The build-up to Jefferson Morley's release of a 1996 interview of Marina Oswald Porter started on February 9th. Just have a look at the description above, and you might believe that Morley had scored a new interview with Marina Oswald. But no, Morley had discovered, while moving his office, some tapes from a 1996 interview of Marina. On February 13th, Morley posted a teaser, and finally last night published excerpts from his interviews: Here is the YouTube link: I listened to the interview last night and was completely underwhelmed. Marina Oswald Porter clearly said nothing of substance. There were no questions on any evidentiary matter -- nothing on the backyard photographs, nothing on Oswald practicing with his rife, nothing on the Walker shooting, nothing about her collaboration with Priscilla McMillan Johnson, and nothing on why she changed her mind about her husband's guilt. Marina expresses her frustration that previous investigations have found her husband guilty, and she seeks a way to have that conclusion overturned. The overarching subject of the interview, in my opinion, is that of coping - how does one cope with the fact that your husband is guilty of a heinous crime. Believing that he is innocent is certainly a very good way to cope, but it does raise questions. Marina does read conspiracy books (see page 13 in the transcript) Marina: I mean, I have been chiseling through every dumb book for information, not information and theories, but for the factual evidence that can back you out in the court of law. Morley hoped that his interview with Marina would lead to an article in the Washington Post. But he came up with nothing and that is why these tapes were left in his office for decades. Morley has presented something which has been edited - his upload is only 38 minutes long, but he says he talked to Marina for over an hour. And in those 38 minutes, you get a healthy dose of commentary by Morley. I'd like to know what he has cut out of the interviews. If he releases the entire conversation, it might add some interest. Another Morley Substack post by Chad Nagle attacked the credibility of Priscilla McMillan Johnson, author of Marina and Lee, by suggesting that she was associated with the CIA. Nagle tries hard to make it appear that Johnson wrote the book at the behest of the CIA but can present no evidence to support the allegation. Let's have a look at that post. Nagle mention several "key facts" that most critics who applauded the 2013 re-release of Marina and Lee are ignorant of. For instance, here is his first "key fact": First, Marina Oswald did not believe the central thesis of “Marina and Lee.” When McMillan befriended her in 1964, Marina was a widowed mother of two small children living in a foreign country where her husband had been accused of a heinous crime. She was interviewed by the Warren Commission more than 40 times without benefit of counsel. She went along with what the authorities told her to protect her children and avoid deportation. Marina then settled into a quiet life in Texas, remarried and raised a family. Based on new evidence uncovered by JFK researchers, she changed her mind. By 1977 Marina no longer believe her first husband had killed the president. McMillan’s book, while professing friendship with Marina, didn’t report that key fact, which distorted Marina’s story. This is just not true. Marina and Lee was published in 1977 and on August 9, 1978, Marina Oswald Porter testified before the HSCA. McMillan did not "distort" Marina's story. Here is an excerpt from her testimony: Chairman Stokes: Now again you know Priscilla Johnson McMillan, don't you? Mrs. Porter: Yes, sir. Chairman Stokes: That is the lady who wrote the book "Marina and Lee." Mrs. Porter: Yes. Chairman Stokes: And you talked with her with reference to what she was writing about the book, didn't you? Mrs. Porter: Sure. Chairman Stokes: You have read that book? Mrs. Porter: Yes; not recently but a year ago. Chairman Stokes: I beg your pardon? Mrs. Porter: A year ago, yes. Chairman Stokes: Let me read you this passage to you from the book. I am reading at page 436. Marina was now certain that Lee was guilty. She saw his guilt in his eyes. Moreover, she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his rights, claiming that that he had been mistreated, and demanding to see officials at the very highest levels, just as he had always done before. For her, the fact that he was so complacent, that he told her he was being treated all right, was a sign that he was guilty. Chairman Stokes: Did you tell Mrs. Johnson that? Mrs. Porter: Yes. Chairman Stokes: Now in addition to it, you told Mrs. Johnson, did you not, about the police coming and taking away many possessions and one of the possessions that they left was a small demi-tasse cup, and then you looked and discovered the fact that they had not taken the cup, you also found in there Lee's wedding ring. Did you tell her about that? Mrs. Porter: Well, I do not -- I remember the demitasse, but it is missed. I don't know where it is. Are you asking me did I find Lee's ring? Chairman Stokes: Did you find his ring? Mrs. Porter: Yes, sir. Chairman Stokes: And then did you tell Miss Johnson this: "Oh, no," she thought and her heart sank again, "Lee never took his ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs." She had seen him wearing it the night before. Marina suddenly realized what it meant. Lee had not just gone out and shot the President spontaneously. He had intended to do it when he left for work that day. Again things were falling into place. Marina told no one about Lee's ring. Chairman Stokes: Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter: Yes. Chairman Stokes: As my time has expired, the Chair would request unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes. Without objection. Now did you tell -- Mr. Fauntroy: Overruled, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes: That is democracy. Mrs. Porter, it has always been important for the American people to ascribe some motive to this killing. And I notice further that, in the same book, Miss Johnson writes this, and I am reading at page 434 of the book: In his eyes, his political ideas stood higher even than himself. He would talk about Marxism, Communism, and injustice all over the world. Chairman Stokes: Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter: That was Miss Johnson's conclusions about studying Lee as a person. Her findings weren't based only on what I told her. She did great research and met with lots of people who knew Lee. That was her conclusion, and I agree with her. Chairman Stokes: Did you tell her that he talked about Marxism to you, and about communism to you, and about injustice all over the world to you? Mrs. Porter: Yes, probably [witness consults with counsel.] Mrs. Porter: Well, when you live with person, you know, a few years, and then you have to put bits and pieces of phrases that have been told, and Priscilla worked, will have to and think about what conversations we have, not to make them up, but to relive them again. That is correct statement that she made. There was additional questioning by the committee: Mr. Hamilton: Did you read the manuscript before it was published? Mrs. Porter: I had offered to read the manuscript. Mr. Hamilton: But you did not read it beforehand? Mrs. Porter: No. Mr. Cornwell: And following that then, after you saw the book in its final form, did you read it in its entirety? Mrs. Porter: Yes; I did. Mr. Cornwell: With respect to the matters in the book that you have personal knowledge about, and I take it there are some things in there you simply have no personal knowledge about, but with respect to the things you do, did you find inaccuracies in the book or things that did not comport with your memory? Mrs. Porter: Well, as far as the facts that came from me or -- Mr. Cornwell: Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Porter: That is true but some conclusion that she has to come to on her own, maybe even analyzing my character, that was up to her to decide but the facts were not twisted. Mr. Cornwell: OK. So the facts that you have knowledge of as portrayed in the book are accurate to the best of your memory? Mrs. Porter: Only the facts that concern my and Lee's life. I am not responsible for other characters. I don't know how true that is. Mr. Cornwell: I understand. At least the facts that concerns you and Lee and that you had personal knowledge of after reading the book seemed accurate? Mrs. Porter: Yes. Mr. Cornwell: And it would only be the conclusions or the inference drawn from that that might be Priscilla's and might differ from yours, is that correct? Mrs. Porter: Yes; that is true. Mr. Cornwell: Then with respect to those conclusions and inferences, what about the book might you disagree with? Mrs. Porter: Well -- Mr. Cornwell: Let me explain the reason why I ask the question. Mrs. Porter: It was long ago since I read the book and I am not going to read it again. Mr. Cornwell: The committee has a number of objectives, everything from evaluating the performance of our own intelligence agencies to trying to understand for sure what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22 and of course trying to understand Lee and his personality and his thought processes to the extend we can because the American public has a great interest in that. The last thing is really what I was wanting to know. What about Lee and his personality or his possible motivations, things that you might peculiarly have an ability to render an opinion on? Would you differ from the book on that? Mrs. Porter: Well, since the person is dead and I was not a mature person or a qualified psychiatrist to analyze his motives for doing so and so, it was a tedious job for the Warren Commission. All the reporters and lots of curious people working on it, you are doing a very hard job trying to put puzzles together. Priscilla did her best and an honest job trying to put things in some kind of perspective that a normal person could understand and I guess anybody can do just that. Mr. Cornwell: Sure. The point is not whether -- we are not trying to find fault with the book, all we are trying to do -- Mrs. Porter: I am not defending the book. Mr. Cornwell: If you have a different view on those subjects because you were one of the closest people to Lee, that is what we would like to know. Mrs. Porter: Well, I would buy Priscilla's conclusions. From my own personal experience I did not come up with anything different. Priscilla did not have the attitude to condemn or pronounce guilty from the first page, she was just working through the dark as well as I was and everybody else, so I would still, in my mind agree with that conclusion more than the conspiracy theory because I do not know anything about the other matters. I do not know anything about ballistics, you know, to disprove that Lee didn't do it. I would like that very much but I know so little. Do you understand me? Mr. Cornwell: Yes. Mrs. Porter: Make a perfect picture. Mr. Cornwell: I think so. As I understand what you are stating it is that the conclusions that were drawn in the book, even though Priscilla drew them on her own, you agree with them. Mrs. Porter: Well, she didn't just dream them up. Mr. Cornwell: I understand, but it was her right to draw the conclusions. Mrs. Porter: Yes. Mr. Cornwell; And of course she wrote the book. Mrs. Porter: I did not give her the right but I respect her for doing a very good job, too, and she was very honest. Some things were not very meaningful. Mr. Cornwell: Your opinions on the subjects are the same as hers? Mrs. Porter: Yes. Marina Oswald Porter was given ample opportunity to disavow McMillan's book, Marina and Lee. Instead, she endorses the book's conclusions and continually praises McMillan. Why didn't Morley ask her what changed her mind about Oswald's guilt? And what was her current thinking about Marina and Lee. But nothing (at least in the excerpts that Morley has released). The second part of Chad Nagle's Substack article is about Priscilla Johnson McMillan's supposed ties to the CIA. He discusses a meeting that Donald Jameson, Chief of the CIA's Soviet Russia Division, had with Johnson in December 1962: Jameson discussed the terms and circumstances under which Johnson would write an article about dissident Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Jameson found McMillan to be “able, astute, and conscientious.” She was also “rather nervous and shy, giving one the impression of a lack of self-confidence.” He concluded his two-page report with the observation that, whatever misgivings he had, Johnson could be useful. What Nagle doesn't tell you is that Jameson wrote that she was "concerned about making her articles accurate as to fact and free from any external influence." She also told Jameson that she would write a series of articles for the Reporter, including one on him [Yevtushenko] and that she thought she must write only the truth." Nagle then discusses McMillan's meetings with another CIA official, Garry Coit, had in 1964 and 1965: In a couple of “memoranda for the record,” in 1964 and 1965, another SR Division official, Garry Coit, analyzed the usefulness of Johnson. Based on his own meetings with her, Coit said he was “reasonably certain that we cannot expect to use Johnson actively in operations,” but that she would “supply info she has acquired, if asked and if it’s not too sensitive, such as the identities of her friends in the USSR.” The basic purpose of the first meeting "was to debrief Johnson on her flaps with the Soviets when she was in the USSR, notably at the time of her last exit." He noted that Johnson "had shown some reluctance at the time of our first contact." Coit was also interested in her contacts but wrote that "when asked for their names she always backed off. Therefore no effort was made to attempt to force the issue of a debriefing of her contacts." Coit concluded that memo noting that "I am reasonably certain that we cannot expect to use Johnson actively in operations. She obviously doesn't want to get involved in deep plots. She is unlikely to be the type of informant who will volunteer information; but she will supply info she has acquired, if asked and if it's not too sensitive, such as the identities of her friends in the USSR." Coit spoke to her again in 1965 and just discussed Alex Dolberg, a Russian translator, who was thinking of returning to the Soviet Union. She called Coit because "she thinks he could do more harm to followers of Soviet intellectual affairs, both in the West and in the USSR, than anyone else she can think of." He suggested to her that someone talk to him. That was the extent of their conversation -- it all sounds more intellectual than conspiratorial. Why not talk to a Soviet expert in the CIA? Back then, many people did not see the CIA as a uniquely evil part of the government. Nagle discusses the HSCA's interview with Priscilla Johnson McMillan on February 2, 1978. She denied a relationship with the CIA and under further questioning said that she "had talked about the cultural scene with a person in the Agency, CIA." To her, she probably felt she was talking to a fellow Soviet expert, and she went out of her way to profess her independence. All we know about are three brief conversations she had in the early 1960s with Gary Coit. And her so-called relationship with the CIA was examined by the HSCA. Here is what they wrote in their final report: (page 214) So, the HSCA knew about her contacts with Garry Coit in 1964 and 1965 and weren't concerned. Nagle's conclusion tries to tie Johnson's supposed relationship to the CIA to Marina and Lee: On the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination in 2013, “Marina and Lee” was reissued and the critical applause grew loud, reinforcing the official theory of JFK’s murder while obscuring two inconvenient truths: the author was under the influence of the CIA, and the living subject of the book itself no longer believed its central claim that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Want to know an inconvenient truth? Marina Oswald Porter never repudiated Priscilla Johnson's book. You'd think he would be curious as to why not. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley 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. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley thinks there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. 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 understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963? There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

I am happy to see more and more people noticing that RFK Jr. is a quack. RFK Jr. is not endangering anybody by perpetuating conspiracy theories about the assassinations of his father and uncle, and it is understandable that the enormity of those losses could make anyone think there must be more to it. But his anti-vax nonsense threatens all of us in the aftermath of a pandemic that claimed the lives of more than a million Americans and is still killing hundreds every day. Back in December 2021, word got out that RFK Jr.’s wife, the actor Cheryl Hines, had asked guests coming to their holiday party to be vaxxed. RFK Jr. sought to explain away the hypocrisy by saying he was “not the boss of my house.” He tried a similar wiggle on Sunday after his cousin Bobby Shriver went on X to say, “My cousin’s Super Bowl ad used our uncle’s faces—and my Mother’s. She would be appalled by his deadly health care views. Respect for science, vaccines, & health care equity were in her DNA.” RFK Jr. replied: “I’m so sorry if the Super Bowl advertisement caused anyone in my family pain. The ad was created and aired by the American Values Super PAC without any involvement or approval from my campaign. F.E.C. rules prohibit Super PACs from consulting with me or my staff. I love you all. God bless you.” But the ad was only seeking to further RFK Jr.’s continuing attempt to capitalize on his surname. Nobody should compare him to an assassin, but his views are a heedless threat to innocent life and it should be said that he is essentially a loser seeking to elevate himself with a name. Here is more about RFK Jr.'s Super Bowl ad: Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr. What in the world happened to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Cartoonist Jack Ohman has a good op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. RFK Jr.'s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Politifact has named RFK Jr's campaign of conspiracy theories their 2023 Lie of the Year. RFK Jr. Says Woody Harrelson's Dad was Involved in the JFK Assassination Just when I thought he couldn't get any wackier. Is RFK Jr. a 9/11 Truther? Of course, RFK Jr. is unclear as to what happened on 9/11. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. RFK Jr. Lauds Jim Garrison Of all the people to quote, RFK Jr chooses a charlatan. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories.

Cartoonist Jack Ohman has a good op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle: Now, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has turned into a crank, a delusional conspiracy nut about, well, most things: vaccines, the JFK assassination, his father's assassination, the origins of COVID-19 and an almost endless litany of other subjects. He hangs around intellectually flatulent Steve Bannon and wacky Putin buddy Gen. Michael Flynn, and his name was floated recently as a potential running mate for Trump. Trump/Kennedy 2024? What a perfect pairing! Both are utterly unqualified, delusional, vain and would be a catastrophe for the country each in his own special way. Even his Kennedy sibs are supporting President Joe Biden, and JFK’s grandson mocked his second cousin on social. On Friday, the Democratic National Committee filed a federal election complaint against him for illegally working with a super PAC to get on the ballot in several states critical to President Biden. Trump has already shown what he can do in four years. Elect Kennedy, and you’ll get something comparable: a parody of a presidency, a collection of fringe goofballs making Marianne Williamson look like Eleanor Roosevelt. Why does RFK Jr. play footsie with the Trump crowd? Because he’s inept. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr. RFK Jr.'s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Politifact has named RFK Jr's campaign of conspiracy theories their 2023 Lie of the Year. RFK Jr. Says Woody Harrelson's Dad was Involved in the JFK Assassination Just when I thought he couldn't get any wackier. Is RFK Jr. a 9/11 Truther? Of course, RFK Jr. is unclear as to what happened on 9/11. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. RFK Jr. Lauds Jim Garrison Of all the people to quote, RFK Jr chooses a charlatan. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories.

Here is a contact that Oliver Stone signed with John F. Kennedy Assassination Center in 1990: These were the people who brought the Ricky White story about his father to the world. While Roscoe White and his son Ricky White are not mentioned in the contract, it does appear that Stone wanted that story for his upcoming film. Here is what Larry Howard has claimed: "In July of '90," Howard said, "we had evidence that the story was true, evidence no one else had. So I put together a list of things that I obtained from Ricky White and all the evidence and faxed a copy to Oliver Stone. He immediately sent me airplane tickets for Ricky and me to fly to California to visit him. We told him the story, and he wanted to buy the story that night. He offered money to me, but I refused. He said nobody ever said no to him. I said there are two reasons I can't do it. One, the story needs to be investigated more to make sure everything we have here is true, and two, we're scared to death." Dave Perry has written extensively on the Ricky White allegations: In an October 1990 letter to Mack's employer, KXAS-TV, the JFK Center threatened both Gary and the station with a lawsuit. The lawsuit was based on the belief that the contract between the JFK Center and Stone might be cancelled because Mack had divulged some terms of the agreement to the Houston Chronicle. If the contract were to be canceled, the JFK Center would demand restitution in the amount of $80,000 for the contract and $5,000,000 in damages. With respect to Oliver Stone's film, "JFK": you may have learned that Warren Commission critics Harold Weisberg and David Lifton as well as defender David Belin are concerned about the movie. On May 19, 1991 George Lardner's critical article "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland" appeared in the Washington Post. Stone replied to the Post two weeks later with "Stone's 'JFK': a Higher Truth? The Post, George Lardner and My Version of the JFK Assassination." With all the charges and counter-charges, little attention has been paid to Stone's change in ideology before and after gaining access to the former Texas School Book Depository. When the film's advance staff was in Dallas, they tried to obtain approval for access to the building from the Dallas County Commissioners. At that time Stone was stressing the need for accuracy in reports to the media. For example, there appeared in the April 14, 1991 edition of the Dallas Morning News the following quotes from Oliver Stone: "It's a question of accuracy. It's always better to be accurate if you can."..."And these are native Texans. They say, 'We want the truth to be known. We're glad you're making it here.'"..."There is a younger generation of people that want some element of truth to come out." Once filming in Dallas was nearly complete and the company moved on to New Orleans, Stone's statements about the film changed. This from a story by Elaine Duta in the Los Angeles Times Calendar for June 24, with a story headlined OLIVER STONE FIGHTS BACK: "...His 'JFK' is still being filmed but critics are already assailing its accuracy and motives. 'This isn't history, this is moviemaking,' the director rejoins -- and star Kevin Costner agrees." Why do I bring this up? On April 19, 1991 I received an invitation to observe some of the filming. This was during the film company's "need for historical accuracy" period. I observed the crew filming an actor in a Dallas policeman's uniform shooting from the acoustic position---exactly where Ricky White claimed the diary said his father was. I also saw the Gordon Arnold character. For the shot to pass over Arnold's left shoulder as he revealed to the Dallas Morning News in 1978, Stone had Arnold standing much closer to the street than he really claimed he was. Unless that scene is edited or cut, we will see Roscoe White -- not necessarily by name but by implication. Oliver Stone can claim it's only a movie, not a documentary, but that scene will have a profound impact on the audience. By innuendo, Roscoe White, without any proof, has been charged with the killing of President John F. Kennedy. To paraphrase one of Roscoe White's best friends, who was also a pallbearer at this funeral: some "researchers" have done to Roscoe White exactly what the Warren Commission did to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Roscoe White story is coming back: By the way, there is a scene in JFK where we briefly see a policeman on the knoll with a gun: (JFK: The Book of the Film, page 162) At the picket fence a shooter in a Dallas Police uniform moves into place, aiming up Elm Street. His spotter has a radio to his ear. Another man in a Secret Service suit moves further down the fence. What on earth is Oliver Stone talking about -- "another man in a Secret Service suit." If anybody can find such a suit, let me know Is this gunman Roscoe White or is this gunman Badgeman? Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's JFK Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Oliver Stone's 'JFK' A very good opinion piece published in the Washington Post. The Second Coming of Jim Garrison An important article from The Atlantic by Edward Jay Epstein on Oliver Stone's JFK. David Wrone on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Wrone was a friend of Harold Weisberg's and was also very critical of JFK. Oliver Stone says his "battles continue with the truth" More inane comments on the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone Claims He is Not a Conspiracy Theorist An excerpt from an interview with Chris Wallace. Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History A good opinion piece from the Boston Globe. Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letters from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK" A good review of Stone's JFK. Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK. Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK" An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker Wicker reviews JFK for the New York Times and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK, Homophobic? The Advocate writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone! This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film JFK from Esquire magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK. George Lardner's internal Washington Post Memo about Oliver Stone Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone.

Yes, Rob Reiner is a believer in John Armstrong's two-Oswald theory. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: Len Osanic: I was going to ask you about John Armstrong, if you have any comments. Rob Reiner: John Armstrong, by the way, I think he’s brilliant, that guy.  I’ve met with him, he came to my house. You know, he has the whole thing about the two Oswalds, which is completely compelling, I mean it is totally compelling, but to explain how the two Oswalds would work, because it’s well known that in a lot of these operations they use doubles a lot of the time, and that’s part of the obfuscation and the wilderness of mirrors, they do this in many operations, but to explain all that, you know, it would take up so much real estate to explain that, and it also might get people who are learning about this for the first time …. I didn’t want anything in the podcast that might people go ohhhh, you know, and discount the whole thing. This interview was for Osanic's Black Op Radio. I am not sure when this is going to air. You can learn more about the two Oswalds here. JFK researcher Tracy Parnell has also done a lot of work debunking John Armstrong's two-Oswald theory. Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History, has an entire chapter on "The Second Oswald." Previous Relevant Blog Post Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley liked Rob Reiner's podcast on the assassination.

This is a picture I took of Harry at his home on October 17, 2019. Harry Connick Sr. died yesterday at the age of 97. I visited Harry Connick in 2019 to talk to him about Jim Garrison. I was in the process of writing my book, On the Trail of Delusion -- Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser. I was visiting New Orleans to examine the papers of Irvin Dymond, Clay Shaw's trial attorney. It made sense to try and visit with Harry, and I was very happy that he welcomed me into his home. By the way, Harry Connick was the first person to call Garrison "The Great Accuser." New Orleans Times-Picayune, October 25, 1969 The term "the great accuser" comes from the New Testament: Curb every passion, and be on the alert. Your great accuser, the Devil, is going about like a roaring lion to see whom he can devour. My visit wasn't long because I didn't want to tire him out. But we talked about Jim Garrison and Harry was pretty scathing. He said that when he took office, he found all of the files were in total disarray. People were still in jail that should have been released, and he ordered his staff to do a complete review of every open file. When Jim Garrison left office, he took most of his JFK files with him. However, he left a fair numbers of files and tapes. Connick donated three boxes of Garrison's files to the New Orleans Public Library, and he donated 11 boxes to the NARA. There are many tape recordings from the Garrison era and I have published some of these on my YouTube channel. These tapes prove that Garrison was taping meetings at his office. I have to wonder just how many tapes Garrison made during his tenure. Harry shared the Garrison files left in his office with the HSCA (excluding the grand jury testimony): Rest in peace, Harry. Here are some excerpts from Harry Connick's 2010 - 2011 oral history: On the Case Against Clay Shaw Q: What was your view of Garrison’s investigation into the Kennedy assassination? Connick: It was worthless. It was absolutely unfounded. I think those people who were in New Orleans, who were inside, the people who worked in that court, knew Garrison pretty well. Garrison had a habit of accusing people with things that he really couldn’t support. He was a very impressive figure. He was very articulate. He was a nice man, I think, very easy to get along with. If he said something, people would listen, and he was the D.A., too, and if he talks about an assassination, that’s glamorous with a lot of people. There’s so damn many people who believe in conspiracies, it’s incredible. I mean, I don’t care what it is. But there’s never any evidence. There was never one bit of evidence to indicate that he had anything. I knew one of the people, a fellow named William Gurvich, who eventually became one of my investigators, was a detective in that investigation, and after awhile Bill Gurvich sort of supported what a lot of us felt all along anyway, that he had absolutely nothing to support that allegation against Clay Shaw. So Bill Gurvich was responsible for getting a fellow named Hugh Aynesworth of Newsweek to do a story, front-page story on the assassination probe, which really debunked everything Garrison was trying to prove, and that, I think, turned the tide significantly. Then when he went to trial, he had nothing to show, nothing to show, and lost. Didn’t take the jury long to find Clay Shaw not guilty. On Garrison's files Q: Back in the 1990s they had that Kennedy assassination records review board, and they talked about records that may have been in your office. Can you explain what that was all about? Connick: When we took office, there were two file cabinets. Originally there were four file cabinets of Clay Shaw files. The four files became two when we got there. From what we understand from people who were in that office at that time, the files were savaged. They were rummaged and people took out whatever they wanted to take out. That left two files with really a lot of junk in it. So we could have very easily dumped it, because, in my view, it was worthless, but we kept it there. For whatever it was worth, people would come down, people interested in the Garrison case, the Shaw case, and we gave them total freedom to look at whatever they wanted to look in there. In fact, one of the people who came that I remember vividly was a fellow named Posner, Richard [Gerald] Posner, who wrote a great, great book on the Garrison investigation. It is called Case Closed. I think he found something in there, that Garrison hadn’t paid his income taxes or whatever it was, state income taxes. But at any rate, we had those things. The federal government wanted us to give them to them because somebody in Washington had the bright idea that this was valuable, without knowing anything other than that they were there, I mean not knowing who Garrison was or who Clay Shaw was or anything about the investigation. They wanted to put all of this stuff in the archives. Well, included in that stuff was some grand jury records which, by Louisiana law, have to be kept secret, and it would be a crime to tell somebody what went on in a grand jury. So I resisted that because I was following the Louisiana law. Besides, that grand jury probe that Garrison had was a dismal venture into somebody’s figment of his imagination. It was terrible. Anyway, so I said no. They had a hearing down here, and I went for the hearing and I was ordered to turn those over, so I did. So I thought those things had been destroyed, frankly, and the person who was ordered to destroy them didn’t destroy them, a fellow named Garrett Raymond [phonetic], who was an investigator from my office. Instead of destroying the grand jury files, he put them in the back of his trunk and took them home. I didn’t know that. I henceforth called him the thief, Gary Raymond the thief. But they had that up there, too, but it’s a lot of crap. Connick had wanted the files destroyed. He thought they were worthless. But Gary Raymond kept them. On the 1973 election Q: Do you think Garrison was disengaged or overconfident in the ’73 election? Connick: I think he always was. He sort of disparaged anybody who ran against him. He called me “The man from U.N.C.L.E.” [laughs] Because I had worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. At that time there was a television show called The Man from U.N.C.L.E. It was Illya Kuryakin [that was a fictional character played by David McCallum) and some other movie actor, and they had a great show, a weekly thing called The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Garrison called me “The man from U.N.C.L.E.” He called me “altar boy.” [laughs] So, you know, which amused all of us. He was a very popular D.A., got elected, I think, by accident, but regardless of what he did, he was still popular. His office was a shambles, was a mess, a lot of plea bargaining, a lot of things that we wanted to correct immediately, and we did. One of the things he used in the campaign, this is his technique of campaigning. He would say, in a very deep, resonant voice, “We have never lost a murder trial.” And I looked at the record. It was Ray Comstock who was helping me in the campaign, and he was a policeman, became my chief investigator. He checked it out and said, “Boy, it’s true. He never has lost a murder trial in the last four years.” I said, “How many did he try?” He said, “Well, he tried five this year. He tried about five a year for four years.” I said, “That’s all?” And he said, “Yes, that’s all.” I said, “You mean to tell me, we have so many homicides in the city and we have so many people arrested for homicide and so many charged with homicides, and he only tries five a year?” At that time they had eight judges out there. I said, “You mean to tell me some judges don’t even try one murder case a year? Five out of the eight will try one murder case a year?” Well, to me, that’s devastating. To me, I wouldn’t brag on that. He would make that statement about—this is why he wasn’t a good campaigner, in my opinion. He thought he could rely on himself, and he made a big mistake. He could against some people, but I wouldn’t let him against me. I tore him up. He would make that statement, “We haven’t lost a murder case,” you know. I said, “Well, let me explain, ladies and gentlemen, what the record is. He hasn’t tried a hell of a lot of cases. This is how many murders were committed this year and this year,” four years in front of the election campaign. “And this is how many were accepted by his office. And this is how many he actually brought to trial. And all the rest were plea bargained or dismissed.” And I told them, I said, “Eight judges sitting on the bench in Criminal District Court, and he only tried five murder cases this year, and there are three judges out there who haven’t tried one. You mean to tell me a judge can’t try more than one murder case a year? We’ve got a lot of murder cases to be tried, but he would prefer to plea bargain. And when he plea bargains, these people get out earlier. And when they get out earlier, they come back.” And I gave examples of that. “They come out and commit more crimes.” He’s got a million-point-two—no, that was from another campaign. Anyway, we hit him on those kind of things and we ran a good campaign and we were very vigorous in it. He couldn’t respond to it. We had a debate. I remember John Snell was the moderator. We tore him up. We mentioned one case that he didn’t do well in, and I had been using that one case, waiting for him to take the bait. He said, “We did good in this case. This is the case that we [unclear].” I picked up another file. We were on television. I said, “This is the case that I’m talking about, the same man, and you didn’t do anything with him. We all know what happened to that little piddling sentence he got in that. What about this more serious case?” Anyway, he just wasn’t prepared to debate, and you could tell he was uneasy. He didn’t do his homework. Garrison as a "moral midget" New Orleans States-Item, December 14, 1973 Q: Describe the “moral midget” comment that you had made describing Garrison. Connick: I felt that—did I make that statement? Q: It was in a newspaper article, so I don’t— Connick: I think what I had in mind was some of the things that Garrison was doing, first of all, he would be accusing people with no evidence to support it whatsoever, which was really unfair. He tended to hang out places. We knew that he had connections with or knew people in the French Quarter and had extremely good evidence to the effect that they were reducing charges for money, and that someone who would be a homosexual, say, would be arrested in the public restroom at City Park or at the De Ville Hotel down at the canal, down on Tulane Avenue and [unclear] Avenue, wherever, and with a “crime against nature.” They’d bring the case to the D.A. and few had the money. The sum was $1,000. You could have it reduced to a battery, and we know for a fact that it happened. I couldn’t prove it, but we had very good information that somebody prominent in his office also took a substantial amount of money to reduce a drug charge. That came from extremely reliable sources. Previous Relevant Blog Posts The Sorry State of Jim Garrison's Files The truth about the handling of Garrison's files. Jim Garrison - The Phantom DA Coverage of the 1969 Democratic primary for District Attorney Did the FBI Bug Garrison's Offices? This blog post contains a listing of tapes at NARA received from Harry Connick, Sr.

I am a paid subscriber to Jefferson Morley's JFK Facts Substack. Unlike some conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Paul Bleau, Morley is a serious researcher whose views frequently cross over to the mainstream press. Scott Sayare's article in New York magazine which featured Morley's research was #2 on its most-read articles of the year. Unfortunately, Morley is prone to reading way too much into the evidence and to make leaps in logic that are completely unwarranted. Over the last year, Morley has repeated certain themes over and over again. Tracy Parnell has done a very good job debunking many of Morley's allegations. I have also debunked many of his Substack posts (see the links below). But as Morley repeats these stories, he also tends to add to or change their meanings. For instance, Morley was recently quoted in a NBC article on the remaining 'secret' documents: Jefferson Morley, a writer who has chronicled the events surrounding Kennedy’s assassination and is vice president of the nonpartisan Mary Ferrell Foundation, said the group — which pushes for more disclosures about the events surrounding Kennedy’s death — “did not expect JFK’s assassination to be an issue in the 2024 election. But it is and it doesn’t surprise us.” Morley summed up why he thinks the release of the remaining documents is so important: “If you want to get full disclosure on 9/11, unidentified aerial phenomenon, you’ve got to start with JFK. OK, if the CIA gets their way on the murder of a president, you know, then they’re going to get their way on other issues.” But Morley's quote "if the CIA gets their way on the murder of a president," is somewhat obtuse. Perhaps it should be read as "if the CIA gets their way on keeping redactions secret ..." Journalists usually pride themselves on the clarity of their language. Morley thrives on ambiguity and obfuscation. The only thing the CIA truly cares about regarding the JFK assassination, is protecting their sources and methods. And tying this to "full disclosure on 9/11"? Is Morley a 9/11 truther? That sentence cries out for elaboration. Much as Morley would like, the JFK assassination is not going to be an election issue except for followers of RFK Jr. who also want to make vaccines an election issue. Morley's notion that we cannot understand 9/11 or UAPs if the CIA does not come clean on JFK is eerily similar to the notion, pushed by Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone, that the United States can only move forward as a nation if it solves the JFK assassination. Until then, they claim, the United States is stuck. In Sayare's article, Morley is wrong about the secrecy of documents: At least 320,000 “assassination-related” documents have been released; by one estimate, some 4,000 remain withheld or redacted, the majority belonging to the CIA. These documents are not withheld. They do have some redactions. If you want a very good analysis of the state of the documents, please read Robert Reynolds' blog. On other issues, Morley's assertions leap well beyond the evidence. For instance, take this story from this December 28, 2023, Substack post: With the release of long-secret JFK files in recent years, the CIA’s surveillance of accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald from November 1959 to November 1963 has gone from a speculative proposition to a well-documented fact. Morley details the timeline of the supposed surveillance. He links to an earlier article about the opening of a CIA file on Oswald in 1959. But all you will learn is that Lee Harvey Oswald was put on the mail-interception watchlist on November 11, 1959, because of his defection to the Soviet Union. Oswald was removed from the HT-LINGUAL watch list on May 28, 1962, because he returned to the United States. With regard to Oswald, why is this nefarious? With the release of long-secret mail interception records well before 2023, why is this even news? Morley goes on to claim that J. Edgar Hoover forwarded a report of an Oswald interview with FBI agent John Fain James Angleton in the CIA. But he provides no sources that Hoover sent it to Angleton. Here is the CIA routing slip: The FBI sent the report of John Fain to ONI New Orleans, INS Dallas as well as 5 copies to FBI Headquarters. Copies were also sent to the State Department, the CIA and other agencies. Morley alleges that because it was routed to the Counterintelligence Operations office (CI/OPS) that this "is strong evidence that the returning ex-Marine defector was being used for operational purposes. Why would CI/OPS be notified about Oswald if he was not involved in counterintelligence operational activity?" There might be many reasons. We have no idea of who actually read the file at CI/OPS, how closely it was read, or what some people might have thought, let alone if Angleton read it. There were probably many documents routed through the office that were of limited interest. It's easy to read too much into routing slips. I worked for Intel Corporation for nine years. I was included in many email strings in which I had absolutely no interest. I'd hate for Morley to review my emails from Intel -- I am sure he would find all sorts of anomalies. In and of itself it is not evidence that Oswald "was being used for operational purposes." Another part of the CIA's supposed surveillance was one of Morley's big stories in 2023. It was the story of Reuben Efron, described by Morley as the spy who read Oswald's mail. I debunked all of Morley's claims in this blog post. Reuben Efron didn't read Oswald's mail. He just read a letter from Marguerite Oswald to Lee Harvey Oswald that was captured through the HT-Lingual program. He had learned of Oswald's impending return to the United States, and he checked the intercepts and found the letter. That's it. But on January 9, 2024, Morley added this to the Efron story: That a CIA counterintelligence operations officer read Oswald’s mail for two years before JFK was killed, belying the claim that Kennedy was killed by a loner whose private thoughts were unknown to authorities. Where does Morley get his claim that Efron read Oswald's mail for two years? How exactly does the Efron story bely the claim that JFK was killed by Oswald? Talk about a leap of logic! It's probably not a leap - it's just Morley's use of sloppy language. He probably meant that "Oswald was a loner whose private thoughts were unknown to authorities." Another one of Morley's stock stories is that of George Joannides. Morley's Substack just before the end of the year described George Joannides as an officer "whose agents generated propaganda about Lee Harvey Oswald before and after Kennedy was killed." What ever happened to his supposed "Oswald operation?" And Morley is now certain what Joannides personnel file contains: The 44 documents held in Joannides’ personnel file, for example, do not mention Oswald’s name but they do concern the intelligence methods and the cover—the false identity—that Joannides used in late 1963 when his psy-war agents collected intelligence on and generated propaganda about Oswald, depicting him as a pawn of Fidel Castro. There is one thing we do know about these files, and that is that the ARRB deemed them not relevant to the JFK assassination. And who exactly were Joannides' "psy-war" agents? Certainly not Carlos Bringuier, who couldn't even spell press release. And this was well before the JFK assassination. Joannides hardly had to direct the DRE anti-Castro Cubans to talk about Oswald's connection to Castro. Without any prompting, Carlos Bringuier knew exactly whom he should blame for the assassination. And Morley understood this at one point. Here is a quote from his 2008 book, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA: (page 175) All the former DRE leaders emphasized that they did not take orders from the CIA, and there is good reason to take them at their word. In 1963, they were passionate young anticommunists who feared their homeland was in danger of slipping under one-party control forever. They did not need a CIA man from Washington to tell them to take action against a public supporter of Castro like Oswald. And then there was this whopper in a Washington Post article: And then-Deputy Director Richard Helms testified, falsely, that the agency had only “minimal information” about Oswald before Kennedy was killed. But this is completely misleading. Helms was only commenting on the amount of information the CIA had from the State Department: Mr. Dulles: Looking back now that you have the full record, do you feel that you received from the State Department adequate information at the time that they were aware of Oswald's defection and later activities in the Soviet Union, did you get at the time full information from the State Department on those particular subjects? Mr. McCone: Well, I am not sure that we got full information, Mr. Dulles. The fact is we had very little information in our files. Mr. Helms: It was probably minimal. A few minutes later, Helms clarified the point: Representative Ford: In this case, Oswald attempted to defect, he did not, he subsequently sought the right to return to the United States, he had contact with the Embassy. Was the Central Intelligence Agency informed of these steps, step by step, by the Department of State? Mr. McCone: You might answer that. Mr. Helms: Mr. Ford, in order to answer this question precisely I would have to have the file in front of me. I have not looked at it in some time so I don't have it all that clearly in mind. But it is my impression that we were not informed step by step. When I say that there is no requirement that I am aware of that the State Department should inform us and when I said a moment a go that we ha minimal information from them, this was not in any sense a critical statement but a statement of fact. Morley sometimes puts words into the mouth of lone gunman researchers: Of course, defenders of the official story will insist there is no rational reason to doubt the story of a “lone gunman.” One man killed JFK for no reason, they say, and another man killed the assassin in a fit of passion. They add, accurately enough, “There’s no smoking gun proof of conspiracy.” Therefore, they assure us, there’s nothing to talk about. After calendar year 2023, this stance is less defensible than ever. From a fact-finding point of view, it is close to obtuse. The past year saw four significant factual revelations about the assassination story, as well as the emergence of the most significant new JFK narrative since Oliver Stone’s compelling but controversial movie, “JFK.” To claim the lone gunman story is indisputably true is an expression of denial, not a description of the new evidence. Where to even begin? What "defender of the official story" has ever said that Oswald "killed JFK for no reason"? I strongly suggest that Morley read Jean Davison's terrific book, Oswald's Game. Davison makes the case that Oswald was upset at sabotage raids on Cuba and killed Kennedy as a blow for the Cuban revolution. Oswald certainly had a motive, although because he was killed two days after the assassination, we can only speculate because he never told us. Morley also regularly sends out Substack posts with subscriber opinions without comment. For instance, his December 15th, a subscriber wrote "I supported your work because JFK was killed by our government and we the people have been lied to." Is it unfair for a reader to infer that Morley agrees that the government killed JFK? That does not seem to be a problem for Morley. Morley believes that there are four things which "the American people learned in 2023" but none of the four significantly changes our knowledge of what happened. "The CIA’s top men in Miami rejected the lone gunman scenario; they investigated JFK’s Cuban enemies in 1963 and concealed their findings." This is just not true -- there is no evidence that they rejected the lone gunman scenario; they were asked to investigate leads related to Cuba and to anti-Castro Cubans. All that was added in 2023 was Donald Heath's name. "A Secret Service agent confessed to finding a bullet at the crime scene, further undercutting the government’s rickety theory that one bullet caused seven wounds in JFK and Texas Gov. John Connally." I covered the story of Paul Landis extensively on this blog. One would think that Morley would be a little more skeptical of Landis given that his story has changed dramatically over the years. "That a CIA counterintelligence operations officer read Oswald’s mail for two years before JFK was killed, belying the claim that Kennedy was killed by a loner whose private thoughts were unknown to authorities." The only new thing we learned in 2023 about this was Efron's name. (see above for comments on the Efron story) "That the doctors who tried to save JFK’s life in Dallas agreed that he was hit by gunfire from two different directions, a story told in a remarkable new Paramount+ documentary “JFK: What the Doctors Saw.”" Again, this is not true. The doctors did not say they thought JFK was hit from two different directions; a few doctors initially thought JFK's throat wound was one of entrance. The film might be new, but the story is not. In regard to the medical evidence, Morley also wrote: In my own personal thinking, the testimony of one of the Dallas doctors, Dr. Robert McClelland, was particularly influential. But Dr. McClelland blew his credibility on November 22, 1963. His written report from November 22, 1963, states that JFK had a wound in his left temple, which clearly shows he was either confused or did not get a good look at the wound: He wrote that "cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." And while I do believe that Morley is a cut above other conspiracy theorists, sometimes he really does test my patience. For instance: Most importantly, Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien’s hit podcast “Who Killed JFK?” synthesizes the new evidence into a rich narrative of JFK’s murder that is more factual, more detailed, more documented, and more credible as a historical account than the Warren Commission report, Stone’s “JFK,” or Posner’s “Case Closed.” Reiner and O'Brien's podcast series is an embarrassment. They have used much of the research of Dick Russell and have accepted the stories of fabulists like Richard Case Nagell, Tosh Plumlee (also here for Plumlee), and Colonel William Bishop. During the final episode, Russell admits that his shooting scenario is based on a "highly educated guess." He postulates at least four gunmen who were placed in the TSBD, behind the picket fence, in the Dal-Tex and perhaps the County Records building, and the fatal headshot came from the overpass at the south knoll. The shooters were: Herminio Diaz Garcia (anti-Castro Cuban) Jean Souetre (a member of the OAS, a French right-wing group) Charles Nicoletti (mob associate of Sam Giancana) Jack Canon (a CIA agent who worked for General Charles Willoughby) Here are some other details of the plot: None of the shooters knew the others since it was a highly compartmentalized operation. William Harvey was the strategist and Charles Willoughby was the tactician. James Angleton and David Atlee Phillips set up Lee Harvey Oswald to take the fall. Allen Dulles was aware of the assassination plan. (Reiner believes David Talbot's claim that Dulles' appearance at The Farm on the weekend of the assassination is proof of the allegation) That Jefferson Morley thinks there is any merit to this podcast series says a lot about him. He’s hyper-critical of anything that points to Oswald as a lone gunman but easily gives credence to really far-fetched theories of conspiracy. His latest Substack posts challenges fact checking organizations to review Reiner's podcast series. But the fact checkers also ignored Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed. But I was on the case and have even produced a viewer's guide. And I have also fact-checked Morley. Back in 1991, Oliver Stone's JFK played in over a thousand theaters and it couldn't be ignored. Now, relatively few people see or care about new documentary series. Check out the Fried Green Tomato rating for JFK (over 50,000 user ratings), JFK Revisited (just over 50 ratings), JFK: What the Doctors Saw (fewer than 50 user ratings). Jefferson Morley's Substack is titled JFK Facts. Yes, you certainly get facts, but unfortunately you also get Morley's interpretations which typically tend towards conspiratorial speculation. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley 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. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley thinks there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. 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 understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963? There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

Yes, he apologized for his comments on Barbie: In Monday night’s apology, which he shared in a post on X, Stone said he later saw Barbie and appreciated the film for its originality and themes. “I found the filmmakers’ approach certainly different than what I expected,” Stone said. “I apologize for speaking ignorantly.” Gee, if Oliver Stone apologized every time he spoke ignorantly, he'd be apologizing forever. But here's a few questions: When will he apologize for what he did to Clay Shaw? And will he ever apologize for all of his dangerous nonsense on Vladimir Putin and Ukraine? Hey, join in! Fill in the blank: When will Oliver Stone apologize for ________________? Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's JFK Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Oliver Stone's 'JFK' A very good opinion piece published in the Washington Post. The Second Coming of Jim Garrison An important article from The Atlantic by Edward Jay Epstein on Oliver Stone's JFK. David Wrone on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Wrone was a friend of Harold Weisberg's and was also very critical of JFK. Oliver Stone says his "battles continue with the truth" More inane comments on the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone Claims He is Not a Conspiracy Theorist An excerpt from an interview with Chris Wallace. Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History A good opinion piece from the Boston Globe. Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letters from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK" A good review of Stone's JFK. Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK. Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK" An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker Wicker reviews JFK for the New York Times and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK, Homophobic? The Advocate writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone! This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film JFK from Esquire magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK. George Lardner's internal Washington Post Memo about Oliver Stone Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone. Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone Says Israel Wants to "Fucking Blow-Up Iran" Oliver Stone gets it all backwards. Oliver Stone's Latest Bullshit! Stone fawns over Putin in an interview with Chris Wallace. Is Oliver Stone off his Meds? Stone sounds insane in an interview with Russell Brand. JFK Jr. Meets Oliver Stone JFK Jr. walks out of a dinner with Oliver Stone. My Hearty Congratulations to the Jerusalem Film Festival Here is an opinion piece I wrote for the Jerusalem Post about Stone's appearance at the Jerusalem Film Festival. Shame on the Jerusalem Film Festival Even a left-wing newspaper in Israel takes exception to Stone's appearance. Oliver Stone says Putin is a "very refined individual" Stone flatters Putin in a Spanish interview. Oliver Stone Says the Russians are "Kicking Ass" in Ukraine Oliver Stone is on the side of Russia. Oliver Stone says that "Putin is a great leader for his country Stone tells the Guardian that Putin is a great leader for Russia. Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Stone claims the United States might use a nuclear bomb in Ukraine. Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... At the Barcelona Film Festival Stone praises Putin and criticizes the United States. Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Stone tweets that the United States might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Stone tells Matt Taibbi that if Russia invades Ukraine, it can take what wants in a day. Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin The Telegraph criticizes Stone's friendship with Putin. Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine In a radio interview, Stone says the US is at fault for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Stone is one of many celebrities who side with Putin. Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap Stone posts on Facebook that Putin invaded Ukraine because of an American trap. The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Putin showed Stone a fake video and Stone fell for it. Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin A bizarre excerpt from Stone's interviews with Putin. Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Stone just repeats Putin's talking points on Ukraine. Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Of course, the United States is at fault, according to Stone. Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? There is unrest in Kazakhstan -- will Stone blame it on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Stone is against American arms sales to Taiwan. Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... A journalist tells the truth about Stone's rants. Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Stone does not want a free Cuba. Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Some people are noticing that Stone's affair with Nazarbayev is unseemly. Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Stone has made an 8-hour documentary about Nazarbayev. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

A pretty good opinion piece from the Washington Post of December 29, 1991. Money quote: And so to "JFK." It could be viewed as parody. The homosexual orgies in the New Orleans town house of the villain Clay Shaw are straight out of Maria Monk's nunnery in Montreal. The generals boozing it up as they plan the murder of their commander-in-chief are straight out of Ramparts in a slow week in the '60s. The black waiter who hears nothing is, well, MGM in the '30s. A John Birch look-alike is the fake erudition. Garrison is forever going on about those who practice to deceive, about riddles wrapped in mysteries inside enigmas. Of particular note: "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." At one point I all but yelled out: "Jim! Use the code! Fiat Justica Ruat Coelum." Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's JFK The Second Coming of Jim Garrison An important article from The Atlantic by Edward Jay Epstein on Oliver Stone's JFK. David Wrone on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Wrone was a friend of Harold Weisberg's and was also very critical of JFK. Oliver Stone says his "battles continue with the truth" More inane comments on the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone Claims He is Not a Conspiracy Theorist An excerpt from an interview with Chris Wallace. Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History A good opinion piece from the Boston Globe. Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letters from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK" A good review of Stone's JFK. Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK. Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK" An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker Wicker reviews JFK for the New York Times and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK, Homophobic? The Advocate writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone! This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film JFK from Esquire magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK. George Lardner's internal Washington Post Memo about Oliver Stone Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

It didn't take long for James DiEugenio to trash Hugh Aynesworth. But he tells this story about the Clinton/Jackson witnesses. For in his attempt to directly obstruct Garrison’s legal proceedings against Clay Shaw, the reporter actually did what he (falsely) accused Garrison of doing: he attempted to bribe a witness. As many know, Shaw, Oswald and David Ferrie had gone to the Clinton/Jackson area--about 120 miles northeast of New Orleans-- in the early autumn of 1963. Many witnesses saw the trio, with Oswald in a voter registration line and Shaw and Ferrie sitting in a Cadillac (Garrison actually had a picture of the car, see Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 223). Sheriff John Manchester was one of the most important witnesses to this strange but fascinating episode. And Aynesworth understood how important he was. Hugh had essentially moved to New Orleans by 1967 and was working with Shaw’s lawyers. He had plants inside of Garrison’s office, e.g. William Gurvich. And they had supplied him with memoranda on which Garrison was working. (See Destiny Betrayed, by James DiEugenio, Second Edition, pp.252-54) One of these concerned Manchester’s testimony, in which he identified Shaw as the driver of the car. Aynesworth drove to the Clinton area with it and told Manchester something quite interesting and revelatory about himself and who he was working with in tandem. Hugh told the sheriff that if he failed to show up at Shaw’s trial he could get him a job as a CIA handler in Mexico for 38,000 dollars per year, over $300,000 today. Obviously, if he was not working with the Agency, how could Aynesworth extend such an offer? I rather liked Manchester’s incorruptible reply: “I advise you to leave the area. Otherwise I’ll cut you a new asshole.” (ibid, p. 255) Hugh Aynesworth did go to Clinton. He went with William Gurvich and Kent Biffle. He wrote a long letter to James Kirkwood about his trip. And he did meet John Manchester. But does anybody believe that Manchester, a member of the KKK, could be enticed to leave the United States and to live in Mexico? Here is an excerpt from Aynesworth's letter to Kirkwood: (page 221 - 222 of American Grotesque) So, where does James DiEugenio get his story? His source is page 235 of Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice. Here is what she writes: When Manchester reported the incident to Jim Garrison, Aynesworth denied that it had happened. Manchester submitted to both a polygraph and an interview under sodium pentothal. He had been telling the truth. Garrison then subpoenaed Aynesworth before the Orleans Parish grand jury. “It has been determined that the CIA is his true employer,” Garrison concluded about Aynesworth. The charge reads: “Hugh Aynesworth tried in February of 1968 to bribe a Louisiana police officer, Clinton City Marshal John Manchester, to keep Mr. Manchester from testifying about the covert activities of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and Clay Shaw at a civil rights function there in 1963.” Even when he was offered immunity, Aynesworth would not appear to answer the charges. Where are the results of the polygraph test of Manchester? Where is the memo about the use of sodium pentothal? Where is this supposed subpoena of Aynesworth? Is there any underlying documentation to support her story? So, where does she get this story from? Here is her footnote: (page 475 in the Kindle edition) Aynesworth and Manchester: See In Re: Grand Jury Investigation of Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Request for Attendance of Out-of- State Witness, To the Honorable Matthew S. Braniff, Judge of section ‘B” of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, signed by Assistant District Attorney Richard Burnes, NARA. I am not sure what document this footnote refers to. I have gone through every archive that has primary Garrison material and I have not seen any evidence to support this story about Aynesworth and Manchester. So, I challenge James DiEugenio to produce some documents to back up these allegations. By the way, I once asked Hugh Aynesworth about this allegation. He had never heard of such a thing. And Jim Garrison does not include this story in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins. Previous Relevant Blog Posts A Summary of the Clinton/Jackson Witnesses A summary of the story and links to my 19-part series on Clinton/Jackson Previous Relevant Links on James DiEugenio: The "Protector and Defender of the Garrison Faith" Strikes Again! James DiEugenio attacks another article about Oliver Stone. Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA? James DiEugenio is unaware that an HSCA report on Oswald and the CIA was actually published. Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA, Part Two Dan Hardway rebuts James DiEugenio. Just who does James DiEugenio work for? Why does James DiEugenio write for one of the major agents of Russian disinformation? My So-Called Libel of James DiEugenio Mr. DiEugenio thinks that I libeled him, but his accusations are all over the map. Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation Was Lee Harvey Oswald at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963? Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Two Was David Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963? Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation, Part Three James DiEugenio accepts a phony story as fact. Fact Checking James DiEugenio, Part Two Bill Boxley was not a CIA plant. Fact Checking James DiEugenio Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand. Fred Litwin's Follies! A response to James DiEugenio about my writings. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuses for Fletcher Prouty Prouty couldn't back up any of his allegations when he was interviewed by the ARRB. You wouldn't believe the lame excuse offered up by DiEugenio. James DiEugenio's Lame Excuse for Oliver Stone Why does Oliver Stone support so many dictators? James DiEugenio Gets it all Wrong on Permindex/CMC DiEugenio has no understanding of Permindex/CMC The Scholarship of James DiEugenio - A Case Study DiEugenio gets it all wrong on the Mannlicher-Carcano The Scholarship of James DiEugenio, Part Two The conclusion on the Mannlicher-Carcano The Scholarship of James DiEugenio Over the past ten months, I have debunked every witness cited by DiEugenio regarding Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

Edward Jay Epstein died today at the age of 88. He was a towering figure in the JFK assassination research community. His 1966 book Inquest paved the way for many other researchers and gave some needed credibility to the critic community. At first, critics like Sylvia Meagher were intrigued by Epstein. He seemingly had access to the Warren Commission members and had stories that nobody else had. In 1965, Sylvia Meagher had a meeting in her apartment with several Warren Commission critics and Edward Jay Epstein was the star attraction. I will soon be publishing her memo of that meeting. But her enthusiasm for Epstein waned when she realized that he thought that Oswald was one of the gunmen. She then nicknamed him Epsteinker, and she cut off relations. Epstein's best book on the case is his book Counterplot which covers the Jim Garrison affair. I just published this review of Counterplot earlier this week. Epstein was one of the first to visit Jim Garrison in New Orleans. It didn't take long before he realized that the man was a complete charlatan. Here is an excerpt from Counterplot about how Garrison handled evidence. When I read Counterplot, I noticed that Epstein had received documents from Elmer Gertz, the lawyer for Gordon Novel, who was suing Garrison for defamation from his interview in Playboy Magazine. Garrison had provided Playboy with secret information and I knew I had to get those memos. Fortunately, the papers of Elmer Gertz are in the Library of Congress, and I was able to photograph all of the relevant papers. The links below will take you to those memos. Here is an excerpt from his 2023 book, Assume Nothing: (pages 94 - 95) I met Garrison that evening for dinner. He told me he had made progress since the arrest, and release on bail, of Shaw. "I can now prove that Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw met at Ferrie's apartment in 1963," Garrison said. "During the meeting, they planned out the assassination." I asked how Garrison could establish such a meeting took place since two of the alleged participants, Oswald and Ferrie, were dead, and the third, Shaw, categorically denied ever meeting Oswald. Garrison said there was another witness named Perry Russo, who happened to be in Ferrie's apartment at the time and had overheard the conversation. Unfortunately, Garrison said, Russo had repressed his memory of the assassination meeting when he was initially questioned by Sciambra, so no mention of it was made in Sciambra's memorandum of the interrogation. Garrison then told me he had "reconstituted Russo's memory" by using both sodium pentothal injections and hypnosis. As a result, Russo was able to recall Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw at the assassination meeting. The problem for Garrison was that the Sciambra memo could be used to discredit Russo's reconstituted memories in court. Therefore, Garrison said, he needed a witness to connect Oswald to Shaw. This made Dean Andrews, in Garrison's view, a key witness, since he might be able to identify Shaw as the Clay Bertrand who had sent Oswald to him. "Will he?" I asked. "He will when we press him." Garrison squeezed a lemon over his oysters as if demonstrating his ability to squeeze a witness. I met Dean Andrews the next day at the Marlboro Club at 4:00 p.m. He was in his late 40s. A plump man with a boyish face, he wore a badly crumpled suit, a loud tie, and round dark glasses. After waving me over with exaggerated hand gestures, he told me he had served as an assistant DA in Jefferson Parish and knew "how the game is played." Andrews had a colorful way of describing people. He called Garrison "a thousand-pound canary." "Is Clay Shaw the person you called Clay Bertrand?" I asked. "Absolutely not," he answered. "Shaw is just an unfortunate who was grabbed out of the sky by the jolly green giant, and his wizards and practitioners of voodoo labeled him Clay Bertrand, and bang, he's been tagged 'it' ever since." Edward Jay Epstein, May your Memory be a Blessing. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Garrison, White-Collar Demagogue A good review of Counterplot. The Death of David Ferrie You can see that Ferrie was reading Inquest when he died. Garrison's Approach to the Handling of Evidence This post has an excerpt from Epstein's Counterplot. Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be Printed Eric Norden, the journalist who conducted the Playboy interview with Garrison, sent a memo of secret information to the editors. Garrison's Playboy Interview - More Secret Information Garrison also sent a memo to Playboy with information not for print.

Sylvia Meagher was planning on holding a meeting in her apartment with Warren Report critics in 1965. Here is a letter she wrote Maggie Field about the upcoming meeting: Jones Harris was right about Lane and it wouldn't take long for Sylvia Meagher to figure it out for herself. Here is her report of the meeting: It's not surprising that they had a major argument during the meeting. The critics of the Warren Report could not even agree on lunch. I shouldn't be too hard -- after all, what is wrong with arguing. As for the search of the Texas School Book Depository, it probably was good police practice to go up floor by floor. Sylvia Meagher sent a letter to Edward Jay Epstein right after the meeting: Edward Jay Epstein replied to Sylvia Meagher: Previous Relevant Blog Posts regarding Edward Jay Epstein The Second Coming of Jim Garrison A very good article by Edward Jay Epstein on Oliver Stone's JFK. Edward Jay Epstein, R.I.P. Edward Jay Epstein was a towering figure in the JFK assassination research community. Garrison, White-Collar Demagogue A good review of Counterplot. The Death of David Ferrie You can see that Ferrie was reading Inquest when he died. Garrison's Approach to the Handling of Evidence This post has an excerpt from Epstein's Counterplot. Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be Printed Eric Norden, the journalist who conducted the Playboy interview with Garrison, sent a memo of secret information to the editors. Garrison's Playboy Interview - More Secret Information Garrison also sent a memo to Playboy with information not for print. Previous Relevant Blog Posts regarding Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison The Salandria-Meagher Phone Calls The issue of Jim Garrison ruptured their frienship. Sylvia Meagher writes Bud Fensterwald Meagher turns down membership in Fensterwald's JFK group because of the presence of Jim Garrison. Sylvia Meagher's Review of "The Kennedy Conspiracy" by Paris Flammonde A scathing review of Flammonde's book about the Garrison investigation. Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher Discuss Jim Garrison An exchange of letters about Jim Garrison. Jim Garrison's Code and Sylvia Meagher Garrison comes up with a crazy code and Sylvia Meagher calls him out. Sylvia Meagher's Ode to the District Attorney of New Orleans Meagher also wrote poetry. Sylvia Meagher Writes Clay Shaw with an Idea Meagher's very good idea shows that Garrison didn't care to learn the truth. Kerry Thornley Writes Sylvia Meagher in 1970 Thornley tells Meagher about an article illustrating Garrison's pre-occupation with the JFK assassination. Tom Bethell Writes Sylvia Meagher about the Shaw Trial Bethell wrote Meagher about Charles Spiesel and his ridiculous testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. Sylvia Meagher's Letter to Look Magazine Sylvia Meagher's terrific letter to Look Magazine in response to their article "The Persecution of Clay Shaw." Sylvia Meagher Congratulates Clay Shaw On His Acquittal She was very pleased with his acquittal. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part One Meagher writes Clay Shaw a letter and his response is just terrific. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss Jim Garrison Dr. Wecht didn't think too much of Garrison, either. Mike Farrell, of M*A*S*H fame, and Sylvia Meagher Meagher educates Farrell on Jim Garrison. When will Oliver Stone Admit he was Wrong about Clay Shaw? A plea to Oliver Stone with a compilation of Meagher's writings about Jim Garrison. Sylvia Meagher on the Clay Shaw Case Howard Roffman writes a letter to Harold Weisberg about Sylvia Meagher. Penn Jones' Phone Call with Sylvia Meagher This phone call broke their relationship. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Two An unpublished Meagher memo on the trial of Clay Shaw. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Three - a never before published article by Meagher Another unpublished Meagher memo on the Garrison investigation and Warren Report critics. Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be Printed Sylvia Meagher's letter to the Editor regarding Garrison's interview in Playboy Magazine. Sylvia Meagher's Reaction to the Verdict in the Shaw Trial Meagher writes Harold Weisberg with her comments on the verdict. Two Letters to Jim Garrison about "A Heritage of Stone" James Phelan and Sylvia Meagher write Garrison letters about his book. Kerry Thornley writes Sylvia Meagher An exchange of letters between Thornley and Meagher. Did RFK Tell Garrison that there were guns between him and the White House? Meagher writes Thornley about Lane's comment on RFK. Was Jim Garrison Napoleon or Rasputin? Meagher writes Thornley with an opinion. M. S. Arnoni and Sylvia Meagher Take On Jim Garrison... Exchange of letters between Meagher, Arnoni and Garrison. Jim Garrison Blows His Top Meagher writes Weisberg about the damage Garrison is doing to critics of the Warren Report. James Phelan Writes to Richard Popkin Meagher replies to the New York Review of Books regarding Popkin's article on Garrison. Sylvia Meagher Replies to Richard Popkin An exchange of letters between Popkin and Meagher.