Jim Garrison had a very important investigative technique to get at the truth - his unique theory of propinquity. What a great word! But, not so great a concept. Here's how staffer Tom Bethell described it: "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." Garrison wrote two memos titled, "Time and Propinquity; Factors in Phase 1." And his concept of propinquity went beyond geography - any sort of relationship - numerical, even sexual - was enough to set off alarm bells. Garrison told Bethell that "sooner or later, because people are lazy, you catch them out on propinquity." I don't think anybody has ever published these memos. They are not among Garrison's files, Only one archive I went to had the first memo (although a JFK researcher also sent me a copy).. Today, I am publishing the first memo; tomorrow, I will publish the second. And so you can see that Lee Harvey Oswald was linked to Layton Martens (number three in the memo) because two of Martens' uncles lived one block away from Oswald. Garrison used to have various phone directories in which he would check out where people lived, where organizations were located, etc...looking for some sort of linkage. He said he could solve the assassination "with an Esso roadmap and two or three city directories." The roadmap was important - Garrison would check the routes between various cities to see how close suspects came to Dallas or New Orleans. Another example of propinquity is from the Richard Billings diary, "More propinquity...Garrison interested in Nick J. Matrana, who lived next door to Oswald on Magazine St. (still lives there) and ran a restaurant near the Reily Coffee Co. and the Newman Bldg...he is sending Ivon and Gurvich to talk to Matrana." Bethell wrote in his diary that "nobody in the office takes 'the propinquity factor' seriously except for Garrison himself." Tomorrow - the second propinquity memo . And, the rest of the week, I'll be posting other memos where propinquity played a big role

Here is an earlier Meagher article in which she exhibits her disgust at Warren Commission critics who ran down to New Orleans to support Jim Garrison. She refused to go. "I have not made the pilgrimage to New Orleans nor do I intend to make the journey. Testimonials notwithstanding, Mr. Garrison strikes me not as a hero but a master of improvisation." Of course, initially Meagher welcomed his investigation. She even wrote him a letter of support and offered her services. "My view of Garrison was drastically altered when he began to unveil his evidence and his witnesses." And this is where her unpublished articles gets interesting. She evaluates Russo's testimony from the preliminary hearing. "I find it hard to believe that three would-be assassins discussed the logistics of an assassination in the presence of a casual acquaintance and non-participant in their plot." Meagher was also not impressed with the testimony of Vernon Bundy, the criminal drug addict who supposedly saw Shaw and Oswald on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain. "I was alarmed that Garrison offered as serious evidence against Shaw the testimony of Vernon Bundy, on top of the highly dubious allegations by Russo." The rest of her article concerns the Warren Commission critics and their hypocritical reaction to Garrison. Here is her unpublished article, "Garrison and the Warren Report Critics: Strangeloves and Surprising Coalitions (August 8, 1967).

In March 1969, Sylvia Meagher wrote an article, about the Clay Shaw trial which, to my knowledge, was never published. It was titled, "Not With a Roar But a Whimper: The Shaw Trial, the Garrison Wreck." She said that the "prosecution case had been humiliatingly rejected." She did not believe the Clinton witnesses, found that Vernon Bundy had no credibility, and that Perry Russo delivered the "coup de grace" to Garrison "by recanting those parts of his earlier testimony which were crucial for the incrimination of Shaw as a conspirator." Further, "the not-guilty verdict was a humiliating anticlimax to almost 25 months of Garrison's posturings and escalating charges, against Shaw and others who suffered untold injury as a result of his loud-mouthings, thought he had at no time any semblence of a genuine case." So, here is her memo, in full. There is more about Sylvia Meagher in my book, On The Trail of Delusion , and my book includes a letter she wrote him early in the case. A devastating letter, I might add.

Sylvia Meagher was one of the most important critics of the Warren Report. In 1967, she wrote "Accessories After the Fact," probably the best critiques published. When I first got into the JFK assassination in 1975, her book was out of print. I went to every used book store I could get to, but no luck. But, in 1976, her book was reissued - and I remember when I went into W.H. Smith Books in Montreal and I was stunned to see it on the shelf. I bought it immediately and I devoured the book. Over the years, I have realized that the book doesn't quite hold up. Her chapter on the medical evidence was superseded by the analysis of the autopsy X-Rays and photographs. She included a section in her book on mysterious deaths which was embarrassing. And, her imagination was lacking. She could only see evidence of conspiracy - she never could quite come up with non-conspiratorial explanations for issues or problems. When I started this project in the spring of 2019, I decided my first stop was to visit Hood College and go through the Meagher Archive. I got there in June and I spent a day in the 'Weisberg Room' where both the Meagher and Weisberg Archives are housed. The Raymond Marcus and Hal Verb files are also there. I was able to photograph a large part of her Archive - I was particularly interested in her files on Jim Garrison. Here is what I found: - Meagher was initially supportive of Garrison and wrote him a letter offering her help. - That soon turned sour when she realized that his investigation was using shoddy methods. - A large file of correspondence between Meagher and Kerry Thornley. - Two unpublished memos on Jim Garrison and his so-called investigation. - Many other letters and memos to other researchers about Jim Garrison. And, of course, Meagher was very supportive of Clay Shaw. Here is her letter to Clay Shaw, followed by his excellent four-page reply. I never realized that Clay Shaw was that good a writer. In the next few days, I will be posting excerpts from her two unpublished memos on Jim Garrison, and some excerpts of her correspondence. Stay tuned. I have some really interesting material. And, of course, the best Sylvia Meagher story about Jim Garrison is in my book, and I have put in my book a letter she wrote him when she thought he had made a major error.

In Chapter 2 of my book, A Beautiful Mind?, I discuss the several "recurring themes that colored Garrison's investigation: his mental illness, his bizarre investigative 'techniques,' his attraction to conspiracy theories, his irrational leftist politics, and his endless paranoia. I quoted from Garrison's psychiatric report from 1951. I did not include the actual report in my book because I didn't think it would reproduce properly. And so, here is that report. Garrison's records leaked to the press in 1968 and caused a stir. Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission asked for an opinion of Dr. Alton Ochsner, and here is his reply. Hugh Aynesworth decided to poke Garrison and sent this telegram. Have a look at the notations, which are in Garrison's handwriting.

Here is yet another recording of an HSCA interview with Jim Garrison. This took place in either in late July or early August of 1977. In this session, Garrison talked mostly about Guy Banister. Here is a Word document with the transcript. Here is a PDF file with the transcript. Discussion Garrison discusses the memos written about Betty Parrott (see below for documents). She was an informant in the French Quarter who was very close to Bill Dalzell, who started an anti-Castro organization (Friends of Democratic Cuba) in New Orleans. Parrott was also an FBI informant, and she was close to FBI agent Regis Kennedy. Garrison tells the HSCA that Dalzell "was working as a CIA contract employee for some time and went pretty far up the ladder for a while and slid back down and might be amenable now to answering questions." (3:56) Dalzell was not CIA. Here is a CIA memo that clarifies their relationship with Bill Dalzell: Here is a CIA memo from the New Orleans Chief, Lloyd Ray, about Dalzell. Garrison discusses Grady Durham, a lawyer in New Orleans who apparently absconded with some money. (4:51) See below for an FBI document on Grady Durham and Jack Martin. Dalzell's former landlady was Betty Parrott. He also testified before the Garrison grand jury on November 2, 1967. Garrison then discusses this memo with the HSCA investigators: Garrison tells the HSCA investigators that "She said that Regis Kennedy confirmed to her the fact that Clay Shaw is a former CIA agent, who did some work for the CIA in Italy over a five-year span." (8:14) I have already posted on this allegation. It seems likely that Betty Parrott heard the report about Clay Shaw living in Rome from people in Garrison's office, and she then asked Regis Kennedy about the article. He probably just told her that he had also seen the report. The so-called confirmation is meaningless, because Shaw had not been in Italy, and there is no evidence that he was a "C.I.A. agent." Shaw was only a domestic contact of the CIA, and did no operational work for the CIA. Garrison tells the HSCA that "We have substantial material available on that ... But right now, that's an area that you all don't care that much about. You've got other priorities. If you're successful and you survive next year, that's the kind of thing you can be digging into." He was referring to the battle to get the HSCA reconstituted in the next session of Congress. I also think he wanted to defer because he actually had nothing. (11:16) And then Garrison reveals just how little he knew about Clay Shaw: (12:12) " ... What that does indicate though is about Clay Shaw, that sojourn in Italy, where he was, as we learned from Italian newspapers, which published the details before the assassination, before he became famous in '62, indicate that Clay Shaw probably employed on a very high level, because he was on the board of directors of the Centro Mondiale Commerciale, which means the World Trade Center." This is completely not true. The Paese Sera series of articles were published after Shaw was indicted in March of 1967. It is true that many newspaper articles mentioned Clay Shaw being on the Board of Directors of Permindex in the late 1950s. Garrison continues to mislead the HSCA on the nature of Permindex: "But as the Italian newspapers discovered and the Italian government discovered, it was a device for funneling large sums of money to the Italian fascist parties, so that they could put down, be successful in their political fights for government positions against more radical groups. In other words, that was an extension of the foreign policy, you might say of the CIA, but it indicates that Shaw is at a rather high level if he's on a board of directors of an operation like that. So that explains why he is so discreet when a time comes like when you read Bundy's testimony to file and other things, that you will see that Shaw is particularly discreet in his actions." (12:50) The Italian government found no such thing. Paese Sera, which was communist controlled, was the only newspaper to allege that Permindex was connected to extreme rightists. It wasn't true at all, and the Centro Mondiale Commerciale closed in 1962 because they couldn't find enough tenants. Garrison discusses Delphine Roberts, and Mary Brengel. (31:05) Here are some relevant links: Did Delphine Roberts see Oswald in Banister's Office? You can read her statement to Garrison's office. She did not mention seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's office. Did Delphine Roberts See Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's Office? (Part Two) Mary Brengel also did not see Oswald in Banister's office. Why did Guy Banister Pistol-Whip Jack Martin? The scene in the film JFK about the pistol-whipping of Jack Martin is not accurate. Did David Ferrie Have a Picture of Clay Shaw in Drag? Delphine Roberts told the HSCA that David Ferrie had a picture of Clay Shaw in drag. There is no such picture. Notice that in Garrison's discussion about Guy Banister, the only witness he mentions that places Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's office is Jack Martin. Garrison says that "He's very truthful with us. He would exaggerate to some extent, and he'd either have a hangover or be half-loaded." (36:23) And then he tells the HSCA investigators that Jack Martin had put Oswald in Banister's office years ago: "Not to me. In other words, I use someone else as far as evidence is concerned, because Jack's reputation is so bad, because of his drinking. And it's, the minute... It's like the boy who cried wolf. In other words, when the time came and the wolf really came and he cried a wolf, nobody believed him. If you produce Jack Ruby. I mean, if you produce Jack Martin to say what he saw, then right away, the press itself is going to say, well, that just proves the whole thing is bullshit. But I used that as a working instrument in order to ultimately find somebody else who did. And I found David Lewis. We found out when David Lewis..." (38:03) So, Garrison's other witness is David Lewis, who is not even as credible as Jack Martin, which is saying a lot. You can read more about why Lewis has no credibility whatsoever here: Merriman Smith on Jim Garrison, and the Saga of David Lewis (Part One) Primary documents on David Lewis, who is not even mentioned in Garrison's book, On the Trail of the Assassins. Martin & Lewis Talk to the Press Journalist Haynes Johnson spoke to both Lewis and Martin and reported on their lack of credibility. Towards the end of the session, the investigators from the HSCA (and unfortunately, I cannot tell who this was) comment on the people working for Banister: "This guy [David Lewis}, he's 23. What we're trying to do is develop the young runners. Now that we're out of this stuff, the young runners and people between 19 and 25 and six are all through this case. Here, we have David Lewis. We have a David Lewis who is employed by a Banister as a runner. We have a Beckham. We have an Oswald, we have a Thornley. They're all young in here. What does David Lewis say?" (44:57) It seems like the HSCA investigators have drunk the Kool-Aid. Thomas Beckham was a conman who impersonated a priest in the early 1960s in New Orleans. David Lewis, at most, bought coffee for Guy Banister. Note that Lewis never saw Oswald in Banister's office. He claimed he saw Oswald talking to Banister in Mancuso's restaurant, although he couldn't get the year right. The HSCA investigators show that they are not just drinking the Kool-Aid, they are enjoying it: "Lee Harvey Oswald. How many times did he see Lee that summer? About four times, never in Banister's office, but they weren't in that same area. But here he is seen... He's ID'ing Oswald with Arcacha." (45:31) Lewis initially said he saw Oswald with Arcacha in 1961, and then corrected it later. He also said he had seen Carlos Quiroga with Oswald at Mancuso's in 1962, when Oswald was not living in New Orleans. Garrison also repeats his silliness about Oswald not being a man of the left: "There's nothing of any substance at all to indicate that Oswald is pro-Castro. I mean, it is as thin as onion skin. It is like when you look closely at... It's like Kerry Thornley’s testimony that he was a communist. At first you think, well, maybe he's exaggerated, but when you compare Thornley’s testimony with the testimony of marines who were close to Oswald, you find it's a total lie." (45:58) Garrison missed a few Marines. Additional Documents relating to this Blog Post Betty Parrott Here is an FBI document about Grady Durham: Here is an FBI document on Grady Durham, courtesy of the Malcolm Blunt Archive : What I find interesting is the comment at the end about Jack Martin and Grady Durham: "The reliability of the information reflected above is highly questionable in view of the fact that both are highly erratic individuals and both are of the con men type." This is from 1962, before Garrison began his JFK investigation. Here is the Banister section from the HSCA memo (written by Jonathan Blackmer), dated September 1, 1977, on the Garrison interviews: Clearly the information in the memo is from the Garrison interview and not from the HSCA investigation. Previous Relevant Blog Post Exclusive: Jim Garrison Interviewed by the HSCA Jim Garrison tells HSCA investigators everything they want to know about Kerry Thornley. This is Garrison at his craziest.

In December 1967, Jim Garrison issued a series of press releases about a supposed shot from the sewer on Elm Street. I have previously blogged about a shot from the sewer here, and here . I found Garrison's press releases in the Al Chapman folder in the Harold Weisberg Archive . Chapman was a researcher who supplied Jim Garrison with photographs. Here is his first press release: Jim Garrison writes that "the bullet has been identified -- by a comparison study of bullets -- as being a .45 caliber, apparently steel jacketed." Where on earth is that study? Was the study conducted from photo #2 below? Really? Here is photo #1: Here is photo #2: Here is photo #3 Here is the coverage of the press release in the New Orleans Times-Picayune from December 13, 1967: Buddy Walthers denied it was a bullet: Dallas Morning News, December 14, 1967 A few more quotes from Walthers in the El Paso Herald-Post: El Paso Herald-Post, December 13, 1967 Here is an article from the Waco News-Tribune of December 14, 1967: The Washington Evening Star ran an editorial about Garrison: Washington Evening Star, December 14, 1967 Two days later Garrison issued another press release: From the press release it appears that Garrison believes there were five assassins - one from a building on Houston, from the Texas School Bool Depository, two points on the grassy knoll, and the sewer. You got to love this sentence from page five of the press release: "The knowledge that this underground complex of inter-connecting tunnels existed was withheld from the people of this country -- just as the .45 caliber bullet (which was found by law enforcement agents ten minutes after the shooting was withheld." Here are the pictures that are mentioned in the article: Photo #1. Photos 2 & 3. This is all quite insane - a person standing in the sewer would only have two seconds to shoot. In addition, the sewer opening is further down Elm Street from where JFK was actually shot. You can read more here. Jim Garrison wasn't finished. Another press release on the same day: I wonder who Garrison was referring to when he writes: "Our office has located at least one participant in the assassination of President Kennedy who now works at a military base for the United States Government." Here is the letter from Norman Redlich to Wesley Liebeler, which Garrison quoted on page two of the above press release: The rumor about Walthers finding a bullet originated in Nerin Gun's book, Red Roses from Texas , which was published in mid-1964. Here is an article from the Dallas Morning News from December 13, 1963: The rumor was dealt with in the Warren Commission Report and in Volume XXV : Walthers testified before the Warren Commission on July 23, 1964, and was asked about the rumors that he found a bullet: You can actually read Buddy Walther's report from November 22, 1963, here. By the way, Nerin Gun met with Jim Garrison in February of 1967 to discuss the case . Did they talk about Buddy Walthers? In response to all of this nonsense, the Miami Herald ran a front-page editorial on Jim Garrison: Miami Herald, December 20, 1967 Previous Relevant Blog Posts Was JFK Shot From a Sewer? Garrison sent Stephen Jaffe to investigate the feasibility of a shot from the sewer on Elm Street. He reported that that it was a strong possibility that a shot was fired from the sewer. Was Sergio Arcacha Smith Involved in the JFK Assassination? Did Sergio Arcacha Smith have the plans of the Dallas sewer system in his apartment? Was Jim Hicks the Communications Man in the JFK Assassination? When Jim Hicks testified before the grand jury, Garrison also discussed the shot from the sewer. Jim Garrison on the Shot from the Sewer Garrison discussed the shot from the sewer with the press. Sylvia Meagher Replies to Richard Popkin Sylvia Meagher comments on the supposed shot from the sewer.

In April 1967, Judge Haggerty handed down strict "guidelines governing conduct" of the prosecution and the defense in the Clay Shaw case. New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 1, 1967 Garrison didn't think much of Judge Haggerty's guidelines. Note Garrison's quote: "The judge was just making a suggestion when he handed out the guidelines. The District Attorney can make any statements he wishes." Previous Relevant Blog Posts ACLU had Concerns about a Fair Trial for Clay Shaw Garrison's continual comments on the investigation led to concerns by the ACLU that Clay Shaw could not get a fair trial. The Persecution of Clay Shaw A good overview of Jim Garrison's so-called investigation.

Here is another tape from the summer of 1977 of Jim Garrison being interviewed by investigators from the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The focus is on Kerry Thornley and his supposed impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Here is a Word document with the transcript: Here is a PDF of the transcript: Jim Garrison takes a variety of 'sightings' of Oswald and then tries to convince the HSCA that it was really Kerry Thornley. Garrison starts off the discussion with James Spencer, a car salesman for Dumas and Milnes Chevrolet. Here is an FBI memo about Spencer: Of course, Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia at the time. As you can see, Spencer moved away from New Orleans in September 1961, well before Oswald arrived back in the United States. Despite this, he describes pro-Castro leafletting outside the car dealership, but is uncertain if the man he is describing was involved. The FBI also spoke to his wife: She couldn't remember anything about Oswald. Garrison tells the HSCA that Thornley was in New Orleans in 1961: (1:03) Jim Garrison : He [Spencer] does not recall the date, but he does recall that he was employed there from February to August '61. He states this Oswald impressed him as a character, spoke favorably of Cuba, appeared to have been enthusiastic about Castro. It's a routine, like it could have been Oswald, except it's in the spring of '61 when Thornley's here and not Oswald. Of course, people were seeing Oswald all over the country. He was even seen in my hometown of Montreal, Quebec. To Garrison, this is all part of an intelligence operation: (2:17) Jim Garrison : But anyway, this identifies the memo sufficiently. It's the kind of thing that you have to read to appreciate. One more point, the FBI agent writing it says, "A few days ago, while Spencer was looking through his billfold, he found a business card, which he'd used while employed as a salesman by Dumas Milnes in New Orleans." On the back of the card was a notation in his, Spencer's, handwriting, "Lee Oswald, Magazine Street." Now, of course, this is the kind of thing that we were encountering for a long time at an early stage and in our investigation. Jim Garrison : But somewhere along the line, I think it became apparent to us that this was too consistent to be a mistake. That this also occurs with regard to Bolton Ford, the name Lee Oswald was used in '62, and it also occurs again with regard to... And the rest out on the lakefront. I guess I'll come across that, which occurs in '62 or '61. Now we know Oswald is in Russia then, but that's not the point any longer. The approach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was to say, "Oswald is in Russia. Therefore, this is irrelevant." I'm suggesting that a more productive approach, is this is too systematic to be a mistaken memory here or there. Someone in New Orleans in '61 and '62 is using Lee Oswald's name. On to the next point. Garrison believes that the only two people in New Orleans who knew Oswald back then were Kerry Thornley and David Ferrie. But Clay Shaw is also a possibility: (4:51) Jim Garrison : I might add that a possible third one could be Clay Shaw, because he used to hang around at a homosexual bar on Exchange Place, which was across the street from where Oswald lived when he went to high school. But we had never been able to establish that they met. In any case, Ferrie and Thornley in '61 are here and no Oswald. Ah, propinquity. Clay Shaw might be linked because of propinquity. The next case that Garrison discusses is that of John Becker : Oswald was in Dallas at this time. But again, that raises the possibility that this was Kerry Thornley: (7:01) Jim Garrison : Okay. He’s still in Dallas, Texas. He doesn't come to New Orleans until the following month. So again, this is a possible Kerry Thornley item, and that's a good one to check out early, okay. Garrison is anxious that the HSCA investigate whether this might have been Thornley: (8:02) Jim Garrison : And if it actually turned out to be a Kerry Thornley, an awful lot of people would really be disappointed to find out it wasn't Oswald. Besides they would've convinced themselves by rote and repetition. But in a case like this one, the ordinary FBI agent... Well, certainly in the case of '61 would tell him Oswald was not in the country in '61. So, he wouldn't have acquired the fixation. And I'm suggesting it would be freer to look at a picture and see if it might be Thornley. The people you talk to in Dallas, when that time comes, some of them are going to have a fixation that it was Oswald even though it wasn't. But it couldn't have been downtown Lincoln Mercury, it couldn't have been the shooting ranges, but by now, some people will be convinced it was. They rewrite their own history, just like the government does. Speaking to Mr. Becker should be a priority: (8:52) Jim Garrison : But I think we have a better shot at getting an identification of the false Oswald in these 1961 and '62 cases. Mr. Becker stated that he had seen photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. And although he saw the individuals who applied for the permit, he could not say that one of them had been Oswald. Now, that's a good witness. That's the kind you want. That's the kind who's got possibilities. That's the priority item. Cliff Fenton of the HSCA was seemingly going along: (9:30) Jim Garrison : Cliff, you see that pattern of their using Oswald's name? HSCA : Yeah, I see it. Jim Garrison : It's people connected with the Cubans and the Banister operation, which is another way of saying this intelligence or semi-intelligence substructure that is servicing the anti-Castro effort are using Oswald's name, even though he's in Russia. And we know of only two people, for sure who are in New Orleans in '61 and early '62, who know the name Lee Oswald, and one is Kerry Thornley, and the other is David Ferrie. Yes, it's the intelligence or semi-intelligence substructure, whatever that is. Garrison then moves to the statement of Captain Wilfred Grusich : Garrison tells the HSCA that the "pattern is too strong to be an accident." Garrison then goes into an incident that happened on August 13, 1962. Kerry Thornley was arrested in New Orleans on that day for putting up a poster on a telephone pole at 3 AM in the French Quarter. To Garrison, this is all very suspicious: (16:54) Jim Garrison : The charge that Thornley is arrested for while Oswald's still in Russia is a fascinating charge, but it doesn't tell us all we want to know. It is violating a city ordinance by posting a leaflet or a poster, putting a poster on a telephone post at three in the morning, at the corner of Governor Nicholls and Royal or something like that. That area. HSCA : You did the follow up check on it, if you recall. I don't have- Jim Garrison : It's in that area. It's Governor Nicholls or something, but that's in the French Quarter. But the point is you can almost smell the indication that it got to be down here, that involved in the anti-Castro activity. And here he is finally putting... He's got something in his hands with print on it, which certainly be most useful to us. And he's putting it on the poster, and he is arrested. And we locate the two arresting officers, and they can't recall what's on the poster. They vaguely remember the arrest, but they cannot remember what was on the poster. The arresting officers do not remember what was on the poster. Perhaps it was a Fair Play for Cuba poster. (18:37) Jim Garrison : I know that was a long time ago and we're talking to them in 1977, asking them to remember what was on the poster in 1962, which is a pretty heavy request. But on the other hand, this had to be an unusual situation because it is in the middle of the French Quarter at three o'clock in the morning. And if he'd been arrested for being drunk, an officer could hardly remember that six months later because that happened so often in the Quarter. But how often do you make an arrest for an ordinance that's so seldom violated as putting a poster on the telephone post? I'm just saying it's very unusual. And you might remember it at the end of your career because maybe it would have only happened once. A discussion ensues about the incident, and Garrison raises the possibility that a judge involved in this case might certainly remember what was on the poster: (20:56) Jim Garrison : Because this is unusual enough. A lawyer might remember somebody in the middle of the night, if there was an unusual legend on it. Especially if it related to the Cubans and within a year, a man who is handing a Fair Play for Cuba, supposedly shoots the president. It might have triggered his memory. And if you have a bright lawyer, like if Lou Trent, although he is primarily traffic, if he was sitting, there's an excellent chance that one of the judges would've had that memory triggered by Oswald's activity if it were about Cubans. HSCA : All right, we can check by back then and see by the time arrest whose court it went to. Because it went by times. In other words, whatever time the arrest was made, that- Jim Garrison : The arrest was made at three in the morning. HSCA : Right. That would make the section of Court B, Night Court. Jim Garrison : But who was there at '62? HSCA : '62 was the old man. Jim Garrison : And somebody's undoubtedly dead now. HSCA : I don't think he's dead. I don't think he died. Glancy took his place. Sat on the bench at night. Yeah. I got his name on the tip of my tongue, can't think of it. Jim Garrison : Not Harold Moore. He'd been dead for years. HSCA : Oh jeez, lived across the river. Jim Garrison : Oh, the crazy judge. HSCA : Yeah, it was- Jim Garrison : Oh, are you kidding? Oh, there's never been a judge like [Edwin A.] Babylon. HSCA : Babylon. Jim Garrison : Babylon is, Babylon- HSCA : But you want to know what? He's so crazy. He's so crazy, he may remember that. Jim Garrison : Babylon is just the kind of a guy who might remember that. There's no question because he's nuts. The HSCA investigator in this discussion is LJ Delsa, a native of New Orleans. You can see his knowledge of the New Orleans legal system. He also seems a tad enthusiastic about the line of reasoning. Not surprisingly, he would be taken off the New Orleans part of the investigation by Robert Blakey because he gave an unauthorized polygraph to Thomas Beckham. They then discuss the possibility that the poster might be in the evidence room. Garrison is convinced this is an important incident: (23:13) Jim Garrison : Well, okay. Why don't you stop and make some notes on it while we remember all this? Because if we leave it up to me to remind you, I'm so overloaded with things now. But take my word for it, the importance of this, the potential importance is hard to describe. If this turns out to be a Cuban legend of some sort, well it ties Thornley in all the more strongly with the intelligence structure, which is servicing the anti-Castro activity. But Judge Babylon just might remember the poster: (23:46) Jim Garrison : And furthermore, Babylon is ignorant, when we say for a judge in a sense, but he's brighter than the average witness. And almost any judge out there, now that I talk it out, if there was anything about Cuban about that sign, it's only a year later, that Oswald is handing out Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets. And a few months after that you had the assassination and the judge who handled an unusual case, like a sign about Cubans in the middle of the night, 15 months before would have his memory jarred. I think we have an excellent chance of picking it up with the judge. Garrison then moves on to the Bolton Ford incident: Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia when this occurred. Here is the quote from Bolton Ford: You can see the name 'Oswald" in the top right corner over the name Jos. Moore. To Garrison, this ties everything together: (26:38) Jim Garrison : Oh, okay. Good, good. We have an even more and detailed statement. We got from another employee of Bolton Ford named Fred Sewell. So, this is just one witness. We have it supported by several witnesses, but as I describe it, you'll see how it begins to tie things more and more together. Tie it to Cubans, the Friends of Democratic Cuba who started off in the Balter Building with Banister, and then later evolved into the Cuban Revolutionary Front and end up in the Newman building, again with Guy Banister. Only at the Newman building their address becomes 544 Camp and Banister's around the corner. That's one of my great discoveries for which I'm sure the CIA is eternally grateful. And Oswald with that little one stamp, one time he stamped at 544 Camp really may have done this country a service because that was the foot in the door. Here is a link to an interview of Fred Sewell, a manager at Bolton Ford by James Alcock who was second-in-command to Garrison. Sewell now remembers the name "Lee Oswald": Of course, Deslatte only wrote down Oswald. And memories were fraying: Sewell actually asks Garrison, "Was it Lee?" Garrison's investigators had talked to Deslatte, and he denied the story: So, what really happened? I certainly discount Fred Sewell's story. There is no contemporaneous record of the person identifying himself as Lee Oswald. And Mr. Sewell did not come forward in 1963 or 1964. There were over twenty different Oswalds in the New Orleans phone book in the early 1960s. The possibility also remains that Oswald might well be a first name. Have a look at this court case. Perhaps, Friends of a Democratic Cuba (FDC) went to Schulingkamp Motor Company (perhaps because he or his brother the judge were supporters), hoping that he could get them a good deal on some trucks. Schulingkamp went next door to Bolton. Someone there wrote “Oswald” because he was well known at Bolton, and/or because his last name was hard to spell. The assassination happens three years later, and all they remember is the name Oswald. Of course, to Garrison, all of this links back to Guy Banister because of his connection to Friends of a Democratic Cuba. Garrison believes he is clearly operating more than a private detective agency: (28:15) Jim Garrison: The only thing that's missing that you would want to look at, at the same time, would be the index of Banister’s files. HSCA : You might look at that. Jim Garrison: You saw that. HSCA: Fantastic. Jim Garrison : So, you know it's not a private detective office. HSCA: It's definitely not. Jim Garrison : It's important for you to see that because otherwise you're just hearing me say, I don't think it's a private detective office. If Banister was really operating some sort of intelligence operations, then why couldn't he pay his rent? He owed Sam Newman back rent and he was then evicted, with Newman keeping the furniture. You'd think the FBI, or the CIA could have paid his rent, no? Except from Garrison memo from January 18, 1967 Garrison brings up another interview with Fred Sewell: The last paragraph throws me - he "can not remember the identify of the salesman." Just a few months earlier he was talking to Garrison about Deslatte, and now he's forgotten? Now, the conversation with the HSCA turns slightly crazy: (30:29) Jim Garrison : In other words, you could almost make her [Mary Banister] feel good about it. And in the final analysis, who's going after him anyway? This is a very important one. Interview of one Fred Sewell. This is another, a guy in the Bolton Ford situation. I don't have to repeat it all. But the only thing is... Oh, listen to this. I haven't seen this for some time. "Mr. Sewell went on to relate that the man who came in with Oswald had a scar over his left eye, that he didn't have a Spanish name, but that he was a Cuban type." Now, that would be a good one to show Frank Sturgis to. HSCA : Well, my note on that is you can see it's Rabel [Louis Rabel, who was associated with Friends of a Democratic Cuba] Jim Garrison : Well, I know you're voting for Rabel, I'm voting for Sturgis, but I mean- HSCA : Sturgis at that time. Jim Garrison : Huh? HSCA : Sturgis wasn't using Sturgis . Jim Garrison : Well, I know I'm not talking about the name if he was Fiorini, but I'm saying apparently, he didn't have his plastic surgery at the time that picture was taken. Let me see the picture. Jim Garrison : In other words, this guy may not be the escort I thought he was earlier, but he could well turn out to be the one buying the trucks is what I'm saying. Listen to this description. "The man who came in with Oswald," who I believe is probably Thornley because this is in '61, "had a scar over his left eye, but he didn't have a Spanish name but that he was a Cuban type." This is a picture, Cliff, of -- HSCA : Yes [inaudible 00:32:09]. Jim Garrison : In 1963, before the assassination, he had a scarred left eye, but he undoubtedly, he's not the only one in the world. So, I don't want to get fixated on that. But I think he just ought to be checked out. HSCA : He doesn't fit the Cuban type description. Jim Garrison : But you know, better than me, I think you're right. He looked more Italian. Sewell said that the man with Oswald "had a scar over his left eye." Garrison believes this to be very significant. Why? The man with a scar was supposedly Oswald's escort in New Orleans. As you can see from the above dialog, Garrison throws out the name of Frank Sturgis (this was right after the Rockefeller Commission). Or perhaps Thornley. But Thornley was not Cuban. This is all insane. Garrison then starts to discuss David Lousteau and the supposed arrest of Oswald in 1962 in New Orleans. This yet another case of mistaken identity. (37:27) Jim Garrison : But the point is, nevertheless, they keep flying in the damn window. And without a conscious effort, accumulate a structure. We've developed a structure of repetitive appearances of the name Lee Oswald when he isn't here. So, what I'm getting to, is if that happens without an effort on our part to go out and find him, think how many times they use the name Lee Oswald during '61 and '62 that we don't even know about yet. Jim Garrison: If we see this many without having gone out in the field to try... In other words, I didn't say, "Go out, Oswald was in Russia in '60, '61, in early '62, go out and see if you can find any instances of somebody using his name." That would be different, but we're not looking for that. But look, how many we get anyway. What I'm saying is God knows how many other times they've done it. They must have been doing it all the time. It must have been kind of like an in joke for it. Maybe started by Ferrie, but it's happening too often. Towards the end of the interview Garrison brings up Daphne Stapleton: Garrison notes that it wasn't Howard Cowan she is talking about, but Howard Cohen. He tells the HSCA that Cohen went to Mexico in 1963: (48:22) Jim Garrison : Now make a note for you to check out when you talk to Jack Frazier. I haven't had a chance to check it out, but I came across just in some diggings on the side that Cowan and Jack Frazier, I think it was right after the assassination, but it was rather odd. I think he spells it C O H E N anyway, but he made a trip to Mexico with Jack Frazier. But Jack Frazier never mentioned it to us. Or it was in '63 sometime. Frazier and Cohen, C O H E N, made a trip to Mexico in '63. Jim Garrison : And I can't remember the details, but I noticed going back to Frazier's statements that he had never mentioned it. So, it might be worth... It might be productive somewhere. I asked... Too many people going to Mexico in '63. Not only Oswald but even Thornley admits it. For some reason, Garrison believes Stapleton, and tells the HSCA that she is corroborated by Robert Karno. You can read his interview here. Karno claims he saw Oswald at the Ryder Coffee House and at the public library - but just sitting alone. Of course, he never came forward until the Garrison investigation. Even so, he's still not certain: The tape ends there. Garrison impressed the HSCA investigators. This was not a shining hour for the HSCA. Needless to say, the HSCA never found any evidence to back up any of Garrison's allegations about Kerry Thornley. Tomorrow I'll be publishing a memo from Gaeton Fonzi about Thornley. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Exclusive: Jim Garrison tells the HSCA that Fred Crisman was one of the Three Tramps Yes, Garrison believed that Fred Crisman was one of the tramps. Exclusive: Garrison Tells the HSCA about Guy Banister Garrison only has one witness that places Oswald in Banister's office and even he is not too sure about his credibility. Exclusive: Jim Garrison Interviewed by the HSCA Garrison tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley might be the body in the backyard photographs.

Gaeton Fonzi Here is a memo written by Gaeton Fonzi to Troy Gustavson about Kerry Thornley. This memo predates the HSCA and was written when Fonzi was doing some work for Senator Schweiker. Gustavson was Schweiker's press secretary. There are many people who believe that Fonzi was this amazing investigator. This memo shows him to be someone who was capable of swallowing the most amazing nonsense from Jim Garrison. Documents courtesy of the Malcolm Blunt Archive. You can download and view Kerry Thornley's affidavit at this blog post regarding an interview between Garrison and HSCA investigators. On the first page, Fonzi mentions that it was his idea to check with the New Orleans Police Department to see if Thornley had an arrest record. Sure enough, he was arrested in 1962 for placing a poster on a telephone pole, and he was fined $15. Interestingly, Garrison tells Fonzi that "police records can be easily changed." I wonder how Garrison knew this. Why does Garrison even mention the possibility? Because he wants the incident to have taken place in 1963 and that would have put the date just four days after Oswald was arrested for handing out Fair Play for Cuba Committee flyers. Garrison discussed this with HSCA investigators at this meeting. Garrison tells the story differently in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins: I had my staff inquiring about him and learned, to my surprise, that Thornley -- who had been in the Marines with Oswald in 1959 -- had arrived in New Orleans as far back as 1961. In a routine check of police records we found that he was also in New Orleans in 1962. He had been arrested in August for putting a sign on a telephone pole on Royal Street, in the French Quarter, in violation of a city ordinance. When questioned, however, they no longer could recall the subject of the sign Thornley had posted. In this case, Fonzi is correct. In the transcript of Garrison's discussion with the HSCA he says that they talked to the police officers in 1977. Fonzi then discusses the Thornley affidavit which he sent to both the HSCA and to Jim Garrison. Here is a note that Garrison sent to Fonzi about the affidavit: Here is a transcription: 9/20/76 Re: 1976 Affidavit of Kerry Thornley: In particular, Re: Banister, Ferrie, Mexico City + Rosselli) Thornley admits: Arrives in New Orleans in "early 1961" (Bay of Pigs occurred in April, 1961. N.O. [New Orleans] was used as a logistical base + training area for anti-Castro activities by U.S. intelligence in the early 1960's. Examples: Attempted purchase of Ford pick up trucks in Oswald's name while he was still in Russia; training of anti-Castro guerillas north of Lake Pontchartrain, etc.) Thornley departs from New Orleans (for Arlington, Virginia, to await his testimony in Washington before the Warren Commission, in December, 1963). In New Orleans, in 1961, Thornley "accidentally" meets Guy Banister, discusses with him the book he is writing about Lee Oswald. In 1962, Thornley "accidentally" meets David Ferrie ("I'm nearly sure that no significant conversation transpired") In September of 1963 Thornley visits Mexico City. ("For many years I had wanted to visit Mexico City ...") Also in September 1963 Thornley is in New Orleans during same period Oswald was. (Later, he says "I began to realize that others might have good reason for suspecting me of being part of an assassination conspiracy.") From 1964 until June of 1966, Thornley worked at Glen Towers apartments, Los Angeles, where he got to know John Rosselli, who happened to live there. (They have conversations speculating about the assassination). To put all of this in context, you have to understand that Kerry Thornley was becoming more and more paranoid. He believed that he had met Guy Banister in perhaps 1961 through Martin McAuliffe who was active in anti-Castro organizations. They talked about his book. He then 'remembered' being at a party at David Ferrie's house. All of this contributed to a growing paranoia. Thornley sent his affidavit to the Church Committee and to the HSCA. Adam Gorightly, in his excellent book, Caught in the Crossfire: Kerry Thornley, Lee Oswald and the Garrison Investigation , notes: (page 102) In addition to his affidavit, Kerry sent the HSCA a number of other perplexing documents, which included a memo regarding an "Atlanta Friends Meeting," a group of Quakers who provided ministry and counseling sessions. In this memo, Kerry explained how he'd sought counsel through the group, which he came to believe had been infiltrated by the intelligence community. The memo itself is a rambling, manic rant that illustrates Kerry's increasing paranoia during this period and his belief that he was being spied upon -- and manipulated -- by intelligence agency spooks. Tom Bethell wrote in his diary that Garrison was "hypnotised" by Thornley's supposed relationships to other principals in the case (or should I have said propinquity?): Here is an excerpt from his diary entry of February 9, 1968: Garrison in the office today, in one of his talkative, performing moods. He kept calling me, and others, into his office on pretexts. He is also considering charging Kerry Thornley, who was also in the office today. Alcock said "He'd better not," (charge Thornley) as there was no evidence against him, with which I agree. But Garrison is hynotised by the fact that Thornley (a) admits having met Clay Shaw. (b) showed the ms of his (first) book to Martin McCauliffe [sic], professor at LSU who helped found Friends of Democratic Cuba, an anti-Castro outfit including Sergio Arcacha Smith, "who was involved with Oswald," according to Garrison. (c) Picked up unemployment checks at Julia St., near Camp St. (d) met Guy Banister. (e) Moved to Arlington, Va. soon after the assassination. (f) Lived at one point on Dauphine St, a couple of blocks from Clay Shaw, and one or two other points. But to Fonzi, all of these coincidences mean something: Of course, the coincidences that Thornley emphasizes as the key connections -- his association with some Nazi-leaning conspirators -- are not the ones that Garrison feels are significant. From my perspective, I find the affidavit as a whole especially interesting because it fits precisely into a model which I have come to believe represents modules of misinformation fed to me over the past year from representatives of the intelligence community. Here again we have a checkerboard pattern, some blocks of which are filled with exquisite details, precise chronological recollection and a cornucopia of investigative leads and possibilities; while other blocks are difficult to pinpoint chronologically and are passed over in haste and with fuzzy recollection. However, all in all, it is designed to leave the impression of exhaustive comprehensiveness (sort of like the Warren Report itself) and, therefore, truthfulness. What a revealing paragraph! He refers to some of Thornley's acquaintances (probably Banister and Ferrie) as Nazi-leaning conspirators. Banister was certainly Nazi-leaning, but neither Ferrie nor Banister were conspirators. Certainly, it would have been premature to call them conspirators in 1976 at the start of the HSCA investigation. The rest of the paragraph is just gobbledygook. And it was also premature to reach any conclusions about the Warren Report. But what upsets Fonzi the most is that Thornley had the temerity not to mention his arrest in his affidavit: What makes Thornley's affidavit even more important than its substance is, I feel, this: Although he professes to recall the most minute details of his New Orleans experience, he doesn't mention anything at all about his being arrested. Really? This is what gets you upset? We actually get a hint of Thornley's postering activities from his testimony before the Garrison grand jury: Finally Vic got a job with a theatre group called "Way Off Broadway" here in the Quarter. This Bill Schmidt was a real con man but Vic knew this as he had worked for him before, so he warned me and said just make sure you get your money and make sure he pays you in cash. He offered me $80 dollars a week to put out posters for him and I started working for him too. Fonzi also buys into the Oswald impersonation nonsense: Garrison feels that since this took place when the real Oswald was supposedly in Russia, it indicates the first known instance of what would later become a pattern of impersonation. (It strikes me that right from the beginning Oswald's main assignment, or MOS, in the intelligence community may have been as a decoy. Isn't it possible that certain individuals, possessed of certain malleable characteristics and not particularly distinguishing features, are deliberately recruited to play the role, probably without their knowledge, of decoy, which so many intelligence operations seem to require?) This is from an HSCA crack investigator? Was Gaeton Fonzi suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Previous Blog Posts Regarding Garrison-HSCA Interviews Exclusive: Jim Garrison Tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald... Garrison tells the HSCA all sorts of stories about Kerry Thornley Exclusive: Jim Garrison tells the HSCA that Fred Crisman was one of the Three Tramps Yes, Garrison believed that Fred Crisman was one of the tramps. Exclusive: Garrison Tells the HSCA about Guy Banister Garrison only has one witness that places Oswald in Banister's office and even he is not too sure about his credibility. Exclusive: Jim Garrison Interviewed by the HSCA Garrison tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley might be the body in the backyard photographs. Other Kerry Thornley Blog Posts Kerry Thornley on Oswald right after Assassination The first writings from Thornley on November 27, 1963, about Oswald. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Man of the Right? Jim Garrison was convinced that Thornley was the only Marine to describe Oswald's left-wing politics. Kerry Thornley Writes Sylvia Meagher Sylvia Meagher was a big supporter of Kerry Thornley and here is some of their correspondence. Was Kerry Thornley the Second Oswald? Garrison writes a memo to the HSCA alleging that Thornley was the second Oswald. Was Thornley the Second Oswald? Yes, Again An interview with another prisoner is more evidence to Jim Garrison that Thornley is the second Oswald. Reverend Raymond Broshears Makes a Startling Revelation! Was Kerry Thornley gay?

The first interview that Jim Garrison gave after the Clay Shaw trial was to Thomas Buchanan, author of Who Killed Kennedy?" Photo of the cover of my copy of Who Killed Kennedy? Buchanan wrote to Garrison in September of `1968: Here is Garrison's typed reply: The interview never happened. Buchanan sent in a second request. Buchanan writes "But it seems important to me to destroy the impression that most of the American journalists have given, throughout the world, that there was no substance to the charges that you brought (and continue to bring) against Clay Shaw." Garrison underlines the section "substance to the charges" and writes "trial confirmed that there was." Buchanan wants "more than a mere resume of statements you have previously given to the press." Garrison writes "None." Buchanan writes "But the fact that editors in Europe are sufficiently interested to ask me if that is the case seems to me to indicate that even now, after the adverse court decision, it is possible to regain the initiative." Garrison replied, "In Europe, perhaps." In the lower right corner of Buchanan's letter, Garrison writes: "Trial showed: 1. Impos [Impossible] to communicate ... 2. CIA = total control of AM [American] press. Thus it confirmed what the [...] suggest that America has become a warfare state and that the guise of democracy ... maintained." Here is Garrison's reply to Buchanan: It's really something to see Garrison complain about lack of press coverage: For well over a year I have been trying to call attention in this country to the fact that President Kennedy was killed by a coup d'etat by the employment of federal intelligence personnel, in particular the Central Intelligence Agency. I have yet to be able to that simple statement published in a single major publication anywhere in the country. The plain fact of the matter is that Garrison received a ton of press for his baseless allegations. After the first year of ever-changing allegations, the press got tired of being a stenographer for Garrison. Herblock cartoon, 1969 Buchanan submitted questions and Garrison wrote a lengthy reply, which has become almost a textbook for conspiracy theorists. This memo was recently published (2019) on the website of James DiEugenio, screenwriter of Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Garrison blames the JFK, MLK and the RFK assassinations on the CIA. And Garrison was the first conspiracy theorist to realize that he could use the anti-war movement to help push his noxious theories. As my friend Nick Nalli has said: Of all the hills to choose to die on in this case, none can be more ethically dubious than Jim Garrison, a self-serving con-artist villain of history, who persecuted and slandered an innocent homosexual man and traitorously exploited the change in public sentiment during the Vietnam war. Garrison writes that "The Central Intelligence Agency carefully set Lee Harvey Oswald up at the scapegoat by assigning him to engage in "pro-Castro" demonstrations in New Orleans." In addition, "Actually, Oswald clearly did not shoot anyone that day nor was there the slightest evidence to that effect against him even as late as the time when he in turn was removed." Really? Garrison is convinced that the United States is totalitarian and that anti-War voices have been eliminated. "Thus, the warfare complex in recent years quite apparently has accomplished the systematic elimination of eloquent opponents of the Viet Nam war, such men being more genuinely dangerous to the warfare machinery itself than the worldwide Communist conspiracy with which it justifies its expensive existence." Hmmm. I wonder if Lyndon Johnson would agree with that. Of course, Robert Kennedy was also shot by the same forces that killed JFK. "While the modus operandi in Robert Kennedy's murder is different from that in John Kennedy's assassination, this is merely a matter of detail to a powerful intelligence agency." He seems to believe that international travel ties Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan together. "The "loneliness" of our assassins seems not to have prevented them from seeing the world more than most lonely people do." It doesn't take much for Garrison to conclude that the CIA was behind the RFK and the MLK assassinations: In my considered judgment there is no doubt that the murder[s] of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King were accomplished by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States -- an agency which specializes in deception and is also in the business of assassination. I would add to that observation that it is a probability that Senator Robert Kennedy was removed by the same organization although by a slightly different technique -- this being more likely a case of instigation and motivation rather than an apparatus project. Garrison has a whopper here: For example, the only reason we succeeded in our investigation -- and we did succeed although the national media has very effectively made it appear otherwise -- was because we had a great deal of luck at the outset. We literally stumbled across Central Intelligence Agency employees in New Orleans who were helping to set Lee Oswald up by giving him intelligence assignments which make it appear as if he were a Communist. What would Garrison consider to be a failure? Now, Garrison goes all batty: In the Clay Shaw case I learned the lesson that it is not possible to present a sophisticated clandestine intelligence operation in an Anglo-Saxon courtroom, in which -- properly enough -- the rules of procedure are designed to safeguard a variety of defendant's rights. Some evidence would have helped, no? Garrison continues in this vein: However, the elaborate camouflage and clandestine nature of an intelligence operation make it virtually impossible to communicate in a forum of law the necessary cause and effect relative to the charge. In other words, I had no evidence. Garrison cannot speak to Clay Shaw's motive, except that, being some sort of agent, he had a mission. And Garrison's paranoia comes through: This has been particularly evident to us with regard to the agents of the federal government who penetrated our office and interfered with our efforts to get at the truth. In fact, the FBI and the CIA was told to stay away from Garrison's investigation. Garrison's office was not bugged. Eichmann did not hate Jews? News to me. More delusional thinking from Garrison. You can see this kind of thinking today with conspiracy theorists maintaining that since the JFK assassination, American foreign policy has been hijacked by the military industrial complex. The only way to solve America's problem is to solve the JFK assassination. Garrison is wrong about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Maxwell Taylor left office in July of 1964. This is delusional: The great injury done by the Warren Commission to this country was that it authenticated the transfer of the foreign policy making power from the representatives of the people to these autocratic interests, it authenticated the conversion of the real government of the United States to an invisible government. Garrison is flat out wrong about David Ferrie. He did not make night flights into Cuba, and he had not flown for the CIA in Nicaragua. The story about being stabbed in the stomach was told by Ferrie to some of the younger recruits - there were no indications of a stab wound in the autopsy report. 544 Camp Street was not the location of the office of Guy Banister. He was around the corner. Going to the Camp Street entrance would not get you to his office. Garrison's stories about Ferrie's trip to Houston and Galveston are just plain not true. Jack Ruby called Breck Wall because of labor troubles. The call had nothing to do with Ferrie. Ferrie didn't drive through a massive thunderstorm. David Ferrie died of natural causes. Of course, the International Trade Mart was full of representatives of foreign governments, etc. It was a building dedicated to international trade. Garrison didn't "stumble" across the fact that Oswald "was having clandestine meetings" with "the Director of this unusual building." Garrison manufactured the meeting through the use of hypnosis and sodium pentothal. The so-called Clinton sightings of Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald were not clandestine. They were supposedly trying to openly get him a job. The Clinton sightings were also a fiction. Garrison claims that "the release of genuine copies of the Kennedy autopsy photographs and autopsy X-rays indeed would jeopardize the national security -- from within -- because then everyone in America would realize that the government had been lying to the world about how John Kennedy was killed." In fact, the autopsy X-rays and photographs have confirmed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Garrison realized that he had to be ready for that possibility. And so, "If such documents are released by the federal government it will only be because they are professional forgeries produced by the Central Intelligence Agency -- and by this time I expect that this part of the mission has been accomplished." The CIA must have been amazing forgers - because to this day, there is no indication of any alteration or forgery of the autopsy material. Garrison claims that there still might be a bullet lodged in Kennedy's spine. Garrison writes that "Consequently the Zapruder film, which clearly shows what actually happened to the President, remains hidden from the people ..." Yes, it does show what happens and is consistent with a lone gunman. Had Garrison been alive today, would he argue that it had been altered? Buchanan's article appeared in Combat, an independent left-wing newspaper in Paris. In the United States, it appeared in the National Enquirer :

Bennett Gershman From the Harold Weisberg Archive: New York Law Journal, January 27, 1993 Bennett Gershman was the Assistant District Attorney in New York County from 1966 - 1972 and was Assistant Attorney General in the office of the New York State Special Prosecutor's Office from 1972 - 1976. Judge Christenberry held three days of hearings in January 1971. Jim Garrison took the stand and was cross-examined by Clay Shaw's attorneys. You can read the Christenberry decision here. I love the conclusion of Gershman's article: Garrison's prosecution was demagogic because it reflected illegitimate personal considerations as opposed to valid law enforcement objectives. As the federal courts concluded, Garrison was motivated by actual "bad faith," "ulterior motive," and "the specific intent to deprive Shaw of his rights." Ironically, although "JFK" is intended to expose governmental deceit and abuse of power, it conceals the well-documented abuse and corruption by its hero. This is not to suggest that there was not a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Whether there was or not, Garrison was not embodying the pursuit of truth and justice. Millions of Americans, however, as they watch Kevin Costner, won't see it that way.