don't remember where I read it (maybe the Warren Report itself) but I once read a thoughtful explanation of the Nixon "incident." The thoughtful conclusion was that Marina wasn't making the story up, but was confused about which Vice-President Oswald was talking about shooting. It was LBJ, who visited Texas earlier in 63 (or was it late 62?) and it was LBj that Oswald talked about killing. This brings up the interesting question: if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[ if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

I know the question is rhetorical, but I can't resist saying that the short answer is that Lee Oswald spoke the simple truth when he said "I didn't shoot anybody."

Since we don't have Lee to kick around anymore, let's all pick on his widow, shall we?

[Antti Hynonen]

Pat Speer Posted Today, 06:32 AM

QUOTE(J. Raymond Carroll @ May 30 2006, 05:42 AM)

QUOTE(Owen Parsons @ May 30 2006, 05:34 AM)

The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

I don't remember where I read it (maybe the Warren Report itself) but I once read a thoughtful explanation of the Nixon "incident." The thoughtful conclusion was that Marina wasn't making the story up, but was confused about which Vice-President Oswald was talking about shooting. It was LBJ, who visited Texas earlier in 63 (or was it late 62?) and it was LBj that Oswald talked about killing. This brings up the interesting question: if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

I believe the WC testimony of Marina does not include the Nixon episode at all. It can be found in the HSCA testimony of Marina Porter, however. It makes an interesting addition.

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 12:45 PM

QUOTE(Pat Speer @ May 30 2006, 07:32 AM)

[ if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

I know the question is rhetorical, but I can't resist saying that the short answer is that Lee Oswald spoke the simple truth when he said "I didn't shoot anybody."

Since we don't have Lee to kick around anymore, let's all pick on his widow, shall we?

Mr. Carroll, I agree that no one should pick on Marina, she's been through a lot in her life, on the other hand I haven't seen anyone here harassing her, nor insulting her, there has only been pure debate and discussion regarding her testimony - so I don't see why you're on the defensive.

In my mind her individual testimonies against Lee (WC and HSCA) were by far the most detrimental. Also on many instances, I find it hard to believe that she is being totally truthful. It's quite evident that some of the testimony has to be bogus. Feelings aside, her testimony is a key element in the case, I see so reason why it shouldn't be debated on this forum. Afterall, she may have been coerced to testify in the way she did.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Owen Parsons]

EDIT: Double post, somehow. See next page.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

The Nixon incident is invented out of whole cloth. Not even the Warren Commission wanted that one.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you.

I don't remember where I read it (maybe the Warren Report itself) but I once read a thoughtful explanation of the Nixon "incident." The thoughtful conclusion was that Marina wasn't making the story up, but was confused about which Vice-President Oswald was talking about shooting. It was LBJ, who visited Texas earlier in 63 (or was it late 62?) and it was LBj that Oswald talked about killing. This brings up the interesting question: if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president?

The Warren Commission did float this explanation, but Marina said "there is no question that in this incident it was a question of Mr. Nixon" (source) and later "Yes, no. I am getting confused with so many questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind" (source). Whether she did mistake Nixon for LBJ (and I don't believe this is the case), this still leaves the issue of Marina's two mutually exclusive stories about how she restrained Oswald. One of these was implausible, the other impossible (as Peter Dale Scott outlined in the link I posted).

Antti: The WC did indeed get its hands on the story, but found it of "no probative value" (source).

Dunn: I have read Shadow Play. It is indeed a valuable book.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Knight]

As an observer, it appears to me that Mr. Carroll may have become so close to Marina Oswald Porter as to have sacrificed any objectivity. This is not to condemn either Marina or Mr. Carroll; it just happens sometimes, as with journalists, cops, and even Mr. Gratz and the Republican Party.

I've read nothing in Mr. Parsons' posts that sound derogatory toward Marina, in my mind. In any investigation, an objective investigator must constantly entertain the possibility that ANY of the principals and/or witnesses may have misspoken, exaggerated, or even outright lied. If one takes every piece of testimony at face value, EVERY convicted murderer who didn't plead guilty must be innocent.

And that's just as absurd as assuming that every witness against said murderers didn't ever misspeak, exaggerate, assume, or imply things that might not be 100% true.

In a recent local murder case, in which several witnesses saw one man gun down another at a McDonald's restaurant, the accused's sister--who WASN'T there when the crime occurred--claims he couldn't possibly have done the deed, because "he's just not that kind of a guy." See any parallels with Marina's story? [i'm not convinced that LHO pulled the trigger; but Marina's story that the Lee she knew could never have done the deed strikes me as a parallel, since in both cases there are witnesses who say otherwise.]

So Mr. Carroll, I think you should lighten up on Mr. Parsons. It's obvious to me that he's not out to crucify Marina; rather, he's pointing out obvious discrepancies. And if you could step back and reclaim some objectivity for a moment, I think you'd agree with me.

[Jim Feemster]

I M O,

Alot of us wouldn't be here today reading and adding to { or taking away from } this forum if not for the efforts of Jim Garrisson.

Garrisson was wondering through a castle with a candle while today we have spot lights and 20/20 hindsight vision. Without him i think the case would have faded away.

Sure some of you and others were on the case before Garrisson but with no venue. Garrisson and Stone have kept this case in front of the public and that is they're legacy.