Jim Garrison was so focused on his fraudulent JFK assassination investigation that he ignored his basic duties as District Attorney. New Orleans States-Item, April 10, 1967 Judge Bagert commented on the problem to Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans. Here is an excerpt from a memo dated June 1, 1967:

Relevant Past Blog Posts The New York Times on Clay Shaw's Acquittal An editorial from the March 2, 1969 edition of the New York Times . Washington Post Editorial on the Acquittal of Clay Shaw Their editorial from March 4, 1969. Garrison vs. the people An editorial from the Chicago Daily News right after the acquittal of Clay Shaw. Sylvia Meagher Congratulates Clay Shaw On His Acquittal A nice letter from Sylvia Meagher. Clay Shaw's Acquittal Reactions from the newspapers in New Orleans.

One of the few known pictures of Jack Martin Jim Garrison interviewed Jack Martin in his office on December 14, 1966. Here is a recording of that meeting: The quality of the recording is not good. I have worked months to produce a transcript. Please feel free to email me with improvements -- I realize that my 66-year-old ears might have easily missed something. Here is the transcript in word format: Here is the transcript in PDF format: This was not the first interview that Garrison's office had with Jack Martin. One day earlier, his former chief investigator Pershing Gervais interviewed Martin at the Fontainebleau Hotel. In that interview Martin made the claim that "Ferrie was in Dallas at least in Fort Worth two days before the assassin [sic] of President Kennedy. I understand he was to fly three people from there to Laredo, Texas, either there or Matamorris, Mexico." One of the big stories in this interview is that Jack Martin claimed that "Dave Ferrie introduced me to him [Lee Harvey Oswald] in Banister's office. He says he used to be in my CAP squadron when he was a little kid." (29:26) I wrote about this claim here. James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed , actually believes Jack Martin: (page 389, see also page 112 for the same story) "In a stolen December 14, 1966, Garrison memorandum, Jack Martin revealed that David Ferrie had introduced him to Oswald in Banister's office. With Ferrie at the time was Sergio Arcacha Smith." His source? None other than Probe Magazine, Volume 4, No. 4, page 8. That issue of Probe Magazine indicates that his source is "handwritten notes of one of the earliest interviews Garrison's office had with Jack Martin." DiEugenio found these notes in Edward Wegmann's files, and they are based on this recording of Jim Garrison and Jack Martin. However, there are two major problems with Jack Martin's allegation. First, he was insane, and no one took him seriously in New Orleans. Secondly, Sergio Arcacha Smith was not living in New Orleans in 1963. Here are some additional comments on the Garrison-Martin meeting . 1. Martin used the n-word a total of 25 times during the meeting. He claimed that David Ferrie had a black bodyguard who went everywhere with him. Martin repeated the claim he made in the meeting with Gervais that Ferrie was in Dallas during the assassination. It's amazing that Martin would make this claim in 1966 - he must have known it was not true. And Garrison must have known as well. And then Martin added an absurd claim: (8:21) Jack Martin : This n*****, let me tell you. He’s a clean-cut looking man. He’s sharp. … he’s sharp. This guy, hanging out with Ferrie He was driving him around quite often, always in the car with Ferrie. This n***** was in Texas with Ferrie when Ferrie was in Texas, just before, and probably during the assassination. [8:44] Jim Garrison : All right, let me get that. He was in Texas. Jack Martin : That’s right. So, I understand. 'Cause he went everywhere with Ferrie, he flew with Ferrie. In his Stinson 40. Jim Garrison : Now we know that this fellow [Morris] Brownlee went. But he’s not the Negro. Jack Martin : Anywhere that Ferrie and Brownlee went, this n***** was there too. Jim Garrison : Hmm.mm. Jack Martin : Now … Jim Garrison : There might have been three of them. Jack Martin : That’s right. Jim Garrison : How did you know this Negro was there? Jack Martin : I just know it... He went everywhere with Ferrie. Now this n***** could have been the same n***** that they saw in the Book Depository. Jim Garrison : In the window. Jack Martin : That’s right. I’ve often thought of that. 2. Jack Martin knew a great deal about David Ferrie and so he was able to weave true material in with a lot of false stuff. He told Garrison about the FAA investigation of David Ferrie which was true: (11:32) Jack Martin : Unfortunately, here about the time that he got into trouble, here locally, and it was just before the assassination of Kennedy. There was a guy working the case of Dave Ferrie, he was trying to pull Dave Ferrie’s pilot's license because of his activities. Jim Garrison : You mean working for Eastern Airlines? Jack Martin : No, no, no. This guy is better than that. Jim Garrison : Oh, really? Jack Martin : This guy was trying to pull his pilot’s license. Yes, sir. This man is in Washington. I remember back in Washington, just before I had a heart attack, I visited this man up there and we had lunch together. We were with a couple of FBI buddies of his. This man is a former Bureau man, he’s a good friend of Aaron Kohn, he knows the people in the Bureau, and now he’s either the chief or the assistant chief of the office of compliance and security of the FAA. Jim Garrison : What’s his name? Jack Martin : Richard E., Dick Robey. Jim Garrison : Washington D.C. Jack Martin : Richard E. Robey, R-O-E-B-Y, no, R-O-B-E-Y, I think it was. These damn bifocals. Jim Garrison : What’s his title? Jack Martin : He’s with .. he’s an investigator, Office of Compliance and Security, Federal Aviation Authority. He flies all over the Country. Jim Garrison : OK Jack Martin : Now his telephone number is ST 341 hundred. Jim Garrison : 341 hundred. Jack Martin : Extension four five two four. Now he’s got a residence and he’s got a residence home in Silver Spring, Maryland. Jim Garrison : I know where that is. Jack Martin : Alright. And he’s got a residence phone. Jim Garrison : Alright. Jack Martin : Now, because of the fact that Dick Robey had a personal vendetta, for some reason, against Dave Ferrie. I sent all my files to Dick Robey. I even had notes in there when Dave Ferrie had sat down and showed my wife various formulas and calculus and higher mathematics on how to construct, uh, by using mag lines .. how to construct an atomic bomb. Here is an FBI report about Robey and Ferrie from 1961 . Here is a letter that Jack Martin wrote to Richard Robey after the assassination . He said he was offering "very important facts" about a Ferrie-Oswald connection. Note this letter was written on November 25, 1963 and there is no mention of Martin seeing Oswald with Ferrie. 3. Garrison continually asks Martin when he saw David Ferrie with Lee Harvey Oswald. Here is the first exchange: (26:46) Jim Garrison : Let’s try to get to where he’s connected to Oswald. That’s what I’m interested in. Jack Martin : Well … Jim Garrison : I mean it’s good to know, but. when did you see him with Oswald? Jack Martin : Well, at Banister’s one time. Ferrie used to come in Banister’s. Well, this is after I had met … Jim Garrison : In other words, you saw with Oswald several times. Jack Martin : Yeah, I had seen him once or twice. Alright. This kid Oswald, at that time, was just another part … he had a lot of them around. Every time you see Ferrie, he had a whole bunch of these kids with him. Jim Garrison : This was in ‘63? Jack Martin : ‘62, ‘63 back in there somewhere, I couldn’t pinpoint. That’s when he was in all this troubles. See. Alright. Jim Garrison : Maybe 63. Of course, Garrison knew that Oswald was not in New Orleans in 1962 and that it had to be in 1963. Martin is unsure of the details. 4. Garrison asked a second time about supposed Oswald visits to Banister's office: (30:30) Jim Garrison: Who else was there besides Oswald? Jack Martin: Oh, Ferrie and a bunch of kids come in. Jim Garrison: Oswald and Ferrie? Jack Martin: Ferrie and a bunch of young fellows come in. And Ferrie had one of these officer with xxx on, like they wear in Vietnam, you know. And he had a pair of aviator glasses and mohair sticking down. I thought he was one of the Cubans. In fact, Arcacha was with him with a … the Cuban front. Jim Garrison: You mean that the anti-Castro type were there. Jack Martin : Yeah, yeah. That’s a good point. Jim Garrison: … and how old were they? Jack Martin: They range anywhere from 17 to 21, maybe, something like that. Jim Garrison: And where was Oswald? Jack Martin : Well, he was with his friend, because one of the guys, he says this well, he’s a friend of mine. Well, I was sitting there, and I don’t think anybody was in the office. Miss Roberts, she wasn’t even working there. Jim Garrison : Roughly, what was ... Jack Martin : Oswald was in talking to some people, and these guys came in to see Banister. Jim Garrison : Roughly, how many people with Ferrie? Jack Martin : I’d say three or four. Including Arcacha and this guy Oswald with Ferrie. And there were a couple of other guys. Nobody who worked in the Banister office was there to witness Oswald being there with Ferrie, not even Delphine Roberts. 5. David Ferrie was very supportive of integration. Martin said that Ferrie was very pro-Kennedy and that he "worshipped [Kennedy] like God": (39:30) Jack Martin: Ferrie is an extreme anti-communist and yet again I've heard him say this -- about the riots, the inner blacks, and the racial disturbances, they ought to kill them all! white people … Now this guy was pro, pro pro Kennedy. He worshipped him like God. Jim Garrison: Ferrie says they ought to kill what? Jack Martin: He says they ought to kill all the white people that oppose integration. In other words, he claims to be pro pro pro Kennedy. He worshipped Kennedy, according to him, the way you preach about, worshipped the white god ...At the same time he's vehemently anti-communist. Well, that doesn't fit into the pattern. And I do remember correctly, even prior to his trouble over in Jefferson Parish and New Orleans Parish. Ferrie appeared at the Roosevelt, I believe it was, at one of the large hotels here. And he was involved with the Dowling matter. Do you remember this? 6. Garrison again brings the conversation back to Oswald: (46:37) Jim Garrison: Let me bring it back to Oswald. Jack Martin : Because I had some connections with the old group. Because we didn’t know at that time Castro was a Communist. Jim Garrison: Hmm. Mm. Yeah, it wasn’t clear until later. Let me ask you... about Oswald. Jack Martin : So naturally, naturally, I was aware of the contact when they moved in. Now, so later over at Banister’s this cat comes in and this is Lee Oswald. He’s a friend of mine. He’s in PCAP. Jim Garrison: How did Lee Oswald dress? Jack Martin . I don't know, they were all dressed in sport clothes. I can't -- Jim Garrison: Only one in a kind of uniform. With Ferrie leading that hat, huh? Jack Martin : Yeah, you know, you know, it was in almost a Castro hat, you know, yeah. yeah. 3rd party: He’s – Jack Martin : Well anyway. Jim Garrison: Did the kids have anything else besides the ... Jack Martin : As I remember, they just had kid sports clothes. Typical high school kids. Sports clothes, fatigues, maybe. I don’t remember. Jim Garrison: Did it have something to do ... Jack Martin . Banister was in there talking to some client or somebody and now this gang of hoodlums comes in and I recognized, and I recognized Dave. After I do a double take, he takes his sunglasses on and off, and I see Arcacha and first I figure it’s a bunch of the Cubans and I did a double look and I see these kids... Dave was peculiar looking. Jim Garrison : Were these kids supposed to have something to do with the Cuban operation? Jack Martin : Part of it was Dave's friends who happened to be hanging with him. Because he was in trouble with his job. Jim Garrison: Was Oswald another one of his friends? Jack Martin : Apparently, yeah, yeah. It was casual. I don’t know who this cat was. It was just casual, you know. It wasn’t – two or three minutes. And then they went in to talk to Banister. What they said I don't know. Jim Garrison: How long were they with Banister? Jack Martin : Oh, hell I don't know, I think I went over to Phil’s and had a beer after that. I don’t think I went back, by the time I came back, they were gone. Either that or Mancuso’s or Phil’s next door. I think Joe Newbrough came in about then and Joe and I went next door. 7. Martin then says that Oswald had an office in the Newman building: (48:44) Jack Martin . On a number of occasions, Oswald had had an office in the old Newman Building. The old CIO building. Jim Garrison: The thing is – 1963? Jack Martin : Yeah. About this same time. Jim Garrison: What would he be doing with an office, of all people? Jack Martin : Well, I don’t know, he had an office. You know old man, Arthus? Jim Garrison: Yeah, vaguely. Remind me. Jack Martin : Jimmy Arthus has got an office up there in the Newman building right now. And Jimmy Arthus is the one to open the door. Some of Lee Harvey Oswald’s packages still laying in there. Hell, the FBI hadn't even picked them up. Jim Garrison: Did he share a space with Arthus? Jack Martin : No oh hell no. He said Oswald was a commie. But Dave used to go up and see this Arthus’s office all the time. Jim Garrison: Was Arthus friendly with Oswald? Jack Martin : Yeah, he knew him. Jim Garrison: He thought he was a communist, but he was friendly with him? Jack Martin : Yeah, he knew him. He talked with him. To get information out of him. Arthus was the janitor of the building. Martin claims that some of Oswald's packages are still there. Arthus was interviewed by the Secret Service after the assassination but did not identify Oswald . He died in 1967. 8. Garrison tries one more time: (50:21) Jim Garrison: Um, tell us more about Oswald? You saw him once again, didn’t you? Jack Martin : Yeah, I was trying to remember. There was a couple ... Jim Garrison: With Ferrie? Jack Martin: There was a couple of things, yeah, I was trying to remember. I can’t ... Jim Garrison: Boy just a sec. yeah, umm. [phone conversation] Jack Martin: I was racking my brain to eventually pin down conversation ... I wasn’t particularly interested. Jim Garrison : But when you read, and saw on TV where Oswald had killed Kennedy, didn’t it come back to you? The instances that you saw. Jack Martin : The first time I saw that rifle, my wife looked at it on television and said, “My god, that’s the same rifle that Dave Ferrie has.” Ferrie had some old World War I rifles. 9. Ferrie might have instructed Oswald how to get a rifle: (52;41) Jack Martin : Now, without doubt ... my wife and I said I bet you that’s where Lee Harvey Oswald learned to order the rifles. By mail order. Dave Ferrie – it’s the same god-damned rifle. If he didn’t get it from Dave Ferrie, he learned how to get them from Dave Ferrie. 10. And Ferrie's supposed bodyguard had to know Oswald, too: (55:43) Jack Martin : The minute my wife and I saw those things we snapped. I couldn’t help it, because everything looked the same, you know. Then this n***** mechanic was running around with him … this n***** out there. Now this n***** was with Oswald. He waited in the car all the time; I mean with Ferrie. But he been driving Ferrie around. So, this n***** had to know Oswald, you know why. I understand … Jim Garrison : In other words, that’s your point about the Negro. Jack Martin : That’s right. Jim Garrison : He was kind of a bodyguard that was with him. Now and always, even wherever he went. He had to know. 11, Garrison tries one more time: (57:35) Jim Garrison : What about Oswald? You might have seen him somewhere else. Did you ever see him at his home or any place like that? Jack Martin : If I remember correctly, in the street, it might have been in his house. It might have been his house. Jim Garrison : But you did see some other place one time? Jack Martin : Yeah. I was thinking yesterday that it was at Ferrie’s house. It may have been, because there was always a gang of young people over there. But I would go over there and talk to Dave strictly about his case and … Maybe in Ferrie's house? 12. Yet again: (1;01:27) Jim Garrison : All right. Can you recall anything about the other different occasions when you saw Oswald in any way? Jack Martin : Well, I know that Oswald had those offices up there where Ferrie kept his papers, that’s around, let’s see, Bill’s address is 544… Jim Garrison : I mean in connection with Ferrie, like at his home? Jack Martin : Well, Ferrie used to go up there, back and forth from that office all the time. Jim Garrison: He’d go to Oswald’s office? Jack Martin : Yeah, yeah. Hell, yes, he did. That’s it. Ferrie was an anti-communist, yet Oswald and he are tight. See. That’s what I mean. Jim Garrison : How do you know he was going to Oswald’s office, Jack? Jack Martin : We he was going up and down the stairs, all the time. After the … they moved out of the building. Jim Garrison : In other words, you’d bump into him there? Jack Martin : I was coming around from Banister’s all the time. Going over to ... Mancuso’s to play. I’ve seen him come in and out. I’ve seen his car parked out there on the street. I knew damn well where he was. Of course, Jack Martin never said anything in 1963 or 1964 about seeing Oswald with Ferrie. Here is statement that Jack Martin gave Garrison a few weeks later: In the the conversation with Garrison, Martin never said anything about anyone referring to someone as "Lee." He told Garrison Ferrie was with Sergio Arcacha Smith, not Morris Brownlee. Martin also told Garrison that "Dave Ferrie introduced me to him in Banister's office. He says he used to be in my CAP squadron when he was a little kid." (29:26) That didn't make it into Martin's statement.

Here is a YouTube video of an interview with Jim Garrison from September 26, 1967: You can download a transcript below in .PDF format. You can download a transcript below in Word format. There is no shortage of Garrison craziness in the interview. Here are some quotations: on Marina Oswald: Marina Oswald had long since been taken over and controlled literally by elements of the white Russian community in Dallas. And there are our individuals in the white Russian community in Dallas who are involved in the assassination. As a matter of fact, this is the sort of thing that I was not able to say in the Playboy interview because we still had people in Dallas. So, I'm really just talking about a corner of the entire conspiracy. But there are elements of the Dallas establishment that are deeply involved and some of the members of the white Russian community are part of it. Now they had total control of Marina. Marina said in many cases what she was supposed to say and instructed to say. on the Dallas police: Elements of the Dallas police are deeply involved in the assassination and provably involved in the assassination. Again, a statement that I could not make at the time, because I had a man in Dallas for months, and I wanted him to be able to come back to New Orleans with his head still attached to his body. on Jack Ruby: Jack Ruby should be regarded as a functionary of the Dallas police force. Now I'm not saying a word here that we can't prove. Jack Ruby's 'orientation': The point about Ruby is that if you want to get a picture of Jack Ruby's orientation, all you have to do is get his address book. If you go through his address book, you will find among the addresses, you'll find the name Tom Hill. If you look behind Tom Hill, you will see an address in Massachusetts. That address actually is the address of Robert Welch, the president of John Birch Society. on Dealey Plaza: Joe Wershba: What happened in Dealey Plaza? Jim Garrison: Joe, this is a question I would rather avoid in detail because, in the last six weeks, we've begun preparing our case in detail. And this is now an opening part of our case. Joe Wershba: What I was referring to in your Playboy interview, you refer to an assassination team of seven. If you can give it to us in summary form. Jim Garrison: Jim Garrison: I don't want to get into anything about precise details about Dealey Plaza, because we've now made a decision that the first week or so of trial is going to go into Dealey Plaza. Joe Wershba: But you're not retracting what you said in the Playboy about this team of two men behind the picket fence? Jim Garrison: The only thing I have to say about that is there actually considerably more than seven men at Dealey Plaza. Seven is an inadequate description. Joe Wershba: This will come up in the trial? Jim Garrison: Dealey Plaza. Yes. Not necessarily everything you have in mind, but the fact that there were a number of men at Dealey Plaza, including radio communication, use of transistor radios to tell when the parade was coming, at what point it was turning, to signal when the guns were to be picked up to indicate that the course was clear. The Dealey Plaza operation will now be part of the trial. on proof of his alleged conspiracy: Well, the corroborating evidence is in our files, Joe Garrison's point about Ruby's address book is ridiculous. I can't find a notation for Tom Hill. I also looked at the notebook that Larry Crafard gave to the Warren Commission. Tom Hill did work for the John Birch Society and eventually became its President. Fortunately, Paul Hoch emailed me to say that I should have searched for Thomas Hill, rather than Tom Hill. His name was on the back of a white envelope found in Ruby's possession. Here is the envelope: Hill was interviewed by the FBI. Here is an explanation for Ruby writing down his name: Here is one such billboard: Larry Crafard mentioned the sign and the address in his testimony before the Warren Commission. Sylvia Meagher sent Harold Weisberg excerpts of Garrison's interview and here is what she said:

Screen shot from CAPA presentation In a recent presentation at the Citizens Against Political Assassination (CAPA ) conference , James DiEugenio mentioned that he wanted Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), to be in his so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed : (15:26) James DiEugenio : And then, this is this was really a bad experience for me and I changed my opinion of Jeremy Gunn a lot. Okay, off of my experience with him. He was actually the very first guy I called, very first guy I talked to. Alright, over there in Africa, Morocco, I think. This guy made every single excuse under the sun for not to be part of this. And then I talked to Doug Horne about it. "That sounds like Jeremy Gunn to me, you know." And at the end, he backed down on us. And then I saw a speech that he did at the University in New England. It's on YouTube. And I was kind of glad we didn't get him after that. All right. You can look it up on YouTube. All right. Here is the Jeremy Gunn Presentation at the University of New England Center for Global Humanities, November 22, 2013: At the 56:50 minute mark, Gunn is asked a question about the autopsy and this allows him to discuss, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and Fletcher Prouty. Here is a transcript: Question : Years ago, I had read the book, I think it was A Thousand Days . And, do you know, in fact, how many people were in the room for the autopsy? Because they did mention about the confusion that was going on during the autopsy. And in fact, they did say that they never found the brain after. Is that true? Gunn : First, it's not in A Thousand Days . That's Arthur Schlesinger's and he doesn't talk about that. There is a question about how many people were in the autopsy room. If you've seen the movie JFK, let me -- if I can just take one second. I'll be more than a second, on JFK . It is, for a movie, it is a -- because he has the autopsy scene in the film. That's why I'm making this reference to it. It is a fabulous movie in terms of technical skill, in terms of telling a dramatic story. Fabulous movie. And portions of the movie, in my opinion, are historically absolutely correct, and show, in my opinion, some of the problems with the Warren Commission. The two witnesses that he uses most for his film, Jim Garrison and Fletcher Prouty, who's Mr. X in the film, are, in my opinion, totally unreliable. Both of them are deceased. So I guess I can't be sued for anything. But I would think of saying something that I could be sued for if they were alive. I find them to be totally unreliable and Oliver Stone bought their stories, hook, line and sinker. I took the deposition of Fletcher Prouty. And he's the, again, Donald Sutherland character, Mr. X in the film. And so I had his, his contemporaneous records there. And he would say, yes, I wrote memos on this. He didn't write memos on it. He just made it up. And I don't know why he did that. He's actually one person who I think was lying to me. Anyway. And now getting back to this -- in the film. JFK , Oliver Stone shows the autopsy scene. And it is so well done that I mean, I knew that that wasn't the case. But was there a video of this event that was going on? And if you watch the film, he skillfully blends actual archival footage with things that he makes up, and so he'll have a sort of a faded color from 1963. And then he'll put his actual film. And then he blends that with something that he's made up. If you know what's real and what's not real, you can see what he's doing. If you don't know, it's -- just blends this thing. No wonder Jeremy Gunn avoided talking to James DiEugenio. And, of course, once DiEugenio saw this video, his attitude changed. Jeremy Gunn knew the truth about Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Fletcher Prouty. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Fletcher Prouty Was Marina Oswald Involved in the JFK Assassination? Fletcher Prouty actually claimed that Marina Oswald was in on the plot. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuses for Fletcher Prouty Mr. DiEugenio can't explain why Fletcher Prouty did such a poor job of testifying before the ARRB. Fletcher Prouty Talks to the ARRB A summary document of his interview with the ARRB Transcript of Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB Here is a link to the complete transcript of Prouty's interview with the ARRB along with some other documents. Fletcher Prouty and Army Intelligence in Dallas Another summary document from the ARRB about Prouty's allegations and army intelligence. Was Fletcher Prouty an Antisemite? Prouty had some very unsavory relationships with antisemitic groups. Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part One Was Fletcher Prouty's Trip to Antarctica Unusual? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Two Regarding Christchurch, New Zealand and The Christchurch Star Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Three Regarding the 112th Intelligence Corps (INTC) Group and/or the 316th INTC Detachment Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Four Did Prouty Keep the notes from his supposed phone call about army intelligence? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Five Prouty's experience with military presidential protection duties. Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Six Flagrant failure by the Secret Service to take minimum precautions? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Seven Did Lee Harvey Oswald participate in a covert program in Indonesia in 1958? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Eight Was General Edward Lansdale in one of the pictures of the three tramps? Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense ( JFK: Destiny Betrayed ) and two hours ( JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass ). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza .

Was Jim Garrison an incredible District Attorney? In 1961, Garrison was elected as the city's district attorney. He developed a good reputation and in his first two years he never lost a case. Jim Garrison wrote about his success: (page 26 of the Kindle version of On the Trail of the Assassins ) NEARLY THREE YEARS PASSED. These were years of great satisfaction for me. We had rebuilt a bucolic D.A.’s office into a crackerjack operation. The office had gone three years without losing a homicide case—and it would be eight more years before we lost our first one. Garrison's successor had a very different view: New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 30, 1996

His investigation was a circus. Everybody rationalized his craziness by thinking "he must have something." But, in the end, he had nothing.

Here is a story that appeared in the April 10, 1996 edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune . The papers of Edward Wegmann had just been made public and reporter David Snyder wrote this front page story. Jim Garrison's son Lyon responded to the article: New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 18, 1996 And, William Gurvich's brother Leonard responded to Lyon Garrison: New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 28, 1996 Money quotes: "There is no major prosecutor or investigator, save one, who did not speak with me about the lack of evidence in the Clay Shaw-JFK case. I was also told by these assistants that Mr. Garrison was ruining their office's reputation and that they hoped my family's business would not suffer from our participation in the Shaw case." and: "The world has judged this case, and the world has found it sadly lacking any evidence involving the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

As I noted in a blog post from April 2021, James DiEugenio is the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith : DiEugenio’s official title should be Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith , and as such he must answer anybody who deviates, even if just slightly, from his conspiracy dogma. My heresy of writing an entire book critical of Jim Garrison gets me special treatment, and so the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith has also reviewed my other two books. It’s quite telling that DiEugenio writes that “the problem is – and I cannot make this point forcefully enough – too many writers and interested parties think they know the Garrison inquiry and New Orleans, when they really do not.” Of course, the only person who really understands the Garrison inquiry is the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith – he alone can decipher and interpret the ancient scripture (Jim Garrison’s papers) and he alone can determine which high priests are allowed to add and discuss doctrine. Unauthorized commentators – Patricia Lambert, Don Carpenter, Sylvia Meagher, Gus Russo, Paul Hoch, David Reitzes, Rosemary James, Alecia Long, Max Holland, Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Fred Litwin – are deserving of scorn and ridicule. They do not have the necessary skills to understand the complex nature of the holy texts and they have not adequately studied the printed words of the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith. Salvation is only possible when they have repented and have memorized the full 25 episodes of the Destiny Betrayed podcast. Indeed, many of these illegitimate poseurs have been tainted by working for the ‘deep state,’ which means everything they say or write can be safely ignored. What’s worse is that they hide their devious intent – but no matter, the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith can ferret out their covert connections and can safely exclude their findings from the record. This week DiEugenio took aim at the latest heresy: Arun Starkey's article, "Russia, fake news and the CIA: Oliver Stone's obsession with the JFK assassination," for Far Out magazine. What are Starkey's crimes? First, DiEugenio claims that Mr. Starkey does not mention any of the new evidence uncovered by the ARRB: Starkey does not mention one single evidentiary point from the film. This is incredible, because that is what the film is about. It is clearly focused on the creation and the discoveries of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). That body worked from 1994-98 declassifying a new database of information about the circumstances of a high-level plot which took Kennedy’s life and how several foreign policy reversals followed. I can't speak for Mr. Starkey, but as I have shown in this blog, and in my book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza , James DiEugenio has taken a variety of conspiracy stories from Douglas Horne and others and wrapped them in the imprimatur of the ARRB. This sleight of hand obscures the fact that even the ARRB was wary about much of the testimony it published . For instance: Memories fade over time. A very important figure in the chain-of-custody on the autopsy materials, and the living person who perhaps more than any other would have been able to resolve some of the lingering questions related to the disposition of the original autopsy materials, is Robert Bouck of the Secret Service. At the time he was interviewed he was quite elderly and little able to remember the important details. Similarly, the records show that Carl Belcher, formerly of the Department of Justice, played an important role in preparing the inventory of autopsy records. He was, however, unable to identify or illuminate the records that, on their face, appear to have been written by him. Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples’ recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor’s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony. The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as “proof” for one theory or another. The good advice that "the medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public," was ignored by JFK: Destiny Betrayed . Segments on JFK's brain ( here , here , and here ), the presence of General Curtis LeMay at the autopsy, the possibility of other autopsy photographs ( here , and here) , a supposed alibi for Lee Harvey Oswald , supposed plots against JFK in Chicago and Tampa , and whether Clay Shaw was a "contract agent" for the CIA, are all based on tendentious readings of the evidence. To believe that the ARRB 'uncovered' any of this is not just wrong, it turns the ARRB into a deterministic investigative body, when in fact their mission was just to release documents. James DiEugenio second objection to Mr. Starkey's article relates to his discussion of Tim Weiner's excellent review of JFK Revisited . Weiner wrote about the allegation that the CIA supported a 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle: Stone pegs Dulles as a presiding genius of the plot against the president. To begin building this case, he tells us that Dulles and the CIA backed a failed military coup aimed at assassinating President Charles de Gaulle of France. That’s another lie spun by Moscow. Like the cold-war CIA, the KGB paid editors and reporters around the world to print stories that could advance the Kremlin’s international agendas. In the late 1950’s, it created a directorate to undermine America. Department D — D as in dezinformatsiya — aimed to bend and shape public opinion, and above all to defame the United States. The Department of Disinformation was the world’s first industrial factory of fake news. A KGB-scripted story about the CIA’s plot to kill De Gaulle first appeared in a daily newspaper, Paese Sera , published in Rome and backed by the Italian Communist Party, a few days after the Bay of Pigs. It was republished in Moscow by the Soviet party organ, Pravda ; then in France, and finally across the globe. That was, and is, the M.O. of Russian disinformation operations: start a fire, fan the flames, and blow the smoke around the world. DiEugenio took exception to this noting that "neither the film, nor its writer, namely me, referred to any such Moscow related sources -- specifically the Italian newspaper Paese Sera -- for the Dulles/DeGaulle accusations. Stone then listed the sources we did use, like author David Talbot, and the London Observer and the New York Times, among others. This was a grave error for Weiner to make back then." The problem is that DiEugenio's sources do not back up his claims. Check out my post here in which I examine every single one of his sources. It's interesting that DiEugenio lists the May 2, 1961, date for the London Observer . Clearly, he just took the sources from Talbot's book, and did not check them. The Observer was not published on May 2, 1961 and the actual articles about the coup attempt appeared on April 30, 1961. DiEugenio would never quote from the end of the Observer article: There is no evidence that General Challe received active encouragement from American secret agents. But he seems to have hoped for some help from this direction. The New York Times article only mentioned a lunch that Richard Bissell had with Jacques Soustelle some five months before the coup attempt. The luncheon was actually given by the French Intelligence chief in Washington and Bissell and Soustelle were his guests. Given that the CIA's work is in intelligence, and that Soustelle had a major position in Algeria, there was nothing wrong with the lunch. And David Talbot's sources trace back to Vincent Jauvert's book, L'Amerique Contre De Gaulle. As I show in my post, Talbot doesn't tell readers the full story. Jauvert wrote that the rumor of CIA support came from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The director of information wrote to the Foreign Affairs Minister about the allegations. At the end of his paragraph on the rumors, Jauvert writes, "Rumors, unconfirmed information, but no proof." (page 193) Unfortunately, James DiEugenio missed the real story. French officials were upset at the CIA because of its contacts with Frantz Fanon, chief theoretician for the FLN. He was ill with cancer and the CIA helped transport him to the US for treatment. Unfounded rumors about the CIA might have been payback for this help. DiEugenio also takes issue with the timing of Clay Shaw's arrest and the Paese Sera series of articles. He first wrote about this in December of 2021 : He [Weiner] says that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison arrested Clay Shaw because of a story that ran in Paesa Sera three days after. (Hmm) He then adds that Garrison bandied this story about as a basis for his prosecution of Shaw and also that it became a central basis for his whole case against the Central Intelligence Agency. But that's not what Tim Weiner wrote: On March 1, 1967, the New Orleans district attorney, Jim Garrison, arrested Clay Shaw, the director of the city’s International Trade Mart and a somewhat-closeted gay man, and charged him with a central role in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. The D.A. told reporters that what happened in Dallas had been “a homosexual thrill-killing.” Three days later, Paese Sera named Shaw as a conduit for CIA funds for espionage and dirty tricks in Rome. The story, crafted by the KGB, ricocheted around the world, landing in New York on the front page of a New Left weekly, the National Guardian , on March 18. Garrison seized upon it. He fed the falsehood to a friendly newspaper reporter in New Orleans and it landed on page one. He told the world that Shaw was a longtime CIA operative. (He wasn’t, though he had been a casual part-time contact on questions of commerce, one among some 150,000 Americans who volunteered information to the cold-war CIA.) The prosecutor then doubled down. He proclaimed that the CIA had plotted to kill Kennedy and then covered up the conspiracy, that Oswald had been under its control, that the agency was “infinitely more powerful than the Gestapo,” and that it had masterminded a coup d’etat in America in the name of anticommunism. The diaries of Richard Billings support the claim that Garrison linked the CIA to the assassination after the Paese Sera series of articles : Garrison now interested in possible connections between Shaw and the CIA . . . wants to check his tie to Mario Bermudez, international relations director for late mayor, Shep Morrison . . . Two leads re: CIA tie: article in March issue Humanite supposedly mentions Shaw's Company work in Italy. Billings also wrote: Story about Shaw and CIA appears in Humanite, probably March 8 . . . Giant has copy datelined Rome, March 7, from La Presse Italien . . . It explains Shaw working in Rome in '58 to '60 period . . . Here is the page one story that ran in the New Orleans States-Item on April 25, 1967: The article continued: And James DiEugenio won't tell you that the one person who really mixed up the dates of Shaw's arrest and the Paese Sera series of article was, in fact, Oliver Stone, in his film JFK . Here is an excerpt from a scene in which Clay Shaw is brought in for questioning: Garrison : Mr. Shaw, this Italian newspaper saying you were a board member of Centro Mondo Commercial [sic] in Italy. That this company was a creature of the CIA for the transfer of funds in Italy for illegal political espionage activities. It says this company was expelled from Italy for these activities. Shaw : I’m well aware of that asinine article. I’m thinking of suing that rag. Garrison : It also says this company is linked to the Schlumberger Tool Company, near Houma in Louisiana, which provided arms to David Ferrie and his Cubans. Perhaps this was artistic license which is OK only in a admittedly fictionalized/dramatized account. DiEugenio ends his review of Starkey's article with his longstanding claim that Clay Shaw was "a contract agent, and he had a covert security clearance." For those of you who are interested in the truth, please read this post. Shaw was just a domestic contact of the CIA like thousands of other businessmen. Anybody who writes about Jim Garrison and strays from the conspiracy orthodoxy can expect an article by James DiEugenio. I'm the only exception to that rule since Mr. DiEugenio has promised to never write about me again . There can be no sleep for the Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith. Previous Relevant Links on James DiEugenio: Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA? James DiEugenio is unaware that an HSCA report on Oswald and the CIA was actually published. Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA, Part Two Dan Hardway rebuts James DiEugenio. Just who does James DiEugenio work for? Why does James DiEugenio write for one of the major agents of Russian disinformation? My So-Called Libel of James DiEugenio Mr. DiEugenio thinks that I libeled him, but his accusations are all over the map. Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation Was Lee Harvey Oswald at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963? Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Two Was David Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963? Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Three James DiEugenio accepts a phony story as fact. Fact Checking James DiEugenio, Part Two Bill Boxley was not a CIA plant. F act Checking James DiEugenio Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand. Fred Litwin's Follies! A response to James DiEugenio about my writings. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuses for Fletcher Prouty Prouty couldn't back up any of his allegations when he was interviewed by the ARRB. You wouldn't believe the lame excuse offered up by DiEugenio. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuse for Oliver Stone Why does Oliver Stone support so many dictators? James DiEugenio Gets it all Wrong on Permindex/CMC DiEugenio has no understanding of Permindex/CMC The Scholarship of James DiEugenio - A Case Study DiEugenio gets it all wrong on the Mannlicher-Carcano The Scholarship of James DiEugenio, Part Two The conclusion on the Mannlicher-Carcano The Scholarship of James DiEugenio Over the past ten months, I have debunked every witness cited by DiEugenio regarding Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

Tablet Magazine has a lengthy interview with RFK Junior who is asked about the JFK assassination : A couple of years later, like I guess ’66 or ’67, he [Robert Kennedy] was walking through the National Airport with Frank Mankiewicz and Walter Sheridan. And he said there was a magazine stand there that had a lot of magazines with James Garrison on the cover. And he pointed to Garrison, who was then investigating my uncle’s death and thinking that the CIA was involved. And he said to them, “What do you think about him? Does he have anything?" And they said, “We think he does." And Daddy said to them, “Will you look into it quietly?" So they went down, or Sheridan went down there. And what he came back with is that he got a look at Jack Ruby’s telephone records right before the assassination. And he was struck that virtually everybody that my dad had subpoenaed and convicted who was in the Mafia had been in touch with Ruby a month before. I doubt that Sheridan or Mankiewicz ever said, "we think he does." Walter Sheridan did go down to New Orleans and ultimately produced an hour-long documentary "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison," which aired on June 19, 1967: ( transcript is here ) Sheridan concluded that Garrison's investigation was a complete sham. This is NBC's conclusion: Now, we cannot say that the murder of John F. Kennedy did not happen the way Jim Garrison says it did. We cannot say he does not have the evidence to prove it. We can say this. The case he has built against Clay Shaw is based on testimony that did not pass a lie detector test that Garrison ordered, and Garrison knew it. One prospective witness admitted in advance he was going to lie. Members of Garrison's staff, in trying to strengthen the case against Shaw, have threatened and offered inducements to potential witnesses. The results of this four months of public investigation have been to damage reputations, to spread fear and suspicion, and, worst of all, to exploit the nation's sorrow and doubts about President Kennedy's death. Jim Garrison has said, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall. We seek the truth." So do we. Good night. I find it interesting that RFK Jr. doesn't tell the interviewer about what Walter Sheridan really found out. RFK Jr. also doesn't tell his interviewer that William Gurvich, one of Garrison's major investigators, quit his investigation and went to visit Robert Kennedy. The story broke in the June 23, 1967, issue of Newsday : The story then hit other newspapers in July, when Gurvich, after he had quit the Garrison investigation, was a little clearer about what he had told Robert Kennedy: James Kirkwood interviewed Gurvich for his book American Grotesque, and he asked him about the meeting with Robert Kennedy: (pages 540 -541) Kirkwood : How did you happen to get to Kennedy? Gurvich : Through one of his emissaries. I was asked if I would see the Senator. I didn't know for sure what he wanted to see me about, what he had to say. But I went, I paid my own way. They offered to buy my ticket, but because it was Kennedy and because Kennedy was on the other side -- although I didn't believe in Garrison any more at this point, I was still on his payroll and I'm a firm believer in loyalty. That's why I never -- they wanted me on NBC on the white paper, but I said, "Regardless of how I feel or what I believe, I am still working for him, I haven't resigned, therefore I can't say anything against him. So when I saw the Senator it was quite obvious he was more interested in hearing what I had to say than he was in telling me anything. Kirkwood : In other words, he contacted you? Gurvich : Yes, I talked to his emissary at the Royal Orleans Hotel. Kirkwood : What was his reaction to what you told him? Gurvich : I don't think he ever thought the guy had anything. And I've never really discussed our meeting with anyone. He's dead, it was confidential - whether he honored it or not, I don't know. But basically what I told him was, the exact words were, "Senator, Mr. Garrison will never shed any light on your brother's death." What he wanted to know most was, and I'll quote him, "Then why is he doing this?" At the time, I told him I did not have the answer to it That if I had the answer to that I'd have the answer to the whole damn thing. Was it political? Was it insanity? Was it for money? Was it revenge? What was it? But I don't believe anybody could actually say at the time. I didn't try. I just simply said, "I don't now. I wish I did." I also don't believe RFK Jr.'s statement about Ruby's telephone records. Sheridan did not have to go down to New Orleans to check on them . I'd like to know RFK Jr.'s source for the allegation. Of course, does he really think that the quantity of phone calls is indicative of the mob ordering Ruby to kill Oswald? One phone call would be sufficient - wouldn't there be a need to keep the so-called conspiracy closely held? Here is what Gerald Posner wrote about Ruby's phone calls in his book Cased Closed : (pages 425 - 427 in the Kindle edition) Ruby’s long-distance telephone activity jumped significantly during the months when he tried to resolve the AGVA dispute, and some of those he telephoned were people connected to organized crime. Were such calls evidence of a mafia conspiracy to kill JFK? The House Select Committee did an extensive computer analysis of Ruby’s five home and business telephone numbers for all of 1963. The Committee checked each number he telephoned, as well as the records of those he called, and determined that most of the increases in his long-distance bill were due to his AGVA problems. But three of those calls, said the Select Committee, raised the possibility that they might be of significance in the Kennedy case. However, the author’s investigation reveals the calls were not as mysterious as the Select Committee assumed. The first was to Chicago bail bondsman Irwin Weiner, who often represented mob figures. The Committee feared he may have been a link for Ruby to crime bosses. Weiner had refused to cooperate with the FBI in its Warren Commission investigation. “I gave Irwin Weiner’s number to my brother,” Earl Ruby told the author. “I had gone to school with Weiner; we graduated high school together. I used to see him on visits to California. He was a big bondsman for everyone, and he handled the mafia. It was in the newspapers—you could read about it. I thought he might be able to help Jack with the union. Jack didn’t even know Weiner, for God’s sake.” Weiner later admitted that Ruby called him once, about his AGVA problem; however, Weiner did not offer him any assistance. The second call was to a trailer park in New Orleans, to the office of Nofio Pecora, a lieutenant to New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello. This October 30, 1963, call worried the committee since it appeared to be a Ruby contact with a high-ranking aide to Marcello less than a month before the assassination. However, the call was not even intended for Pecora. Harold Tannenbaum, a fellow nightclub owner and friend of Ruby’s, lived in that trailer park, the Tropical Court Tourist Park. Tannenbaum had arranged the deal that allowed Ruby to bring Jada from New Orleans to Dallas, and Ruby often called him at his trailer-park home and his French Quarter nightclub to complain about his contractual problems with the temperamental dancer. In 1978, Pecora told the Select Committee that he did not know Ruby, nor did he remember ever speaking to him. However, Pecora, who ran the trailer park from his one-man office, admitted he occasionally took a message for someone in the park, but did not remember doing so for Ruby. But apparently that is exactly what he did. There is no way to know if Ruby first telephoned Tannenbaum’s home, since if no one was there, there would be no toll record. The call to Pecora’s office lasted less than one minute. Within the hour, Tannenbaum had apparently received the message from Pecora and returned Ruby’s call, collect, for twenty-one minutes. The third call that stumped the Select Committee actually comprised three calls, two on November 7, and one on November 8, all to Robert “Barney” Baker, an aide to Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Baker had only been released from prison in June 1963. The committee was concerned since Hoffa had such a well-known hatred for both John and Robert Kennedy. However, Baker and Ruby did not know each other before Ruby called him on November 7, 1963. When the FBI contacted Baker in 1964, he spoke to them openly. He told the agents that on November 7, Ruby had telephoned, but Baker was not in and his wife had taken a number in Dallas. When Baker got home, he called the number collect. Ruby introduced himself, explained his labor-union problems with his club, and sought Baker’s assistance. Baker did not help, nor did he remember the last call the following day. What is critical is that at the time he spoke to the FBI and talked about Ruby’s AGVA problems, it was independent of knowing that Ruby had also told the police that the conversations were about union problems. Moreover, Baker, who thought the FBI tapped his phone lines (most Hoffa associates assumed the federal government had them under constant surveillance) reportedly challenged the agents to check their tapes and listen to the conversation if they had any doubts. Unfortunately, there apparently was no surveillance of his line. Of course, these phone calls were made before the assassination. Bugliosi notes that "all of Ruby's contacts by phone with unsavory mob figures took place in the many weeks before the assassination. There is no evidence of any taking place between the assassination on November 22 and Ruby's killing of Oswald on November 24." (page 1,770 of the Kindle edition)

I have posted many memos and letters from Sylvia Meagher about her negative opinions about Jim Garrison. Here is some correspondence between Meagher and Wecht about Garrison: In 1992, Dr. Wecht once again wrote that he did not "subscribe to Garrison's conspiracy theories."

Mary Ferrell Over the past three years, I have posted many letters and articles written by Sylvia Meagher about Jim Garrison. You can see the list below. I have now found something written by Mary Ferrell about Jim Garrison, and she also realized that Garrison was a charlatan, Here is an excerpt from an April 1970 letter Mary Ferrell wrote to Sylvia Meagher : Here is Sylvia's response : The next day, Sylvia wrote another letter to Mary : You can read more about the "preposterous 'code'" here . Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss Jim Garrison Dr. Wecht didn't think too much of Garrison, either. Mike Farrell, of M*A*S*H fame, and Sylvia Meagher Meagher educates Farrell on Jim Garrison. When will Oliver Stone Admit he was Wrong about Clay Shaw? A plea to Oliver Stone with a compilation of Meagher's writings about Jim Garrison. Sylvia Meagher on the Clay Shaw Case Howard Roffman writes a letter to Harold Weisberg about Sylvia Meagher. Penn Jones' Phone Call with Sylvia Meagher This phone call broke their relationship. Sylvia Meagher's Letter to Look Magazine Sylvia Meagher's reply to Look Magazine 's article "The Persecution of Clay Shaw." Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part One Sylvia Meagher writes Clay Shaw, and he replies. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Two An unpublished Meagher memo on the trial of Clay Shaw. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Three - a never before published article by Meagher Another unpublished Meagher memo on the Garrison investigation and Warren Report critics. Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be Printed Sylvia Meagher's letter to the Editor regarding Garrison's interview in Playboy Magazine. Sylvia Meagher's Reaction to the Verdict in the Shaw Trial Meagher writes Harold Weisberg with her comments on the verdict. Two Letters to Jim Garrison about "A Heritage of Stone" James Phelan and Sylvia Meagher write Garrison letters about his book. Kerry Thornley writes Sylvia Meagher An exchange of letters between Thornley and Meagher. Did RFK Tell Garrison that there were guns between him and the White House? Meagher writes Thornley about Lane's comment on RFK. Sylvia Meagher Congratulates Clay Shaw On His Acquittal Meagher writes Clay Shaw. Was Jim Garrison Napoleon or Rasputin? Meagher writes Thornley with an opinion. M. S. Arnoni and Sylvia Meagher Take On Jim Garrison... Exchange of letters between Meagher, Arnoni and Garrison. Jim Garrison Blows His Top Meagher writes Weisberg about the damage Garrison is doing to critics of the Warren Report. James Phelan Writes to Richard Popkin Meagher replies to the New York Review of Books regarding Popkin's article on Garrison. Sylvia Meagher Replies to Richard Popkin An exchange of letters between Popkin and Meagher.