Search Results

Wegmann files a forty-five-page complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans. Photo from Rosemary James' article, "The Dark Side of Not Guilty," in New Orleans Magazine. In May of 1968, Wegmann filed a forty-five-page complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans. What does he have to lose? The DOJ won't help him so perhaps the courts will help. Click here for his complaint. Wegmann asks for "a 'sanctuary' in this Court to grant him relief from the irreparable harm, clear and imminent, which he [Shaw] has suffered at the hands" of Garrison and his associates. Garrison's real interest in the court case is discrediting the Warren Report: Because of the lack of discovery in Louisiana Criminal courts , Wegmann asks that various documents be made available to the defense: Wegmann took note of Garrison's publicity campaign: The real reason that Garrison chose to have a preliminary hearing was so that he could choose the presiding judges. And Garrison has now put Clay Shaw in the unenviable position of defending the Warren Report -- which should never have been his responsibility: And Garrison has created an atmosphere of fear: Even Marina Oswald was fearful of Garrison's grand jury. Wegmann noted the various statements of Garrison attacking the Warren Report: Wegmann mentioned that the Warren Report was not allowed to be admitted into evidence during the preliminary hearing: Thus, Wegmann asks the Court to allow that the findings of facts and conclusions of the Warren Report be allowed into evidence. Wegmann wants to protect the "integrity" of the President, the members of the Warren Commission and the Attorney General: And here is what Wegmann wanted the Court to order: Wegmann also sent his complaint to U. S. Attorney Louis Lacour: And Wegmann sent the complaint directly to Ramsey Clark: Patricia Lambert writes: Wegmann firmly believes what he writes, that Shaw's case is of "tremendous public importance" and that Garrison, by his conduct already may have "imperiled the security of the country." Who better to defend the national interest than the nation's number one attorney? This quixotic, almost desperate tactic reflects more than Wegmann's concern for his client. It shows his understanding of the potentially disastrous long-term consequences of what Garrison is doing, the bottomless black hole of doubt and suspicion directed toward the government that he is birthing. That insight seems prescient. In the meantime, Judge Heebe had issued a temporary restraining order, and Wegmann sent a note to Ramsey Clark: The complaint caught the attention of the DOJ: Vinson notes Judge Heebe's restraining order, and asks for some thoughts about whether the DOJ should intervene or not. Here is an article about Judge Heebe's restraining order: New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mary 29 1968 A three-judge panel was now going to hear this case. Garrison was furious and issued this memo as a press release: As you can see, Garrison instructed his staff not to cooperate with any subpoena and to not answer any questions in court. Louis Lacour wrote an note about what happened when Shaw's attorneys tried to take the depositions of three members of Garrison's staff: "They refused to give anything other than their names, positions and social security numbers using a written order by Garrison for them not to give any information at the deposition." Lacour believes that Garrison might proceed with prosecution in contempt of the restraining order. He believes that Judge Haggerty will consult with him and asks his colleagues for help with the situation. Edwin Weisl, an assistant attorney general in the civil division wrote that "the prosecution of Shaw by Louisiana would seem to be a bizarre state of affairs." However, Weisl also wrote that "there does not appear to be any basis or justification to intervene in the federal suit for any purpose." He believes that Shaw can "vindicate himself if he is not guilty." And so the decision is to not intervene. Two weeks later, Wegmann filed an amended petition and asked that the Attorney General be joined to the suit as a "defendant or involuntary plaintiff." Lacour's plea for help was unnecessary. On June 23, 1968, the court dismissed Wegmann's complaint. Money Quote: Our adverse ruling to plaintiff should not be construed as an intimation of any view whatsoever on the merits of the pending criminal charge against him. As a matter of law, plaintiff Shaw's request for relief in the federal court is premature, for under our system of federalism in the circumstances presented here, he must first seek vindication of his rights in the state courts as to this pending prosecution. Wegmann appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and on December 9, 1968, it upheld the lower court's decision. New Orleans Times-Picayune, December 10, 1968 Clay Shaw went on trial in February of 1969. Once again, the Department of Justice could have helped. . NEXT: Clay Shaw's Acquittal; New Charges; and Wegmann Goes Back to the Department of Justice. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

Wegmann Files a Civil Rights Complaint with the Department of Justice. Clay Shaw leaving the court house in New Orleans. Our last post on Clay Shaw left off with Ed Wegmann sending a letter to John Doar at the Department of Justice in late-September of 1967. He promised Doar that information on the case was being compiled and would soon be sent to him. As you can see in this post, there is some desperation on the part of Shaw's attorneys. They don't have many cards to play and so are trying anything to help their client. It's a longshot but they decide to file a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice. Lambert says that Wegmann then met with Robert Kennedy who asked many questions but provided no assistance. She must have been told this by Ed Wegmann, but unfortunately there is no additional information about this meeting in her chapter. At the beginning of December 1967, Wegmann wrote a letter to John Doar with a copy of Harold Weisberg's book, Oswald in New Orleans . Wegmann tells Doar that he is "in the midst of documenting the facts" about Garrison's violation of Shaw's civil rights. And then Wegmann sends him a sixteen-page civil rights complaint. Here is short excerpt from Patricia Lambert's chapter: Wegmann alerts John Doar to the gravity of this pleading in the first paragraph. That's where Wegmann asks the United States government to "bring an indictment" for "serious and substantial violations of Mr. Shaw's civil rights" against New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, three members of his inner circle, the sole witness upon whom his case against Shaw depends, and the doctor who helped elicit the witness's story under hypnosis. Here is the beginning of Wegmann's complaint : :Lambert continues: Wegmann has taken aim at the heart of Garrison's "secret team" operation at Tulane and Broad. In the atmosphere prevailing in New Orleans at that time -- with Garrison straddling the city like some prosecutorial Godzilla -- this effort to hold him and those assisting him personally accountable for their actions is a bold move. In the complaint, Wegmann lays out the unsavory details of Garrison's investigation. In retrospect, Wegmann's most significant charges concern two prospective witnesses who will never take the stand at Shaw's trial. Wegmann accuses Garrison and his investigators of trying to bribe these men to give false testimony incriminating Shaw. Their names are Alvin Beauboeuf and Fred Leemans. Here is what the civil rights complaint said about Fred Leemans: Here are a couple of blog posts about the Fred Leemans case: Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part One The complete Fred Leemans story with related documents. Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part Two Here is how conspiracy books have covered the Leemans story. Here is what the civil rights complaint said about Beauboeuf: Al Beauboeuf was the young man who went to Houston and Galveston with David Ferrie during the weekend of the JFK assassination. Here are a couple of links about Beauboeuf: Alvin Beauboeuf, R.I.P. Beauboeuf died i 2023 and here is the obituary I wrote. My Interview with Al Beauboeuf... I spoke to Beauboeuf in 2020. Here is how Lambert describes the offer of a bribe to Beauboeuf: Lynn Loisel, one of Garrison's investigators, who specified that he was acting with Garrison's authorization, offered Beauboeuf $3,000 and a job with an airline (being a pilot is Beauboeuf's dream) if he provided "the missing links" incriminating Ferrie in the assassination plot. If Beauboeuf is afraid of incriminating himself, he needn't worry, Loisel says, they can "change the story around" to protect him. But Beauboeuf knows nothing about any plot, and he explained that during earlier interviews in Garrison's office. Loisel's offer takes place in the office of Beauboeuf's attorney who suspects from the outset that Garrison's man is trying to buy false testimony and takes the precaution of surreptitiously recording the conversation. After Garrison hears about the recording, Loisel and another investigator visit Beauboeuf at his home, as Wegmann puts it in his complaint, and tell him "If he got in the way he would be shot." This allegation appears, in less polite language, in a New Orleans Police Department report: According to Beauboeuf, Loisel said, "I don't want to get into any shit and before I do I'll put a hot load of lead up your ass." Years later, Beauboeuf told this writer about that encounter with Loisel and the other investigator. "One of them's got one hand wound in my clothing holding me and his other hand has a gun in my face and he shoved it in my mouth." Beauboeuf couldn't remember the precise words they used but he did remember the message. "They were saying, 'If you don't retract [the attempted bribery claim], we're going to kill you.'" The next day, Beauboeuf signed a statement at the DA's office stating that he did not consider the offer a bribe, a statement he later recants. Wegmann talked with Owen [Wegmann continually spells his name as Owens] in January 1968 who told him that the DOJ was "still studying his complaint" In Mid-January, Wegmann writes Owen: Wegmann writes that Garrison's "conduct is as bizarre and as unethical as ever. This is best evidenced by his handling of the arrest and charging of Edgar Eugene Bradley of Los Angeles, California, his latest victim." Edgar Eugene Bradley was also charged with conspiring to kill JFK, and Garrison said he was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. It was a ridiculous charge as Bradley was on a bus in El Paso on November 22nd and he could prove it. Garrison presented no evidence at Bradley's extradition hearing and Ronald Reagan refused to have him sent to Louisiana. Years later, Garrison would apologize in person to Bradley. Wegmann emphasizes that time is of the essence and requests a meeting with Owen and the Attorney General. Wegmann called Owen again in February: Wegmann told Owen that he had filed a change of venue motion on February 6, 1968. Ramsey Clark appeared on the Meet the Press television show on February 18, 1968 and was asked about the Garrison case : Ronald Ostrow [reporter for the Washington Post ] : Mr. Clark, can we turn to New Orleans and District Attorney Garrison's investigation into the Kennedy assassination. Do you still believe that he's turned up nothing new, no new evidence? Ramsey Clark : I've seen nothing new. The findings of the Warren Commission are supported by an immense quantity of evidence. I know of no investigation in history that was more comprehensive, or any facts in history that are better supported by the evidence, than those of the Warren Commission. Ronald Ostrow : Why doesn't the federal government take Mr. Garrison to court for violating the civil rights of Clay Shaw and others he's implicated there? Ramsey Clark : This is a free country and local authorities have their responsibility and it's a rare, rare case where any local authority has been prosecuted by the federal government for violations of citizen's rights. It's been almost exclusively in brutality cases -- actual physical violence directed towards citizens. If only Garrison had beaten up Clay Shaw, the government might have acted. Garrison must have been watching because he then issued this insane press release: The reference to Jack Ruby driving a rifleman to the grassy knoll refers to the allegations of Julia Mercer . The allegation that the FBI had advance knowledge of the assassination came from William Walter. This press release got a fair bit of play in the newspapers: Oakland Tribune, February 20, 1968 In the meantime, Wegmann wrote to Stephen Pollak asking for a meeting: Wegmann wrote Robert Owen a follow-up letter: Here is the headline from the February 16, 1968 edition of the New Orleans States-Item : Here is Jim Garrison's crazy press release about Allen Dulles: The allegation about the finding of bullets in Dealey Plaza is explored further here. Garrison is talking about the three tramps when he writes that "some of these CIA employees were accidentally arrested at the scene of the assassination which made necessary the murder of Officer Tippit ..." Garrison wrote that his office "has succeeded in identifying the assassination of President Kennedy as an operation conducted by elements of the CIA." In addition, "this office now has identified most of the CIA employees involved in that part of the operation occurring in New Orleans and is engaged in constructing cases against them." What ever happened to those cases? Wegmann even turned to the Bar Association for some help: Wegmann then wrote Pollak and Owen to update them on developments and to inform them that he is on his way to Washington. Wegmann writes that "It is again submitted that it is incumbent upon the Justice Department to protect the rights of this citizen by taking such action as is appropriate under the attendant circumstances." Wegmann and Dymond return to Washington and met with Stephen Pollak, another assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, and his colleague John J. Kirby. Pollak told Wegmann and Dymond that there was no basis to conduct an investigation: Mr. Pollak told him that while we do not endorse the methods which Wegmann alleges Garrison has used in his prosecution, that there does not appear to be a statutory basis for our proceeding at the present time. At the end of the meeting Pollak says that he would review Wegmann's materials to see if "there were any basis for an investigation at this time." In the meantime, Peyton Ford tells Wegmann that his committee cannot help: Wegmann replied: Wegmann wrote that "If Mr. Garrison is allowed to continue his present course of conduct, it seems inescapable that an innocent man will be deprived of his liberty ... " Wegmann writes Pollak after their meeting: Wegmann writes Pollack that he was "at a loss to understand how and why you and the Department have concluded that the facts and documents which I have previously furnished to the Department do not constitute a conspiracy on the part of Mr. Jim Garrison ... and his associates to violate Mr. Shaw's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights." Wegmann wrote that "the case against Clay Shaw is pure fiction and that he is the victim of an unscrupulous and unconscionable public prosecutor who, in concert with his associates, has conspired and continues to conspire to violate Mr. Shaw's civil rights." Wegmann refers to a statement from Cedrick Younger Von Rolleston. You can read all about him here. Wegmann concludes by writing that the facts presented "warrant nothing less than an investigation by the Department or such other government agency as is appropriate." Lastly, Wegmann mentions "the Peacock case" which refers to the City of Greenwood vs. Peacock. This was a case in which state defendants were trying to get their case removed to U.S. courts. They did not succeed but there was a vigorous dissent which included the Chief Justice [Earl Warren]. Unfortunately, Wegmann's letter changed nothing: NEXT: Wegmann files a forty-five-page complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

Wegmann Goes Back to Washington with Irvin Dymond Clay Shaw on the left, 1944 - 1945, with General Thrasher. In mid-September 1967, Wegmann and Dymond flew north to Washington D.C. They enlisted the help of Herbert 'Jack' Miller, a former assistant attorney general, who had been hired by Robert Kennedy in 1961. They told Miller that they waned to meet with someone at the CIA who can "steer them to the true facts and circumstances," of the various allegations being made by Garrison. Miller agreed to take their request to the CIA, and he spoke with the CIA's General Counsel Lawrence Houston : Houston told Miller that he had been advised by the DOJ that, if anybody from the CIA were subpoenaed in connection with Garrison's investigation, that they would claim executive privilege. Houston said he would have to get advice from the DOJ to see if talking to Shaw's attorneys would jeopardize "the executive privilege claim." Houston then talked with Nathaniel Kossack of the Criminal Division who tells him that "it is rather dangerous" to talk with Shaw's lawyers. The first meeting of the Garrison Group was on September 20, 1967 : Houston told the group of "the desire of Shaw's lawyers to make contact with the Agency." While Rocca felt that Garrison would "indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw," it was not because of the evidence. As we have seen, the CIA consistently wrote in internal memos that Garrison's allegations were wrong. However, Rocca understood that Garrison had considerable power in New Orleans. Another memo warned that if Garrison learned of "federal assistance" to Shaw's attorneys, he "would play it to the hilt." Pratt advises that Shaw's attorneys go study the Warren Report. That's not the kind of help that they really needed. On September 21, 1967, Wegmann and Dymond meet with Nathaniel Kossack, the first assistant in the Criminal Division of the DOJ. There are two memos that describe that meeting, and here is the first : Wegmann and Dymond told Kossack that "confidence throughout the world in the United States government will be undermined," if Shaw is convicted. They also told Kossack that Garrison "is a dangerous, irresponsible man" who "must be stopped." Unfortunately, they have been forced "to play with a stacked deck," and thus need "investigative assistance" to refute some of Garrison's charges. Here is the second memo : Shaw's attorneys ask for information from the FBI and the CIA on a variety of people. Because there is no discovery in the Louisiana courts , Shaw's attorneys have had to hire private investigators to check every lead they happen to notice in the press. Here is an excerpt from a letter that Wegmann sent to Elmer Gertz, a lawyer in Chicago who was suing Playboy Magazine for libel on behalf of Gordon Novel, whom Garrison had accused of being a CIA agent: Shaw's attorneys spent about $50,000 on private investigators. Wegmann and Dymond told Kossack they might file a civil rights complaint against Garrison and he referred them to John Doar or Robert Owen for comment on the federal civil rights statutes. Ultimately Kossack told them that the Department of Justice would be in contact but refused to give any "pledge of assistance." Five days later the Garrison group met again at the CIA : Janney writes that "Justice did not want the Agency to contact Shaw's lawyers, but rather to maintain the safety of our executive privilege." Patricia Lambert noted that "the door to the CIA slams shut." Wegmann then wrote a letter to John Doar: Here is the article from the States-Item that Wegmann referenced in his letter: New Orleans States-Item, September 26, 1967 Haggerty was indeed biased in favor of Garrison. Wegmann filed a change of venue motion in March of 1968 which was ultimately denied. Patricia Lambert writes: Edward Wegmann is undeterred, however, The problem, it seems, is that those in Washington don't grasp the extent of Garrison's malfeasance. Wegmann sets out to enlighten them. He begins drafting a civil rights complaint that will make it unmistakably clear what Garrison is doing. NEXT: Wegmann Files a Civil Rights Complaint with the Department of Justice. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

The CIA Gets Involved On March 4, 1967, Paese Sera , a communist-controlled newspaper in Rome began a multi-part series on Clay Shaw and the Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC), a world trade center. The articles alleged that Clay Shaw was on the CMC's Board and that the CIA used the organization to funnel American dollars to ultra-rightists. Paese Sera, March 4, 1967 This hit the New Orleans newspapers in April: New Orleans States-Item, April 25, 1967 The story was again mentioned in May: New Orleans, States-Item, May 5, 1967 And Garrison saw the reports. Here is an excerpt from the Dick Billings diary for March 22, 1967 : Story about Shaw and CIA appears in Humanite, probably March 8 . . . Giant has copy datelined Rome, March 7, from La Presse Italien . . . It explains Shaw working in Rome in '58 to '60 period . . . Here is the article from L'Humanité : The stories in Paese Sera were wrong. While Clay Shaw was indeed on the Board of the CMC, he never attended a meeting of the Board, and he was never in Rome during the years that the CMC existed. The articles were full of rumors and many of its facts were just plain wrong. They couldn't figure out, for example, that Louis Bloomfield was a Canadian lawyer who represented some of the CMC shareholders, rather than an American banker. I have written extensively about Permindex (the parent company of CMC) and the fact that it was nothing more than a failed attempt at a world trade center. In February 1962, the CMC was evicted from its buildings in Rome because it couldn't pay its rent. Some CIA front! Here are some links on Permindex (CMC): State Department Documents on Permindex   The complete set of State Department documents on Permindex. James DiEugenio Gets it all Wrong on Permindex/CMC     Conspiracy theorists mislead people on Permindex/CMC. Was Permindex Running an Assassination Bureau?     Was Montreal lawyer Louis Bloomfield running an assassination bureau? Conspiracy Nonsense Snared a Canadian     Louis Bloomfield was a good man who raised a lot of money for Canadian charities. Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists have linked him to the JFK assassination. Did a Life Magazine Memo Say that Clay Shaw was in Rome? The memo only quotes from Paese Sera. Did the FBI's Regis Kennedy Know that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA? The information that Shaw lived in Rome and worked for the CIA originated with Paese Sera. Clay Shaw's Permindex File     Clay Shaw was on the Board of Directors of CMC. Here is his file. The Founder of Permindex, George Mantello, Saved Thousands of Jews during the Holocaust...     George Mantello was a hero. Patricia Lambert, in her sample chapter from her proposed book, also mentioned another story about the CIA that appeared in a Drew Pearson column: San Francisco Chronicle, March 3, 1967 This story was actually written by Jack Anderson and will ultimately result in an internal investigation by the CIA that will reveal details about efforts to kill Fidel Castro. The article above notes that "this report may have started New Orleans' flamboyant District Attorney Jim Garrison on his investigation of the Kennedy assassination ..." There might be some truth in that and the article was certainly correct that Garrison was "following the wrong trails." A February 26, 1967 article by Haynes Johnson noted the following : Oakland Tribune, February 26, 1967 It's unclear who examined that theory and who discarded it. Garrison decided to play up allegations about the CIA in two interviews: The CIA was not impressed: The CIA writes that "without exception his allegations are false." Rocca's hope for "timely, energetic counteraction" was met with silence. The CIA then set up a committee called the Garrison Group, comprised of six high-level officials to monitor the investigation : At the second meeting of the Garrison Group, it was noted that the Department of Justice did not want the CIA to have any contact with Shaw's attorneys : The CIA's General Counsel, Lawrence Houston, worried they might be dragged into the Shaw trial : Money Quote : Despite the fact that Garrison's theories are basically and preposterously false, therefore, he may well be able to involve the CIA in the Shaw trial. Two notes were attached to this memo : Houston writes that "there is nothing we can do at the moment," and "there is no action for the Director or any of us to take at this time." Houston also discussed the dilemmas facing the CIA : Houston notes that "Shaw's lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no government information which they can use for this purpose." This thus places the government in a "quandary." If the CIA denied some of Garrison's stories which were "untrue," they would also have to made some "partial admission" of connections to other people involved in Garrison's investigation. Houston says that "in view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either the prosecution or defense to involve the CIA in the trial, the government will claim executive privilege." He concludes that "to protect the Government's position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison's claims ..." And so Houston concludes that the CIA should take no action. If during the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. In September, Irvin Dymond approached Lloyd Ray of the New Orleans office of the CIA for some help: The article in question referred to the allegations of Donald Norton which appeared in Canadian newspapers. Norton claimed to have been hired by the CIA to root out homosexuals, and said that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie knew each other. Even for Garrison his stories were too outlandish and he was never used as a witness. Ray writes that "I told him I thought this would be impossible but, if he would send me a copy of the article, I would pass it on to my headquarters although I felt rather sure that they would take no action in the matter." Unfortunately the Department of Justice did not want the CIA to help Clay Shaw. NEXT: Ed Wegmann and Irvin Dymond Go Back to Washington. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

Ed Wegmann Goes to Washington Part Two of our series on Clay Shaw discussed the Washington Post  article of March 3 , 1967 in which Ramsey Clark said that the FBI had investigated and cleared Shaw right after the JFK assassination. This made it sound like the FBI suspected Clay Shaw back in 1963 - 1964. Wegmann realized they needed some clarification and he sent a telegram to the Department of Justice requesting a meeting but was turned down. He also phoned the FBI who told him that they could not be of any help. So, Wegmann traveled to Washington in May 1967 to try and straighten out the mess created by Ramsey Clark. Wegmann also visited the FBI: The memo notes that Wegmann "was advised that the FBI had maintained a strict "no comment" policy with regard to the probe of District Attorney Garrison and the figures publicly identified as being connected with it." In addition, Wegmann asked for information that the FBI may possess regarding Clay Shaw and was told that "our policy prevented us from being of any assistance to him." Wegmann then wrote Ramsey Clark directly: And the DOJ finally responded with a statement on June 2, 1967: And while the clarification was important, it was still clear to Wegmann that he needed additional help from the government. And despite some skepticism from the press, the public was starting to buy Garrison's theories: Washington Post, June 2, 1967 The editorial in the Washington Post noted that "According to a Harris Survey published in this newspaper Monday morning, one in every four Americans has been converted to the conspiracy theory in the last three or four months." Here is an article about that Harris Survey: Chicago Daily News, May 29, 1967 Garrison was having an effect. Wegmann's timing could not be have been worse. The United States was in the middle of an explosion of the civil rights movement and anti-war protesters were about to start holding massive demonstrations. The Department of Justice had its hands full, and they had no intention of helping Clay Shaw. And Jim Garrison was just getting going. He had the CIA in his sights. NEXT: The CIA Gets Involved. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

The DOJ is Told Not to Get Involved. The FBI Follows Suit. Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination became public in late February of 1967. Garrison bragged that he had solved the case. Washington Post, February 24, 1967 Washington got wind that he was also alleging that Lyndon Johnson was somehow linked to the assassination: This headline was from a later speech by Garrison but it illustrates his belief that Johnson was hiding something. Garrison, to my knowledge, never accused Johnson of being behind the assassination. The cover of the January 1968 issue of Ramparts Magazine Attorney General Ramsey Clark heard this from Congressman Hale Boggs. These excerpts from transcripts are taken from Max Holland's important book, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes . On Monday, February 20, 1967, Johnson called Ramsey Clark to discuss just how to react to Jim Garrison's JFK investigation. Johnson was quite clear that he wanted no interference or obstruction of Garrison: (page 393 - 394) Ramsey Clark : I had heard that Hale Boggs was sayin' [that] he -- Garrison -- was sayin' that ... or privately around town [was saying] that it [the assassination] could be traced back [to you] ... or that you could be found in  it some place, which ... I can't believe he's been sayin' that. The bureau says they haven't heard any  such thing, and they['ve] got lots of eyes and ears. 'Course, that was a [credible] fella like Hale Boggs, But Hale gets pretty emotional about people that he really doesn't like , and people who have fought him and been there against him, and I would be more inclined to attribute it to that . Either that, or this guy Garrison [is] just completely off his rocker. Lyndon Johnson : Who did Hale tell this to? Ramsey Clark : [ somewhat in disbelief ] Apparently Marvin [Watson, a special assistant to the President and the White House liaison to the FBI]. Lyndon Johnson : [ aside to Watson ] {Did] Hale tell you that -- Hale Boggs -- that this fella [Garrison, this] district attorney down there, said that this is traced to me or somethin'? Marvin Watson : Privately he [Garrison] was usin' your name as having known about it [the assassination]. I said [to Boggs], Will you give this information to Barefoot Sanders? [Sanders is the assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ's Civil Division.] Ramsey was out of town, this was Saturday night. He [Boggs] said, I sure will. So I asked the operator to get Barefoot and Ramsey together, and they did . Lyndon Johnson : [ to Clark ] Yeah, I don't know about it. They don't ever let me  in  on it, Marvin and Jake [Jacobsen, special counsel to Johnson] over here, so you have to call me direct. Ramsey Clark : Well -- Lyndon Johnson : They just think this stuff's for them . Ramsey Clark : Such nutty  things that ... it's awfully explosive but ... the press , really, has quite a jaundiced eye about it ... and about Garrison, so far. I had several press interviews out in Des Moines [on] Saturday evening and afternoon, and the thrust of their questions is, What kind of nut is  this? Later in the call, Johnson tells Clark that the FBI should not interfere with Garrison's investigation. Max Holland notes that Johnson "is apparently taking his legal cues and precise language from Justice Fortas." (page 397) Lyndon Johnson : On this New Orleans thing: I'm told that what I oughta say to you is [for you] to ask the FBI ... to immediately take notice of all these statements, review 'em very carefully -- evaluate  them -- ask their local people without quote "without interfering  with the local investigation," or without obstructin' it ... "interfering or obstruction." They say be sure  to get a careful sentence in there, so it won't look like that ...they can't say that you came along and wanted to cover up  somethin' ... busted 'em up. And notify  the FBI to -- without interfering or obstructin' the local thing -- to follow it very carefully, and to report to you anything  that is material or of any value. Johnson further instructs Clark: (page 397 - 398) Lyndon Johnson : And I would think that what you oughta do is -- [and] you can be your own judge about it -- but I would think what you oughta do is either write or call Deke [Cartha DeLoach, the FBI"s liaison to the White House], and take notes on what you say to him, and say the President has seen this on television and read of it. And he says to tell you, without interfering or obstructin' in any way the local investigation, to be sure ... that if there's anything to this or any scintilla of evidence that should be considered, that you be sure that it's presented to me. The following Wednesday, Clark called Johnson to tell him the news that David Ferrie had died. He tells Johnson the Ferrie story: (page 401) Ramsey Clark : The FBI interviewed Ferrie in November of '63 because he had known Oswald in New Orleans ... he [Ferrie] was a commercial pilot. And there was some allegation at the time that he may have flown Oswald to  Dallas. All  the evidence at that time indicated that that did not happen  ... that the plane that he had was just not suited for the purpose. That any idea the plane would've been used to take Oswald to Cuba after the [assassination] ... after he did this was just not a real possibility. In addition to that, of course, Oswald had left New Orleans and gone  to Dallas long before President Kennedy's trip was known of. So there just doesn't seem to be anything there. Ferrie denied it all, quite vociferously. He talked ... he called the bureau [on] Saturday, ]and] said that he was quite a sick man and he was just disgusted  with Garrison, he was going to sue  him for slander. That he [Garrison] was talkin' about him, and that he {Ferrie] just didn't know anything about any of this, as he had told them. And [Ferrie] wanted to know how ... what the bureau could do to help him with this nut ! Clark then tells Johnson that the FBI doesn't want to inflame the situation: (page 402) Ramsey Clark : I've been tryin' to figure some  way ... I'd given a ... kind of a backgrounder to some press people yesterday,  sayin' that I thought Garrison had the clear responsibility to report anything that he had to the Secret Service and the FBI immediately . That I couldn't imagine any  half-responsible district attorney in the country, in a situation vaguely  comparable to this, not immediately  reporting it to them as being a matter of national concern [and] responsibility. Of course, we weren't going to do anything to interfere with his investigation, The SAC [FBI Special Agent in Charge] down there [in New Orleans] just can't talk with him. There's no ... they just ... he just has no confidence in Garrison. He's afraid that Garrison would try to  use  him. Deke [DeLoach] feels quite strongly that it'd be a mistake to push  it. I'm sure that if .. I had thought at one time of either callin' or writin' him myself . But [I'm] afraid he {Garrison] would use that to try to escalate  the thing. [Indistinct] go away. There are people concerned about it. Scotty Reston called me about an hour ago .. [and I] told him off the record that we didn't ... [that] the FBI was watchin' it as closely as they could . From every indication ... every piece of evidence that we had indicate[d that] highly erratic people were involved ... [and that there's no] factual basis to support any  of it. So, right from the very beginning President Johnson was quite clear that he did not want anyone to interfere or obstruct Garrison's investigation. That message to the Department of Justice then trickled down to the FBI and the CIA. Clay Shaw was arrested on March 1, 1967 and was charged with conspiring to kill President John F, Kennedy. Part of Garrison's case was that Clay Shaw was the elusive Clay Bertrand -- the person who called Dean Andrews right after the assassination to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. Garrison had no evidence that Shaw was Bertrand -- just the fact that, like Bertrand, he spoke Spanish, and was a homosexual. Garrison had this ridiculous belief that gay people, when using pseudonyms, use the same first name. And thus Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. Two days later, the Washington Post of March 3, 1967 ran this story: This made it sound like the FBI suspected Clay Shaw back in 1963 - 1964. Shaw's attorneys Edward Wegmann and Irvin Dymond realized that they now needed some clarification, and some help, from Washington. Edward's brother William disagreed saying "I thought they were wasting their time ... in those days, it was very unusual for the [federal] government to intervene in a state case. They had done it a couple of times, but it was rare." Wegmann sent a telegram to Washington. Here is their response: Wegmann called the FBI in early March to get clarification of Clark's remarks: Wick told Wegmann that the "FBI could not be of any help." Not surprisingly, Wegmann answered that "he believed the FBI should help in this matter since an innocent man is involved." Note the notation by J. Edgar Hoover at the bottom: A.G. [Attorney General] made the statement so it is up to Dept to wrestle with this. Hoover also left a comment on an FBI Airtel saying the FBI should stay away from Garrison : "More and more it becomes evident we should stay as far away as we can from this shyster." Hoover had already told his employees to steer clear of Garrison : Hoover was quite clear that "due to Garrison's irresponsible actions in connection with this matter, no contact is being made with him or any member of his staff." Employees are instructed to make no comments about Garrison and to not discuss this "outside the Bureau." This memo was then sent out: It notes that "in view of Garrison's actions and comments in connection with his so-called investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, he has been designated as a person not to be contacted without prior Bureau approval." And then this was sent out: FBI staff were now enjoined from making contact with any member of Garrison's staff. Wegmann tried to schedule an appointment with the FBI: The memo notes that "Hottel was advised that in the event Wegmann came to Washington and had any information whatsoever to volunteer relative to the assassination of President Kennedy, the Bureau would be glad to accept it;. He was told however, that in the event information related directly to Garrison's investigation in New Orleans the Bureau would not be able to offer Wegmann any assistance of any kind." The FBI had another opportunity to investigate Garrison, and this involved his fraudulent attendance records in the National Guard: As you can see, the FBI decided not to investigate this because it "could very well result in criticism of the Bureau and could be construed by Garrison and his associates as an effort by the Bureau to impede his, Garrison's, investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy." Aaron Kohn, head of the New Orleans Metropolitan Crime Commission, went to the FBI with his suspicions about Garrison and the National Guard. Here is part of their response: The memo says "rightly or wrongly, the Bureau would be accused of trying to intimidate Garrison and engaging in the same tactics which are currently being charged to Garrison himself," and concludes that "it would not be in the Bureau's best interest to voluntarily institute a fraud investigation of Garrison at this time." In the fall of 1967, Playboy Magazine featured an extensive interview with Jim Garrison. The FBI wrote this memo after receiving some inquiries about the interview : You can also see the FBI's attitude in this memo written several weeks after Shaw's acquittal : Inspector Herrington told Edwards that "our policy had been to stay completely clear of the Garrison mess and that there was certainly no reason for us to get involved in it at this point ..." The FBI was not interested in getting involved, and thus were giving Garrison a wide berth. Wegmann decided to travel to Washington in May 1967 to visit the Department of Justice. NEXT: Ed Wegmann goes to Washington. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

The Setting in New Orleans This is Part One of a ten-part series on attempts by Clay Shaw and his attorneys to get help from the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA. As you will see, nobody stepped up to help. In 1995, Patricia Lambert started submitting proposals to publishers for a biography of Clay Shaw. She ultimately published in 1999 False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK . In 2005, she put together a book proposal for a new book on Clay Shaw. Unfortunately, this remained an unfinished work and Lambert died in 2016. She was a very good writer and I strongly recommend False Witness. Here is her proposal from 2005: It's a shame that Lambert did not finish her book, but Don Carpenter has written a superb biography -- Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw . Lambert had finished writing one chapter: Page one of Chapter Seventeen. Here is her description of Chapter Seventeen: I found this chapter in her papers at the Sixth Floor Museum when I visited in March 2020, just before Covid-19 shutdowns. It's an important contribution and it details the efforts of Shaw's attorneys to convince the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department to help them. Unfortunately, they were turned down at every opportunity. I used parts of it for the conclusions to my book On the Trail of Delusion -- Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser . I was able to find many of the documents referenced in this chapter on the Mary Ferrell website, and some of them were in the papers of Irvin Dymond. But I was missing some important DOJ memos which I was fortunate to retrieve during my visit to NARA in August 2023. So, this ten-part series presents Lambert's material along with associated documents, letters, and court filings. Since this chapter was not finished, there are some discontinuities in the narrative. I've done my best to coherently present the essence of Lambert's writing. The chapter opens on March 1, 1967. Edward Wegmann, Clay Shaw's real estate lawyer, was in Albany, Georgia on business that day and returned early in the evening. He received a phone call telling him that Clay Shaw had been arrested and "charged with conspiracy to murder the president." Wegmann hung up the phone thinking that it was a joke. The phone rang again, and Wegmann headed down to the DA.'s office. A preliminary hearing was held two weeks later. There were two witnesses against Shaw, one being a drug addict [Vernon Bundy] with an improbable story about seeing Shaw with Oswald on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain. Was Vernon Bundy in Prison on a "voluntary basis"? Why was Bundy in prison? Vernon Bundy's Lie Detector Test Bundy failed a lie detector test but was still asked to testify. Jim Garrison Takes The Stand... Garrison testified that they found Bundy after Shaw was arrested. Lambert writes that "No honest prosecutor puts a witness like that on the stand: An inmate from the Parish Prison, an eleventh-hour volunteer, who would say anything to get out of jail." The other witness was Perry Russo, who had seemingly been at a conspiracy meeting with Shaw and Oswald at David Ferrie's house. However, when he first came forward, right after David Ferrie had died, Russo said nothing about such a meeting. This story only came out after he had been hypnotized three times and had also been interviewed under the influence of sodium pentothal. 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. In August 1967, Wegmann learnt that Garrison had a "pipeline directly" into his office. The private firm they had hired to investigate leads was leaking everything back to Garrison. Transcript of interview of William Gurvich, August 29, 1967 Edward Wegmann refused to pay one of Wackenhut's bills: Wegmann realizes that he can't even trust his own investigators, and that "there seems to be no limit to Garrison's reach. Perhaps there isn't." Here are some excerpts from Lambert's chapter: Garrison doesn't represent law enforcement in New Orleans; he is law enforcement in New Orleans. He not only has the final say on who is prosecuted and who isn't, he controls the "political system" at Tulane and Broad, meaning that he determines, to a large extent, who sits on the criminal court bench. He enjoys virtually unlimited investigatory resources in addition to the handpicked police officers on his staff, bolstered by two dollar-a-year private detectives. Garrison can (and does) call upon the manpower of the New Orleans Police Department and the Louisiana State Police Department as well. His coffers are brimming with money from a group of wealthy local businessmen who formed a committee called Truth and Consequences for the specific purpose of allowing Garrison to conduct his JFK investigation in secret, with no public disclosure of his expenditures. This means there is no oversight of his actions; Garrison is free to do whatever he wishes. It also means that the business community Clay served for twenty years, until his recent retirement, the business community he helped enrich as managing director of the International Trade Mart, that community is now the de facto financial enabler of his prosecution. And that's not all. The presiding judge in the case, the hard-drinking Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., regularly rules in Garrison's favor, and Wegmann may know why. He has heard Garrison "covered and collected" several checks Haggerty "bounced" around town and is keeping them "in a file" to ensure the judge's "cooperation." The grand jury, as well as a substantial segment of the local citizenry, appears to be on Garrison's side. Nationally, too, Garrison has a following -- generated by his media exposure and bolstered by the first wave of articles and books critical of the Warren Report's findings. The foreign press, especially that in the Soviet Union and its left-leaning counterparts in Europe, are interviewing Garrison and publishing sympathetic articles about him. Garrison had power over the judges because he was able to recommend or endorse candidates running for judgeships. Here is an excerpt from Milton Brener's The Garrison Case : (page 24 - 25) In August 1963, Executive Assistant Frank Shea was one of the eleven candidates that qualified for a Criminal Court judgeship vacated by the death of Judge Shirley Wimberly. Many of the other candidates had political support in varying strength. Shea had no support, save that of his boss, Jim Garrison. He led the field in the first primary and entered a second primary with the runner-up Guy Johnson. In the second primary, almost to a man, the defeated candidates threw their support to Johnson, who also garnered practically all organized political support, as well as the endorsement of the city's newspapers. Unabashed, Garrison scheduled a victory party for election night at one of the city's major hotels. The gathering was not to be disappointed. Shea's margin of victory was just enough to discourage a contest of the results. Garrison now had a friend on the bench. This was the first public test of Garrison's popularity. The significance was not lost on the judges, as was soon to be demonstrated. Here is another excerpt from Brener's book (page 33) Later that summer, Rudolph Becker, a veteran criminal attorney and former Assistant District Attorney, ran for the Judgeship of Division "E" of the Criminal District Court in opposition to Judge Cocke. A number of Becker's newspaper advertisements, as well as his campaign literature, bore the unmistakable imprint of Garrison's clever and fertile creativity. Cocke was an inept campaigner, and his support by several former District Attorneys, State legislators and other city officials, as well as many members of the Bar was scarcely adequate to answer the ridicule heaped upon him. Toward the end of the campaign, Garrison actively and openly supported Becker, who entered a second primary with Cocke. Cocke was ultimately defeated. Becker became the second judge to be elected with Garrison's support. And here is a third excerpt from Brener's book (page 39) In March, 1966, a vacancy was created on the Criminal Court Bench by the retirement of Senior Judge George Platt. Under State law, Governor McKeithen could fill the vacancy with his own appointee. At the urging of the District Attorney, the Governor selected Matthew Braniff, a close friend of Garrison. He was the third man to ascend to the bench through Garrison's efforts. Judge Haggerty, who presided over the Shaw trial, was seen as incredibly partial. And have a look at this article from the June 5, 1967, edition of the Los Angeles Times : Money Quote : A New Orleans lawyer said, "Most of the public officials and even the judges are scared of Garrison. He's got too much voter sympathy on his side, and his investigation and its implications are too volatile." On the other hand, Clay Shaw's "circumstances are a stark contrast." Lambert continues: His retirement nest egg is hemorrhaging from legal costs and is not being replenished (to raise money he already sold his home). Aside from family, devoted friends, the four attorneys defending him, and some in the media who see through Garrison's rhetoric, the only group that represents a base of support is the New Orleans social world that has long been Clay's milieu. These people stand by Clay. They believe in his innocence and keep their doors open to him, affording indispensable emotional and psychological support. Yet, oddly, though some are wealthy -- Sears heiress Edith Stern is Clay's long-time close friend -- they give Clay little financial help. This high-profile circle should represent a threat to Garrison, but they fail to provide Clay with what his defense team needs most: An organization spearheaded by one or more prominent citizens working publicly on his behalf, demonstrating their confidence in him, and most important, establishing the equivalent of Garrison's Truth and Consequences, a legal defense fund to help defray his spiraling expenses. One of Shaw's relatives told Lambert that "if Garrison could do this to Clay, Garrison could do this to anyone." And thus, people were terrified. Another relative spoke of "waiting for the knock on the door." You can read about the power of Garrison's grand juries at the link below. Jim Garrison's Grand Juries... And Clay Shaw faced some serious obstacles in preparing for trial. Clay Shaw's Lawyers Faced an Unfair Fight! There was no discovery in Louisiana criminal courts and thus Shaw had no access to Garrison's investigative reports. Clay Shaw's Attorneys To-Do List A look at some of the tasks facing Shaw's attorneys. Gay people were especially scared of Garrison: Jim Garrison's Homosexual Shakedown Operation Why was Elmer Renfroe Scared of Jim Garrison? Jim Garrison's Pressure on the Gay Community of New Orleans Dave Snyder, a New Orleans reporter, told Lambert that the anxiety level of the gay community in New Orleans "had to be off the charts." In 1967, Frank Manning, the chief investigator for Louisiana Attorney General Jack Gremillion, went to the FBI to discuss a serious problem. He had evidence that Jim Garrison was involved in a shakedown racket against homosexuals in the French Quarter. His boss had learned the hard way that it was dangerous to go after Garrison, so Manning was asking for assistance. J. Edgar Hoover refused to intervene, claiming that this was a state matter. Ramsey Clark, attorney general of the U.S., also received anonymous complaints. There was never any investigation into these allegations, so we don’t know if they were true. Historian Alecia Long points out that “tallies of arrests by vice squad officers for crimes considered as ‘homosexual’ were routinely exceeding the number of arrests for every other category in the book, including prostitution.” She noted that in 1963 alone, “the vice squad made 249 arrests of homosexuals versus 193 for prostitution.” While Garrison’s crackdown on B-drinking abated over time, his war on homosexuals continued. Rosemary James noted that “one benefit” of Garrison’s raids on homosexuals “may have been the creation of a body of homosexual informants for the district attorney’s office—informants possibly involved in his Kennedy plot investigation.” Here is one report from informant Betty Parrot:   Others noticed something deeper that might have been driving his war on gay people. In July 1967 Aaron Kohn, head of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans, wrote a memorandum on the “emotional incapacity or perhaps insanity” of Jim Garrison. He commented on Garrison’s use of “emotionally disturbed persons (homosexuals, narcotic addicts, sociopaths, extreme neurotics) as witnesses to support his claims and as victims of his prosecutive actions.” Kohn consulted with Dr. Harold Lief, a psychiatrist at Tulane Medical School who told him that “he had already concluded Garrison to be paranoid schizophrenic, based upon his personal contacts with Garrison, his knowledge of Garrison’s extraordinary personal sex life, indicating him to be obsessed with fear of his own active or latent homosexuality, coupled with the use of his prosecutorial power in an attempt to destroy homosexuals.” Two incidents seem to corroborate the accusation. First, Garrison wrote in his book On The Trail of The Assassins about a 1968 incident at the LA airport. He had been in in the baggage claim area and went to buy a magazine. There were no seats in the waiting section, so he decided to go to the men’s room to read it. While sitting in an empty stall, he said that he heard the door in the adjoining cubicle open and then close. “Within minutes there were six policemen at the entrance to the men’s room … and they started questioning Garrison. He escaped the situation when two women at the rent-a-car counter recognized him.” It’s hard to know if this really happened. Garrison claimed that he “always went to the men’s room, sat down in a toilet booth, and read a magazine for ten minutes.” Frankly, I’m skeptical. This reminds me of the incident involving Senator Larry Craig in 2007 when he hung out in a stall at the Minneapolis–St. Paul airport and started playing “footsy” with an undercover police officer in the next stall. A second incident occurred in 1969. Garrison supposedly fondled a thirteen-year-old boy at the New Orleans Athletic Club. Author Patricia Lambert interviewed the victim and his brother in 1993, and they told her that Garrison invited the boy, his older brother, and father into a “slumber room” at the club. The boys weren’t interested, but the father thought he might learn something new about the JFK assassination. The room was dark, and Garrison reached over and touched the boy. The family received a lot of pressure not to pursue the case; an attorney warned them “terrible harm” would come to the boy. Worried about his safety, the family dropped the issue. Las Vegas REVIEW-JOURNAL, February 26, 1970 Lambert notes that "anyone within Garrison's jurisdiction who is on his bad side (meaning anyone who fails to give him the information he believes they have, or works against him in any way is at risk. Garrison's favorite tactic was to call people to testify before the grand jury and then charge them with perjury - which is a felony. They would have to lawyer up, and then typically right before a trial, Garrison would drop the charges. This was the environment facing Clay Shaw but fortunately he had some good lawyers working for him. NEXT: The DOJ is Told Not to Get Involved. The FBI Follows Suit. The Clay Shaw Series 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.

What a great headline! Just a few minutes after 1:00 AM on Saturday, March 2, 1969, Clay Shaw was unanimously found not guilty! It took them 55 minutes - it would have been sooner, but one juror told journalist James Phelan that "we all had to queue up and pee before we got down to business." For some color, here is Jack Dempsey's column from the States-Item. Here is the front-page editorial from the States-Item: Here is the front-page editorial from the Times-Picayune: Times-Picayune, March 2, 1969 Only one juror was quoted about the verdict in either paper and that was David Powe: And, for some more flavor, here is a letter that Edward Wegmann wrote Elmer Gertz after the verdict. Clay Shaw did some public speaking after his acquittal. Here is an article from the New York Times, September 1970. Here is a letter Clay Shaw wrote to his attorney Edward Wegmann in 1973: Here is the article that Clay Shaw was writing about: The Sun (Hammond, Louisiana), July 18, 1973 Mr. Murray weaved an incredible conspiracy tale. We will posting over the next couple of weeks excerpts from Clay Shaw's journal. He kept a fair bit of notes in preparation for a book. Unfortunately, life and death got in the way. He ultimately had to go back to a full-time job, and he died early at age 61 in 1974. Don't miss my blog post with Sylvia's Meagher letter to Clay Shaw and his reply.

Here is an ad for the film Rush to Judgment . I am not sure what newspaper this ad was placed, but clearly it was in New York City. Jim Garrison told all the critics that they were the ones who got him into the JFK assassination investigation. He knew how to flatter people. Most probably, the first book that he read was Harold Weisberg's Whitewash, and it was through that book that he learned that Dean Andrews stuck to his story about Clay Bertrand when testifying to the Warren Commission. Here is an excerpt from Edward Jay Epstein's short book, Jim Garrison's Game . His [Garrison's] welcome to me was exceedingly gracious. He began by saying, almost solemnly, that my book [ Inquest ] on the Warren Commission had helped shape his decision to launch his investigation (which, as I learned later, was more or less the standard compliment he paid to almost all critics of the Warren Commission who soon began flocking to him like the children of Hamelin in the Pied Piper). Here is another ad for Rush to Judgment: And here is one from the Los Angeles Free Press : Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane 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.

Victor Marchetti Jefferson Morley's Substack recently touted the importance of Victor Marchetti, author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence . Morley writes this about Clay Shaw: Marchetti said that [CIA Deputy Director of Plans Tom] Karamessines told him that Shaw was a long-time high-level asset who assisted in operations. Another CIA man, Ray Rocca, said he thought Garrison would obtain a conspiracy conviction . The CIA’s cover story, still believed by credulous reporters and historians, was that Shaw was merely an unpaid source. In 1993, CIA historian Ken McDonald essentially confirmed Marchetti’s story, reporting that a review of Shaw’s file showed Shaw was a “highly-paid contract source” in the 1950s. (McDonald also said the file showed no CIA involvement in JFK’s assassination.) There is no footnote for the claim that Karamessines told Marchetti that Shaw was a "long-time high-level asset who assisted in operations." So, what did Marchetti actually say about Clay Shaw? Here is a Zodiac News Service press release from 1973: There is nothing in this press release about Shaw being an operative -- only that he was a "paid contact." Marchetti also alleged that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie worked together on the Bay of Pigs planning operation. There is no evidence at all to sustain that allegation, and it's interesting that Marchetti said "he did not know all of the specifics." Actually, he didn't know ANY of the specifics. Here is a later interview with Victor Marchetti: Money Quote : I was then told "Well .. Shaw, a long time ago, had been a contact of the Agency .... He was in the export-import business .. he knew people coming and going from certain areas - the Domestic Contact Service - He used to deal with them ... and it's been cut-off a long time ago ... and then I was told well of course, the Agency doesn't want this to come out know [sic] because Garrison will distort it, the public would misconstrue it." The document above was produced by Mark Lane's Citizen's Commission of Inquiry, and was conducted by K. R. Walsh . And Clay Shaw was a domestic contact of the CIA from 1948 - 1956. True Magazine 's April 1975 article "The Strange Death of Clay Shaw," quoted from the interview, and also conducted it's own interview with Marchetti. Marchetti reiterated that Shaw was a domestic contact of the CIA: Marchetti's answer wasn't well received at the Citizen's Commission. Here is their follow-up question: Marchetti says he "accepted these explanations on face value" until he "began to get connected with the Committee to Investigate Assassinations." He was clearly affected by assassination buffs. His comments on David Ferrie are ridiculous - Marchetti was not even sure if Ferrie was a "contract agent" or just a contact. And there is absolutely no evidence that he was involved in the Bay of Pigs nor is there any evidence of a relationship with the CIA . Morley also mentions that Raymond Rocca, who was on the CIA's Counterintelligence staff, thought that Garrison would obtain a conviction : The memo doesn't say why Rocca believed Garrison would obtain a conviction of Shaw. Lots of people felt that way -- Garrison was a very powerful D. A., and had some of the New Orleans judges in his pocket. Here is an excerpt from Milton Brener's The Garrison Case : (page 24 - 25) In August, 1963, Executive Assistant Frank Shea was one of the eleven candidates that qualified for a Criminal Court judgeship vacated by the death of Judge Shirley Wimberly. Many of the other candidates had political support in varying strength. Shea had no support, save that of his boss, Jim Garrison. He led the field in the first primary and entered a second primary with the runner-up Guy Johnson. In the second primary, almost to a man, the defeated candidates threw their support to Johnson, who also garnered practically all organized political support, as well as the endorsement of the city's newspapers. Unabashed, Garrison scheduled a victory party for election night at one of the city's major hotels. The gathering was not to be disappointed. Shea's margin of victory was just enough to discourage a contest of the results. Garrison now had a friend on the bench. This was the first public test of Garrison's popularity. The significance was not lost on the judges, as was soon to be demonstrated. Here is another excerpt from Brener's book (page 33) Later that summer, Rudolph Becker, a veteran criminal attorney and former Assistant District Attorney, ran for the Judgeship of Division "E" of the Criminal District Court in opposition to Judge Cocke. A number of Becker's newspaper advertisements, as well as his campaign literature, bore the unmistakable imprint of Garrison's clever and fertile creativity. Cocke was an inept campaigner, and his support by several former District Attorneys, State legislators and other city officials, as well as many members of the Bar was scarcely adequate to answer the ridicule heaped upon him. Toward the end of the campaign, Garrison actively and openly supported Becker, who entered a second primary with Cocke. Cocke was ultimately defeated. Becker became the second judge to be elected with Garrison's support. And here is a third excerpt from Brener's book (page 39) In March, 1966, a vacancy was created on the Criminal Court Bench by the retirement of Senior Judge George Platt. Under State law, Governor McKeithen could fill the vacancy with his own appointee. At the urging of the District Attorney, the Governor selected Matthew Braniff, a close friend of Garrison. He was the third man to ascend to the bench through Garrison's efforts. Judge Haggerty, who presided over the Shaw trial, was seen as incredibly partial. And have a look at this article from the June 5, 1967 edition of the Los Angeles Times: Money Quote : A New Orleans lawyer said, "Most of the public officials and even the judges are scared of Garrison. He's got too much voter sympathy on his side, and his investigation and its implications are too volatile." I see no reason to believe that Rocca's belief was based on the evidence since the memo was written in September 1967 and the only information about Garrison's evidence, at that time, was from the preliminary hearing. And that was pretty thin gruel. In addition, there was no discovery in the courts of Louisiana back then and that meant that Clay Shaw's attorneys had no access to Garrison's case file. The first witnesses in the case were from Clinton, Louisiana and they testified that Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie were there in the late summer of 1963. Had Shaw's attorney's had access to the investigative reports about the Clinton witnesses, they would have had incredible material for cross-examination. But they didn't and so they had to go in blind. A Summary of the Clinton/Jackson Witnesses A good summary of my multi-part series on Clinton Of course, conspiracy theorists will say that Rocca believed Garrison would get a conviction because the CIA 'knew' he was involved. But again, there is no evidence to support this. For example, here is another CIA document from the same time period: Money Quote : The fact that Garrison's charges against CIA are false, like most of his charges against other elements of the federal government as well as many private citizens, does not mean that when he goes to court his case will collapse like a house of cards. Here is another excerpt from an April 1967 CIA memo: The CIA describes Garrison's case as flimsy. But still they were concerned because of way Garrison used the press. Here is an excerpt from a CIA memo from September 1967: Money Quote : Louisiana law is based on the Napoleonic Code, not British common law. The charge is conspiracy. Garrison will be permitted to spin inference and conjectures at length ... The crescendo of Garrison's false accusations, mounting since last spring, will continue to rise. There are no CIA memos in which they say that Garrison's charges have any merit. Lastly, Morley mentions Ken McDonald's summary of documents in the CIA segregated collection. He most certainly made a mistake when he said that the underlying documents show that Shaw was a "highly-paid contract source." The terminology itself is incorrect -- there is no such thing as a contract source. I covered this in this blog post. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? Morley then links to this article about Victor Marchetti. But that article was based on a hoax! You can read all about it in Part Two of "Should We Believe Victor Marchetti?" Previous Relevant Blog Posts Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA?   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes the claim that Clay Shaw was a "contract agent" for the CIA. The evidence shows otherwise. Two Reasons why Clay Shaw Never Admitted to being a Domestic Contact of the CIA There were some good reasons why Shaw never admitted to being a domestic contact. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on David Ferrie and the CIA There is no evidence that David Ferrie worked for the CIA. Previous Relevant Blogs Posts on Jefferson Morley's Congressional Testimony 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 Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley Jefferson Morley Platforms Max Good Right after his Substack article that went after Ruth Paine, Jefferson Morley's Substack provided a platform to Max Good, producer of a tendentious documentary on Ruth Morley's Substack Goes After Ruth Paine My response to Peter Voskamp, author of the article on Morley's Substack. 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 SpyTalks 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. For The Sake of Our Sanity - Release the Joannides File It would be worthwhile for the CIA to release the Joannides file just to stop the incessant posts from Jefferson Morley. Did Oswald Stay at a Luxury Hotel in Helsinki? Actually, Oswald stayed at two budget-priced hotels in Helsinki. Morley Keeps Asking the Same Questions He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers. The JFK Assassination and Truth Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts. Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination. Morley Misleads on Arthur Schlesinger's Memo on the CIA There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Podcast on New Orleans Lays an Egg Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong. Chad Nagle and Dan Storper Lay an Egg Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again! Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition. Jefferson Morley is Wrong about Operation Northwoods, Again! There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document. Did Dorothy Kilgallen Have any Special Knowledge about the JFK Assassination? Kilgallen had nothing to tell. Morley's Interview of Marina Oswald Porter Fizzles! An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald. Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot. Fred Litwin, CIA Apologist? A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist. A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey   A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963? Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?   There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963. Does it Matter Where Allen Dulles was on November 22, 1963?   Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't. Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron   Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley   W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby   And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963?   There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case?   There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four   Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents. Jefferson Morley Doesn't Understand Jim Garrison's Homophobic Prosecution of Clay Shaw Morley doesn't understand Alecia Long's arguments about homophobia and Jim Garrison. Jefferson Morley asks why "what the CIA knew about Herminio Diaz is still off limits." Morley misses that a lot of redactions are actually available. Belief in a JFK Conspiracy Drops! Jefferson Morley's press conference presents evidence that belief in a conspiracy has dropped.

Hat tip: Randy Owen published a comparison of the Oswald letters on Facebook, and Paul Hoch sent me additional information. The recent release of a Soviet Union file regarding the JFK assassination that was released by Congresswoman Luna solves two JFK mysteries. Included in the file was this letter by Lee Harvey Oswald to the American Embassy in 1960. It is described in the listing as: Letter from L. H. Oswald to the Consular Section of the US Embassy with a request to be informed about his possible return to the USA. December 1960//Central Archives of the Republic of Belarus. Now check out the infamous Oswald letter to a Mr. Hunt : The first paragraph of the Hunt letter is the same as the 1960 Oswald letter -- including the same misspelling of the word "concerning." Paul Hoch notes that "the second paragraph of the Hunt letter, with strange language which had some of us wondering what the forger was trying to imply (an allusion to an assassination operation?), turns out to be verbatim from Oswald." So, this is confirmation that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was indeed a KGB operation. They forged the writing, language and spelling of the 1960 Oswald letter to try and prove that E,. Howard Hunt, and thus the CIA, was tied to the JFK assassination. The Americans never received Oswald's December, 1960 letter : I wrote an article about the existence of KGB operations to influence the American public and here is an excerpt about the Hoax: The ‘Oswald Letter’ The recently declassified CIA documents mentioned above details another interesting KGB operation (also described in the Mitrokhin archive). In 1975, copies of a note that purported to be from Lee Harvey Oswald were sent from Mexico to three American conspiracy theorists. The letter, dated November 8, 1963, was addressed to a Mr. Hunt and said, “I would like information regarding my position” and “am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.” The note, however, was part of a Russian intelligence operation codenamed ‘Arlington.’ It was a Soviet forgery designed, the CIA document explains, to exploit “an assassination theory that was widespread in the US, according to which theory Howard HUNT, a former CIA employee, who was convicted in 1974 in connection with the Watergate affair, participated in 1963 in organizing a plot, the victim of which was President KENNEDY.” The KGB wrote the note using “individual phrases and expressions taken from letters written by Oswald during his stay in the USSR” on “a scrap of writing paper that OSWALD used in Texas.” Furthermore, “the note was on two occasions subjected to graphological and chronological examination ‘for authenticity’ by the Third Section of the KGB’s OUT (Operational-Technical Directorate).” The note was then sent to assassination theorists Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, and Howard Roffman. It was accompanied by another note saying that the document had been sent to FBI director Kelly and that he “has to date not done anything with this document.” The idea was to have the researchers ask the FBI to “produce the original note” and when Kelly denied he had received it, “this would encourage the investigator even more to obtain the desired document.” The operation was “carried out in such a way as to fuel [the flames of suspicion] with fresh news and to expose the participation of the American special services in the liquidation of KENNEDY.” The problem for the KGB was that the conspiracy theorists tended to assume that the Oswald letter was intended for H.L. Hunt, the Texas oil billionaire, rather than for E. Howard Hunt, the former CIA operative. The first references to the document appeared in 1977, and the  New York Times   noted its possible authenticity . Amusingly, the CIA document notes that “the FCD’s disinformation service believed that OSWALD’s connection with HUNT the millionaire, rather than with HUNT, the CIA officer, was purposely played up in the American press in order to divert public attention from OSWALD’s contacts with the special services.” The Oswald letter was later investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations which concluded that the letter was “much more precisely and much more carefully written” than other writings of Lee Harvey Oswald. They also professd themselves puzzled that Oswald’s middle name was misspelled—something he was not known to do—and were thus uncertain as to whether it was an authentic document. We now know that it was simply another operation designed to sow distrust and confusion. This document discusses the "Arlington" operation: The files I really want to see from the Russians relate to the monitoring of Oswald while he lived in Minsk, as well as the files that detail the various KGB operations to deceive the American public.

It was a pleasure talking with Dale Myers about the Tippit shooting, JFK assassination conspiracy theories and his journey from believing in a conspiracy to knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. Dale is THE expert on the J. D. Tippit shooting. His book, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit, is a must-have in any JFK assassination library. You might have trouble finding a hardcover copy of his second edition, but you can download it here in Kindle format. And don't miss visiting Dale's terrific website, and his excellent blog . which has many fine articles. 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 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.