Here are some excerpts from a memo written by Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans, on May 31, 1967. On May 2, 1967 Kohn met with Walter Sheridan, who was in New Orleans working on the NBC documentary on Garrison, who had a question: Hufft [the FBI spelt his name as Huff] had already informed the FBI: Clearly, this fell under the jurisdiction of the FBI as it was a federal crime. But, the FBI was cowed by Garrison, and just wouldn't proceed with an investigation. Kohn then went to the FBI with the allegations: The FBI says it has two sources - but it does appear that Huff is the main source - since Kohn got his information from him. Regardless, the FBI had no interest in investigating this claim. This is yet another example of how the CIA and the FBI did not do what they could in either helping Clay Shaw, or in trying to stop the charade going on in New Orleans. MuckRock covered this back in 2017.

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?

My copy of Josiah Thompson's new book, Last Second in Dallas , finally arrived from Amazon. Glad to see he agrees with my views on Garrison (page 112): There is another mention of Garrison on page 135: "As for the assassination underground, what in the 1960s had been a selfless community of inquiry became in the 1970s a swamp of competing conspir­acy theories and warring factions. Sylvia Meagher and I remained friends, but I drifted away from the others. The collapse of the Garrison prosecution of Clay Shaw had cast a deep shadow over the whole enterprise."

I tried hard to visit every archive in the United States that had primary Garrison documents. Here is a listing of archives I visited for this book: Papers of Jim Garrison, NARA, College Park, MD. Investigative Files received from New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick, NARA, College Park, MD. Donated Papers of Edward Wegmann, Clay Shaw’s Attorney, NARA, College Park, MD. Papers of Richard Billings at Georgetown University. Papers of Richard E. Sprague at Georgetown University; and NARA, College Park, MD. Jim Garrison Papers at the New Orleans Public Library. Papers of Irvin Dymond, Clay Shaw’s trial attorney, at the New Orleans Historical Association. Papers of Clay Shaw at NARA, College Park, MD. Papers of George Lardner, Jr, at the Library of Congress. The Harold Weisberg Archive at Hood College, MD and online at http://jfk.hood.edu/ Papers of Sylvia Meagher at Hood College, MD. Papers of James Kirkwood at Boston University. Papers of Gerald Posner at Boston University. Papers of Gus Russo at Baylor University. Papers of Patricia Lambert at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. Papers of Louis Bloomfield at the Library & Archives Canada, Ottawa. Papers of Elmer Gertz at the Library of Congress. Papers of Bill Boxley at NARA, College Park, MD. Alex Dworkin Canadian Jewish Archives, Montreal. The only archive that I did not visit was the Assassination Archive and Research Center (AARC) which has been closed for some time. Once it reopens, I will visit. The files of Jim Garrison are a mess. Many people in his investigation stole documents, and many JFK researchers (Mark Lane, Mort Sahl, Edward Jay Epstein and others) had access to his files. Indeed here is one memo that is quite telling: A letter from Gary Schoener to Vince Salandria in November 1968 said this about William Turner, one of Garrison’s investigators: “He is rumored (all over the place) to literally pillage Jim’s files and often to take things with him, and in some cases may not have returned them. Someone who has access to those files like Boxley or Turner is taking things because much has disappeared. Remember the stuff I took down there that Boxley took such interest in – it disappeared at least within a week! In that case it could have been Boxley, I don’t know, but we know that Turner really goes through the files and so far, no one has explained who it is that steals the stuff.” Garrison himself stored his files in a garage after he left office, and its unclear just how much stuff he left at the DA’s office. Many of his footnotes refer to files which were “lost or stolen. Indeed, an entire filing cabinet of documents…was stolen while I was working on the first draft of this book.” (page 310 in Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins ). Harold Weisberg has a different story. He wrote a short memo for his files: “Jim’s story on the alleged theft of his files is that Bordelon [Garrison’s chauffeur, bodyguard and a policeman in his own right] moved them and instead sold them. Steve is so mad over this he won’t even talk to Garrison. Moo [Andrew Sciambra] and I can’t imagine Bordelon doing any such thing and I got the impression he agrees with me that Garrison had to have some excuse for getting rid of all that junk.” Weisberg also told another story and that is that Bordelon told him that he had gone through the files and had “eliminated what he referred to as the junk.” Weisberg did not believe that he was “informed enough to recognize all that was what he called junk.” When Harry Connick, Sr., took office in New Orleans “there were two file cabinets. Originally, there were four file cabinets of Clay Shaw files. The four files became two when we got there. From what we understand from people who were in that office at that time, the files were savaged. They were rummaged and people took out whatever they wanted to take out. That left two files with really a lot of junk in it.” As a result, Garrison files are scattered across the country. At the National Archives, you can find the remnants of the files Garrison stored in his basement, and you an also find the files found by his successor, Harry Connick, at the DA’s office. More files can be found in the files of Clay Shaw’s attorney’s, Edward Wegmann, whose files are stored at the National Archives in Maryland, and Irvin Dymond, whose files are in New Orleans. You can also find some files in the Harold Weisberg Archives at Hood College, most of which are also online, and the Richard Billings Archive at Georgetown University. The Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) in Maryland supposedly has a large collection of Garrison documents but the archive is temporarily closed. Many files are missing. In all the files I looked at, I only found one file on Charles Spiesel. I also can’t find any memos on preparation for the Clay Shaw trial – outside of the trial memorandum that Tom Bethell leaked to the defense. I suspect that these embarrassing files have been cleansed from the record – perhaps that was the junk that Bordelon removed. I also suspect we’ll find a lot of Garrison documents in the papers of Mark Lane, but I have no idea when or whether those papers will be donated to a public institution. Garrison always had a cavalier approach to the evidence,” and William Gurvich told Shaw’s attorney’s an appropriate anecdote. “In fact, one day he called the office and John Volz came in and he was taking all the seized property, Clay Shaw’s property, out to Garrison’s house, and I said, “John, where are you going?” He said, “Jim wants this at his house.” I said, “Well, what the hell? What about this thing they call chain of evidence and all, and besides, nothing has been tagged.” And this was several days after the seizure of the stuff and Is said “Don’t take that stuff.” And I called Garrison and told him I didn’t think he should have it sent out, and he said he just wanted to show it to someone. I said, “But you have no right to take it from where it is because it is under lock and key, and none of it is tagged,” He said, “Well, I want it.” I said, “I don’t think you ought to have it.” We got in a real heated argument and this was in front of John Volz and Nancy Haskell, and possibly Al Oser 0 I am not sure Oser was there or not – and so I said, “If he wants it, he can have it, he’s the boss, but I am not going to let you take it until we tag it and I started to tag it, and then this girl who works for Life finished tagging it and John Volz took it out. And you can see pictures of Shaw’s whips and hood in Garrison’s office. This lackadaisical approach was confirmed by Edward Jay Epstein when he went down to New Orleans to visit Garrison, who allowed him to go through the evidence: “Alcock said that he and the D.A.’s staff had yet to examine all this material and he suggested that Mr. Harris and I look through Shaw’s addressbooks and financial records in hopes of discovering some information that might interest Garrison. We were left alone with the evidence. Though these materials, so far as I could see, had nothing directly to do with the assassination, the odd way in which Garrison treated them did, on later thought, give me ‘a new perspective on the case.” I recalled a Judge’s order had forbidden the district attorney from discussing or disclosing any of the evidence in the case. The very fact that Garrison allowed it to be showed to me, and Mr. Harris, objects seized from Shaw’s home and designated ‘evidence,’ was a direct violation of that order. Why, I wondered, should the D.A. risk having his case thrown out of court on a technicality, by having writers and outsiders freely go through the evidence? Moreover, it seemed curious that Clay Shaw’s papers had not already been more rigorously scrutinized by Garrison or his staff, especially since Garrison had told several individuals, myself among them, that one of the main reasons for arresting Clay Shaw on March 1 was to prevent him from destroying his personal papers. Six weeks had passed, yet no list was compiled of names appearing in these documents, no analysis was made of Shaw’s finances, no attempt was made to reconstruct Shaw’s movements from appointment calendars. In fact, from what I saw, it appeared that there was no real investigation of Clay Shaw going on at all, but only a search for peripheral characters connected with the late David Ferrie. But why, if Garrison had believed that Shaw had openly conspired to kill the President, was the inquiry into his activities being treated with such apparent nonchalance.” For those of you who would like to examine Garrison's files - here is a link to NARA's files: https://catalog.archives.gov/search?q=*:*&f.parentNaId=641323&f.level=fileUnit&sort=naIdSort%20asc Over the next several months, I'll be posting many primary Garrison documents on this blog, So, please check daily.

Here is an excerpt from a letter that Fred Newcomb wrote to Richard E. Sprague on December 2, 1969: The Mary in the letter is Mary Ferrell. Hey, nothing like using D.A. credentials to "terrorize" a postmaster. Garrison was flippant with the evidence. Here is a picture of Garrison at his home with the whips found in Shaw's apartment: Here is an excerpt from Edward Jay Epstein's Counterplot , contained in The Assassination Chronicles : (page 186 - 187) "Early next morning, I went to the District Attorney's office, which is housed, next to the Parish Prison, in the Criminal District Court Building, a massive structure at Tulane Avenue and South Broad. Garrison had not yet arrived, but one of his assistants, James C. Alcock, told me that Garrison had left word that I should "start going through the evidence." I did so with Jones Harris, a New Yorker of independent means who had devoted the better half of the last three years to a private investigation of the assassination. Six cardboard cartons were brought out containing personal belongings of Clay Shaw: letters, photographs, financial records, blueprints for renovating houses in the French Quarter, the manuscripts of plays he had written years ago, calendars, checkbooks, address books. In one box were a black costume, a net mask, and some plastic slippers -- all of which Shaw had claimed were part of his 1965 Mardi Gras costume. Alcock said that the District Attorney's staff had yet to examine all this material, and he suggested that Harris and I look through Shaw's address books and financial records in hopes of discovering some information that might interest Garrison. We were left alone with the evidence. Though none of these materials, as far as I could see after examining them, had anything directly to do with the assassination, the odd way in which Garrison treated them did give me, when I thought about it later, "a new perspective on the case." I recalled that a judge's order had forbidden discussion or disclosure of any evidence in the case. The very fact that Harris and I were allowed to examine objects seized from Shaw's home and designated "evidence" seemed to be a direct violation of that order. Why, I wondered, should the District Attorney risk having his case thrown out of court on a technicality by letting outsiders go freely through the evidence? Moreover, it seemed curious that Clay Shaw's papers had not already been rigorously scrutinized by Garrison or his staff, especially since Garrison had told several people, including me, that one of the main reasons for arresting Clay Shaw on March 1 was to prevent him from destroying his personal papers. Six weeks had passed, and yet from what I saw it appeared that no real investigation of Clay Shaw was going on at all - but only a search for peripheral characters connected with David Ferrie. If Garrison believed that Shaw had openly conspired to kill the President, why was the inquiry into his activities being treated with such apparent nonchalance?" Epstein makes some very good points. One would have expected the D.A.'s office would have conducted a forensic accounting of Clay Shaw's finances. And an in-depth look at his travel. Did he go to Rome for Permindex? Was he ever in Dallas? It really does seem like Garrison was uninterested. One person who was interested was Don Carpenter, author of the magisterial Man of a Million Fragments: the true story of Clay Shaw . He went through every box of material of the International Trade Mart archives at Tulane University (over 130 boxes), and he also examined Clay Shaw's finances: And, Shaw's international travel: Why is this important? Well, consider the allegations that Clay Shaw visited Clinton, Louisiana with David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. As I have written previously , John Manchester testified that he had the Cadillac they supposedly drove in checked out and that it was registered to the Trade Mart. Because Don Carpenter had gone through the records he was able to write: "Shaw testified at trial that the International Trade Mart had never owned any vehicle. 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." Had Jim Garrison been interested in finding the truth, he would have investigated the Trade Mart's use (or non-use) of cars. As my post showed , he told the HSCA that Manchester's testimony was enough and that there was no need for any checking. Jim Garrison had no interest in running a real investigation.

Here's a picture of Jim Garrison packing up his office from the March 30, 1974 issue of the New Orleans Times-Picayune : You can see the boxes of documents in the picture. Now, the Democratic Primary for District Attorney was held on November 9, 1973, which Garrison lost to Harry Connick. This would have given Garrison just under five months to remove all his files to safety, and to even publish grand jury testimony, had he so wanted. Instead, he decided to take many of his files home, and then he complained years later that some of them were stolen: (page 310 in On The Trail of The Assassins ) This blog post has further details on the horrible state of Garrison's files. Harold Weisberg did not believe that the files were stolen - he felt they were sanitized. In fact, Garrison had even more time to get his files in shape. When Jim Garrison was questioned at the Christenberry hearings in January 1971 he said that his JFK investigation was over. That admission made the newspapers: New Orleans States-Item, January 26, 1971 H e also told the court that he would be writing a report about the assassination for the citizens of New Orleans: The report never materialized. From the time his JFK investigation was over, Garrison had over three years to put his papers in shape. He had many options on what he could have done - donate them to a university, publish them in a multi-volume set, or give them to a private organization for public access. As Tom Bethell asked in 1969, where are Garrison's 26 volumes of evidence? (Entry for February 8, 1968 ) "1969: P.S. I never saw a transcript of Marina Oswald's testimony. Of course, Grand Jury testimony is technically secret, but the fact that Garrison largely conducted his investigation in the secrecy of the Grand Jury raises some questions about the validity of his criticisms of the Warren Commission. This would be analogous to the Warren Commission having heard testimony in closed session. It seems that Marina's testimony before the Warren Commission will go down to posterity -- albeit under a great deal of criticism -- but her testimony before the "Garrison Commission" will not even see the light of day. It will be analogous to one of the Commission's classified documents, which Garrison got so much mileage out of. As far as I know, nobody has ever raised this criticism of Garrison. When is he going to publish his 26 volumes? Some conspiracy theorists blame Harry Connick for the poor condition of Jim Garrison's files. James DiEugenio writes in his book Destiny Betrayed : (page 320): "During the 1969 race, when asked about Garrison's inquiry into Kennedy's assassination, the challenger [Connick] replied that although he tended to think there was little value to Garrison's assassination probe, he would evaluate each case on its individual merits. There is no evidence that this happened. In fact, thanks to a hearing in New Orleans by the ARRB, we know what one of Connick's prime objectives was once he got into office. It was to literally set fire to the evidence Garrison left behind. Therefore, the world would never see the primary documents of the only criminal prosecution in the JFK case." DiEugenio's source is, of course, Probe Magazine (Volume 2, No. 5) Connick did ask a staffer to destroy Garrison's grand jury records which he believed would never have to made public. Fortunately, the staffer kept the files in his home for twenty years . The only evidence that Connick destroyed files is one comment from an article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune of July 11, 1995: You can read Harry Connick's testimony before the ARRB here. There are eleven boxes of Garrison investigative files that Harry Connick donated to NARA (not including the grand jury testimony). There are three boxes of Garrison investigative files donated by Harry Connick to the New Orleans Public Library. It's really unclear if anything of value was thrown out. Any new office holder has to clean up the office. Perhaps Connick felt that material left behind by Garrison wasn't important. But, even if some stuff was tossed, whose fault is that? Jim Garrison had ample time to secure his documents or even publish them. His lackadaisical attitude towards proper record-keeping and document handling is the cause of the incomplete record of his investigation. The blame rests solely with Jim Garrison.

Here is a good example of the pressure Garrison was putting on people in the gay community. You can find this document here. Informant No. 949-C is Betty Parent a.k.a. Parrot, who also provided information to Garrison. She will be turning up in an upcoming blog post. Here is a report on Bill McKenzie from Shaw's investigators. In the second page, McKenzie says that Sciambra has driven a lot of business away from his bar. and that "many of the homosexuals are lying low during this investigation." He notes that no offer was made to him to identify Shaw as Bertrand, but as we have seen above, an offer was made to him - at least for other information. Parrot supplied more information: To further illustrate some of the pressure on the gay community, or perhaps the entire French quarter, here is an excerpt from Dean Andrews' testimony in the Gordon Novel libel case against Playboy Magazine and Jim Garrison.

Here's a letter that Dr. Cyril Wecht sent to Harold Weisberg in 1992: So, in private, Wecht said that "I certainly do not subscribe to Garrison's conspiracy theories." Has he ever said this publicly? Wecht feels it is "unfortunate" that "Stone evidently felt constrained to go along with all of that in the movie." Stone wasn't 'constrained,' he made a conscious choice! Remember, the bottom line, as Wecht says, is that the film will generate interest in the JFK assassination. So, who cares if Clay Shaw is victimized for a second time?

Yes, and for $25,000 "Mr. Candy" would deliver information that would tie Clay Shaw with Jack Ruby. Here is Mark Lane's letter to Jim Garrison: I don't think Garrison met "Mr. Candy." Anybody with a modicum of intelligence would have told him to get lost. But, not Mark Lane. He actually wanted to set up a meeting. And, what a missed opportunity for a Mark Lane book about the Jim Garrison investigation! It would have been a blast. Of course Lane would have written an honest appraisal of what went on in New Orleans, no?

I was born in Montreal and so I am fascinated by the amount of times the city comes up in Garrison documents. In the 1960s it was the largest city in Canada, but was soon overtaken by Toronto. But it was a glorious time to be a Montrealer - Expo '67 was an incredible world's fair; the Montreal Expos became Canada's first major league baseball team in 1969, and, of course, the Montreal Canadiens were perennial winners of the Stanley Cup. A major part of the Garrison conspiracy story centers on Permindex/CMC - a failed attempt at building a world trade center that would make Rome a European trading hub. Clay Shaw was on the board of directors and, after his arrest, a communist-controlled newspaper, Paese Sera , ran a series of article alleging that CMC was a CIA-front organization that funneled money to extreme rightists in Italy. Paese Sera also alleged that Louis Bloomfield, a banker living in Montreal, was also a very large shareholder. So, here is my question. Why didn't Jim Garrison go to Montreal, or just pick up the telephone, to speak to Louis Bloomfield? In September 1967, Playboy Magazine published an interview with Jim Garrison. To help convince the editors that he was for real, he gave some confidential information, not for print, to interviewer Eric Norden. Here is one of his memos (I am including the whole memo, but only the first two entries are about Bloomfield and CMC): In a terrible mashing of conspiracy nonsense, Garrison mixes Bloomfield with the allegations of Richard Giesbrecht, who claimed to have seen David Ferrie at the airport in Winnipeg. The whole memo is nuts - but I've already discussed this in two other blog posts - here , and here . In November 1967, Garrison sent a letter to Paris Flammonde: Then in December 1967, a letter was sent by a professor at Sir George Williams University (by the way, that is where I did my undergraduate studies): Professor Herrmann actually gives Garrison Bloomfield's address, and informs him that "He is the donor of the Bloomfield Stadium in Israel and president of the Canadian HISTADRUTH (the principal Israeli labor union), for whose charitable and other projects he does great work." A few months later, Garrison received a letter from an editor at the Montreal Star, the afternoon newspaper. Bill Turners adds a note to Garrison: "This man might be a potential sleuth in Montreal. I've answered his letter." Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Turner's reply. But, here was another person who could help Garrison learn more about Bloomfield. On September 21, 1968, Garrison had a conference with a few of his investigators. They start to talk about Albert Osborne (who went to Mexico at the same time as Oswald, but was from Montreal): G = Jim Garrison; T = Bill Turner; Box = Bill Boxley. So, with all this interest in Montreal, why didn't Garrison pick up the phone or send an investigator up north? Oliver Stone comes up with the lamest excuse for Garrison's non-investigation of Permindex/CMC. This is a from a letter to the Wilson Quarterly who had published an article by Max Holland on Paese Sera and the possibility that the articles were a KGB operation. You can download a PDF of the article here. OK, Garrison "had neither the staff nor the resources to go to Europe and follow up its leads." Really? They sent Stephen Jaffe to Europe to run after the Farewell America book nonsense. But, ok, even if they couldn't go to Europe - why not go to Montreal? Perhaps Garrison knew the whole Paese Sera series was nonsense. Perhaps he knew there was no reason to go to Montreal. Or perhaps he did send someone to Montreal - but couldn't bear to tell everybody the news that Louis Bloomfield was nothing more than a corporate lawyer and that CMC was really just a failed attempt at a world trade center. Here's a clue from a letter Harold Weisberg sent to an editor of the National Guardian who had just published the Paese Sera nonsense.. Clearly, someone had talked to Bernard Bloomfield, Louis's brother. Surely, Weisberg would have passed this information on to his friends in New Orleans, no? Finally, it's interesting to note that Jim Garrison claimed that he never heard of Permindex/CMC until after the Clay Shaw trial. Here is an excerpt from page 87 in On The Trail of the Assassins: A few pages later (page 90), Garrison brings up the limited staff issue. I suspect Garrison knew all along that the Permindex/CMC allegations were nonsense.

Once Raymond Broshears returned to Long Beach, he wrote up his New Orleans experiences in his newsletter. On the last page, Broshears repeats his allegation that Kerry Thornley's body is in the Oswald backyard photos. But, have a look at how Harold Weisberg described Broshears in a letter to fellow researcher Hal Verb: Sounds like Broshears was having some fun in New Orleans. I'd like to know more about his arrest. And, a few months later, Broshears turned up again - this time being threatened by a CIA agent. Here he is in the Berkeley Barb: If you can believe it, the HSCA actually interviewed Broshears. We'll be posting highlights tomorrow.

Yesterday, I posted Jim Garrison's memo to the HSCA regarding Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham. The memo included two pages describing several exhibits Garrison included: Here is my transcription of these two pages. There are still a few words that I cannot make out, so if you have an idea, please let me know. Now, here are the exhibits: Exhibit 1: Beckham's Arrest Record This was his rap sheet from 1968 - there was more to come... Exhibit 2: Anonymous Letter A I've already posted and commented on this in another post Exhibit 3: Anonymous Letter "B" (see the link above for comments on this letter) Exhibit 4: Letter from Beckham. I don't have this exhibit. Exhibit 5: Circular Re: Preaching of "Dr." Beckham, "Evangelist" Exhibit 6: Circular for Beckham as "Mark Evans" Exhibit 7: Radio News Interview in Tacoma with Crisman: Crisman was not one of the three tramps. He was teaching in a high school on November 22, 1963. Exhibit 8: Statement of David Lewis David Lewis did some work for Guy Banister and he was the one who called the FBI about Beckham's phony charity work in the anti-Castro Cuban cause. Exhibit 9: States-Times 2/1/68 Story on Beckham Exhibit 10: Better Business Bureau, Lincoln Nebraska Article about Beckham Did Garrison really believe any of Beckham's degrees were real? He had called Beckham before the grand jury in 1968 and he knew Beckham only had a grade seven education. And, Beckham lied about that. He told the HSCA he only had a grade three education. All of this material makes one wonder why Garrison took Beckham and Crisman seriously. They were con men who made their own fake credentials and fake diplomas. They went into business together to steal money. Garrison saw the BBB reports and yet he still wondered which University Beckham had gone to. He should have told the HSCA to not waste their time. Instead, have a look at this: Garrison believed that Beckham knew Lee Harvey Oswald - the con man fooled the conspiracy theorist. I should add that Beckham was in jail while on trial in Alabama when the above memo was written. He was being charged with fraud but got off because the jury bought his story that he was a CIA agent. The prosecutor was Jeff Sessions. But, that's yet another story. Besides this memo, Garrison wrote another memo to the HSCA appended with questions to for them to ask Beckham. What an utter waste of time! At some point, even Garrison realized it was all ridiculous - Beckham and Crisman were not mentioned once in his book, On The Trail of The Assassins.