An interesting FBI report : Sheriff Heyd told the FBI that "Garrison is psychotic and will do anything." The result of the press interviews which Heyd permitted: And this:

.I don't have the rest of the message. Was Marguerite looking for payment? Here is the article from the May 30, 1968 issue of the New Orleans States-Item. Here is Jim Garrison's reply to Marguerite Oswald: Yup, Oswald was an "intelligent, clean-cut American boy." What is really crazy is Garrison's statement that "One of the individuals working with our investigation had noticed that the federal government was buying up all copies of the book and got curious as to why this was happening." Really? I don't think anybody cared about Nerin Gun's book. Oswald was a victim, no? Update The original photo was sold by Marguerite Oswald to Dr. John Lattimer. Previous Relevant Blog Post Garrison Investigators Talk to Marguerite Oswald Did David Ferrie Know Lee Harvey Oswald?

New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 18, 1967 Here is a letter that Garrison wrote to Marina Oswald: Marina wasn't too happy about receiving a subpoena. Here is a headline that reflected her feelings: You can read Marina's testimony here. Of course, Garrison maintained that Clay Shaw conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald. Here is the grand jury indictment of Clay Shaw:

The poor woman (Jutta is a female name). Looking for Jim Garrison for help with her doctoral thesis is like asking Robert Kennedy Jr. to help with your medical exams. And then Garrison wants to receive any information she has on McIntire. Jutta did publish her work. Jim Garrison had a fascination with odd (and old) churches. Previous Blog Posts on Edgar Eugene Bradley Edgar Eugene Bradley Writes Jim Garrison Was Edgar Eugene Bradley One of the Three Tramps? Why Jim Garrison Indicted Edgar Eugene Bradley for Conspiracy to Kill JFK, Part Two... Why Did Jim Garrison Indict Edgar Eugene Bradley for Conspiracy to Kill JFK? Edgar Eugene Bradley - Another Garrison Victim Jim Garrison Finds Another JFK Assassination Conspirator! Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells Even More in New Orleans! Broshears talks about Edgar Eugene Bradley Jim Garrison Discusses The Three Tramps Was Edgar Eugene Bradley one of the three tramps? Steve Jaffe's Crazy Memo on Edgar Eugene Bradley

The theory of Propinquity was one of Jim Garrison's main investigative techniques. Here's how staffer Tom Bethell described it: (from his essay "Was Sirhan Sirhan on the Grassy Knoll?" in his book The Electric Windmill ) "If two people lived near one another, say within two or three blocks, it's suspicious. If any closer - they are 'linked.' If, on the other hand, they live at opposite ends of the city, get a list of friends of each (from their address books). Two such friends are very likely to live in the same block, or even know each other. Presto - the link." You can read his first memo on propinquity here, and the second memo here. There were many Oswalds in the New Orleans phone book, and under the theory of propinquity, two of them, Julius and William, were of particular interest - since they both had ties to the coffee company where Lee Harvey Oswald worked. Garrison subpoenaed both William and Julius Oswald for questioning: Did they really have to be subpoenaed? Here is an article from the Times-Picayune of May 4, 1967: Here is an article from the Times-Picayune of May 5, 1967: The Washington Post wasn't amused: Montgomery Advertiser, May 20, 1967

Here is a letter that Garrison wrote to Arch Kimbrough, another JFK assassination researcher: James Dondson was the man who was with Clay Shaw during the weekend of the assassination. Was there a second Dondson? Garrison writes: "The problem is that these curious CIA types -- such as Ferrie, Bradley and Beckham -- have made themselves part of odd religions or extreme right-wing groups, and sometimes a combination of both. In most instances, however, their history in intelligence work for the federal government pre-dates their identification as right-wing individuals, so that there exists a very real liklihood [sic] of a pattern of CIA penetration of such organizations as a protective cover." Huh? David Ferrie, Edgar Eugene Bradley, and Thomas Beckham had no CIA connections. You can read Thomas Beckham's appearance before the Garrison grand jury here. Here is what Tom Bethell wrote in his diary entry for February 15, 1968 : "David Lewis came in and gave us some further information regarding the United Cuban Missionary Force Beckham attempted to found, and Beckham's self-styled (to Lewis) membership in the CIA. I wrote up memo on Lewis' remarks. After Beckham emerged from the grand jury, Alcock was mocking the idea that anyone could believe (as Garrison does) that "a bum like that" would be working for the CIA." Jim Garrison had a thing about odd (or old) churches. On the third page of his letter, Garrison writes: "We have now identified one who was flown to Arlington, Virginia three days after the assassination, and this particular individual played a very important role in helping to set Oswald up." Garrison is referring to Kerry Thornley who left New Orleans after the assassination. He took a job as a doorman in an apartment building. Kerry Thornley testified before the grand jury in February 1968. He had a standing offer from a friend to stay in Virginia and he felt the time was right. Garrison tries to make this sound suspicious in his book On the Trail of the Assassins: "I later sent Andrew Sciambra to the Washington area, where he traced Thornley's path. Thornley had wound up at Arlington, a Washington suburb, and had moved into Shirlington House, a first-class apartment building where he worked as a doorman. Thornley stayed at Shirlington House for six months, until he testified before the Warren Commission. Oddly enough, his salary was less than the rent of his Shirlington House apartment." Of course, the great investigator Jim Garrison could not figure out that Thornley's room and board were part of his doorman gig. All he had to do was to ask Thornley.

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: Bradley and Garrison eventually did meet. Here is an excerpt of a letter sent by Mary Ferrell to Harold Weisberg on September 10, 1991 : 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: In 1993, Bradley was interviewed and he talked about his meeting with Garrison : 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 Was Edgar Eugene Bradley One of the Three Tramps? Why Jim Garrison Indicted Edgar Eugene Bradley for Conspiracy to Kill JFK, Part Two... Why Did Jim Garrison Indict Edgar Eugene Bradley for Conspiracy to Kill JFK? Edgar Eugene Bradley - Another Garrison Victim Jim Garrison Finds Another JFK Assassination Conspirator! Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells Even More in New Orleans! Broshears talks about Edgar Eugene Bradley Jim Garrison Discusses The Three Tramps Was Edgar Eugene Bradley one of the three tramps?

Elmer Renfroe was a gay man who lived in the French Quarter in New Orleans and once, while drunk, told stories to a confidential informant of Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission: The informant spoke again to Renfroe a few days later: Investigators for Clay Shaw spoke to Renfroe in March, 1967: Renfroe was interviewed again in April: It appears that Richard Townley, a local reporter, might have been the confidential informant. What is interesting is the fact that Renfroe was scared of the District Attorney's office, and that he was a victim of a frame-up in 1965. The first Aaron Kohn memo quotes Renfro as saying "that silly bastard [Garrison] is liable to want everybody in jail." The D.A.'s office was picking up anybody who knew Russo, Ferrie or Shaw. In September 1967, Garrison's office received a letter about a prisoner in Atlanta who possibly knew something about Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald. They got in touch with Edward Girnus and he sent them this letter: Garrison sent James Alcock to Atlanta in December 1967 to interview Girnus. You can read his memo here. Here is a paragraph from that memo: That paragraph led them to Elmer Renfroe: Some comments on this memo: Renfroe "is a classic example of a homosexual, he expressed some contempt at being questioned since he had been nabbed by the Vice Squad for an attempted crime against nature. This eventually cost him about $1500.00" I would imagine that there were a number of people who were gay, short, fat and bald. Did Garrison bring them all in for questioning? The "only person he had ever heard of in the gay world of the quarter named CLAY, was CLAY SHAW." The investigator, Gary Sanders, thought that "the origin of SHAW's whips (Mexico?) might be interesting, since it might lead to some of SHAW's connections outside the U.S." Garrison put a lot of pressure on the gay community. Check out Garrison lead #103, from his leads memo of November 1967. At one point, Jim Garrison sent William Gurvich to San Francisco to investigate. Here is an excerpt from Gruvich's deposition in the Novel libel case against Garrison and Playboy Magazine: Previous Relevant Blog Posts Homosexual Ring That Killed Kennedy Revealed by Confidential Reporter I s Oliver Stone's film, JFK, Homophobic? The Quick Magazine Series Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part One) Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Two) Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Three) Garrison Disavows the QUICK article Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Ruby and Oswald Were Homosexuals Jim Garrison Feigns Indignation at the Mention of Clay Shaw's Homosexuality Did Lawrence Schiller Write the QUICK article? Did Nerin Gun Write the QUICK article? Final Thoughts on the QUICK Article

The Los Angeles Times of March 12, 1989 gave Jim Garrison some excellent coverage of his book, On The Trail of the Assassins . Here is what he had to say about the assassination: Ridiculous then, and ridiculous now. In the 1970s, Garrison told journalist Ron Rosenbaum that Larry Crafard, who worked for Jack Ruby for a short time, was a grassy knoll assassin. Of course, Jim Garrison also believed that Fred Crisman was one of the grassy knoll assassins.

Jim Garrison charged that the lawyers of various witnesses, including Gordon Novel, were paid by the CIA . In the late 1970s, Gordon Novel was charged with firebombing a building in New Orleans and one of his lawyers was Jim Garrison. This prompted a very funny comment from a prosecutor. Hat Tip: Don Carpenter's incredible biography of Claw Shaw: Man of a Million Fragments . New Orleans Times-Picayune, October 15, 1976 Previous Relevant Blog Posts Did the CIA Pay the Lawyers of Garrison's Witnesses? Elmer Gertz was Gordon Novel's lawyer in his libel lawsuit against Garrison and Playboy Magazine. Have a look at the letters that Gertz sent to Novel demanding payment. Did the CIA Pay the Lawyers of Garrison's Targets? (Part Two) One of Gordon Novel's lawyers was ready to countersue for his fees. Why didn't the CIA just pay his bill? Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part Two. Was there a CIA cleared attorneys panel in various cities?

There was a brief discussion of Richard Case Nagell at the New Orleans conference held in September 1968 with Garrison, a few of his investigators, and some of the buffs : Fensterwald = Bernard Fensterwald, founder of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. Bethell = Tom Bethell, a Garrison staffer. Turner = William Turner, a writer for Ramparts magazine and a part-time investigator for Jim Garrison. Boxley = Bill Boxley, a Garrison investigator. Fensterwald : Jim, have you reached any conclusions on Nagell? Garrison : I spent 3 hours with him in Central Park -- talking to him at some length and about 6 hours in a hotel lobby the next day and I think he is absolutely genuine. Fensterwald : Who is he and what is he? Garrison : He's so elliptical. I think he's a KGB man -- well I think he was initially a U.S. intelligence officer in the Army who at some point in his career probably in Asia was -- married the Soviet apparatus. I think for idealistic reasons from his point of view. And in the course of time became a CIA operator and he was ... his account is that he was sent by the Central Intelligence Agency -- he doesn't specify the mission -- but on business to see what was happening with the group around Oswald. Oswald and Sergio Arcacha and others he won't go into. One of the few things he was specific about ... Bethell : Did he mention Sergio Arcacha? Garrison : He did. Fensterwald : Tied in with Oswald? Garrison : Yes. But again in a vague way. Very elliptical; he was concerned about his life. Fensterwald : He was sent to Mexico for this? Garrison : He wouldn't say whether it happened in Mexico or Texas. He was concerned about his life when I talked to him and concerned about being able to get out of the country. It was obvious that he had made contact with the Russians and they were going to try to get him out of the country. Turner : Who were the 3 guys who met him at the airport when he arrived? Garrison : Federal agents. Federal agents told him not to talk to anybody. Turner : CIA or FBI or what? Garrison : He wouldn't specify. The federal government. Turner : Where? In New York? Garrison : Yeah. Fensterwald : But you say he was a double agent beginning sometime in the '50s? Garrison : Yea. In the late '50's. Fensterwald : Was sent to Mexico? Garrison : He wouldn't say Mexico or Texas. Fensterwald : But was sent to check on Oswald, Arcacha and others? Garrison : Well, it wasn't to check on Oswald because Oswald is also an employee of the CIA. But his assignment was to see what this structure was doing and Oswald was part of the structure. The way he described it in one of his few specific moments was that initially the assassination plan was scheduled for Washington, from the way they talked. And Oswald apparently had some decoy assignment but didn't seem concerned at all about the danger to himself. Nagell said he immediately felt that Oswald had no chance of surviving such a situation and in effect said in so many words: "I think somebody's setting you up. Why aren't you concerned?" Oswald seemed to feel that he was covered for reasons he did not explain. When I asked him if it was consistent with his reaction if Oswald felt that he was working for the Federal government and had been assigned to infiltrate such an operation and he said that would be one way of explaining his attitude because he seemed to feel that he was completely protected. In other words, Oswald was the only one he described as completely CIA and had no worries at all about himself. Fensterwald : Why did Nagell do what he did in Texas and El Paso? Garrison : He explains that this way: He wrote the -- he got the impression as time went on that there was no interest in his contacts in the Federal government in stopping the affair and he wrote the head of the FBI a special delivery letter giving him some details about the plan to assassinate the President that he had come across. When he didn't get any reply, and no interest was shown, and the thing seemed to be continuing, he realized that (this is not his words but this is the ultimate impression) that the government itself was back of it. Turner : You mean he told his own superiors in the CIA? Garrison : He didn't indicate that. I should have asked him. Fensterwald : Did you get the impression he was with the KGB at the time also? Garrison : Yes. Fensterwald : And did he mention something called the XYZ Company? Garrison : That sounds familiar to me from some earlier questioning when he was ... Turner : Was it Bravo Club? Garrison : We just have that from earlier questioning. What I did -- I spent most of my time trying to get him to be more specific about the CIA and Oswald and he was -- I finally got him to be specific about the fact that Oswald was an employee of the CIA -- he said "As a matter of fact, I knew Oswald not only in Mexico and Texas but at Atsugi too." Where training ... Turner : Nagell did? Garrison : Yeah. Fensterwald : That could easily have been. Garrison : He said I was at Atsugi at the same time so there's no question about him being a Central Intelligence Agent. But what he did without using these exact words -- the picture that he portrayed again and again was that he found himself in the position where nobody above him and no part of the governmental structure he had contact with was interested in stopping what was happening. It's like the cabinet of Dr. Caligari -- where you're running from this guy and you finally get to the house -- and you open it and there's the guy you're running from. That was Nagell's situation and he said he didn't expect to get the time he got. He thought he would be -- he then fired the gun in the bank -- that this would insure that he would be in a Federal institution or some sort when it happened because it was now inevitable but just assumed it would be 6 months or something like that. Of course, the machinery got hold of him and they made it ten years. Turner : The judge was Thornberry. Fensterwald : Thornberry. Did he mention ... Turner : Really? Fensterwald : Yeah. Did he mention Greenstein? In Wilmington, Delaware? Garrison : Bud, Greenstein is a contact of Bill's but he didn't mention him. Fensterwald : He didn't mention him? Garrison : No. Fensterwald : Did he mention seeing Oswald in Mexico City in '62 or '63? Garrison : Yes, I think he mentioned seeing Oswald in Mexico City and he said something about a woman being with him. [Note that when Oswald was in Mexico City, Nagell was in jail in El Paso] Fensterwald : That figures. Garrison : But you could not get him to be more specific than that. Then he'd go ice-skating away. The conversation meanders and then, a few minutes later, they return to Nagell: Turner : How safe is Nagell now in Switzerland? Fensterwald : Who says he's in Switzerland? Garrison : I think he is in Russia. Fensterwald : I think he's behind the curtain. Garrison : I think he's behind the curtain which is certainly safer than here. Fensterwald : I think there's nothing more we are going to find out from or about him. Garrison : I'm afraid we've burned ourselves with him with Martin [Assistant D. A. William Martin who visited Nagell in prison] Turner : Now that's incredible. Bill, in other words, Nagell told you about William Martin. How did Martin come into it with Nagell? Fensterwald : He went to visit him in prison and at one juncture Nagell saw him being buddy-buddy with the warden or the doctor or somebody and he clammed up just like that. But Greenstein is still around and he was in Mexico. Boxley : Either that or Nagell is just filling everybody full of Smirech. [?] . Garrison : No. No. Nagell is not in his personality. He has no tendency to exaggerate. His words are very carefully considered. He cased something about Martin or overheard him saying the wrong thing or Martin asked the wrong question. Fensterwald : He saw him talking to the wrong people. Garrison : That was it but Martin came back and gave us the explanation saying all he was doing was inquiring about his health or something. Later on, Garrison and others would conclude that William Martin was a CIA operative (he actually once had been a CIA domestic contact) and that that was why Nagell stopped cooperating. As you can see, Nagell was upset that Martin was talking to the doctor at the prison. I will cover this more fully in a future blog post. I had no idea who they were referring to above when they mentioned XYZ Company and the Bravo Club. Then I found this excerpt from letters that Nagell had sent from prison which explains all: Sometimes Nagell mixed up XYZ and Bravo. Nagell believed that Bravo was a CIA front (possibly Alpha 66, an anti-Castro paramilitary organization formed by Cuban exiles in the early 1960s). and XYZ was a reference, I believe, to the KGB. Do conspiracy theorists really believe this stuff? Here is what Nagell told to psychiatrist George Babineau of the U.S,. Army hospital in Berlin in October 1968: [Nagell was arrested in East Germany in June 1968 and was held for four months] Kind of fitting, no? Two paranoid conspiracy theorists talking to one another. Richard Case Nagell Blog Posts A Wrap-Up of the Richard Case Nagell Story The Importance of Richard Case Nagell to Some Conspiracy Theorists Was Richard Case Nagell the "Most Important Witness There Is"? Jim Garrison and a few conspiracy theorists think Nagell is a very important witness. But is he really? Genesis of the Richard Case Nagell story Did David Kroman Crack the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? David Kroman met Richard Case Nagell at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Stephen Jaffe, a Garrison volunteer, wrote a memo, relating Nagell's story through the eyes and ears of David Kroman. Richard Case Nagell Shoots Up the State National Bank in El Paso... Nagell was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years, but his conviction was overturned because of startling new evidence. Richard Case Nagell and the JFK Assassination Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination? There is no credible evidence that Nagell had any foreknowledge of either Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. Did Richard Case Nagell Meet Lee Harvey Oswald? Nagell claims he met Oswald in Japan, Texas, Mexico City, and New Orleans. There is no credible evidence that he ever met Oswald. Did Richard Case Nagell Warn Fidel Castro about the Assassination? Nagell went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and even played ping-pong with the man. Insane Conspiracy Theories about Richard Case Nagell Who was Leon Oswald? Richard Case Nagell said that he knew the two Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. Some conspiracy theorists believe this madness. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Combine one part crazy and one part ridiculous and what do you come up with? An early attempt at a unified conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. Two Smoking Guns of the Richard Case Nagell Story Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story? Nagell sent conspiracy theorist Dick Russell one page of a military intelligence file which seemed to indicate that he was monitoring Oswald and his wife on behalf of the CIA. But does the whole document really show that? Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story Did Richard Case Nagell had an Oswald Military ID in his possession when he was arrested in September 1963? Richard Case Nagell and Jim Garrison Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial? Richard Case Nagell believes that he wasn't called to testify at Clay Shaw's trial because his testimony would have blown up Jim Garrison's case. Jim Garrison Discusses Richard Case Nagell At a conference in September 1968, Garrison and his investigators discuss his face-to-face meeting with Nagell in New York City. Richard Case Nagell Sends Jim Garrison on a Wild-Goose Chase William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, tried to retrieve a tape that Nagell said contained the voices of three JFK assassination conspirators. Richard Popkin Writes Garrison About Richard Case Nagell Richard Popkin, author of "The Second Oswald," writes Jim Garrison about Richard Case Nagell. Garrison staffer Tom Bethell thought the Nagell lead was useless. Richard Case Nagell's Mental Health Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension Nagell won a full disability pension in 1982 and the 60+ page court case provides complete details on his mental problems. Why Did Richard Case Nagell Shoot Up the First National Bank of El Paso? Richard Case Nagell told a psychiatrist why he shot up the bank in El Paso in 1963. Richard Case Nagell's Family Speaks about his Mental Health The FBI spoke to Nagell's ex-wife, his mother, his sister, and one of his friends. They all agreed that Nagell had significant mental health problems. Richard Case Nagell Visits Europe in 1969... Nagell visited the American consulates in Zurich and Barcelona in 1969. He was a deeply disturbed man. Richard Case Nagell's Evidence Richard Case Nagell's Nonexistent Evidence None of the so-called evidence that Nagell promised would materialize on his death has shown up. Did this evidence ever exist?

Gary Cornwell was the Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In 1998, he published his book, Real Answers , about his work on the HSCA. Here is an excerpt from his chapter on Oliver Stone: "If it can be said that the Warren Commission acted irresponsibly in telling us that there was no conspiracy without having the any real factual basis for that assertion, wasn't it just as irresponsible for the New Orleans District Attorney to prosecute charges of conspiracy without any substantial evidence of criminal culpability? And wasn't it irresponsible for Oliver Stone to try to convince us that our government leaders engaged in treason and murder by fabricating events and presenting them in a way to give them false credibility? My point, however, is not simply to criticize. Since this, hopefully, a book about history, the real question is, can we learn something from the movie about what causes such irresponsibility -- maybe, even something about what has generally causes such irresponsibility to plague the search for real answers in the Kennedy case for the past 35 years? Actually, one of the best reasons to watch the movie is for the great insight it provides into this issue. What the movie reveals is the corrupting influence of the loss of objectivity. As portrayed in the movie, District Attorney Jim Garrison vividly illustrates the intensity of feeling that so often consumes people who become involved in studying the Kennedy case, and the distortions in perception and aberrant behavior that such intensity seems to produce. In the movie, Garrison quite simply became obsessed with the case. His wife told him that he loved the case more than his family, but it went far beyond the case merely taking Garrison away from his family. His obsession caused him to lose sight of his responsibilities as a lawyer, and in his quest for real answers, he lost sight of the value of truth. His obsession started, as is often the case, from realizing the undeniable fact that our government clearly botched the original investigation in 1963-64. From that realization, grew a mind-boggling array of questions, issues, doubts and, eventually paranoia and loss of perspective -- all of which was (perhaps) predictable, if not inevitable, and (unfortunately) not unique, for what happened to Garrison is only distinguishable in degree of magnitude from what has so frequently happened to those who study the case. How could our government do such a bad job, and what in the world could have prompted them? In the end, Garrison went off the deep end. Garrison became obsessed with the issues, and after his principal suspect, David Ferrie, mysteriously died in the middle of the investigation, the lack of evidence was an insufficient deterrent to keep Garrison from proceeding to trial. As so often has happened to others, Garrison succumbed to the temptation to fill the void in real answers with his own pet theory. (He lost sight of the need for evidence to play the central role when he wrote the script for his play.) [referring to Garrison] In the end, at a meeting in his home attended by Garrison's wife and staff members, Garrison tacitly admits that he has insufficient evidence to convict Clay Shaw of any wrongdoing, but rationalizes his conduct in prosecuting Shaw as the "first step" to bring the truth to the attention of the American public "even if it takes another twenty-five or thirty years." Then, in an eloquent closing argument to the jury, Garrison espouses grand notions of justice, artfully uses unanswered issues to paint the deeper specter of conspiracy, and decries the public's inability to learn the full truth. But the closing argument reveals as much by what it did not include -- any description of evidence showing that Shaw was involved in the assassination -- as by what it did include. In his plea for the jury to focus on the higher ideals of truth and justice, Garrison simply lost site [sic] of the fact that his own prosecution lacked any justice, for it was devoid of any real evidence that the defendant Shaw was involved in the assassination of the president. The movie excuses the fact that Shaw was prosecuted without evidence, by portraying Garrison as a brave crusader who fought against insurmountable obstacles created by the federal government, and who is worthy of our esteem as "the only man who ever brought to trial any charges in the Kennedy case." In the United States, because of our faith in the jury system as a means of "resolving" issues, we are often not satisfied until we receive a "concrete" or "definitive" answer in the form of a jury verdict. We also tend to admire those who provide us with that satisfaction -- the lawyers, the judges, and the juries who render those answers -- whether they are truly worthy of our admiration, or not. But Garrison proved nothing by bringing to trial a case that lacked substantial proof of actual complicity on the part of the charged defendant, and there is a difference between fighting to expose wrongdoing and bringing unfounded criminal charges. In a tag line at the end of the movie, Stone reports that "In 1979, Richard Helms, Director of Covert Operations in 1963, admitted under oath that Clay Shaw had worked for the CIA." The obvious suggestion was that this admission proved that Garrison was on the right track, if not totally justified in charging Clay Shaw with killing the president, but in reality it was simply more innuendo, completely devoid of the kind of substance that would justify any conclusion about guilt or innocence. It was simply more of what Garrison's closing argument, as well as the movie itself, consisted of. Just like Garrison's argument to the jury, what this tag line tells us about the movie comes more from what it did not say, than what it did. If Stone knew what Helms testified to, why didn't he tell us? Why didn't he tell us what Helms said about when Shaw worked for the CIA? Did Helms testify that it was during the summer of 1963 when Oswald was in New Orleans, or years earlier? Did Shaw work as a CIA employee, or was he only an outside contact, someone whom the CIA periodically contacted and secured information from? For what division of the CIA did he work, and on what projects? Did Stone omit the details of Helms' testimony because those details did not support his premise (or Garrison's prosecution theory) that Clay Shaw was working for the CIA in the summer of 1963 , and that whatever he did for the CIA had something to do with his contacts with Oswald, and that the "something" in turn was connected to the assassination that occurred a few months later? Maybe Stone decided that these details are not important. But if these details are not important, then he is obviously asking us to believe that the mere fact that Shaw worked for the CIA -- at any point in his life -- makes him presumptively guilty in the assassination of President Kennedy (and if that is his logic, then perhaps he also believes that everyone who has ever worked for the CIA is presumptively guilty of killing the president). Or maybe Stone decided that even though the details of Helms' testimony were not helpful to his theory about CIA involvement in the assassination, Helms was lying about the details -- you know, that Helms had given a "sanitized, half-truth" in his sworn testimony -- so it was O.K. for Stone to just give us the "good" parts of Helms' testimony!" And what did Helms testify to? Here is his exact testimony from 1979: I spoke to Gary Cornwell in June 2020. He said there was "never a shred of evidence to support Garrison's case against Shaw." He offered to help Oliver Stone, when he heard he was making a movie, for free. Stone told him they didn't need his help because they already knew the story. He felt that Stone's movie was "great" but "outrageous, the 'deep throat' guy was a lie."