Was Jim Garrison Interested in the Truth about Clinton?
John Manchester said in his statement to Jim Garrison that the black Cadillac, seen in Clinton, was identified as being with the International Trade Mart. Here is his statement:
Here is a very telling memo written by Jonathan Blackmer of the HSCA:
Donald Carpenter, in his book Man of a Million Fragments, writes that: (page 365-366)
"Shaw testified at trial that the International Trade Mart had never owned any vehicles. A review of balance sheets and other financial records for the Mart, from its inception through the 1960s, also shows no evidence of vehicle ownership or leasing by the Mart."
Why didn't Garrison investigate this back in 1967? Why was Manchester's testimony "sufficient"? Did he perhaps know that any investigation would reveal 'issues' with the Clinton scenario?
There is also a major discrepancy between the Manchester statement and his subsequent testimony before the HSCA. In his statement, he wasn't too sure about talking to Clay Shaw. When testifying before the HSCA he was not only certain he talked to Clay Shaw, but that Shaw had showed him his driver's license:
So, Manchester's memory improved over time! Why didn't Blackmer ask Manchester about his changing testimony? Was Blackmer even aware of Manchester's earlier testimony?