The January 1992 issue of GQ featured an article by Nicholas Lemann titled "The Case Against Jim Garrison." Here is the text of the article: I know life is supposed to be full of surprises, but sometimes one comes along that exceeds the limits of what you should have to put up with. I never thought I’d see someone make an all-out effort to rehabilitate Jim Garrison, the six-foot-seven, booming-voiced district attorney of New Orleans during the years I was growing up there, and the only man to prosecute someone for conspiring to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Garrison lost his case after one hour of jury deliberation. The responsible wing of the assassination-conspiracy community—meaning writer-investigators, such as Harold Weisberg and Edward Jay Epstein—has regarded him as an embarrassment for nearly a quarter-century. Although until this past November he was still working in New Orleans, where he served many years as an elected state judge, most people there place him in the same category as the colorful, roguish political figures from Louisiana’s past, along with Earl Long. As with Uncle Earl, Big Jim’s reputational deliverance has come from Hollywood: In Oliver Stone’s movie JFK , the Garrison character, played by Kevin Costner, is the hero. Blaze at least avoided the mistake of taking Earl Long seriously; JFK , from all advance indications (I have not seen the movie as of this writing), will portray Garrison straightforwardly as a hero of the High Noon variety—as, in Stone’s words, “one of the few men of that time who had the courage to stand up to the Establishment and seek the truth.” There are enough good journalists around today who covered Garrison back in his heyday to guarantee that Stone will be called on this. Still, because of the momentum of JFK ‘s publicity, when it opens there will be an unavoidable feeling in the air that, well, by God, Garrison was onto something. It’s easy to present the wide-spread opposition to him as a badge of honor. Courageous visionaries are always unpopular, aren’t they? In this case, though, everyone should face the unappealing truth: Establishment or no Establishment, Garrison was wrong. More than that: Garrison was a pernicious figure, an abuser of government power and the public trust, and if there’s a deeper issue in American society that he exemplifies, it is that so many intelligent people prefer conspiracy-theorizing to facing this country’s problems head-on. Jim Garrison, actually Earling Carothers Garrison, was born in a small town in Iowa and grew up in New Orleans. In the sketchy biographical account he gives of himself in his books ( A Heritage of Stone and On the Trail of the Assassins ), he mentions, curiously, the influence of his grandfather but not of his father, and he doesn’t say how his family wound up in the Deep South. If his father was a distant, cold or missing figure in his life, it wouldn’t surprise me: People who have become fixated on the Kennedy assassination often are engaged in some sort of search for a lost father. Garrison had a generational link to Kennedy, too. He was born four years after Kennedy; served, like Kennedy, in World War II; and was elected district attorney of New Orleans a year after Kennedy was elected president. In his early years in office, Garrison was a reformer. He got his job by upsetting a mossback incumbent and quickly made a name for himself by cleaning up the long-standing minor-vice rackets in the French Quarter that had existed under the unofficial sanction of the city and state political machines. In those days, New Orleans still thought of itself as the queen city of the South, not yet having succumbed to its present self-concept as a quaint tourist Mecca. Garrison, a young, articulate, handsome, well-read, crusading politician, was the object of a good deal of civic pride. The official Garrison anecdote about how he decided to investigate the Kennedy assassination goes like this: In 1966, he got on a flight from New Orleans to New York and found himself sitting next to Louisiana Senator Russell Long, who told Garrison that he didn’t find the Warren Commission’s official report on the assassination credible. (Though Garrison doesn’t mention this in any of his books, it seems relevant that Long is the son of an assassinated politician, the circumstances of whose death have always been in dispute.) Because Lee Harvey Oswald had spent the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, Garrison could, by stretching, claim that investigating the assassination was within his jurisdiction. He and his staff of assistant DA’s, along with an eccentric crew of conspiracy theorists from around the country—the stand-up comedian Mort Sahl, for example, and Mark Lane, later famous as an adviser to mass-murderer-cult leader Jim Jones—went to work putting a case together (in secrecy, until the New Orleans States-Item blew their cover a year later). The best thing the conspiracy theorists have going for them is the fact that if a lone assassin had shot President Kennedy from a sixth floor window, he would have had to have been a marksman of almost superhuman skill in order to kill Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally Jr. in the few seconds when a clear shot to their car was possible. Without getting into the dense forest of four-and five-bullet (and two-and three-gunman) theories, clearly the most vulnerable point of the Warren Commission report is its contention that Oswald fired three shots and that one of them hit both Kennedy and Connally. The second-best thing conspiracy theorists have going for them is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not merely a loner and a misfit, but a loner and a misfit who had served in the U.S. Marine Corps, defected to the Soviet Union and then undefected and returned home. His extremely weird career involved spending time under the aegis of both superpower governments during the Cold War. The mechanics of Kennedy’s murder and the details of Oswald’s life are twin motherlodes for conspiracy theorists. But bear in mind that there is an enormous difference between, on the one hand, a few discrepancies, coincidences and lacunae, and, on the other, actual proof that there was a conspiracy. When Oswald was living in New Orleans, he worked in a manual labor job at a coffee plant and, famously, formed a pro-Castro organization called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which got a good deal of publicity, considering it was a one-man, desk-drawer operation. To Garrison’s mind, all this was a cover: The real situation was that Oswald was caught in the webbing of a powerful network of right-wing militarists, who had placed him at the coffee company and had manufactured a leftist identity for him, all in preparation for the time when he would be blamed for (but wouldn’t actually commit) Kennedy’s murder. It’s impossible to explain Garrison’s theory adequately without first saying that the hallmark of the Kennedy-conspiracy theorists is that the burden of proof always lies with the Warren Commission, never with them. The full Warren Commission report takes up twenty-six thick volumes, filled with a mass of evidence and testimony. In additions to the shortcomings in the way the commission sequenced Oswald’s shots, all of this information doesn’t comprise a seamless web. There are loose ends and contradictions. On the other hand, the report does manfully shoulder the difficult task of presenting a comprehensive explanation of the assassination. While Garrison capitalizes on every flaw or imagined flaw, of the report, as if each discovery invalidates the entire twenty-six volumes, he holds himself to a significantly lower evidential standard, where the sketchiest connections are held to prove the existence of the conspiracy and he never has to explain precisely how he thinks Kennedy was murdered or by whom. So: The Reily Coffee Company was at 640 Magazine Street, on the edge of downtown New Orleans. Two blocks away, at 544 Camp Street, was the office of W. Guy Banister, a former FBI agent and deputy superintendent of police in New Orleans. In 1963, Banister was a private detective and a right-winger involved in anti-Castro activities. And on Oswald’s pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba leaflets was a return address—544 Camp Street! Garrison is a man who thinks in terms of “links,” and to him this is a rock-solid one; he had no trouble asserting, as a proven fact, that Oswald and Banister knew each other. (Banister died in 1964, before Garrison began his investigation.) The next link, also unsubstantiated, is between Guy Banister and a weird character named David Ferrie. In 1963, Ferrie had been fired from his job as an Eastern Airlines pilot and was making a living as a civil-aviation pilot. He was also participating energetically in the underground homosexual life of New Orleans. According to Garrison, Ferrie performed, under Banister’s direction, espionage-related piloting missions to Cuba and Central America during the early Sixties. On the fateful morning of November 22, 1963, Ferrie and two male “companions” had driven from New Orleans to Houston for a weekend trip. To Garrison, this was a transparent attempt to establish an alibi; Ferrie’s real job had been to transport unnamed conspirators from Dallas to Mexico, in a private plane, a few days later. Ferrie died in 1967, a year into Garrison’s investigation. Next link; David Ferrie and Lee Oswald. Garrison asserts, again with no hard evidence, that the two men were in the same civil air patrol squadron in New Orleans and that Ferrie taught Oswald to fly and to shoot a high-powered rifle. Just before Ferrie died, the New Orleans States-Item broke the story that Garrison was investigating the Kennedy assassination, on the public’s dime. (Afterward, a group of right-wing New Orleans businessmen funded the investigation privately.) The publicity increased the pressure on Garrison to produce a suspect, but the conspirators he had been focusing on—Oswald, Banister and Ferrie—were all dead. A final link was called for, and Garrison produced it; In March 1967, only a few days after the States-Item had blown his cover and Ferrie had died, Garrison arrested Clay L. Shaw, the retired director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans. Most of Garrison’s suspects and witnesses were real fly-by-nighters, but Clay Shaw was a respectable figure. He was a tall, dignified, well-dressed white-haired man who, as head of the trade mart, had run a chamber of commerce-like organization. He wasn’t rich or powerful, but he was settled, well-known, and upper middle class. He was also gay. It would have been inconceivable at the time for an openly gay man to hold the job Shaw had, so he necessarily had a secret life. At least part of the time, he traveled in the kind of social circles where people didn’t use their last names and otherwise kept their participation quiet. This gave him just enough of a shadowy edge to make him useful to Garrison. In fact, a good part of Garrison’s case had an aspect of persecution of homosexuals about it; he had relied on the closeted nature of gay life to lend plausibility to his vision of an underground world of conspirators. Garrison asserted that Shaw had known Ferrie and Oswald; that Shaw had helped recruit Oswald to his role as the fall guy in the assassination; and that Shaw’s ironclad alibi for November 22—he was in California making a speech— only strengthened the case for his involvement in the conspiracy. Remember, it has never been proven to the satisfaction of anyone, except Garrison and his admirers, that Lee Oswald, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Guy Banister even knew one another. It’s a testament to Garrison’s manipulative skills that he was able to turn this weakness into a strength by spending Shaw’s entire trial endeavoring to prove that the four men had known one another, as if that was tantamount to nailing down their involvement in a conspiracy to kill the president. Virtually all of Garrison’s oeuvre—meaning the Shaw trial, Big Jim’s handful of lengthy interviews with sympathetic reporters, his two books about the Kennedy assassination and, presumably, JFK—is concerned with these “links,” and nowhere does Garrison reveal how his four conspirators actually accomplished the murder or who fired the fatal bullets. (While we’re on the subject of “links,” I should mention, before Garrison or Stone does in a letter to the editor, that I have several of my own to the whole affair. My father and his brother are partners in a New Orleans law firm. One of the firm’s long-standing clients is the very same Reily Coffee Company that had employed Lee Harvey Oswald. Another was the late Edith Stern, a liberal philanthropist, who was a friend and prominent supporter of Clay Shaw’s. Also, my uncle worked on Garrison’s campaign when he was first elected district attorney. And for twenty years, I’ve been a friend of Tom Bethell, a former investigator for Garrison who defected to the other side just before the Shaw trial began. To me, the lesson here is that, taking the “links” approach, just about everybody is a potential suspect.) Garrison has always been similarly vague about the identity of the assassination plot’s mastermind. In one typically Garrisonian locution of the subject, in a 1967 interview, he said “At midday on November 22, 1963, there were many men in many places glancing at their watches.” Who were they? Who knows! Over the years, he has made dark, knowing references to the involvement of the FBI, the military-industrial complex and the oil business in the conspiracy, but his suspicions have centered on the C.I.A. There is much, much less than meets the eye to Garrison’s conclusion that the C.I.A. did it. All his evidence consists either of wild leaps of faith—David Ferrie is “linked” (to Garrison’s satisfaction, though not to many others’) to the C.I.A., therefore the C.I.A. killed Kennedy—or rank speculation. When exactly did the C.I.A. decide to assassinate the president? Who gave the order? How was the job carried out and then covered up? Garrison never comes anywhere near giving the answers to these questions. In his more recent book On the Trail of the Assassins —on which JFK is based— Garrison says the assassination “was instigated and planned long in advance by fanatical anti-communists in the United States intelligence community.” Well, who were they? A few pages later, Garrison says there is no evidence that the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover, Chief Justice Earl Warren, the C.I.A.’s Allen Dulles or President Lyndon Johnson “had any prior knowledge or involvement in the assassination, but I would not hesitate to classify all of these men as accessories after the fact.” Why? What did they do? And how were the real planners of the assassination able to carry out their fantastically detailed conspiracy without the head of the agency’s noticing? Garrison consistently gets himself off the hook of questions like these by implying it’s miraculous that he, a lone crusader has been able to chip away even some of the smooth facade presented by the immensely rich and powerful conspirators; he can hardly be expected to have gotten all the answers. And when he’s going after his big fish, he’s maddeningly elusive about exactly what accusation he is making. In his books, there is the implication, for example, that the big news media are somehow tied in to the conspiracy, but he’s never actually said so directly. Back in the early days of the investigation, an editor from Life made friendly overtures to Garrison. A while later, as Garrison tells the story, the editor “suddenly flew in from New York. He seemed amiable enough, but he appeared to have lost a great deal of weight. He had deep circles under his eyes. His Ivy League clothes hung loosely on his thin frame. He informed me that Life would no longer be able to support me and work with me …” We’re supposed to think, aren’t we, that the editor was tortured in some Darkness at Noon-style editorial dungeon. But Garrison doesn’t say so. NBC’s hostile coverage of the investigation is explained by its being “part of the warfare machine”; this thought hovers in the background of Garrison’s unintentionally hilarious depiction of the depredations visited upon him when he appeared on the Tonight Show, which, in his retelling, is meant to make us wonder whether Johnny Carson was entirely uninvolved in the events of November 22. Garrison presents the masterminds of the Kennedy assassination as being extremely far-reaching and clever—and yet, oddly enough, they were constantly making little mistakes that allowed Garrison to pick up their trail. Take the Clay Shaw trial. The obvious question was, Why didn’t the conspirators entrust the hit to a more reliable crew? Garrison’s key witness against Shaw, Perry Russo, was a young insurance salesman-cum-grifter who claimed to have overheard Shaw and Ferrie discussing the assassination at a party. Another witness, named Charles Spiesel—a paranoid accountant who regularly fingerprinted his own children and claimed to have been hypnotized by people on the street dozens of times—told a similar story about overhearing Shaw and Ferrie casually planning Kennedy’s murder at a different party. It’s not like the C.I.A., as Garrison describes it, to be so sloppy as to allow such conversations to take place. A third witness, prison inmate Vernon Bundy, testified that while preparing himself a heroin fix on the well-travelled banks of Lake Pontchartrain, he had seen Shaw handing money to Oswald. Wouldn’t it have been wiser for them not to have made this transaction in a public place? I remember feeling excited about Garrison’s crusade, in the early days: Finally, something of national import was happening in New Orleans. In the late Sixties, the word “Sunbelt” had not yet been coined, but there was an unmistakable sense that, one century later, the South was finally going to stop obsessing about the Civil War and transform itself. It was also clear that while cities like Atlanta and Houston had jumped into this process with both feet, New Orleans was attracted in some deep way to eccentricity and torpor and endless sifting through the past. Thus, when the true nature of Garrison’s inquest became apparent, there was a powerful reverberation: The trial’s aftermath seemed like a metaphor for the state of the city—that the attention we were attracting because of the Shaw trial was going to be censorious, not admiring; that what we had on our hands, civically, was a tremendous embarrassment; that New Orleans was becoming known as the weirdo capital of the United States. Almost immediately after the Shaw trial’s humiliating end, Garrison began to downplay its importance. His first book, A Heritage of Stone (1970), barely mentions Shaw, and Russo, Spiesel and Bundy not at all, and presents the trial as having been an excuse to dispute the Warren Commission in a public forum. “We saw the verdict as pointing up the impossibility of presenting an espionage case in an American court of law,” he says, explaining why he lost. Lately, Oliver Stone has begun to sound this note, too. “Yes, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Clay Shaw,” he wrote in The Washington Post , but he went on to praise “the larger accomplishment of the trial.” A second front in defense of Garrison’s conduct opened up in 1975, when the renegade former C.I.A. agent Victor Marchetti revealed that Shaw (who had lived very quietly in New Orleans from the time of his acquittal until his death, in 1974) had been once affiliated with the agency’s Domestic Contact Division, which debriefed civilian businessmen who regularly traveled overseas. Both Garrison and Stone discuss this as if its important new evidence. Shaw’s possible connection to the C.I.A. is another illustration of the problem with Garrison’s whole way of thinking: Even if Shaw had been a career C.I.A. agent, that fact alone does not implicate him in the Kennedy assassination. Garrison still hasn’t presented any convincing evidence of that. (Similarly, Garrison and Stone like to cite the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in 1979, that Kennedy “probably was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy,” as proof that “the federal government” now agrees with them—but the House committee was an independent investigative operation; it didn’t solve the case either, and it certainly didn’t implicate Clay Shaw in the assassination.) What’s much more important, though, is the chilling line of argument Garrison and Stone are using to defend the trial. Garrison’s writing is full of self-congratulatory references to George Orwell and Franz Kafka, but the essence of those writers’ vision is that the most profound wrong a government can commit is to turn its powers against an innocent individual in order to advance a larger cause. Garrison was a public official who had prosecutorial power in his hands, and he used it to bring a man to trial when, by his own admission, he knew he didn’t have a real case. With his use of innuendo, his carelessness in flinging the gravest charges at people, his belief that individual liberties (at least, Clay Shaw’s individual liberties) are less important than his attack on what he imagines to be a vast conspiracy destroying America, Garrison does have a forbear, but it isn’t Orwell or Kafka. It’s Joe McCarthy. Oliver Stone’s parents split up when he was 16, in 1962. “The news of their divorce came as a total shock,” he told Time five years ago. “… And when they were divorced, my father gave me the facts of life. He told me that he was heavily in debt. He said ‘I’ll give you a college education and then you’re on your own. There’s literally no money.’” A few months ago Stone wrote in The Washington Post , “The murder of President Kennedy was a seminal event for me and millions of Americans … It was a crushing blow to our country and to millions of people around the world. It put an abrupt end to a period of innocence and great idealism.” It doesn’t take a particularly adventurous foray into the realm of armchair psychology to see a parallel in the way that Stone describes these two almost simultaneous tragedies, one private and one public. That his own secure world suddenly came apart in the early Sixties might help explain why Stone would be drawn to the view that the Kennedy assassination had the same effect on national life—and why he was later drawn to Garrison. Like many demagogues before him, Big Jim has the ability to conjure up a simpler, better national past, which he equates with the innocence of childhood; the assassination ended those wonderful times, and tracking down the murderers holds out the larger promise of restoring (in his words) “the America I knew as a child.” The rational (or, more accurately, quasi-rational) accompaniment to this powerful emotional logic is the idea, fervently embraced by both Garrison and Stone, that John F. Kennedy was a man of peace who was planning to abort the Vietnam War. The C.I.A. or the military Establishment or the defense contractors or whoever became seriously alarmed about Kennedy when he signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union, in the summer of 1963, and when he signaled his intention to bring our troops home from Vietnam, they decided he had to be rubbed out. Most of the evidence in support of the Kennedy-as-dove theory comes from books written after the assassination by the president’s advisers, especially Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Kenneth O’Donnell. Of course, what Kennedy would have done if he had lived is speculative, though Garrison doesn’t treat it that way. But it’s fair to say that the overall thrust of historical writing about Kennedy, in recent years, has been that he was a Cold Warrior at heart—certainly not someone with ambitious plans to dismantle the military-industrial complex and to effect, in Garrison’s words, “a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro’s Cuba.” Robert Kennedy, who was probably in a better position than anyone else to know what his brother’s intentions in Vietnam were, had this to say on the subject in an in-depth, off-the-record interview conducted for the historical record in 1964, the year after his brother’s death: INTERVIEWER : Did the president feel that we would have to go into Vietnam in a big way? KENNEDY : We certainly considered what would be the result if you abandon Vietnam, even Southeast Asia, and whether it was worthwhile trying to keep and hold on to. INTERVIEWER : What did he say? What did he think? KENNEDY : He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile …. Not only is the Garrison-Stone case for the greater importance of the Kennedy assassination essentially a fantasy, it’s strange that they feel it has to be made at all. Even if Kennedy wasn’t planning to end the Vietnam War, his death was still a great tragedy. Garrison and Stone are trying to make it into something more: the main turning point in American history—which it wasn’t. Garrison, for all these years, has been engaged in a witch-hunt, not a genuine attempt to solve a crime. Like all witch-hunts, his has been based on the idea that some vast, mysterious evil force has society in its grip. If the sense of pervasive corruption isn’t there, then Garrison’s mission (and, even more, his method) somehow completely loses its aura of virtue. There is plenty that is wrong with American society, and Oliver Stone is one of the few directors with the clout and the interest in politics to be able to address it in mainstream films. Instead of going after a real problem, though, like economic decline or racial tension, he has chosen to pursue a made-up problem: a conspiracy that killed a president in order to heat up the Vietnam War and transform America from a sylvan, virtuous land into a military state. Stone won’t get more than a handful of opportunities to make an important statement about this country. Too bad he wasted this one. Nicholas Lemann is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He is the author of The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America (Knopf). Perry Russo sued Conde Nast for this article. He took exception to this paragraph: Garrison presents the masterminds of the Kennedy assassination as being extremely far-reaching and clever—and yet, oddly enough, they were constantly making little mistakes that allowed Garrison to pick up their trail. Take the Clay Shaw trial. The obvious question was, Why didn’t the conspirators entrust the hit to a more reliable crew? Garrison’s key witness against Shaw, Perry Russo, was a young insurance salesman-cum-grifter who claimed to have overheard Shaw and Ferrie discussing the assassination at a party. Russo lost his case. Here is the judgment from the court: You can read Judge Wisdom's ruling here . You can read Judge Christenberry's ruling here . You can read Bill Bankston's article here . You can read James Phelan's article from the Saturday Evening Post here. "Even if this Court were to accept plaintiff's proposition that "grifter" in the context it was used means "con man", it is undisputed that Russo's role in history is that of a testimonial con man. As previously mentioned, the plaintiff did not dispute his long-lived involvement in the prosecution of Clay Shaw and the unreliability of his conflicting testimony during the Shaw proceedings." More on Russo's invocation of the fifth amendment here. Here is Zachary Sklar's reply to the GQ article : Sklar's letter is a piece of work: Sklar writes that Garrison's "phones were tapped, his offices bugged." This is simply not true. Sklar writes of mysterious deaths, like Eladio del Valle. There were no mysterious deaths. You can read more about Eladio del Valle here , here , and here . Garrison's witness list was handed over to the defense by Tom Bethell. But thank god, because there was no discovery in the Louisiana courts back in the late 1960s. Sklar writes that Garrison "considered Shaw's homosexuality irrelevant." This is completely untrue, and you can read many of my blogs posts about Garrison and homosexuality here. Sklar is also wrong about the links between Oswald, Banister, Shaw, and Ferrie. There were no links between them. He cites Delphine Roberts, but she has no credibility. ( here , here , and here . Sklar cites Jack Martin and David Lewis witnesses who tie Oswald to Banister's office. But, both of them have zero credibility. ( here , here , and here .) Sklar claims that several homosexuals gave affidavits that they had seen Shaw and Ferrie together. I am aware of David Logan , Raymond Broshears , William Morris , and Perry Russo . I am not aware of others, and none of those people are credible. Previous Relevant Blog Posts 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 Jim Garrison's hypocrisy is on display in this post. Perry Russo Admits Clay Shaw had "nothing to do with anything." Russo was interviewed by Shaw's defense team. Perry Russo Pays a Visit to Shaw's Lawyer... The day before Russo was go on the witness stand in a three-day hearing to determine if Shaw's perjury charges should go forward, Russo stopped by to talk to Shaw's defense team.

This video explores why Jack Ruby shot Oswald. Here is the presentation I used to make the video: Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jack Ruby Elmer Gertz on Jack Ruby Gertz represented Ruby and thus knew him intimately. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And here is my reply. 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. Was Jack Ruby Injected with Cancer? Even Dr, Cyril Wecht says this is nonsense. Jim Garrison Interview on the Mike Wallace Show, September 1967 Some Garrison craziness on Jack Ruby. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Jack Ruby The motivations of Jack Ruby. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads by Claiming Jack Ruby was Signaled He was not signaled by a horn. Does this witness prove a Ruby-Oswald Connection? Is the proof we have all been looking for? Why do Conspiracy Theorists Still Believe Julia Ann Mercer? She thought Jack Ruby was the driver of a truck on Elm Street. Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Oswald and Ruby were Homosexuals... Garrison goes too far, and regrets it. Did Rose Cherami Ever Work for Jack Ruby? There is no evidence she worked at Ruby's club. Did a Piece of Paper with the Names of Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald Provide a Link to Rose Cherami? A conspiracy story that some people believed. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Use Jack Ruby As a Job Reference? James DiEugenio gets a story very wrong. Was There a Link Between Jack Ruby and David Ferrie? The short answer is no. Did Breck Wall order Jack Ruby to Kill Oswald? Another ridiculous Garrison story. Did a Cabbie take Oswald and Ferrie to Ruby's Nightclub? The short answer is no. Did Oswald and Ruby plan to buy a restaurant together? Oh, the stories people tell. Was Jack Ruby in Clinton with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? One witness said that Ruby was in Clinton. Was Oswald's Alias a Code for a Jack Ruby Stripper? Garrison, the great code-breaker. Did Clay Shaw Pay Off Jack Ruby? For a while, Garrison believed this silly story. Did Garrison find proof that Ruby knew Oswald? The Clyde Limbough story.

Here is an unpublished Garrison investigation memo: Some comments on this memo: The whole interview was three hours. I wonder if there is a tape of the interview. Craig said he heard three shots. The jacket at the Tippit murder site was the same jacket as worn by the driver of the Rambler station wagon which picked up Lee Harvey Oswald. I have not seen that allegation before. The station wagon had out of state plates. Here is what Craig told David Belin in his Warren Commission testimony: The Paine station wagon bore Louisiana license plates. Here is an excerpt from an FBI report: Craig said the transcripts of the police were incorrect. Helen Markham identified a police officer as the murderer of Tippit. Jack Ruby was in the hallway when he identified Oswald to Fritz. Hand grenades and ammunition were found in a storage area behind Jack Ruby's apartment. Evidence that Craig was in the interrogation room with Oswald is now missing. The murder of Tippit was part of escape scheme of the assassins to divert attention. Buddy Walthers was growing marijuana in his back yard. Does anybody still believe that Roger Craig has any credibility? Here is the article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune : New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 3, 1967 I love the line: "Roger Craig, a former county deputy sheriff in Dallas, said he did not report the incident to police in the belief that Garrison would not want him to." Here is an article from the Longview [Texas] News-Journal from November 2, 1967: Roger Craig had mental health issues. You can read more about this here. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Roger Craig Marina Oswald's Doctor was a Homosexual! Roger Craig wrote a memo to Jim Garrison about Marina Oswald's doctor. Jim Garrison Finds Another JFK Assassination Conspirator! Garrison charges Edgar Eugene Bradley with conspiracy to kill JFK, and Roger Craig says that Bradley was the Secret Service man he encountered outside the TSBD. Was Edgar Eugene Bradley One of the Three Tramps? Some conspiracy theorists believe that Bradley was one of the three tramps. A few letters in this post mention Roger Craig.

A very revealing story about Mark Lane from Mort Sahl's book, Heartland : Money Quote: Sciambra [Garrison Assistant District Attorney Andrew] used to say if Dracula tried to drive a stake through his [Mark Lane's] heart, he'd be in real trouble: The myth would be over. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mort Sahl Mort Sahl -- The Noncomeding Comedian Silliness from Mort Sahl "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part Two Lane speaks at a Men's Business Club. "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part One Mort Sahl said he knew who killed JFK. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane Should We Blame Mark Lane? Some ads for Lane's film Rush to Judgment. In Defense of the Warren Commission A Garry Wills opinion piece on Mark Lane. Victor Navasky Reviews Mark Lane's "A Citizen's Dissent" Navasky tests Lane's book and finds it wanting. Mark Lane and Jonestown A New York Times profile of Lane and his involvement with Jonestown. New York Times Profile of Mark Lane An apt profile. Nightmare Brought to Life An opinion piece by Anthony Lewis in the New York Times  on Mark Lane and Jonestown. Mark Lane, Again An opinion piece from the Washington Post Mark Lane: A Bent for the Macabre Side A good opinion piece from the Philadelphia Bulletin . Sylvia Meagher Corresponds with Philippe Labro Meagher tells Labro a story about Mark Lane. Mark Lane and The Progressive Even a left-wing magazine like The Progressive  found Mark Lane hard to take. Mark Lane on Clay Shaw Mark Lane's addition to the 1992 edition of Rush to Judgment is eye opening. Mark Lane on the Joe Dolan Show Lane tells Dolan about Garrison's amazing evidence. Did the CIA Try to Kill Mark Lane?   Lane makes a startling allegation. Mark Lane: The Left's Leading Hearse-Chaser   A profile from Mother Jones  magazine. Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher   Lane and Meagher feuded about a blurb for her book. The Case Against Mark Lane   A profile from Esquire Magazine . Mark Lane saw a conspiracy - as usual   An article from the Tampa Bay Times . The Mark of Zorro   An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship!   Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict   A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek . Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy"   Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that, for $25,000, would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document. "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part Three Lane tells the Danish press he knows who killed JFK. Mark Lane Said that Clay Shaw Was a "Powerful, Domestic Force in the Assassination." Lane speaks at the Louisiana State Bar Association.

It was a pleasure talking with John-Paul Pagano about conspiracy theories and conspiracism. You can read John-Paul's blog here. Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : Episode 1 My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files . Episode 2 Robert A. Wagner discusses his new book, JFK Assassinated . Episode 3 Gerald Posner discusses the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories. Episode 4 Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. discusses conspiracy theories and the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Episode 5 Steve Roe discusses the life of General Edwin Walker and Oswald's attempt to kill him. Episode 6 Gus Russo discusses his participation in the PBS Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Episode 7 Dave Perry tells some great stories about debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense. Episode 8 Nick Nalli explains some of the science behind the assassination. Episode 9 Alecia Long discusses Jim Garrison and his non-existent case against Clay Shaw. Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK. Episode 13 Nick Nalli discusses the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder Film. Episode 14 Scott Maudsley discusses Lee Harvey Oswald's antisocial personality disorder. Episode 15 Document expert Robert Reynolds discusses what to expect in the upcoming JFK assassination file releases. Episode 16 A panel discussion on the document releases with Fred Litwin, Gus Russo, Robert Reynolds, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Steve Roe. Episode 17 An interview with author Michel Gagné about conspiracy theories. Episode 18 An interview with Phil Tinline about his book, Ghosts of Iron Mountain . Episode 19 An interview with Janet Banister, grand-niece of Guy Banister. Episode 20 The Marina Oswald Tapes . Episode 21 Dr. Chad Zimmerman discusses JFK's autopsy X-rays and photographs. Episode 22 Tour guide Daniel Evans talks about his years of researching the JFK assassination. Episode 23 Adam Gorightly discusses Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Raymond Broshears and Kerry Thornley. Episode 24 A fun interview with Larry Haapanen who discusses the Garrison investigation, and his involvement with Project Blue Book. Episode 25 Dale Myers discusses the Tippit shooting and shows us some nifty animation. Episode 26 Brian Roselle discusses the timing of the first shot. Episode 27 Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. talks about the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Episode 28 John-Paul Pagano discusses conspiracy theories, conspiracism and antisemitism.

A massive CIA disclosure on the storm drain. Other CIA Disclosures Prayer Man Revealed The Three Tramps Lee Bowers Previous Relevant Blog Posts on the Sewer Shot Sylvia Meagher on the Sewer Shot and Jim Garrison A letter she sent to Thomas Stamm. Josiah Thompson on Jim Garrison's Shot from the Sewer Thompson thought the idea was ridiculous. Was JFK Shot From a Sewer?   Jim Garrison sent Stephen Jaffe to Dallas to investigate the possibility of a shot from the sewer on Elm Street. Jim Garrison on the Shot from the Sewer   Garrison is interviewed about the shot from the Sewer. Jim Garrison's Shot from the Sewer   The actual press releases sent out by Jim Garrison about the shot from the sewer.

Here is the HSCA Outside Contact Report with William Gurvich, who worked for Jim Garrison for a while but then quit when he realized the investigation was a fraud. Mike Ewing, the interviewer, did not spell Gurvich's name correctly. In regards to this paragraph on page two: Here is an interview with Gurvich with Shaw's attorneys in 1968 which elaborates on the "reign of terror." Here is Gurvich's report to Garrison about Owen Wright: Previous Relevant Blog Posts William Gurvich's Interview with the HSCA His outside contact report in text form along with a New York Times report. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison Information on Gurvich's meeting with RFK. Did the FBI Bug Garrison's Offices? Further information on Garrison's attempt to raid the FBI office. The Funniest Garrison Investigation Memo Ever! Gurvich did have a sense of humor.

It was a lot of fun speaking with Gus Russo about Cuba, Castro, and JFK. Gus has appeared in episodes 6 and 16, so check out the links below. He has also written an excellent article at SpyTalk on the KGB's disinformation campaign on the JFK assassination. And he was the co-author of another SpyTalk article on Jefferson Morley's nothingburger about George Joannides. Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : Episode 1 My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files . Episode 2 Robert A. Wagner discusses his new book, JFK Assassinated . Episode 3 Gerald Posner discusses the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories. Episode 4 Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. discusses conspiracy theories and the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Episode 5 Steve Roe discusses the life of General Edwin Walker and Oswald's attempt to kill him. Episode 6 Gus Russo discusses his participation in the PBS Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Episode 7 Dave Perry tells some great stories about debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense. Episode 8 Nick Nalli explains some of the science behind the assassination. Episode 9 Alecia Long discusses Jim Garrison and his non-existent case against Clay Shaw. Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK. Episode 13 Nick Nalli discusses the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder Film. Episode 14 Scott Maudsley discusses Lee Harvey Oswald's antisocial personality disorder. Episode 15 Document expert Robert Reynolds discusses what to expect in the upcoming JFK assassination file releases. Episode 16 A panel discussion on the document releases with Fred Litwin, Gus Russo, Robert Reynolds, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Steve Roe. Episode 17 An interview with author Michel Gagné about conspiracy theories. Episode 18 An interview with Phil Tinline about his book, Ghosts of Iron Mountain . Episode 19 An interview with Janet Banister, grand-niece of Guy Banister. Episode 20 The Marina Oswald Tapes . Episode 21 Dr. Chad Zimmerman discusses JFK's autopsy X-rays and photographs. Episode 22 Tour guide Daniel Evans talks about his years of researching the JFK assassination. Episode 23 Adam Gorightly discusses Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Raymond Broshears and Kerry Thornley. Episode 24 A fun interview with Larry Haapanen who discusses the Garrison investigation, and his involvement with Project Blue Book. Episode 25 Dale Myers discusses the Tippit shooting and shows us some nifty animation. Episode 26 Brian Roselle discusses the timing of the first shot. Episode 27 Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. talks about the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby.

Here is an AI Video I created from a presentation about the Dear Mr. Hunt letter. Here is the presentation: I also covered this material in this blog post.

This is an AI video based on Nagell's court case to get full disability. You can download the court decision here. Additional Posts on Richard Case Nagell Richard Case Nagell's Stasi File Here is the complete Stasi file on Nagell along with a translation. A Wrap-Up of the Richard Case Nagell Story   A good overview of the Nagell story. Why do People Believe the Richard Case Nagell Story? John Barbour, an unabashed fan of Jim Garrison, goes on a rant about Richard Case Nagell. Why does he believe Nagell's story? Was Richard Case Nagell Questioned in Moscow? Nagell claimed that the East Germans sent him to Moscow for questioning. There is no evidence in the Stasi files that the did that. The Importance of Richard Case Nagell to Some Conspiracy Theorists Was Richard Case Nagell the "Most Important Witness There Is"?   Jim Garrison and a few conspiracy theorists think Nagell is a very important witness. But is he really? Genesis of the Richard Case Nagell story Did David Kroman Crack the JFK Assassination Conspiracy?   David Kroman met Richard Case Nagell at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Stephen Jaffe, a Garrison volunteer, wrote a memo, relating Nagell's story through the eyes and ears of David Kroman. Richard Case Nagell Shoots Up the State National Bank in El Paso...   Nagell was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years, but his conviction was overturned because of startling new evidence. Richard Case Nagell and the JFK Assassination Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination?   There is no credible evidence that Nagell had any foreknowledge of either Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. Did Richard Case Nagell Meet Lee Harvey Oswald?   Nagell claims he met Oswald in Japan, Texas, Mexico City, and New Orleans. There is no credible evidence that he ever met Oswald. Did Richard Case Nagell Warn Fidel Castro about the Assassination?   Nagell went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and even played ping-pong with the man.   Insane Conspiracy Theories about Richard Case Nagell Who was Leon Oswald?   Richard Case Nagell said that he knew the two Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. Some conspiracy theorists believe this madness. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Combine one part crazy and one part ridiculous and what do you come up with? An early attempt at a unified conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. Paul Bleau's Plots   Was there a plot in Los Angeles against JFK? Two Smoking Guns of the Richard Case Nagell Story Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story?   Nagell sent conspiracy theorist Dick Russell one page of a military intelligence file which seemed to indicate that he was monitoring Oswald and his wife on behalf of the CIA. But does the whole document really show that? Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story   Did Richard Case Nagell have an Oswald Military ID in his possession when he was arrested in September 1963? Richard Case Nagell and Jim Garrison Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial?   Richard Case Nagell believes that he wasn't called to testify at Clay Shaw's trial because his testimony would have blown up Jim Garrison's case. Jim Garrison Discusses Richard Case Nagell   At a conference in September 1968, Garrison and his investigators discuss his face-to-face meeting with Nagell in New York City. Richard Case Nagell Sends Jim Garrison on a Wild-Goose Chase   William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, tried to retrieve a tape that Nagell said contained the voices of three JFK assassination conspirators. Richard Popkin Writes Garrison About Richard Case Nagell   Richard Popkin, author of "The Second Oswald," writes Jim Garrison about Richard Case Nagell. Garrison staffer Tom Bethell thought the Nagell lead was useless. Richard Case Nagell's Mental Health Dr. Edwin Weinstein's Letter to the Army about Richard Case Nagell In 1973, Richard Case Nagell was trying to get a full disability pension from the government, and he had Dr. Edwin Weinstein, who had examined him in 1955, write a letter on his behalf. Richard Case Nagell's Letter to JFK Nagell wrote to JFK in 1963 looking for help. Richard Case Nagell's Lawsuit   A lawsuit by Nagell proves his mental issues. Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension   Nagell won a full disability pension in 1982 and the 60+ page court case provides complete details on his mental problems. Why Did Richard Case Nagell Shoot Up the First National Bank of El Paso? Richard Case Nagell told a psychiatrist why he shot up the bank in El Paso in 1963. Richard Case Nagell's Family Speaks about his Mental Health   The FBI spoke to Nagell's ex-wife, his mother, his sister, and one of his friends. They all agreed that Nagell had significant mental health problems. Richard Case Nagell Visits Europe in 1969...   Nagell visited the American consulates in Zurich and Barcelona in 1969. He was a deeply disturbed man. Richard Case Nagell in Europe, 1970 Edition   More shenanigans in Europe in 1970. Richard Case Nagell Visits Zurich His mental issues were apparent during this visit. Richard Case Nagell's Evidence Richard Case Nagell's Nonexistent Evidence   None of the so-called evidence that Nagell promised would materialize on his death has shown up. Did this evidence ever exist? Thomas Samoluk on Richard Case Nagell Samoluk was Deputy Director of the ARRB and he doesn't think much of the Nagell story. You can read the whole Nagell story in my book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination .

It was a delight to talk with Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. about the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : Episode 1 My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files . Episode 2 Robert A. Wagner discusses his new book, JFK Assassinated . Episode 3 Gerald Posner discusses the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories. Episode 4 Dr. Martin J. Kelly, Jr. discusses conspiracy theories and the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Episode 5 Steve Roe discusses the life of General Edwin Walker and Oswald's attempt to kill him. Episode 6 Gus Russo discusses his participation in the PBS Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Episode 7 Dave Perry tells some great stories about debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense. Episode 8 Nick Nalli explains some of the science behind the assassination. Episode 9 Alecia Long discusses Jim Garrison and his non-existent case against Clay Shaw. Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK. Episode 13 Nick Nalli discusses the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder Film. Episode 14 Scott Maudsley discusses Lee Harvey Oswald's antisocial personality disorder. Episode 15 Document expert Robert Reynolds discusses what to expect in the upcoming JFK assassination file releases. Episode 16 A panel discussion on the document releases with Fred Litwin, Gus Russo, Robert Reynolds, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Steve Roe. Episode 17 An interview with author Michel Gagné about conspiracy theories. Episode 18 An interview with Phil Tinline about his book, Ghosts of Iron Mountain . Episode 19 An interview with Janet Banister, grand-niece of Guy Banister. Episode 20 The Marina Oswald Tapes . Episode 21 Dr. Chad Zimmerman discusses JFK's autopsy X-rays and photographs. Episode 22 Tour guide Daniel Evans talks about his years of researching the JFK assassination. Episode 23 Adam Gorightly discusses Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Raymond Broshears and Kerry Thornley. Episode 24 A fun interview with Larry Haapanen who discusses the Garrison investigation, and his involvement with Project Blue Book. Episode 25 Dale Myers discusses the Tippit shooting and shows us some nifty animation. Episode 26 Brian Roselle discusses the timing of the first shot.

I want to wish all of my readers a very happy New Year! Here are some of the important blog posts I wrote during the last year: Here are the podcasts from the last year: Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK. Episode 13 Nick Nalli discusses the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder Film. Episode 14 Scott Maudsley discusses Lee Harvey Oswald's antisocial personality disorder. Episode 15 Document expert Robert Reynolds discusses what to expect in the upcoming JFK assassination file releases. Episode 16 A panel discussion on the document releases with Fred Litwin, Gus Russo, Robert Reynolds, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Steve Roe. Episode 17 An interview with author Michel Gagné about conspiracy theories. Episode 18 An interview with Phil Tinline about his book, Ghosts of Iron Mountain . Episode 19 An interview with Janet Banister, grand-niece of Guy Banister. Episode 20 The Marina Oswald Tapes . Episode 21 Dr. Chad Zimmerman discusses JFK's autopsy X-rays and photographs. Episode 22 Tour guide Daniel Evans talks about his years of researching the JFK assassination. Episode 23 Adam Gorightly discusses Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Raymond Broshears and Kerry Thornley. Episode 24 A fun interview with Larry Haapanen who discusses the Garrison investigation, and his involvement with Project Blue Book. Episode 25 Dale Myers discusses the Tippit shooting and shows us some nifty animation. Episode 26 Brian Roselle discusses the timing of the first shot fired by Oswald. I continued my research into the supposed visit of Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie to Clinton, Louisiana. Here is documented proof that Oswald could not have been there. Clay Shaw's attorneys tried to get help from Washington. But they were turned down by the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department. This ten-part series covers new ground and presents material from an unpublished chapter by author Patricia Lambert. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part One The setting in New Orleans Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Two The DOJ is told not to get involved. The FBI follows suit. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Three Ed Wegmann goes to Washington. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Four The CIA gets involved. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Five Wegmann goes back to Washington with Irvin Dymond. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Six Wegmann files a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Seven Wegmann files a forty-five-page complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Eight Clay Shaw's Acquittal; New Charges; and Wegmann Goes Back to the Department of Justice. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Nine The new Department of Justice, under President Nixon, considers Shaw's new civil rights complaint. Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Ten Conclusion -- and a case study in how a conspiracy theorist gets it wrong on Clay Shaw. I covered Jefferson Morley's testimony before the Luna Sub-Committee: Jefferson Morley's Congressional NothingBurger An analysis of Congresswoman Luna's Congressional Hearings In Search of the Oswald Operation, Part One An FBI memo that quoted James Angleton is used by Morley to reach an unwarranted conclusion. In Search of the Oswald Operation, Part Two Morley misreads Angleton's testimony before the HSCA. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Three Morley believes a document proves the CIA did not believe that a lone gunman killed JFK. Update on the Heath Memo Additional documents relevant to Part Three. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Four Morley claims that there is some connection between the suicides of Gary Underhill, Charles Thomas, George de Mohrenschildt, and the overdose death of Dorothy Kilgallen. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Five Morley believes that Agustin Guitart was spying on pro-Castro forces in New Orleans And, I covered all of Jefferson Morley's nothingburgers. However, he missed the one big story! The Incurious Dr. Pearcy When it really counted Dr. Pearcy was incurious. The Reuben Efron Story, Once Again! How many times must Morley repeat this story? Jefferson Morley's William Harvey Nothingburger, Continued It wasn't hard to find evidence that Charles Niles worked for the FAA. Jefferson Morley's Latest William Harvey Nothingburger The truth about FAA credentials. Jefferson Morley Platforms Max Good A rebuttal to Good regarding Ruth Paine. Morley's Substack Goes After Ruth Paine Morley presents several conspiratorial allegations about Ruth Paine. I Am Now a Pro Bono Lawyer for the CIA! I don't even have law degree! Yet Another Morley Nothingburger A new CIA file on Herminio Diaz does not sustain allegations that he was a grassy knoll gunman. Richard Russell and the Warren Report Richard Russell always believed that Oswald was the lone gunman. Was Hoover's Warren Commission Testimony Altered? An article by Chad Nagle, on Morley's Substack, gets it wrong on Hoover's testimony. My Quillette Article on Morley's Nothingburger My latest article for Quillette.com CBS Practices Stenography The recent segment on CBS about Morley and JFK documents was not journalism. Lee Harvey Oswald was not under Surveillance Morley's list of six CIA operations do not prove that Oswald was under surveillance. The CIA's Pro Bono Lawyers Morley claims the SpyTalk authors are working as pro bono lawyers for the CIA. Did the CIA Know Oswald's State of Mind? The CIA was just quoting from a State Department memo. SpyTalk on the Joannides' File, Part Two SpyTalk replies to Jefferson Morley. The Illusion of a Smoking Gun Gerald Posner on the Joannides' file. Fact Checking Morley's Fact Check Morley's Fact Check on SpyTalk needs a fact check. SpyTalk on Morley's Nothingburger Gus Russo and Michael Isikoff on the Joannides' personnel file. Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being Now that the entire personnel file of George Joannides has been released, Jefferson Morley has now published his unified theory of nothingness. More Morley Nothingburgers on the way Morley is requesting more documents -- they will reveal nothing about the assassination. Morley's Non-Story Hits the Press Morley got the headlines he wanted to a complete non-story. George Joannides and the HSCA Joannides did not come out of retirement to work with the HSCA. There Was No "Oswald Operation" There is no mention of an "Oswald Operation" in the Joannides' personnel file. The Parkland Doctors, Part Six Morley believes that Dr. Robert McClelland's recollections provides proof of a shot from the front. Here is the truth about McClelland. On the Loss of Occam’s Razor in the JFK Case A reply by Nicholas Nalli to Jefferson Morley. A Case Study in Redaction: The CIA's LIFEAT File Morley suspected a redacted file would reveal major secrets. It didn't. The Schlesinger Memo Unredacted! Several months ago, I posted an article, in association with several researchers, that showed what was contained in the redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Clairvoyance Morley somehow knows what is in the supposed 2,400 recently-discovered FBI files. Was Israel Behind the JFK Assassination? Morley discusses Israel with Tucker Carlson. Morley's Bad History Lesson Morley believes that the United States can never be great unless it solves the JFK assassination. Morley's List of 13 Documents Will Tell Us Little An analysis of the 13 documents Morley wants to see. The Schlesinger Memo, Again! Morley claims I am a CIA apologist and then misquotes me. Here is the truth about Victor Marchetti who is so often quoted by conspiracy theorists: Should We Believe Victor Marchetti?, Part Three He wrote for a homophobic newspaper. Should We Believe Victor Marchetti?, Part Two An examination of the hoax that implicated E. Howard Hunt in the JFK assassination. Should We Believe Victor Marchetti?, Part One Marchetti said that Clay Shaw was a domestic contact of the CIA. I wrote a series of posts about the Parkland doctors: The Parkland Doctors, Part Six A in-depth look at Dr. McClelland. Marilyn Sitzman on JFK's Head Wound Sitzman, who was standing right behind Abraham Zapruder, thought the shots came from the TSBD and that she clearly saw Kennedy's head wound over the right ear. John Stringer on JFK's Wounds and his Autopsy Photographs Stringer was very clear that he took the photographs of JFK's brain. The Parkland Doctors, Part One Attending physicians often make mistakes in determining the nature of gunshot wounds. Should we care what the Parkland doctors think? The Parkland Doctors, Part Two A look at what the Parkland doctors wrote and what they said. The Parkland Doctors, Part Three The Boston Globe  interviewed some of the Parkland doctors in 1981. The Parkland Doctors, Part Four A 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association  has some interesting comments from a few of the Parkland doctors. The Parkland Doctors, Part Five An interesting interview with Dr. Robert McClelland. And I covered the crazy story of Eugene Dinkin: Eugene Dinkin and James DiEugenio Articles about Eugene Dinkin on DiEugenio's webpage are full of nonsense. Did Eugene Dinkin Try to Stop the JFK Assassination? Dinkin's story from 1964 about his interpretation of various newspapers. Eugene Dinkin and Jim Garrison A Garrison investigator spoke to Dinkin in 1968. Eugene B. Dinkin v. The U.S. Defense Department and the CIA Dinkin sued the U. S. government in 1975. Eugene Dinkin's Submissions to the HSCA Dinkin writes the HSCA three times with his evidence. Eugene Dinkin Meets with Dick Russell Russell interviewed Dinkin in 1975. Lots more coming in 2026 -- at least one trip to the National Archives for more documents, but I won't be blogging as much. I have a book to finish and I want to focus on that for the time being.