Headline of an Open City article by David Lifton about his experiences with Jim Garrison. David Lifton started working with Jim Garrison in September of 1967 and met with him in October. He had become friends with Kerry Thornley and felt that they could help Garrison's investigation. It didn't take long for the tables to reverse and Thornley became a target of Garrison's probe. Lifton wrote about his experiences for the Los Angeles newspaper, Open City . Kerry Thornley also wrote about his experience with Garrison. Here is a David Lifton memo "Thoughts and Comments about DA Garrison and Kerry Thornley " that was circulated to many Warren Commission critics in 1968. The following documents are mentioned in his memo, and are reproduced below. These include: Thornley statement on his Warren Commission deposition. Thornley statement on Russian lessons. Thornley statement on the U-2 planes at Atsugi. Lifton statement on Heindel. Lifton statement on Garrison. Money quote is one page 2: his story about the phone number that supposedly connected Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Thornley Statement on Warren Commission deposition : Thornley statement on Russian lessons : Thornley statement on the U-2 plane at Atsugi : Lifton statement on Garrison : Lifton statement on Heindel : Sylvia Meagher was impressed with this memo : Coming Up Harold Weisberg wrote two letters in response to Open City , Kerry Thornley replied, and David Lifton wrote a memo regarding the correspondence. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Kerry Thornley David Lifton (1939-2022), R.I.P. My obituary for David Lifton includes a letter that he wrote to Mark Lane about Kerry Thornley. Exclusive: Andrew Sciambra Phones Kerry Thornley A link to a tape recording of a phone call between Kerry Thornley and Andrew Sciambra. Was Kerry Thornley a Spook? James DiEugenio includes a clearly false story about Thornley in his book. Did Kerry Thornley Lie About Oswald's Height? Garrison was obsessed about Oswald's height. 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 Interviewed by the HSCA Garrison tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley might be the body in the backyard photographs. Gaeton Fonzi Channels Jim Garrison... Why was Kerry Thornley arrested in 1962? 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?

UPI photo of Lee Odom, May 18, 1967 Note: I appreciate that not everybody will read all of the enclosed documents. I wanted to make public all of the relevant documents regarding this ridiculous incident, so that future researchers can easily access them. In mid-April 1967, Edward Jay Epstein flew down to New Orleans to meet Jim Garrison. He had dinner with Garrison at Broussard's and then went to his office the following morning. Garrison wasn't there but Epstein, along with researcher Jones Harris, was told to start going through the evidence. Six boxes were brought in of Clay Shaw's belongings. Here is an excerpt from Epstein's book Counterplot : (page 37 - 38) A discovery that Jones Harris made while we were going through the papers provided considerable insight into the nature of Garrison's investigation. What Harris found was a five-digit number that was common to both Shaw's and Oswald's address books. The entry in Shaw's book was "Lee Odom, PO Box 19106, Dallas, Tex." In Oswald's book , the number 19106 was preceded by the Cyrillic letters дд (which, like other Russian letters on the page, the Warren Commission had assumed were made during Oswald's two-and-a-half-year stary in the Soviet Union). Though the co-incidence of numbers proved nothing in itself, it was striking, and Garrison decided that further investigation was merited. Shortly thereafter Garrison announced to the press that he had found the entry "PO 19106" in both Oswald's and Shaw's address books, and that the number was a "nonexistent or fictional number," which removed the "possibility of coincidence." Moreover, Garrison said that "PO 19106" was a code that, when deciphered, produced Jack Ruby's unlisted telephone number, WH 1-5601, and "no other number on earth." Here is how this was reported in the New Orleans Times-Picayune of May 13, 1967: Here is the document from the D.A.'s office that explains the code: The Dallas Times-Herald broke the story wide open by actually interviewing Lee Odom: Dallas Times-Herald, May 17. 1967 So, Clay Shaw met Lee Odom in November 1966, and they had a discussion about a proposed bullfight. Sylvia Meagher thought Garrison's reasoning was faulty and wrote him a registered letter: Garrison phoned Meagher the next day and she wrote a letter to Raymond Marcus on Mary 17, 1967 to tell him what happened: In an August, 1967, memo entitled "Garrison and the Warren Report Critics: Strangeloves and Surprising Coalitions." Meagher mentioned the code issue: Of course, Jim Garrison believed there was more to Lee Odom than a bullfight: New Orleans States-Item, May 17, 1967 Now, Jack Ruby was working with the CIA at the same time as Lee Harvey Oswald? Milton Brener, in his book The Garrison Case , says that Odom actually phoned Jim Garrison: (page 205) Odom was not at all reluctant to talk to anyone about his meeting with Shaw. He called Garrison collect and told him what he told the reporters. Garrison did ask Odom some questions. According to Odom, Garrison wanted to know his address and next of kin "in case something happened to me, but I wouldn't tell him." Added Odom: "He also told me he didn't want me to leave Irving." To make this all even sillier, in a memo written in May 1967 about an informant talking about a bullfight in Tampa or Miami, Garrison wrote in longhand: "This is the second time "Bullfight" has been used as a code word for the assassination." Of course, despite the fact this was all nonsense, Shaw's defense team still had to run down the lead. They wrote a letter to Mr. Odom: A few days later, Shaw's attorneys had more information about Odom courtesy of Life Magazine reporter Holland McCombs: Shaw and Odom met in New Orleans in June: Garrison investigated Odom to see if he could find anything nefarious: And then another memo about Odom: Clay Shaw's defense learned more in August: This was confirmation of the bullfight story. In the interests of completeness, I have included Odom's documents on the Dallas bullfight below. Richard Billings' diaries contain several entries related to the code and Lee Odom: April 25, 1967: conversation with Jim Garrison. He is still trying to check out the records on the [post office] box through Russell Long's office. He is having no success. Now Garrison is hard on the trail of the CIA; he has taken a great deal of this from the statement by Gordon Novel, as reported in the States-Item, that he, Novel, was working for the CIA when they stole the explosives from the bunker in Houma, La. We know on our own information, and later, my check with Holland McCombs, that Oswald is known to have had two post office boxes listed under his name, or names recognized as his affiliations while in Dallas. The first of these, Box 2915, was rented from the main Post Office from Oct. 9, 1962, until May 14, 1963. The second, Box 6225 in the Terminal Annex Post Office, was the one rented from Nov. 1, 1963, until Oswald's death. It was in this box that he received correspondence with the Russian Embassy in Washington under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. Discussing the boxes again with Garrison, he suggested that if there was no such box as 19106 in 1963, which there was not, then it must have been some kind of code, and he [is] now proceeding to decipher the possibility of a code. He also suggests the possibility that the box could have been a CIA front; it could have been a box used temporarily by the CIA -- but nevertheless, Garrison does suspect that involvement. Garrison returns to the point that there were three Oswalds working for the Reily Coffee Co. that summer, yet whenever any one of them was interviewed by the FBI, they denied knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald was also employed by the company. The names of the other three Oswalds working for the Reily Coffee Co. are: William S. Oswald, Julian Oswald, and Mary Oswald. Garrison is now proceeding to make a family tree of the Oswald family based on birth certificates that he is trying to obtain. We point out to Garrison that Box 19106 came into existence in 1965, in May; that there very well could be a person named Lee Odom, whose name Shaw would list in his book since May 1965. Garrison scoffs at this, convinced that this is impossible. May 10, 1967: The other Garrison hang-up at the moment is his only investigative research that seems to be going out at the present, and it's that damn code that he is convinced Oswald used in that notebook. Now remember, Oswald wrote the number 19106 with two rather cryptic letters preceding the number, and when Garrison found in Shaw book the name Lee Odom, PO Box #19106, Dallas, Texas -- he thought (we think, reasonably) that there was some significance. But, now, instead of trying to locate Post Office Box 19106 or Mr. Lee Odom, Garrison proceeds to decode these numbers, and, by his intricate method described heretofore he determines and convinces himself (and, may we say, no one else) that 19106 with those cryptic preceding letters is Jack Ruby's unlisted telephone number. Now, this isn't bad enough that he convinces himself -- he then proceeds, and as we were departing last Thursday, he had intended to do this, and indeed he did, the following day submit to the Grand Jury his decoded answer to that number. His presentation to the Grand Jury was that 19106, preceded by these cryptic letters, was indeed, or in fact, Jack Ruby's phone number. To jump ahead a little bit, that story did get to the papers, and indeed it was given some play in New Orleans and, as one might expect, this week, just a couple of days ago -- that would have been probably on Tuesday, May 16th -- Mr. Lee Odom of Irving, Texas, it turns out, a rodeo and bullfight promoter, turns up, and in November of 1966 he met with Mr. Clay Shaw in the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans; he'd come to New Orleans with the purpose of trying to promote a bullfight there, and doesn't this make Garrison look silly. May 17, 1967: Now, May 17th, [Billings' Life Magazine associate Miguel] Acoca reports that Garrison is quite upset, because the States-Item didn't develop further the decoding of those numbers; he apparently had leaked them to May. He feels that he needs to get this in the papers -- God knows why -- and Acoca says that Alcock has spoken to this man Odom on the telephone; he seems to check out clean, and nothing more than a legitimate rodeo promoter. He told Alcock he used the Post Office Box 19106 for promotional literature for his rodeo work, and he had the box from July 21, 1966, until January 11, 1967. May 18, 1967: Garrison does not seem too disturbed, as disturbed as he should be, about the appearance of the real Lee Odom in Dallas -- he says this doesn't bother us _______ over there looking into this Mr. Lee Odom, there are some things about him that do make Garrison suspicious -- first of all the fact that he comes from Irving, Texas, home of the Paines, and where Oswald's family was living at the time of the assassination. Then Garrison points out that this man claims to have been working on a bullfight deal, but the bullfight deal never went through, and he makes the point that the man had no phone, and he finds it very strange that a man in that type of promotional business had no telephone. Even more strange to Garrison -- admittedly, this does seem interesting -- that it took the defense something like four days to discover Mr. Lee Odom, but once that they had found him in another two days, the defense, according to Garrison, was able to come up with the fact that this number 19106 with the cryptic letters before it is a Russian telephone number, or a Russian number. I find this interesting because of a file today from Holland McCombs suggesting the same thing. I quote from McCombs' file: "As you know, we are of the persuasion that Oswald's notation in his notebook was made while Oswald was in Moscow; the letters are not for a PO box, but rather are Russian lettering. You will note in Oswald's notebook that letters OVIR are written above the series of letters including 19106. As we understand it, OVIR are the initials of the Visa and Tourist Information Center in Moscow. We suggest that, to clear this notebook thing up once and for all, that you get Moscow or Washington to check it out." I think this is quite interesting, and I think that Holland probably came upon it himself; what I wonder is, has there been communication between Holland and the defense. Either he has perhaps told them about the possibility of this being a Russian number, or they have suggested it to him. Garrison, of course, suspects that the defense got it right straight from the government. At any rate, there seems to be information that the number 19106 is going to turn out to be some kind of Russian number, which, the way things are going, wouldn't surprise me at all. Now, in the same point, another interesting development since the name, Mr. Odom, has come up -- suddenly Holland McCombs and the defense and the New Orleans newspaper are able to determine all the people who have held this box 19106 since it was first put into use in May of 1965. Quoting again from Holland, he says that "earlier we were unable to get a case history of Box 19106. Yesterday we hit it lucky, and with the help of a friend, we got the case history, and here it is: there was no Box 19106 in Dallas until after May of 1965. This box was first rented on July 12, 1965, to Adobie Associates, 127 Payne St. Adobie Associates held the box until July of 1966. Lee Odom and his brother-in-law, Joe Briggs, rented the box on July 21, 1966. The Jaycees said that he used this box as his address during the promotion of the bloodless bullfight, which started in September of 1966. Odom says the box was also used for the barbecue and grocery business, and Odom gave up the box on January 11, 1967. The box was vacant until March 1st, on which date it was rented to Tel-Tex Electronics, which holds the box today." Now, it does seem that the information, when it's to the benefit of the defense, is a lot more forthcoming than when it seems to be evidence for the side of the state. This is certainly Garrison's charge, and it seems to hold up. However, he does admit that the appearance of Lee Odom is a tentative victory for the defense; it certainly is a victory for the defense, and Garrison makes the point that this has nothing to do with the code that he has broken; well, we'll see about that. May 23, 1967: Now a note on Lee Odom of Dallas, the man who emerged as the holder of Post Office Box 19106. Odom will be interviewed this evening by Bill Boxley, the former CIA man who is helping Garrison. A telephone tip was received today from a man, unidentified man in Dallas, who claims that during the period Lee Odom was supposed to be the holder of Box 19106, this man received 10 letters, all from the Junior Chamber of Commerce in Dallas, and each one had a return address of Post Office Box 19106. The tip will be pursued through the source, but if he is not located, Garrison will go to the Junior Chamber of Commerce, to determine if they were using that box in that period. Garrison, of course, wants to pursue this tip, to attempt to expose the fact that Odom may have been a plant by the defense to explain the entry in Shaw's notebook of Lee Odom of Post Office Box 19106, Dallas. A plant by the defense? Garrison just could never face the truth about the P. O. Box and Lee Odom. You would have thought that that would be the end of Garrison's code. Not a chance. He repeated the story in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins : (pages 184 - 185 in the Kindle edition) Amid the names of the international blueblood set, the address book contained the following listing: “LEE ODOM, P.O. Box 19106, Dallas, Texas.” This odd item was revealed publicly when Shaw’s attorneys sought to have the address book returned to him. Our office opposed this move, and in our written opposition we called attention to an interesting fact: The citation of “P.O. 19106” appeared in Lee Oswald’s address book as well as Shaw’s. After several days of silence, Shaw’s attorneys produced a man named Lee Odom, who at that time rented post office box number 174 in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. He stated that he was from Dallas and that, while P.O. Box 19106 had never been in his name, it had been used for several months by a barbecue company with which he was once associated. Shaw’s attorneys, who now included Edward Wegmann as well as Panzeca, picked it up from there and explained that Odom had once met Clay Shaw to discuss the possibility of promoting a bullfight in New Orleans. There were some problems with the bullfight explanation, which had been floated up as justifying the presence of “P.O. Box 19106” in Shaw’s address book. For one thing, anyone who was genuinely involved in the promotion of bullfights would have to know that New Orleans, by its very nature, is a city most unlikely to be enthralled by the prospect of death in the afternoon. Second, as we knew from having compiled a summary of all of Clay Shaw’s activities since graduating from high school, he had never engaged in any kind of promotion. Finally, the bullfight explanation seemed weak when juxtaposed to the fact that virtually the same phrase, “P.O. 19106,” was memorialized forever on one of the pages of Oswald’s address book. The coincidence became even more suspicious when one considered that Lee Oswald had to have written his notation no later than 1963, the year he was murdered, and that as of 1963 Dallas had not yet acquired a post office box with a number as high as 19106. To me, the explanation that Clay Shaw had written “P.O. Box 19106” in his address book because he was considering the possibility of treating the citizens of New Orleans to a bullfight and that Lee Oswald had written it in his address book years earlier for no reason at all stretched the limits of common sense by a long ways. Once again the people of this country were being asked to swallow a cannon ball, no matter how well lubricated. Money quote: Once again the people of this country were being asked to swallow a cannon ball, no matter how lubricated. In 1992, Lee Odom put together a booklet with documents about the whole controversy: Odom refers to an issue regarding the "Oct., Nov." entry in Shaw's diary. You can read about this ridiculous controversy here. It was Garrison's code that really changed Sylvia Meagher's mind about Jim Garrison. When she first heard about his probe, she was elated. The code business changed her opinion, and she was always willing to tell other Warren Report critics what she thought. Here is an excerpt from a letter Sylvia Meagher sent to Tom Bethell dated May 3, 1969: So, how is this incident treated in conspiracy books? Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice , doesn't mention it at all, nor does Bill Davy in his book Let Justice Be Done . James DiEugenio briefly mentions it in his book Destiny Betrayed : (pages 236 -237 in the Kindle edition) The search of Shaw’s home turned up another interesting tidbit. In his address book, there appeared the following entry: Lee Odom, P. O. Box 19106, Dallas, Tex. Garrison was aware that this same post office box number also appeared in Lee Oswald’s address book.75 Shaw’s lawyers later produced a man named Lee Odom who said he was from Dallas. The box number, he said, was that of a company he once worked for, and that he had tried to contact Shaw about “promoting a bullfight” in New Orleans. To Garrison, this was all reminiscent of Ferrie’s story about setting off for Texas to ice skate and hunt geese in a lightning storm. Talk about sweeping it under the carpet! Bullfight Documents I found these documents in a folder in the papers of Richard Billings. He probably got them from Holland McCombs, a reporter for Life Magazine. Holland McCombs and Miguel Acoca Research into Lee Odom Here is another document from the papers of Richard Billings written by Life reporter Holland McCombs and Miguel Acoca. Since Billings was working with Garrison, it does seem that Garrison must have seen this report: McCombs was a long-time friend of Clay Shaw's and so Shaw's defense team had this information as well. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Jim Garrison, the Cryptologist Garrison's codes and a nice spoof on Garrison. Was Oswald's Alias a Code for a Jack Ruby Stripper? An hilarious look at another Garrison code, one which was ridiculed by Sylvia Meagher. Jim Garrison wasn't the only master decoder A spoof of Garrison's silly beliefs on codes.

New Orleans States-Item, March 29, 1974 (Original caption: Outgoing District Attorney Jim Garrison packs personal belongings into cardboard boxes as he prepares to leave the office he has occupied for 12 years.) Jim Garrison gave Mark Lane free rein to rummage through his files. Here is a note that Sylvia Meagher wrote about a phone call from Tom Bethell: Here are some excerpts from Bethell's diary about Mark Lane and the files: Sept. 22, 1967 Lane is quietly going through the files, (Mancuso, Sheridan, Sandra Moffett, recently,) occasionally xeroxing material. Naturally, I am concerned by Lane's presence as he could be trying to usurp my position. His position is beginning to become clearer to me: he is basically out for himself and would like to see his position vis-a-vis the Warren Commission vindicated by Garrison. I got the feeling today for the first time that he may have realized he might not be backing the right horse. He is definitely a calculator, and I feel may be prepared to take a calculated risk on the outcome of the case. (If I were in his position -- best seller behind me -- I would be strongly tempted to get quickly into another field.) He is clearly in a quandary: an extremely ironical position in view of Shaw's guilt depending on Oswald's. November 3, 1967 I had been boiling up for a row with Mark Lane and his lieutenant Gary Sanders, and it burst today. I confronted Lane with his right to read and xerox our files–he was in the process of reading the Ferrie file when this occurred. I asked him how he felt that xeroxing the files contributed to the investigation. He kept quite calm and replied that Garrison set policy in the office, not me, and that therefore he could xerox them if he wanted to, which was I suppose a reasonable answer. I also told Lane that it was my belief he had lied to me about some information provided him by David Lifton. Lifton, a friend of Wesley Liebeler in Los Angeles, had managed to get some information from Liebeler about the classified pages on David Ferrie in the National Archives. Liebeler worked on this area for the Warren Commission and had copies of the classified pages, which he read out to Lifton one evening. (He would not let Lifton have copies of them.) Lifton ran home and wrote down all he could remember. He then later met Lane and told him he had this material written down. Lane told him that he had to have it because he was on his way to New Orleans and Garrison would like to see it. Lifton gave him the material, as well as some info from some columnist. Lane says he only got the columnist material, not the other. Lifton was quite surprised to hear this, and surprised to hear that we did not have the Ferrie material in the office by now. Their stories are in flat contradiction, and there is no doubt in my mind that Lane is lying. The fact is the Ferrie material is worse than useless to Garrison, because it indicates that the FBI is not hiding anything significant about Ferrie, and thus deprives Garrison of an excuse to talk about governmental secrecy, etc. Lane is smart enough to realize this, and no doubt decided that the best thing would be simply not to show the Lifton material to Garrison at all. November 4, 1967 Thought it best to tell Garrison that I had had an argument with Lane, and he treated it with vast diplomacy. He ensured, first of all, that I was alone in his office with him, to ensure that he was not confronted by any kind of consensus from the office. Garrison advised me that it was OK for Lane to xerox the files etc., because he was writing a book about the investigation. Two people had been authorized to write books about the subject; and Mark Lane, who would be doing a more leisurely "history" book on it. I saw Lane later in the afternoon, and we more or less agreed to stop the feud. I told him, however, what it was that concerned me more than anything: some of the files, which I was supposed to be in charge of, were something of an embarrassment to me. The Ferrie file contains no evidence that Ferrie knew Oswald, which is the relationship which the investigation was originally predicated on. The Ferrie file is, in fact, simply a report on a negative investigation. Under the circumstances then, it was somewhat embarrassing to have outsiders like Gary Sanders coming round reading the file. Lane reacted as though he appreciated my problem and then said: "Well, in future, if anyone looks at the Ferrie file, just tell them that the important material from it has been put into a confidential file somewhere." By saying this, of course, Mark Lane was acknowledging the lack of basis for the investigation. Money quote: (from the November 4, 1967 note) The Ferrie file contains no evidence that Ferrie knew Oswald, which is the relationship which the investigation was originally predicated on. The Ferrie file is, in fact, simply a report on a negative investigation. Under the circumstances then, it was somewhat embarrassing to have outsiders like Gary Sanders coming round reading the file. Lane reacted as though he appreciated my problem and then said: "Well, in future, if anyone looks at the Ferrie file, just tell them that the important material from it has been put into a confidential file somewhere." By saying this, of course, Mark Lane was acknowledging the lack of basis for the investigation. Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio likes to blame people like Bill Boxley and Harry Connick S r. for the sorry state of Garrison's files: Certainly, Boxley might have taken some files. But, you'll never hear DiEugenio blame Mark Lane. The biggest culprit for the disappearance of some of Garrison's files is Jim Garrison himself. They were under his control when he lost the primary to Harry Connick in 1973 and he had months to donate them to a University or store them in a safe space. Tom Bethell asked the right question - where on earth are Garrison's 26 volumes of evidence? Here is a a 1969 note from Tom Bethell to his diary entry of February 8, 1968: (1969: I never saw a transcript of Marina Oswald's testimony. Of course, Grand Jury testimony is technically secret, but the fact that Garrison largely conducted his investigation in the secrecy of the Grand Jury raises some questions about the validity of his criticisms of the Warren Commission. This would be analogous to the Warren Commission having heard testimony in closed session. It seems that Marina's testimony before the Warren Commission will go down to posterity -- albeit under a great deal of criticism -- but her testimony before the "Garrison Commission" will not even see the light of day. It will be analogous to one of the Commission's classified documents, which Garrison got so much mileage out of. As far as I know, nobody has ever raised this criticism of Garrison. When is he going to publish his 26 volumes?) Most of the grand jury testimony from Garrison's JFK probe was made public when the ARRB forced Harry Connick to release the files. There is much grand jury material that is missing. Garrison could have safeguarded all of this material when he was in office, but he really didn't care about the proper disposition of his files. I should also note that not all the testimony from the Clay Shaw trial was transcribed. Charles Spiesel's testimony, which was so damaging to Jim Garrison, is nowhere to be found. Previous Relevant Blog Posts about Garrison's Files My travels for On The Trail of Delusion A nice overview of Jim Garrison's files and their mishandling. The Sorry State of Jim Garrison's Files Garrison could have donated his files to a University. He didn't. Garrison's Approach to the Handling of Evidence Garrison took a cavalier approach to how he handled evidence.

Sauvage was the New York City correspondent for Le Figaro , a French newspaper. He wrote the book, The Oswald Affair.

Previous Relevant Blog Posts David Lifton's Memo on Jim Garrison and Kerry Thornley A memo Lifton sent to other Warren Report critics. David Lifton's Camouflage Theory Lifton's early theory is just plain ridiculous. David Lifton (1939-2022), R.I.P. My obituary for David Lifton includes a letter that he wrote to Mark Lane about Kerry Thornley. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone Lifton writes to Oliver Stone about Jim Garrison.

Here is a very good article from The New Republic after the acquittal of Clay Shaw: The New Republic, March 15, 1969 Money Quote: When one adds to this shambles the fact that not a single elected official in Louisiana, from governor and senators down, has yet dared to utter a single critical word about the D.A.'s action, what Garrison has proved is that Louisiana -- a state with an unenviable record for political chicanery, corruption, incompetence and negligence -- may now have its most potentially dangerous demagogue since Huey Long. Previous Relevant Blog Posts The Christenberry Decision In January 1971, Judge Herbert Christenberry conducted three days of hearings on Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for perjury. His scathing decision concluded that Garrison deprived Clay Shaw of his constitutional rights. Garrison vs. the people A good editorial from the Chicago Daily News. Jim Garrison epitomized "insolence in office" The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports on a Clay Shaw speech. The New York Times on Clay Shaw's Acquittal An editorial and an opinion piece from the New York Times . Garrison's Investigation - "a smalltime circus sideshow" An editorial from the Washington Evening Star after Shaw's acquittal. Garrison vs. the people Several editorials about the acquittal of Clay Shaw. Washington Post Editorial on the Acquittal of Clay Shaw The Washington Post calls for the removal of Jim Garrison from office. Clay Shaw's Acquittal News and editorials on the acquittal from the newspapers in New Orleans.

Baton Rouge Advocate, March 4, 1992 Money Quote 1: Garrison himself was not without mental delusions. One of his postulates, which goes unmentioned in "He Must Have Something," was that other JFK assassins hid in the storm drains of Elm Street and shot the president from below the asphalt. These sewers were only three feet high, which would have required the CIA to recruit midget hit men to carry off the job. I've written about the ridiculous sewer shot here , here , here , and here . Money Quote 2 : Stone, like Garrison, is a man prone to brainstorming in public -- throwing out one idea after another, hoping that if he says everything, he will eventually say something. What results is stuff like "JFK," a film that leans heavily on "Elvis-is-still-alive" mythology. The antidote to Stone, the non-thinking man's thinking man, is "He Must Have Something." As it turns out, the something that Jim Garrison had was a total contempt for American justice. The TV editor of the Sunday Advocate also wrote about Tyler's documentary: Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate, March 1, 1992 Money Quote: "Nowhere in my research or interviews did anyone come remotely close to describing Clay Shaw as a menacing fop, as portrayed in JFK," he [Stephen Tyler] said. "But thanks to the movie, most of the nation, if not most of the world, view Clay Shaw as a man who walked around with a cigarette in a cigarette holder and played cat-and-mouse with Jim Garrison ... Maybe this will serve as a reminder to people that the man was acquitted, and how unconscionable it is that Stone continues to portray him as the bad guy." If the facts are examined with any kind of objectivity, he said, a person can't help but "feel sympathy for Clay Shaw. That's my own personal feeling and I think that's what comes out in my show." Relevant Link: When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Here is Stephen Tyler's terrific documentary, He Must Have Something : Here is a panel discussion with Alecia Long, Rosemary James, and Steven Tyler discussing his documentary: Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's JFK Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History A review of JFK from the Boston Globe . Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letters from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK" A good review of Stone's JFK . Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK . Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK" An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker Wicker reviews JFK for the New York Times and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK , Homophobic? The Advocate writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone! This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film J FK from Esquire magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK . George Lardner's internal Washington Post Memo about Oliver Stone Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone.

Jefferson Morley thought it was newsworthy that RFK Jr. quoted Jim Garrison . Here is RFK Jr.'s tweet : RFK Jr. decided to quote a man who was responsible for "one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American jurisprudence." Jim Garrison ruined the life of an innocent gay man for absolutely no good reason. Garrison also cynically exploited Vietnam war protests, and legitimate criticism of the war, to further his conspiratorial view of the assassination. Now we have RFK Jr. stating that the United States is being reckless in helping Ukraine fight against Vladimir Putin's violent aggression. Like Oliver Stone, he is incapable of finding fault with Vladimir Putin - - a ruthless dictator who has wrecked havoc in Ukraine and has even made the lives of Russian-speaking Ukrainians unbearable. I wrote about the view that the United States can go nowhere until the JFK assassination is solved in my book Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza : (page 363) The crux of JFK: Destiny Betrayed [Oliver Stone's documentary series] is a jejune political theory that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam and usher in an era of peace and detente. The CIA and the military-industrial establishment had to stop this, and the only way was to have JFK killed. Emerging from this erroneous reading of history is a nihilist prescription, that unless we unravel the JFK conspiracy, the United States can never fully realize the promise of democracy. Here is author David Talbot: (54:11 in Episode 4 of JFK: Destiny Betrayed ) I think there's a direct thread between the events of 1963, and the kind of horror show that America is having to endure right now. And I think once you kill a president in broad daylight on the streets of an American city, and everyone knows that powerful forces did it, and it can never be solved, that crime, that sends a signal, not only to the American people, but to the American media, to American future leaders. And if American really wants a democratic society, then we should get to the bottom of this traumatic crime that continues to reverberate throughout American history. What kind of message is this? Telling people that their actions are useless unless the supposed JFK conspiracy and cover-up are revealed? Is this not a nihilist recipe for inaction? A minute later (55:30) the narrator asks this question: Can a democracy survive if it does not know its deepest secrets about the darkest days of its past? None of this is new. Stone is just recycling the discredited theories of Fletcher Prouty, the model for Mr. X in his film JFK. Here is what Prouty wrote in his article “The Shadow of Dallas” in the January 1974 issue of Genesis magazine : Until our government moves positively against this continuing cover-up of the three assassinations, and the many related crimes, we shall not have a free and unfettered country. The “offer they cannot refuse” hangs over the head of every man in office and over his every decision. Watergate has helped us considerably. It has shown us what the will of the people can do. But until the people of this country rise up and demand that the stains of Dallas be removed, we shall continue in an uncertain manner and with an unknown shadow over us all. This message of hopelessness is courtesy of a man [Oliver Stone] who believes that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is rational, calm, and thoughtful . I don't know why Jefferson Morley thought this political view was worthy of his substack. I guess he agrees with the sentiment that the United States should just sit by and let Putin destroy Ukraine. And that the United States is destined to be a war-mongering country until the JFK assassination is solved -- at least to his satisfaction. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr.: RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron The truth about a variety of claims about Reuben Efron. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods Operation Northwoods can only understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963? There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

Was Jim Garrison really after the truth in his JFK assassination probe? Here are three instances in which he was incredibly uninquisitive. 1. The Black Cadillac in Clinton, Louisiana. Let's start with Clinton, Louisiana where several witnesses claimed to have seen Lee Harvey Oswald, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie together in late August or early September. John Manchester, the Town Marshall of Clinton, said in his statement to Jim Garrison that the black Cadillac seen in Clinton was identified as being with the International Trade Mart. Here is his statement: There seems to be some ambiguity as whether Manchester did run a 1028 license registration check on the Cadillac. Henry Earl Palmer, the Registrar for Clinton, testified at the Shaw trial that he did ask Manchester to run a 1028. Manchester testified he just asked the driver who told him he was with the International Trade Mart. However, there is some documentary evidence that a 1028 was indeed run on the car. Here is an excerpt from an Andrew Sciambra memo on Clinton: Here is an excerpt from another memo from May 25, 1967: Here Palmer and Manchester claim that a 1028 was done through Essie C. Watson, radio operator for the Sheriff's office. The next paragraph in the memo adds to the confusion. confirms that the 1028 was run, although the date is in error -- it must be May 22, 1967. And here is an excerpt from the notes of Anne Dischler, who investigated the Clinton witnesses in 1967: Jonathan Blackmer was the HSCA staffer who questioned the Clinton witnesses. He realized that there was an issue regarding the black Cadillac. Here is his very telling memo: Quite the answer from Garrison -- that Manchester's testimony was sufficient and that there had been no check on whether the Trade Mart had registered a Cadillac. Donald Carpenter, in his magisterial biography of Clay Shaw, Man of a Million Fragments, writes that: (page 365-366) "Shaw testified at trial that the International Trade Mart had never owned any vehicles. A review of balance sheets and other financial records for the Mart, from its inception through the 1960s, also shows no evidence of vehicle ownership or leasing by the Mart." So, why didn't Garrison investigate this back in 1967? Why was Manchester's testimony "sufficient"? Was a 1028 run on the Cadillac? If so, were there records about the 1028 in Baton Rouge? Perhaps the 1028, at the time, pointed to an FBI car, which might have been in Clinton because of the CORE voting drive. Perhaps that is why Garrison intimated that the Cadillac belonged to Clay Shaw's friend Jeff Biddison. This is just one element regarding Clinton that wasn't fully investigated. More to come later on this. 2. The Identity of Clay Bertrand A key part of Jim Garrison's probe was the identity of Clay Bertrand, the person who supposedly called Dean Andrews and asked him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. Sylvia Meagher wrote a letter to Clay Shaw with a terrific point: Clay Shaw was in San Francisco at the St. Francis Hotel on the 22nd and the 23rd of November. He then went to Portland, Oregon. And Jim Garrison knew exactly where he was: In March 1967, Garrison met with Jim Dondson, the man that Shaw spent a large part of the November 22nd weekend, in Las Vegas with. Did he not ask if Shaw made any phone calls to New Orleans? For more on Dondson and Clay Shaw, click here. Here is a picture of Garrison and Dondson together in Las Vegas: And Garrison did take an interest in tracing long distance phone calls: Here is an excerpt of a memo regarding long distance phone calls of Nancy Perrin Rich: Perhaps Garrison did not want to know the real answer. 3. Why Didn't Garrison Go to Montreal? A major part of the Garrison conspiracy story centers on Permindex/CMC - a failed attempt at building a world trade center that would make Rome a European trading hub. Clay Shaw was on the board of directors and, after his arrest, a communist-controlled newspaper, Paese Sera, ran a series of articles alleging that CMC was a CIA-front organization that funneled money to extreme rightists in Italy. Click here for more posts on Permindex. Paese Sera also alleged that Louis Bloomfield, a banker living in Montreal, was also a very large shareholder. This was not exactly true. Bloomfield was a lawyer in Montreal who represented some of the shareholders in Permindex. In September 1967, Playboy Magazine published an interview with Jim Garrison. To help convince the editors that he was for real, he gave some confidential information, not for print, to interviewer Eric Norden. Here is one of his memos (I am including the whole memo, but only the first two entries are about Bloomfield and CMC): In a terrible mashup of conspiracy nonsense, Garrison mixes Bloomfield with the allegations of Richard Giesbrecht, who claimed to have seen David Ferrie at the airport in Winnipeg. The whole memo is nuts - but I've already discussed this in two other blog posts - here, and here. The point is that Garrison recognized in July 1967, that Bloomfield lived in Montreal. In November 1967, Garrison sent a letter to Paris Flammonde: Then in December 1967, a letter was sent to Garrison by a professor at Sir George Williams University (which is where I did my undergraduate studies): Professor Herrmann actually gives Garrison Bloomfield's address and informs him that "He is the donor of the Bloomfield Stadium in Israel and president of the Canadian HISTADRUTH (the principal Israeli labor union), for whose charitable and other projects he does great good." A few months later, Bill Turner received a letter from an editor at the Montreal Star, the afternoon newspaper, which he forwarded to Jim Garrison: Bill Turners adds a note to Garrison: "This man might be a potential sleuth in Montreal. I've answered his letter." Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Turner's reply. But here was another person who could help Garrison learn more about Bloomfield. On September 21, 1968, Garrison had a conference with a few of his investigators. They start to talk about Albert Osborne (who went to Mexico at the same time as Oswald, but was from Montreal): G = Jim Garrison; T = Bill Turner; Box = Bill Boxley. Garrison says "They've got different modes of transportation but Montreal comes up too often. Remember, that's where Bloomfield is who is in this association with Clay Shaw. Now he's a banker in Montreal. He's probably more than a banker. He's in Montreal and everything happened in Montreal." In a March 1967, letter Harold Weisberg wrote to an editor at the National Guardian that a reporter had spoken to Louis Bloomfield's brother, Bernard. Surely, Weisberg would have passed this information on to his friends in New Orleans, no? For some reason, Garrison believed that Montreal was a major center of operation for the CIA. Here is an excerpt from a memo Garrison wrote in 1968: Garrison writes that "Furthermore, it is to be noted that the contact points for supervision of the assassination appear to have been Montreal and Mexico City, both of which cities necessarily contain major CIA headquarters." So, with all this interest in Montreal, why didn't Garrison pick up the phone or send an investigator up north? Perhaps Garrison knew the allegations in Paese Sera series were nonsense. Perhaps he knew there was no reason to go to Montreal. Or perhaps he did send someone to Montreal - but couldn't bear to tell everybody the news that Louis Bloomfield was nothing more than a corporate lawyer and that CMC was really just a failed attempt at a world trade center. Finally, it's interesting to note that Jim Garrison claimed that he had never heard of Permindex/CMC until after the Clay Shaw trial. Here is an excerpt from page 87 in On The Trail of the Assassins: A few pages later (page 90), Garrison claims that limited staff and budget meant he was not able to investigate further. But Montreal was far closer than Europe. And one phone call would have given him everything he needed to know about Permindex/CMC. I suspect Garrison didn't need to visit or phone Montreal to know that the Permindex/CMC allegations were nonsense. Jim Garrison wasn't running a real investigation. He wanted his investigators to confirm his ever-increasing suspicions and, when necessary, to manufacture evidence. The fact that he believed that Clay Shaw and Edgar Eugene Bradley were JFK assassination conspirators tells you all you need to know.

I previously posted an article about Fred Crisman , who was one of Garrison's favorite suspects. Ray Palmer popularized the UFO craze in the United States , and he shared an interest about Crisman with Jim Garrison. They corresponded in 1968. I don't have Garrison's letter to Palmer, but here is Palmer's letter to Garrison: (you can see Garrison's underlines and notations) This is all madness, no? Fred Crisman testified before the New Orleans Grand Jury on November 21, 1968, just before this letter was sent. Palmer spells out in Crisman's role in the Maury Island fraud and so Garrison knew that Crisman was a conman. That didn't stop Garrison from naming Crisman as a grassy knoll assassin in his manuscript. In March 1976, Palmer wrote a letter to the editor of Gray Barker's Newsletter, which was devoted to the study of UFOs. Here is his letter: Palmer writes that "there is a definite link between flying saucers, the Shaver Mystery, the Kennedy(s) assassinations, Watergate and Fred Crisman." Now you know. Previous Relevant Blog Posts The Life and Lies of Fred Crisman A good overview of the life of Fred Crisman. Exclusive: Jim Garrison tells the HSCA that Fred Crisman was one of the Three Tramps Jim Garrison was interviewed by the HSCA in 1977 and here is a link to a tape and a transcript and many relevant documents. Flying Saucers Magazine, May 1958: Fred Crisman An article by Kenneth Arnold about Crisman and flying saucers. Jim Garrison Identifies the "Cut-Out" of a "Professional, Highly Organized, Clandestine Operation." A memo from Jim Garrison to the HSCA discusses Thomas Beckham and Fred Crisman. Jim Garrison's Memo to the HSCA regarding Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham, part one... Another memo from Garrison to the HSCA regarding Crisman and Beckham. Jim Garrison's Exhibits to his HSCA Memo on Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham Accompanying exhibits to the above memo from Garrison to the HSCA. Was Fred Crisman one of JFK's Assassins? For a while, Garrison was convinced that Crisman was one of the assassins. Bob Lavender Reveals the Secret of the JFK Assassination! A shadowy figure told Garrison investigator Bill Boxley about Fred Crisman. Was Fred Crisman Behind the JFK Assassination? Another memo from Garrison to the HSCA.

I am not aware if Mr. Shockley ever made a statement. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Five Wacky Garrison Memos Five crazy memos. Another Wacky Garrison Investigative Memo A memo on propinquity with notations from Jim Garrison. Another Wacky Garrison Investigative Memo - Was Oswald Impersonated? A crazy memo on the height of Lee Harvey Oswald. Five Crazy Garrison Investigative Memos! Another five crazy memos. Garrison's Weird Investigative Technique - The Theory of Propinquity! Garrison's first memo on propinquity. Garrison's Weird Investigative Technique - Propinquity, Part Two Garrison's second memo on propinquity.

This is an excerpt from an interview of Perry Russo by Clay Shaw's attorneys: The Robertson in the story is Willard Robertson, one of the founders of Truth and Consequences, the private organization that funded Jim Garrison's investigation. The story sounds familiar, no? Sioux Center, Iowa CNN — Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a campaign rally here. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Perry Russo Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part One Russo went to the press before he was interviewed by Sciambra. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Two James Phelan wrote a memo about the contradictions in Perry Russo's story. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Three An interview with Perry Russo from 1971. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Four Tom Bethell sends a memo to Sylvia Meagher about Dick Billings and Andrew Sciambra. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Five Sylvia Meagher shows the hypocrisy of Jim Garrison.