Here are two letters that Bradley wrote Jim Garrison:
Garrison did not take up Bradley on his offer to meet, although they did talk on the phone (see below).
Bradley wrote again in September 1969:
Yup, of course, Garrison had been misled. That's the standard line. How on earth could you blame the boss for indicting an innocent man for conspiracy to kill JFK?
Then they met:
I think Ferrell has this wrong. I don't think that Garrison caught the irony of Bradley's statement. The letter continues:
Here is Weisberg's reply to Ferrell regarding Bradley:
CM: The film portrayed Garrison as a crusader for truth. What are your feelings about that? And tell us about your recent visit with Garrison in New Orleans.
BRADLEY: I called Mr. Garrison in 1991 and told him how much I would like to meet with him, and he said he would like see me as much as I would like to see him. He invited me to Louisiana, and we did meet with him in April, 1991. He was a typical southern gentleman, and we discussed the President Kennedy assassination. He was convinced that the C.I.A. was in back of the assassination. I have found no such information at all, and can find nothing to verify or prove that they were involved. But there is considerable evidence that there was a cover-up by another branch of the government, and it was not the F.B.I. or the C.I.A.
CM: When did Garrison figure out you were innocent of the indictment that he had initiated?
BRADLEY: I phoned Mr. Garrison and talked to him about the charges against me shortly after the Clay Shaw trial. (Shaw was found innocent - I think it was in 1969 - after the jury deliberated for less than an hour.) During our 1991 meeting, Garrison asked if I remembered that phone call. He said that after the third sentence came out of my mouth, he knew I was not guilty as I had been charged, and wondered why I had been set up. Garrison told me that once he realized that I was not involved and that both he and I had been set up, he never mentioned my name again.
Of course, this is all a bit ridiculous. Garrison's staff did not want to indict Bradley, but he was insistent.
They were hoping that Bradley would not be extradited to Louisiana. Here is an entry from the Tom Bethell diary: (February 13, 1968)
"Alcock pointed out that charging Bradley with the same crime as Shaw, and at the same time not being able to demonstrate any connection between the two conspiracies, looked really bad even if it was legally a possibility. He said he thought it would form the basis for some justifiable motions by the defense (Shaw's defense), demanding to know more details of the Bradley "conspiracy." No doubt he would be able to skirt around any such demands. What does worry him, however, is the thought that Bradley might be extradited. "Let's keep our fingers crossed," he said."
The next day, Bethell discussed the note that Garrison sent to Alcock with the paperwork for the indictment:
"Alcock unfortunately removed from the Bradley file the yellow legal sheet with Garrison's handwritten instructions re. Bradley charge, (sent by Garrison via the mails to Alcock, from L.A.) I saw it once. It began: 'We've closed the circle on Bradley. He's involved, all the way... We have witnesses who place him in New Orleans too, so don't worry about jurisdiction...'"
Garrison dropped the charges against Bradley on June 25, 1970.
Previous Blog Posts on Edgar Eugene Bradley
Broshears talks about Edgar Eugene Bradley
Was Edgar Eugene Bradley one of the three tramps?