Coming this Friday! You can listen here live on Friday night, 9 PM Pacific. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated! Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza. Click here to buy a copy!

Another Oliver Stone interview in which he displays his complete ignorance of foreign affairs: Joshua S. Goldstein: Cadmium, mercury. Solar Panels have all these minerals that are mined. It's very difficult to mine. And they're turned into solar panels in China, in Xinjiang, where the genocide is going on. Oliver Stone: What genocide? Oh, you're going with that? Okay. This is just a couple of days after Stone said that "Putin is a great leader for his country." Here is a 2021 speech that Canadian Member of Parliament, Michael Chong, gave about a motion about genocide in Xinjiang: (the motion passed) moved: That, (a) in the opinion of the House, the People's Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the "Genocide Convention", including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and (b) given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People's Republic of China, the House, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims and call on the government to officially adopt this position. Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. On a warm night in June of 2009, two Uighurs were killed by a Han Chinese mob in Guangdong province. Uighurs are an ethnic Muslim minority in China, making up some 12 million people in a country of 1.4 billion ethnic Han Chinese. These two Uighurs were among the thousands of Uighurs who had migrated from their homes in impoverished western China to the bustling manufacturing plants in the south. This influx of Uighurs created ethnic tensions with the Han majority, which exploded that night. In response to these two killings, thousands of Uighurs took to the streets in their home province of Xinjiang, some violently. According to reports, several hundred ethnic Han Chinese were killed. In response, Chinese authorities rounded up thousands of Uighurs. Unknown numbers were killed. Ethnic tensions continued to mount, and after President Xi came to power in 2012, a series of terrorist attacks by Uighurs took place across China. Hundreds of ethnic Han Chinese were killed and wounded. One of these attacks took place in Tiananmen Square, the heart of the Chinese state. None of this justifies what happened next. According to secret documents obtained by The New York Times, in 2014 President Xi ordered the full force of China's authoritarian state to be unleashed on the Uighurs, as well as on Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and other Muslim minorities. He criticized the approach of western democracies in their war on terrorism for putting “human rights above security” and instructed authorities to “show absolutely no mercy”. Uighurs living abroad suddenly lost contact with family in China. Parents disappeared. Neighbours went missing. Children were told their parents had gone to training school, a school they could not leave. These children were told their behaviour would influence the length of time their parents had to stay at school. The disappeared have been sent to hundreds of detention camps that were built by the Chinese government as quickly as the COVID-19 hospitals were built in Wuhan last year. Some estimate that more than two million Chinese Muslims have been detained in these camps. Some experts have called this the greatest mass incarceration of an ethnic group since the Holocaust. Chinese authorities first denied the existence of these camps, but when presented with satellite evidence, they said they were educational training centres. Just a year ago, authorities said that everyone had been released from these camps, but the evidence says otherwise. A growing body of evidence, which is based on satellite imagery, survivor testimony, leaked documents, smuggled videos and many other sources, document these atrocities. We can no longer ignore this. Documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists highlight what is going on in the camps, including indoctrination, torture and forced labour. Women, men and children are being imprisoned with no chance of escape. Women are subject to sexual violence, mass sterilizations and forced abortions. Birth rates for Uighurs dropped 60% in the three-year period beginning in 2015. Last month, China's embassy in Washington celebrated this in a tweet. Outside the camps, Xinjiang has turned into an open prison for Uighurs. China has combined the power of an authoritarian state with leading-edge technology to create a surveillance system that is beyond Orwellian. Every single Muslim is tracked. Muslims who do not meet the algorithmic standards are flagged for arrest and detention in camps. Any Uighur who does not follow the direction of authorities is flagged for arrest and detention. There is no procedural fairness, just the brute force of an authoritarian state. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, but these are not just cameras. These are the gateway to a vast information-gathering system that analyzes every single ethnic Uighur's facial bone structure, expressions and behaviours. Every Uighur is tracked, classified and rated. Reports indicate that in 2017, the Chinese authorities required every one of the 12 million Uighurs to go to their local police station to submit biometric data such as DNA samples, voice imprints and facial scans. Uighurs must also have tracking apps on their smart phones. Everything on the phone is tracked. Anything suspicious leads to arrest and detention in the camps. Digital bar codes are found on the front doors of many Uighur homes allowing the police to check in through smart phone applications. Uighurs must swipe identity cards multiple times a day just to go about their daily lives, for example while shopping or visiting friends. In essence, Uighurs are not only being persecuted, they are being treated as human guinea pigs in the development of surveillance technology for China's new model of an authoritarian system of governance. There are an estimated 1,400 technology companies working in Xinjiang province, many working closely with state authorities. One of these companies is Huawei. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Huawei is extensively involved in state security projects in Xinjiang. This is the same Huawei the Liberal government cannot say no to and which it is in a partnership with, with a $5-million grant. Last December, a report from the Center for Global Policy concluded that more than half a million Uighurs are being forced to pick cotton through a coercive state-run system. This is in a region that produces more than a fifth of the world's cotton. China is in the process of eliminating an entire religion and culture. Satellite images show that about twenty Islamic religious sites, including mosques, have been destroyed. Uighur children are not allowed to learn their language or culture. The state is perpetuating a genocide and committing crimes against humanity through its systematic population controls, sexual violence and mass detentions. These constitute elements of a genocide. These crimes have been documented in numerous reports from think tanks, such as the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and from reputable news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and BBC World Service, which was expelled from China just last week for documenting exactly that. Two consecutive U.S. administrations have concluded a genocide has taken place, as has the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and numerous MPs in this House on both sides of the aisle. Think tanks like the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center have also come to the same conclusion, as has Irwin Cotler, the former Liberal minister of justice. The genocide convention codifies the crime of genocide. It was the very first human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations in December of 1948. It signified the international community's commitment after the Holocaust to never allow it to happen again. Canada is a state party to the convention. Article 1 clearly establishes Canada's obligation to prevent genocide, even if it is extraterritorial. Article 4 clearly establishes Canada's obligation to take action to punish genocide, including punishing the perpetrators. These obligations are binding and are the norm of international law. No one pretends the recognition of a genocide will lead to an immediate stop to that genocide, but it is an essential first step. It is a clear call to the world for action, just as Canada's stand on apartheid was so many decades ago. The evidence is clear. A genocide is taking place. Canada should not evade its responsibility under the convention simply by avoiding the recognition of a genocide. We must show leadership. We must take a stand. This motion must pass. Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

Finally, the proof we have all been waiting for. Hold it. The News Director of KTRH thinks this is only a story if Garrison follows up the lead? But if Garrison doesn't, it's not? That says something. What kind of news director is this? He didn't even call up the other people who could corroborate the information. I wonder what happened. Previous Relevant Blog Posts An Important Garrison Memo! R. H. Shockley might have the answer to the JFK assassination. 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.

Jefferson Morley's substack has just published an article by Brad Foley on J.C. Price, a witness in Dealey Plaza. The article alleges that FBI agents suppressed his statements because they were inconsistent with a lone gunman. Foley also wonders why Price was not asked to testify before the Warren Commission. Here is Price's statement: There is no mention of where Price thought the shots came from in his statement. Note that Price said that there was a volley of shots (perhaps five), and then another shot five minutes later. When he was interviewed by Mark Lane, he had a slightly different answer on the number of shots: In his statement, Price also said that the man he saw running had something in his hand - and that "it may have been a head piece." In other words, a hat, or something on his head. Price reiterated in his interview with Lane that he did not know what the man had in his hands: That wasn't quite good enough, so Lane tried again later in the interview and got what he wanted: Now, it "could have been a gun." And of course, Lane put that sentence into his book, Rush to Judgment. (page 33) Lane did not mention that Price initially said there were five shots and then a shot five minutes later. Perhaps the real reason that Mr. Price was not called to testify before the Warren Commission was because they already had his statement and felt that he wasn't the most credible witness.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, presents a snippet of a Tom Brokaw interview with Marina Porter, carefully placed to make it sound like she was denying having taken the backyard photographs. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (28:45) Whoopi Goldberg: The Warren Commission was aware of something else that was wrong with their evidence. Tom Brokaw: All kinds of ballistic tests show that the bullet, in fact, came from that rifle. That was his rifle, you took a picture of him with it. His Marina Porter: No. No. Tom Brokaw: palmprints, and Marina Porter: No. No. Tom Brokaw: fingerprints are all over the school book depository. Marina Porter: You have been misinformed. The ballistics tests did not prove anything at all. Stock Footage Narrator: This is the weapon that was used. A rather well-worn military rifle. Arlen Specter: We know that Oswald had possession of that rifle. Because we have him photographed with it and we have his wife saying that it was Quote fateful rifle of Lee Oswald. Oliver Stone: Is the rifle in evidence today the same rifle the Commission said Oswald ordered through the mail? The short segment that was used in JFK Revisited makes it clear that her denials were about the ballistic tests (unclear which tests), and not the photos. But it is placed in the section of the so-called documentary that discusses the legitimacy of the backyard photographs. It doesn't clarify the issue; it misleads. Here is a clip of the entire NBC interview from August 1993: Oliver Stone is being disingenuous with this clip. He is so desperate to prove that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was not Oswald's that he is willing to insert an interview segment that didn't touch upon that issue. Of course Marina Oswald admitted that she took the backyard photographs: Marina was shown two of the backyard photographs, and then the HSCA introduced another picture that had been found: In fact, Marina took at least four pictures because she and Marguerite destroyed one just after Oswald was arrested. By the way, Marina said Oswald used to go practice with his rifle: I'll be posting some more on the rifle. So stay tuned. The evidence is overwhelming that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Texas Book Depository belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is an excerpt from a 2004 oral history interview with Walter Cronkite: Steven Fagan [sic; Stephen Fagin]: As someone so dedicated to getting the truth out, I’d like to get your opinion on the forty years of books and documentaries and Oliver Stone’s film and the variety of material that has come out relating to the assassination over the years. Walter Cronkite: Oliver Stone’s film was an abomination, an absolute abomination. If there is any reason in the world for press censorship, that film would go right to the top of the evidence. For heaven’s sakes! That entirely phony, novelesque thing that he produced, even suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had a hand in it simply to become President of the United States. The way he pilloried that poor guy down in New Orleans that had absolutely nothing to do with any part of it. But just the social enmity that he had created with him, I mean that the district attorney created, caused all of that thing. The story was so badly mangled. And to give that to another generation of Americans as history was just, as I say, to my mind abominable.

Few people know as much about the shooting of General Edwin Walker as does JFK researcher Steve Roe. I've been on his tour of the shooting in Dallas and it's been a highlight of my visits. So, it's not surprising that Steve has something to say about the recent slew of posts about the Walker shooting on the Education Forum and other websites. Click here to read Steve's latest post. Here is a short excerpt about the chain of custody of the Walker bullet: Factoring all this in, is there any other evidence to solidify that CE573 in the National Archives was the real bullet found in the Walker home on the night of April 10, 1963? The answer is yes. Billy Gene Norvell who was only on the DPD force from December 1, 1962, to May 4, 1963, was tracked down by Dallas FBI agents Barrett and Lee. After some confusion with a Bobby Gene Norvell, who was a popular Garland High School football player, who went onto Baylor University and into the service, the FBI located former DPD patrolman Billy Gene Norvell in Irving, Texas and interviewed him in a report on June 4, 1964. Norvell explained what happened that night, and stated he did initial the bullet with a "N" or "BN", near the base of the bullet. He described the bullet being in a mangled condition. (2) Using the NIST Hi-Def photos of CE573, which revealed the Elmer Todd initials on CE399, here is Billy Gene Norvell's "N" initial exactly as he described where he put his initial, near the base of the bullet. Previous Steve Roe Posts on the Walker Shooting Understanding the Walker Letter An analysis of the letter Oswald left for his wife. Irony of all Ironies - Oswald tried to kill a Conspiracy Theorist Oswald continued to stalk Walker after his murder attempt. Another General Walker Shooting Story A rebuttal to an article on James DiEugenio's website. Did General Edwin Walker plot to kill President Kennedy? An analysis of a film shot by John T. Martin. The General Walker Bullet - Real or Fake? An analysis of supposed issues with CE 573.

JFK researcher Steve Roe is back with another blog post on the latest articles on the General Walker shooting. This time he looks at the letter that Oswald left for his wife on the night of the shooting: At some point in all this, logic and common sense have to be applied. While some people question Marina's testimony as being totally truthful, we can say without a doubt she never disclosed her husband's involvement with the Walker shooting until she was shown that letter. At that point, she did admit it after hiding the fact from interrogators. Does anyone really think Marina made this whole General Walker story out of thin air? She was already up to her eyeballs under stress with her husband's murder of the President and Officer Tippit, why make up this fantastic story about General Walker? Previous Steve Roe Posts on the Walker Shooting More Confusion surrounding the General Walker Shooting An analysis of the bullet that was fired at General Walker. Understanding the Walker Letter An analysis of the letter Oswald left for his wife. Irony of all Ironies - Oswald tried to kill a Conspiracy Theorist Oswald continued to stalk Walker after his murder attempt. Another General Walker Shooting Story A rebuttal to an article on James DiEugenio's website. Did General Edwin Walker plot to kill President Kennedy? An analysis of a film shot by John T. Martin. The General Walker Bullet - Real or Fake? An analysis of supposed issues with CE 573.

Conspiracy theorist Paul Bleau recently published an article at James DiEugenio's website entitled "The Garrison Files and Oswald's Escort." His article alleges that Lee Harvey Oswald had an escort who accompanied him on many occasions. Bleau believes that the escort "was often described as short, stocky, in his early to mid-twenties, dark complected and he spoke little English or English with an accent." I have actually dealt with this ridiculous allegation in this blog post: Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar? Somehow Bleau missed the scar. Bleau presented 30 witnesses who described this supposed escort, and yesterday I covered#16 - Raymond Brouillette. Here is Bleau's #27 - Harvey Wade: Harvey Lawill Wade -Carousel Club Clients (Garrison Files, Misc. 2, WC CE 2370) On November 10, Wade attended the Carousel Club and saw Oswald in the company of two male companions, one of whom he describes as follows: “The number two man is described as a white male, 30-32 years old, 200 lbs, 5 feet 10 inches, a stocky build, long black hair, dark complexion, oval face, and Mexican or Spanish in appearance. He had numerous bumps on his face and was believed to have a one-inch scar in the eyebrow of his left eye.” It's fine and dandy to talk about Wade's companion, but it is all irrelevant if Wade was just mistaken. You can read all about Harvey Wade here. He came forward right after the assassination to claim that he saw Oswald at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on the evening of November 10, 1963. The biggest problem with Mr. Wade's allegation is that on November 10, 1963, Oswald was at Ruth Paine's home. Here are two excerpts from her testimony before the Warren Commission: Warren Commission Volume 2, page 515 Warren Commission Volume 3, page 41 That was not the end of Mr. Harvey Wade. He resurfaced during the Garrison investigation: Here is a link to Warren Commission Exhibit 2432. Boxley knew that the solution to the problem was that Wade had not seen Oswald - he had seen the second Oswald. Not surprisingly, Wade "responded exuberantly" to the news that he was right after all. All of this may impress Mr. Bleau and Mr. DiEugenio. In fact, Mr. DiEugenio includes the Harvey Wade story in an article on his website. But the fact of the matter is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in the Carousel Club that evening and thus the issue of the so-called escort is moot. Unless Mr. Bleau is maintaining that the second Oswald also had an escort. Perhaps we can call that person the "Second Escort." Previous Relevant Blog Posts Paul Bleau and the IRS Man Roland Brouillette saw Oswald eight times in the summer of 1963. But is his account credible? Paul Bleau and the Forger Edward Girnus was in prison for forgery, and he told a fanciful story about Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald. Paul Bleau and the Three Tramps Leander D'Avy told the HSCA he saw Oswald and Ferrie with the three tramps. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau Paul Bleau's Reign of Error Bleau's analysis of Garrison's files is full of errors. Paul Bleau's Plots Bleau believes there were seven plots against JFK before Dallas. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK Bolden's allegation that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago has changed over the years. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Supposed Tampa 'Patsy' There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Tampa. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago.

My friend Nick Nalli has just posted an excellent response to the allegations of Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht that were posted on James DiEugenio's website. The blatant mean-spiritedness pervading the GA/CW [Gary Aguilar/Cyril Wecht] pieces and exemplified in the above already speaks for itself and ought to be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of good will. The behavior is more akin to that of schoolyard bullies than that of professional physicians, and the slander they levy against professional scientists and experts, who never did anything to deserve it, is nothing short of nauseating. That said, irrespective of their spitefulness and vacuity, these allegations, taken individually and collectively, are also manifestly false. Please read the entire article. I hope that Nick gets an apology that he so greatly deserves from Aguilar and Wecht. And don't miss Nick's review of Last Second in Dallas: "The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman and the Futile Search for Signal in Noise" Please take the time read Nick's important contribution. Important takeaways: The acoustics evidence cannot be resurrected. Nalli's rejoinder to Thompson on the acoustics is persuasive. JFK's head does move forward about 2 inches between frame 312-313, indicative of a shot from behind. Thompson's supposed forward lurch starting at frame 327 is just a continuation of forward movement that started earlier. "JFK's motion during these frames is not due to a near-instantaneous interaction of his head with a high-speed projectile, but rather the interaction of his lifeless body with the backseat, Mrs. Kennedy, and the force of gravity." Here's an important part of Nick's paper: Barger and Mullen offered Thompson one additional argument against the validity of HOLD: The presence of multiple hum frequencies on the Channel 1 recording suggested that the HOLD crosstalk was somehow overdubbed during the creation of a multigenerational copy. However, they based this on the Ramsey Panel copy, which was already known to be a multigenerational copy, so there was nothing surprising about the presence of these hums. The only way Barger could solve the timing problem was to conclude that there was overdubbing, and the only alleged direct evidence of overdubbing is the extra hums.” If a mysterious overdubbing were the origin of the HOLD crosstalk, then this hypothesis can be tested against earlier copies: Not only should earlier copies not only not contain the hums, but also, they should not include the HOLD crosstalk. And O’Dell, once again, has convincingly demonstrated that this is not the case. Verify for yourself that the HOLD crosstalk is present on all three known versions of the recordings (the Ramsey Panel’s, the FBI’s, and BBN’s); therefore, HOLD is not a dubbing artifact: Dictabelt Hums and the "hold everything secure" Crosstalk. Nick has also written an amazing paper on the head shot to JFK. And read Nick's paper: Sniper Target Tracking Analysis of John F. Kennedy Assassination If you are ever at the Sixth Floor Museum, check out Nick's Oral History contribution. Nick worked on his review of Thompson's book with other brilliant people including Paul Hoch, Michael O’Dell, Max Holland, Francis Corbett, Roland Zavada, Martin J. Kelly, and Louis Girdler. Note that Nick's review is hosted by Dale Myers at his excellent blog: Secrets of a Homicide.

New Orleans Times-Picayune, December 22, 1991 Money quote: Stone is as careless with the truth as is his hero. He depicts the prosecutor's fabrications as actual events, and adds fabrications of his own. Like the DA, Stone is indifferent to the rights of the accused and cynical in denying Clay Shaw his humanity. MacKenzie discusses the supposed incident where Shaw told officer Habighorst that his alias was Clay Bertrand. For more information, please read this blog post. His conclusion is important: Prosecutors and historians will long debate whether he [Oswald] was indeed the fall guy arrested to divert attention from a monstrous global conspiracy. What they are not morally free to do is make a patsy out of someone like Clay Shaw to advance those theories and schemes.

Yet another alias for Clay Shaw. He was also Clay or Clem Bertrand. Not surprisingly, Mr. Sullivan was not called as a witness at the Clay Shaw trial. Clyde Johnson claimed Shaw used the pseudonym Alton Bernard when he supposedly met with him in Baton Rouge. There is more about Clyde Johnson here.