The Garrison Case...

[MrMickeysMom]

The deeper explanation of the reason why Jim Garrison, DA of Orleans Parrish until 1974, was probably the best the Parrish had in the last 60 years. Garrison was finding out exactly who Lee Harvey Oswald was Oswald's relationship with David Ferry and Guy Banister.

Garrison warned us about the CIA... While he was on the trail of the assassins...

[zappaman]

1. Garrison was a fraud.

Here is a snippet.
Plenty more reading for you at the link.

"When all else failed, Garrison would simply fabricate evidence out of thin air. His office was never able to establish that the mysterious "Clay Bertrand" of Dean Andrews's Warren Commission testimony had ever existed. But, Garrison told his staff, "Bertrand" lived in the French Quarter, was a homosexual, and was named Clay; this description fit prominent businessman and civic leader Clay L. Shaw; therefore, Garrison declared, Shaw was "Bertrand." Dean Andrews subsequently admitted that there was no "Clay Bertrand," and that he had invented the entire story for his own personal gain. But Garrison would persist in his identification of Shaw as "Bertrand" for the rest of his life.

One of Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine buddies, Kerry Thornley, was voluntarily helping Garrison with his JFK probe until the DA instructed Thornley to give false testimony against another witness before the Grand Jury. When the ex-Marine balked, Garrison turned around and charged Thornley with perjury, trumping up phony testimony from a self-styled French Quarter voodoo priestess named Barbara Reid.

In 1967, Accessories after the Fact author Sylvia Meagher wrote that "as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bigjim.html

[MrMickeysMom]

2. This is a link to someone devoting a web page to Oliver Stones movie...

Nothing more than a cut and paste of so-called "defrauders", in this case, Oliver Stone's portrayal of Jim Garrison.

So you have that, and I have something that backs up 50 years of research, committees and congressional commissions, testimony that never quite made it into the Warren Commission.

[zappaman]

3. Well, if you had actually read it

you'd realize it's mainly about Jim Fraud Garrison.
Hmmm...what do JFK "researchers" say?

"The evidence of Shaw's participation in a conspiracy was flimsy," states G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee that reinvestigated the assassination in the late 1970s, and author of Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime, "and from his indictment to eventual acquittal in 1969, the course of the investigation was downhill to disaster." "The testimony of the 'star witness,' Perry Raymond Russo, had been blatantly concocted.

"[Clay] Shaw . . . was easily acquitted after a two-month proceeding in which all the shocking evidence against him promised by Garrison failed to materialize," writes Presumed Guilty author Howard Roffman. "Garrison was in consequence widely condemned by the media, and the New Orleans fiasco caused the virtual destruction of whatever foundation for credibility had previously been established by critics of the Warren Report. . . . [H]is unethical behavior and the mockery of justice . . . left the public and the media highly suspicious of Warren Report criticism."

Crime of the Century author Dr. Michael L. Kurtz writes, "As a historian, I find the distortions of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone appalling."

Anthony Summers, author of Conspiracy (later reissued as Not in Your Lifetime), writes that the Garrison investigation "has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles." "What angers investigators about . . . Jim Garrison," Summers adds, "is that his cockeyed caper in 1967 was more than an abuse of the justice system. It was an abuse of history, and -- more than any other single factor -- [responsible] in discrediting . . . genuine researchers for a full decade . .

F. Peter Model and Robert Groden's JFK: The Case for Conspiracy notes that Garrison's investigation "resembled a Barnum & Bailey circus featuring the Spanish Inquisition. Charging that the 'American Power Elite had a vested interest in creating historical mythology,' Garrison weaved his own. . . . Garrison promised he would show the world that [Clay Shaw] was at the core of a cabal involving Texas oil barons, Cuban sugar tycoons, the ex-Nazi rocket experts of NASA, and all others interested in the elevation of Lyndon Johnson. Mind-boggling as this skein was to begin with, it would grow even more absurd by the time Garrison managed to indict Clay Shaw. . . [T]he entire case would end up jerry-built on links, coils and conundrums. And as things got out of hand, and Garrison sensed it, he unhappily lapsed into demagoguery, citing chapter and verse from 'documents' he had not seen nor could he produce."

This is only a small handful.
I can post more if you'd like?

[MrMickeysMom]

4. The problem with your post remains constant, cause we've had this discussion before...

... Your opinion comes from the court of others... those like John McAdams and Anthony Summers. It's usually based on arguments in support of the Warren Commission, which even a Congressional Committee tasked with it's conclusions pointed to it faults.

That opinion you quoted focused on an irrelevant issue to distract attention from physical evidence. That is using logical fallacy, which many here recognize straight out. You should know better, but you have no intention to know better.

IOW, ad hominem and other fallacies suggesting only 2 alternatives exist when talking about basic evidence of any conspiracy. In your world, to suggest (as most people do) that Oswald wasn't the lone gunman is shear lunacy, and so you produce the same group over and over of these "authors" who attack the the number of people who have investigated and presented evidence to say, "No, the Warren Commission was wrong", and that Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw was the first step in doing something about it. The fact is, there are researchers who have been devoting 50 years to meet to discuss this inside and outside the courts with evidence... real evidence that say in response to the lone gun theory of Oswald, "That dog doesn't hunt".

Here... Instead of cutting and pasting insults from people who sell books attacking the best District Attorney Orleans Parrish has probably had, and who DID his homework, and who was bugged by the FBI for doing his homework, I'll leave the actual readers of this thread (not those like yourself who don't need to find out that there IS a problem with conspiracy to explain Kennedy's assassin as outlined by the Warren Commission)... I will leave them to choose from the subject matter on the Kennedy assassination as was compiled by Lisa Pease, who is a historian about many unanswered and unsolved crimes - Linked below

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk.htm

And, remember what George Orwell penned in his famous, "1984"...

"Who controls the past controls the future;
...Who controls the present controls the past."

[zappaman]

5. Garrison was a fraud and his case so shoddy, it took a jury less than an hour to throw it out

...and that included them eating lunch.

"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find
a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg

By the way, the people I quoted above did not believe the Warren Commission(as you mistakenly assert), but just expressed their thoughts on what a fraud and liar Jim Garrison truly was.

[MrMickeysMom]

6. Again... same stuff... you really are a broken record

Wow.... "just expressed their thoughts"... gets it over actual evidence, does it.

What a riot.

I'm guessing most people are done dealing with your impotence on the subject.

[zappaman]

7. Just reporting the facts.

Feel free to make up your own...as always.

[MrMickeysMom]

8. You are entitled to your own opinion...

... but not your own facts...

[tetedur]

9. You must allow creative speculation in the Creative Speculation Group

Here these people don't have to refute facts because they can't. They can run in circles all day long. That is why they come to blow smoke and play with mirrors. It's a game. The game they have been playing for nearly 50 years.

[William Seger]

10. Blowing smoke, running in circles, and playing games, huh?

Let's just see who that rant best fits: Name a fact or two from the Garrison investigation that you think (a) can't be refuted, (b) actually implies anything at all about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and (c) doesn't rely on a "creative" definition of the word "fact."

[William Seger]

12. Well, glad we settled that (n/t)

[dougolat]

11. 2 good links, thanks MrMickeysMom...nt