Did Lee Harvey Oswald hang out at Guy Banister's office in New Orleans in the summer of 1963? Delphine Roberts, who worked for Banister, was one witness who told researchers in the late 1970s that he had. But, what did she tell Garrison? Here is the Garrison investigation memo on Delphine Roberts and she did not say one word about Oswald. You can learn more about Delphine Roberts here. Delphine Roberts had some extreme political views. Here is her platform for her run for Councilman-at-large in New Orleans.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, makes the claim that Guy Banister gave Lee Harvey Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:11:32) Whoopi Goldberg: Banister was an extreme right-winger who was close to the FBI, the CIA, and the American Nazi Party. Banister gave Oswald his own office at 544 Camp Street. Oswald now began to use his office to print up and stamp pro-Castro literature. After the assassination, when the FBI questioned Banister, a former FBI agent himself, they did not ask him about Oswald. It's interesting that the documentary mentions the 544 Camp Street address and not Banister's address which was right around the corner at 531 Lafayette Street. This was because Oswald stamped the 544 Camp Street address on a few of his pamphlets. Note that most, if not all, of the flyers that Oswald handed out on Canal Street had either his Magazine Street address or his post office box, and not the Camp Street address. By the way, Oswald worked for two months at Reily Coffee, which was just a block away from the Camp Street address. Joseph Newbrough was a detective who worked for Guy Banister from 1958 to 1964. He was interviewed for the PBS Frontline documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (from an unpublished transcript) Q: Oswald handed out his leaflets as you well know, they were addressed 544 Camp Street. Did he have an office there? Newbrough: To my best knowledge and belief he did not have an office at 544 Camp Street, but if he did it would have not necessarily have connected him with Guy Banister who used the address 531 LaFayette Street which was around the corner. Q: If you go through 544 Camp Street can you reach Banister's office? Newbrough: You absolutely could not reach Banister's office unless you exited ... If you entered 544 Camp Street the only way you could have gotten to Banister's office was to go out a window. There was no staircase, though much has been said of a staircase, it didn't exist. Q: So they had separate entrances? Newbrough: Totally separate entrances and probably 60 steps apart. So, was there any relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald? Did Oswald operate out of Banister's office? Did Oswald use the office to print up his literature? There is little firm evidence to place Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's office. Yes, there are some witnesses, but they all lack credibility. Jim Garrison talked to most, if not all, of the people who worked at Guy Banister's office and none of them remember seeing Oswald. Here is a list of Banister employees, along with the dates and authors of corresponding memos during the Garrison investigation. I have most of these documents and none of them mention Oswald. Since the annotated version of the script of JFK Revisited is not out yet, I had to go to James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed, to determine which witnesses placed Oswald in Banister's office. Let's examine these witnesses one by one. Witness: Delphine Roberts Delphine Roberts was Guy Banister's secretary. Here are two previous blog posts that examined her statements: Did Delphine Roberts see Oswald in Banister's Office? Roberts was interviewed in January of 1967 and didn't say one word about seeing Oswald in Banister's office. Did Delphine Roberts See Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's Office? (Part Two) Mary Brengel also worked for Guy Banister and didn't say one word about Oswald. The allegation that Oswald was using a room in Banister's office probably came from an August 27, 1978 HSCA interview with Delphine Roberts: Does this story make any sense? Oswald was either "working or attempting to work for Banister"? Roberts doesn't know? Marina came to visit with Lee? Why would Banister yell at Sam Newman, the owner of the building, for letting Oswald use a room, if he was part of Banister's operation? By the way, here is an excerpt from an earlier HSCA interview with Delphine Roberts on July 6, 1978 (courtesy of the Malcolm Blunt Archives): Over the years, Sam Newman was interviewed many times by the FBI, Jim Garrison and the HSCA and he always denied ever meeting Lee Harvey Oswald. The HSCA noted Roberts' testimony and wrote: "The committee did not credit the Roberts' testimony standing alone. It came late in the investigation and without corroboration or independent substantiation, and much of Roberts' other testimony lacked credibility." Witness: Vernon Gerdes (page 112 of Destiny Betrayed) "Former Banister investigator Vernon Gerdes later worked for attorney Stephen Plotkin. He told Plotkin that he had seen Oswald and Ferrie together with Banister. Plotkin later told one of Clay Shaw's lawyers he considered Gerdes a reliable witness." Here is a blog post on Gerdes. He never told Garrison that he had seen Oswald in Banister's office and he told the HSCA he had never seen Oswald in New Orleans. DiEugenio's book is misleading since Plotkin only said that Gerdes "reportedly" had seen Oswald. Witness: Jack Martin (page 112 of Destiny Betrayed) "Another former Banister gumshoe, Jack Martin, said he was introduced to Oswald by Ferrie in Banister's office. With Ferrie at the time was Sergio Arcacha Smith." Here is a blog post on this allegation. Jack Martin was not a credible witness in any way, shape, form or manner. The HSCA noted Martin's allegation: "Martin has also told the committee he saw Lee Harvey Oswald with Ferrie in Guy Banister's office in 1963. Nevertheless, in light of Martin's previous contradictory statements to authorities shortly after the assassination in which Martin made no such allegation about having seen Oswald, it may be argued that credence should not be placed in Martin's statements to the committee." Witness: Tommy Baumler (page 112 of Destiny Betrayed) "Tommy Baumler was another former student who worked for Banister. He joined left wing college groups and reported back to the former G-man. Baumler was another Banister employee who was very reluctant about talking to Jim Garrison. But many years later, after being established as a New Orleans lawyer, he spoke to researcher Bud Fensterwald and told him that there was no doubt that Oswald had worked for Banister." Note that Baumler does not say he saw Oswald in Banister's office. Here is a blog post about Tommy Baumler. Baumler said a lot of things. Here is a memo that gives you an idea about his credibility: Witness: Dan Campbell (page 111 of Destiny Betrayed) "He recalled one day when he was at Banister's, a young man came in to use the phone: "I knew he was a Marine from his bearing and speech pattern the minute he walked into 544 Camp Street," The next time he saw this young man was when his image was on TV and he was accused of being the killer of President Kennedy." DiEugenio's source is his interview of Dan Campbell in 1994. Here is a Garrison memo on Dan Campbell: No mention of seeing Oswald in Banister's office. Dan Campbell was interviewed for the 2013 Frontline PBS special, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" He told them that he did see Oswald in Banister's office but both in 1962 and 1963., It would have been impossible to see Oswald in Banister's office in 1962 because he was not living in New Orleans then. The Frontline researchers did not find him a credible witness. Witness: Allen Campbell (page 111 - 112 in Destiny Betrayed) "Allen Campbell, like his brother, also worked for Banister. On one of the days Oswald was distributing his literature nearby, Allen recalled Delphine Roberts returning to the office and complaining to Banister about Oswald distributing pro-Castro leaflets on the street. Campbell remembered Banister trying to reassure Roberts by telling her not to worry because, "He's with us, he's associated with this office." Once again, DiEugenio's source is his 1994 interview with Allen Campbell. Here is a Garrison memo on Allen Campbell: Nothing about Lee Harvey Oswald, except that the Campbell brothers were at the same Orphans Home in 1946. Allen Campbell was interviewed for the 2013 PBS Frontline Special, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" He specifically denied ever seeing Lee Harvey Oswald. (from an unpublished transcript) Q: No while you were working for Mr. Banister did you ever seen Lee Oswald in his offices? Campbell: No sir, I never did, I never saw Lee in his office. Q: Where was Lee at the time? Campbell: I have no idea. Q: According to a fairly authoritative book you're quoted as follows "Alan told the New Orleans authorities in a 1969 interview that he was at Camp Street on one of two occasions when Oswald passed out Fair Play for Cuba leaflets near the International Trade Mart. When somebody in the office mentioned the pro-Castro demonstration Banister might have expected to react with characteristic spleen. According to the 1969 interview Alan Campbell said Banister merely laughed." Campbell: No sir, that's not possible. If I would have seen Lee handing out pamphlets I would have walked up to Lee and asked him what he was doing, and I would have walked back to Mr. Banister's office with this information. I would have said - Mr. Banister there is a friend of mine handing out leaflets, dealing with communism. No sir, that is a direct misquote. I did not see Lee any time after the fifties, it was impossible. Another witness who knew Al Campbell said he never mentioned Oswald: Note at the bottom where Sciambra writes "Williams said that Campbell never mentioned Ferrie, Oswald or Shaw. Williams said the first time he heard Oswald's name was after the assassination." Witness: David Lewis (page 112 in Destiny Betrayed) "David Lewis, a former investigator for Banister, stated that he once met Oswald in the summer of 1963 in a restaurant housed at the Camp Street building." David Lewis was another crackpot who disappeared after making some ridiculous allegations in 1967. When first interviewed Lewis said he had seen Oswald at Mancuso's in 1961, when Oswald was in Russia. Further Jack Mancuso ran the restaurant at the corner of Camp and Lafayette and did not remember seeing Oswald: There are a few more witnesses mentioned by DiEugenio. Consuela Martin supposedly worked for Banister as a translator. She said Oswald "came to see her more than once to drop off things to be translated." (page 111). But the source is conspiracy theorist Michael Kurtz whose reliability is suspect. The other witness is Delphine Roberts' daughter who is quoted in Anthony Summers' book, The Kennedy Conspiracy. She supposedly saw Oswald using a room for his pamphlets and books, but never saw Oswald talking to Banister. She also spoke to Gerald Posner and told him that Oswald "lived there [544 Camp Street], had an apartment there, for two or three months." She also said she had met Marguerite Oswald (page 141 in Cased Closed). No witness came forward in 1964 to claim that Oswald was hanging out in Banister's office. If Oswald did really operate out of Banister's office, surely someone would have talked, and word would have gotten out. The only person coming forward with such a story when Jim Garrison was investigating was the crackpot Jack Martin. The preponderance of the evidence leads me to conclude that there was no connection between Oswald and Banister. It's hard to prove a negative, but until someone comes out with some hard and credible information, I'll leave it at that. The HSCA also agreed: "Thus, the committee could find no documentary proof that Banister had a file on Lee Harvey Oswald nor could the committee find credible witnesses who ever saw Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister together." Guy Banister's brother, Ross, told the HSCA that they discussed Oswald: I can't vouch for his veracity, but it is interesting that Guy Banister, in conversation with his own brother, said nothing about any connection to Oswald. Perhaps he did see Oswald leafletting. However, his theory is a bit convoluted. Banister's involvement with the jeeps was in 1960, well before Oswald arrived in New Orleans. Here is what Ross Banister was talking about: New Orleans States-Item, October 1, 1960 To buttress their case of a relationship between Oswald and Banister, JFK Revisited includes a short clip of William Gaudet saying that he them talking together during the leafletting incident. An upcoming blog post will take a comprehensive look at Gaudet and his credibility. Stay tuned. Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio might find the evidence that Oswald had a room in Banister's office persuasive. The evidence does not sustain their conclusions. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Judge Burt Griffin talks about the shots fired at John Kennedy during a 1992 press conference in this file photo. (Gus Chan/The Plain Dealer, File) Cleveland Plain Dealer Max Good is the producer of the documentary, The Assassination & Mrs. Paine. Researcher Tracy Parnell has written extensively about this documentary, and I strongly encourage you to check out his posts. For instance, this article discusses the objectivity of Good's film. If you sign up for Max Good's Patreon account, you can get access to "special features, full interviews, and other exclusive content." Researcher Greg Doudna subscribed, and this week Max put up a video of an interview with Judge (retired) Burt Griffin who served as a counsel on the Warren Commission. Greg transcribed the video and posted excerpts (since removed) on the Education Forum. Here is what he said: The footage consists of clips of Judge Griffin spliced back to back, total time 2 minutes, 35 seconds. The filming occurred at an event in Irving, Texas with Griffin standing against a wall in what looks like sort of an art gallery setting. Burt Griffin did not realize who was interviewing him. At the end of the footage Judge Griffin discovers it is Max Good and refuses permission to use any of the footage. Following is my transcription of the video footage. Max Good also posted today on Patreon a letter he received from Burt Griffin (see comments below after the transcript). Max Good felt that Greg's transcriptions and his reporting on the video were in violation of the terms and conditions of his Patreon account. He has since removed the video and has removed Greg from the Patreon subscription list. I sent an email to Burt Griffin to get permission to post his 2022 letter to Max Good and he replied that it would be ok to post it on my blog: Mr. Good: Not being a journalist, I lack a professional understanding of journalism's ethics. I am concerned, however, about how those ethics affect reporting accusations by third parties against another private citizen. Let me be specific. I wonder if the ethics of journalism affected how you reported the criticisms and innuendoes by some people against Ruth Paine that you have shown in your recent video about her. Mrs. Paine's critics suggest (or leave your audience might believe) that she was a CIA operative and has provided false information intended to incriminate Lee Oswald. Mrs. Paine insists that she was not a CIA operative. She has said she did not knowingly provide false information to the Warren Commission or anyone else about Lee Oswald. Indeed, she says that, when she realized that a statement was incorrect or incomplete, she corrected it on her own initiative. You have presented to a public audience both her defense and the accusation against her. As a result, you have enabled her accusers to have a larger audience. Mrs. Paine has, thereby, been damaged. You made it necessary for her to defend herself. Without knowing what canons of journalism apply, I am offended by your providing that larger audience to Mrs. Paine's critics unless you were satisfied that the criticisms or innuendoes were valid. I suspect that you do not think they were valid. As you may be aware, I have studied closely the conduct of Mrs. Paine and Lee Oswald. I have no doubt that Mrs. Paine has not knowingly made any false statements about Lee Oswald to the Warren Commission and that she did not knowingly assist any effort to assassinate President Kennedy. She has suffered greatly from her innocent association with Lee Oswald and has done her best to be an honest citizen. I am concerned that your video has aggravated her suffering. May I suggest what fair treatment, if not ethical journalism, required you to do? Tom Mallon's book, Ruth Paine's Garage and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, is an example of the fair and proper way to treat her. You should have first evaluated the evidence upon which her critics based their accusations. Unless you were satisfied that the inferences from their accusations were correct, you should not have published their statements. Or, if you did so, you should have clearly stated that they were wrong. You should not have published their insinuations unless Mrs. Paine concurred. I do not know what legal rights Mrs. Paine has to protect herself against the unhappiness that false accusations or innuendoes have caused her. I hope that, by becoming a subject of public interest she has not lost the protections against defamation that the law provides private citizens. For Ms. Paine's benefit, I hope you will withdraw your video from the market and apologize to her for the distress it has caused. Unfortunately, she is now an example of the expression that "No good deed goes unpunished." For your own professional success and for the protection of others in the future, I hope your Ruth Paine video will be a learning experience. Journalists have great power in this age of high-tech publicity. That power should not injure others unless a strong public interest is served. Good journalists should protect the innocent. Sincerely, Burt Griffin In an e-mail to Greg Doudna, Burt posed a question that Max Good should answer: To what extent do journalistic ethics require an interviewer to determine that a defamatory claim is true before publishing it or require the publisher to say it is untrue if it is published?

David Ferrie was a person of interest to Garrison from the start. He was a pilot for Eastern Airlines until he was fired for activities with underage boys. He then worked for Wray Gill, who was an attorney for Carlos Marcello. On the day of the JFK assassination, Ferrie was in a New Orleans courtroom on the last day of a trial in which Marcello was acquitted. That evening, Ferrie and two friends drove to Houston for a weekend of fun. One of his companions, Al Beauboeuf, was a particularly good roller skater and he wanted to try his hand at ice skating. And so Ferrie took him ice skating. Garrison makes it all sound ominous. He wonders why Ferrie would drive through a thunderstorm to get to Houson. Well, I talked to Al Beauboeuf. He is now 74 years old and he told me - well, if you knew David Ferrie, he would fly right into thunderstorms. And so driving in a car through some rain definately woudn't faze him. You can read more about David Ferrie in my book. Garrison put him under surveillance in 1967. This surveillance yielded nothing. Well, there was nothing to find, really. Here's one of several memos. But wait, there's more. That's not all. The David Ferrie story, as told by Garrison and other conspiracy authors, presents a very inaccurate portrait. He had very little to do with anti-Cuban politics after his dismissal from Eastern Airlines - thereafter his time was spent trying to get reinstated. None of Ferrie's friends had ever seen Clay Shaw, nor had they ever seen Perry Russo. He was an intelligent man who would help a stranger change a tire in a restaurant car park. And, while I don't condone consorting with underage boys, they never turned on him. He taught them to fly, and encouraged in their intellectual pursuits. Bottom line: Ferrie was not a conspirator in the JFK assassination. But, read my book for the full story.

Two days ago, I posted documents showing that the allegation that Clay Shaw was working for the CIA in Rome in the 1960s originated in Paese Sera, a Communist-controlled newspaper in Rome. James DiEugenio had this to say on Facebook: "Wrong again. There was a Time Life internal report that says he was in Italy. And this was at about the time that it first opened." I would very much like to see that memo. Here is a Life Magazine memo written by Iride Cerabona, who was stationed in their bureau in Rome, about Clay Shaw and Permindex: (found in the papers of Richard Billings) The memo clearly states all of the allegations originated with Paese Sera. There is no reference to any other Life Magazine memo. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Foreign Trade all denied any relationship between the CMC and the CIA. Even a top official in the Ministry of the Interior, on a confidential basis, denied the allegations. The memo says that "contrary to other past exploits of Paese Sera, this one has not provoked or aroused formal protest, denial or sarcastic comments through other publications." This is not true. The March 5, 1967 edition of Il Messaggero said that Shaw had never been to Italy and noted that "there is no trace of his name in the foreigner's office": Il Messaggero, March 5, 1967 The last paragraph reads: "Il nome di Clay Shaw ha fatto fantasticare di attivita tenebrose per le quali e stata tirata in ballo anche la CIA, cioe la centrale del controspionaggio americana, ma nulla allo stato dei fatti sembra autorizzare illazioni cosi aczzardate." I sent that paragraph to an Italian friend who sent me back this translation: "The name of Clay Shaw has conjured an image of mysterious activity which appears to be involved with the CIA, that is to say, the headquarters of counterintelligence in America, but nothing in the current situation seems to authorize such risky speculation." Another newspaper, Il Tempo, said "political fiction on Clay Shaw - a tangled and unlikely reconstruction from a communist source."

Two days ago, I posted a message from James DiEugenio on the Education Forum in which he wondered when the CIA was going to release an HSCA report on whether Oswald was a CIA agent. My post included a link to the exact report. Clearly, Mr. DiEugenio did not read my post. He posted this on Twitter: I replied to his tweet with a link to my post. Will he get the message and stop spouting this nonsense? Tune in tomorrow. Same bat-time, same bat-channel. Previous Blog Posts on the Scholarship of 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. 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

Flagrant failure by the Secret Service to take minimum precautions? Allegation #7: Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, page 291 Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, page 293 In addition, Prouty told the ARRB: [emphasis is Prouty's] Prouty: ...when I went to Mexico City with the Secret Service when Eisenhower was going down there back in the 50's -- geez, we were in Mexico City, I think, at least three weeks before the President went down there, doing all sorts of prepatory [sic] work. You know, who'd take the windows of this building, who'd close those, who'd be on the roof of this building, where will the sniper be ... I mean, that's business. And it's a lot of work. It's not casual. It's isn't just, 'run out there for one day and back again.' Well, since I knew that's the way they worked [sic], I figured, "where the hell were they?" Well, that begins to ask some pretty big questions. But that was just my own wondering, "why weren't they there?" When I see the windows open -- why the hell weren't the windows closed? And if they weren't closed, something very serious is wrong. Not just casually -- this is 100 years of Secret Service work. This is a profession. And since I had gone with them myself on a trip to Mexico City when the time was such that Eisenhower's people were a little concerned about Mexico City ... we really did that town over. Well, it's a profession -- they have a book on what to do. One thing you do is you keep the windows closed. If a window opens, there's a sniper on that window immediately. That's why they have lots of military scattered in civilian clothes around here -- to be sure that nothing happened. And they can keep it from happening. But why the hell weren't they there in Dallas? ... That was my point. The ARRB believed that these "passages suggested firsthand familiarity with Secret Service methods and procedures." This led to several questions: Wray: How many secret service agents would you - based upon your experience in Mexico City or other things that you would know -- how many Secret Service agents would you have expected to be providing coverage in Dallas? Prouty: (Testily) See, we're overdoing this. I went to Mexico City once, so I'd know the business. I have no idea how they run their business. And the difference between Dallas and Mexico City -- I don't think you would have comparable units. No way. First of all, I don't know whether they take hundreds of guys when in a foreign country like that, or whether they let the local country do it [provide security personnel]. So I shouldn't be giving you anything that misleads you. Because I only went to Mexico City with the senior man of that group, and stayed there a few days with him. But I went for logistics purposes, not to learn about the system. And I can't extrapolate that into a nationwide system, because I never had any Secret Service [training] ,,, But what appalled me is the fact that the Secret Service was not in Dallas. That's the point that's important. Wray then wanted to know if Prouty was speaking figuratively or literally: Wray: When you say "the Secret Service was not in Dallas" ... Do I understand you -- that you are speaking a little figurative there? That they may have been there, but they weren't doing their job thoroughly? Or do you mean literally, that they were not there? Prouty: (Pause) Well ... it's so basic to their business that the windows be down -- just for one thing -- and in order to do that they have to be there. It doesn't leave much question. You don't have to go any further. Because the gun, theoretically, was pointed out a window. And the window was not covered by anybody. [If] you go outside the building here, and stand and look at a building that's six stories high, you can see every single window. One person can. If a window's open, you just get on your little radio [to] the guy on the roof, he puts a sniper's gun on it [the open window]; the guy in the other building goes over and says, "Shut the window." And some secretary says, "Oh, I didn't know about it.", and closes the window. I mean, it's not mysterious. But the fact that it wasn't done -- there's the problem. Why? Why wasn't it done? And I have no experience in that. All I know is, they weren't there. You have to love the ARRB conclusion: In the first statement, Prouty makes some very specific outlines of procedures, about windows going up and having snipers covering windows, having people on rooftops, spending three weeks in preparation for the trip, etc. Fifteen minutes later, when pressed by ARRB for details and specifics, Prouty quickly backed off, disassociating himself from the Secret Service, understanding the nature of his participation (logistics purposes, not to learn the system), acting careful not to mislead us, and admitting that he doesn't know how the Secret Service "runs its business." Within 15 minutes, Prouty makes statements which sound plausible, and as if he knows procedures from personal knowledge, then backs away from knowing any specifics and hastens to add that he participated in only one presidential trip. In the final excerpt cited above, Prouty makes the very serious charge that the Secret Service was not even on duty in Dallas on November 22, then admits he has no experience upon which to base this statement, in the same sentence. [emphasis added by the ARRB] Previous Relevant Posts on Fletcher Prouty Fletcher Prouty Talks to the ARRB A summary document of his interview with the ARRB Fletcher Prouty and Army Intelligence in Dallas Another summary document from the ARRB about Prouty's allegations and army intelligence. Was Fletcher Prouty an Antisemite? Prouty had some very unsavory relationships with antisemitic groups. Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part One Was Fletcher Prouty's Trip to Antarctica Unusual? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Two Regarding Christchurch, New Zealand and The Christchurch Star Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Three Regarding the 112th Intelligence Corps (INTC) Group and/or the 316th INTC Detachment Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Four Did Prouty Keep the notes from his supposed phone call about army intelligence? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Five Prouty's experience with military presidential protection duties

Just about every week, someone accuses me of working for the CIA. The first time that happened was back in 1976 when I wrote an article for People and the Pursuit of Truth about JFK's back wound. I argued that the evidence indicated that the shot entered JFK's back and exited his throat. The publisher received a postcard from another contributor wondering if I was working for the CIA. This raises the question - what should one conclude about people who appear on Russian disinformation sites? On November 25, 2022, James DiEugenio appeared as a guest on a podcast on the Global Research News Hour. The Global Research News Hour is a production of the Centre for Research on Globalization. So, what exactly is the Center for Research on Globalization? It was started by former University of Ottawa Professor Michel Chossudovsky. Journalist Terry Glavin describes it as a "sort of a clearing house for conspiracy theories -- 9/11 was an inside job, they're still lying to you about the JFK assassination, Covid-19 is a plot by a cabal that wants to rule the world -- the usual." But what is interesting is that two years ago, the U.S. State Department issued a report titled: "Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem." Here is what they say about Global Research: QUOTE ON: QUOTE OFF: On page 25 of their report, they have a detailed analysis of Global Research: QUOTE ON QUOTE OFF. Here is what they say about Global Research's founder, Michel Chossudovsky: QUOTE ON: QUOTE OFF. Global Research specializes in disinformation about Covid-19: QUOTE ON: QUOTE OFF. And some of the authors on Global Research have links to the Russian Federation: QUOTE ON: QUOTE OFF. In 2017, NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, based in Latvia, viewed Global Research "as playing a key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." James DiEugenio has appeared several times on the Global Research News Hour, and he even penned a fawning review of Oliver Stone's ridiculous documentary on Ukraine. So, why is James DiEugenio on the Global Research website and radio show? If I were conspiracy minded, would I say that he is an agent of the Russian Federation? Of course, I won't make that claim. I'll just say this is further proof of his extremely bad judgment. A Canadian Source The Macdonald Laurier Institute, one of Canada's most important think tanks, issued a report in January 2019 entitled: Stemming the VIRUS: Understanding and responding to the threat of Russian disinformation. Here is what they had to say about Global Research: (pages 16 -17) Disinformation feeding into confirmation bias is not exclusively a problem of the extreme right; narratives are often sourced from extreme leftist websites too. In Canada, one notorious website is Global Research. Based in Montreal and run by Michel Chossudovsky, a retired professor of economics (emeritus) from the University of Ottawa, Global Research publishes articles that support Kremlin positions as well as those of many other authoritarian regimes around the world. Extremely critical articles about NATO and the West’s foreign policy feature prominently on Global Research, alongside articles that support extremist views about Zionism, Freemasonry, and other global conspiracy theories. Chossudovsky’s website is part of a broader global online network called the “4th Media” (Chung 2014), which is a Chinese-registered website that includes various Kremlin state-funded outlets, including Russia Today, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), and others. Chossudovsky is a contributor to the Russian extremist nationalist platforms geopolitica.ru and Katehon (Chossudovsky 2017). These sites are run by the extremist right-wing nationalists Aleksandr Dugin and Leonid Savin. Dugin, who is listed as a contributor to Global Research, is also famous for being the foreign policy advisor to Vladimir Putin, the so-called “Putin’s Rasputin” (Meyer and Ant 2017). The site’s author search tool also brings up other contributors to Canadian national newspapers who have supported the Kremlin’s positions in the past. Another noteworthy contributor to Global Research is John Helmer (Welch and Helmer 2018), who initiated the January 2017 media frenzy around Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s grandfather’s involvement with the occupying Nazi regime in Poland during the Second World War. According to Maclean’s columnist Terry Glavin (2017), the story can be traced “through a maze of cranks, propagandists and Putin fanciers” until it reached mainstream media. The story has been broadly identified as a Russian disinformation campaign. Recent articles on Helmer’s blog also promote other Kremlin positions, including the claim that the Skripal affair – which involved the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the UK using the Russian Novichok nerve agent – was a UK government conspiracy to incriminate Russia (Helmer 2018). Previous Relevant Blog Posts Is the JFK assassination linked to 9/11 and Covid-19? Just when I thought conspiracy theorists couldn't get any crazier. Well, Edward Curtin believes there is a link between the JFK assassination, 9/11 and Covid-19 Previous Blog Posts on the Scholarship of James DiEugenio 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. 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

Published by permission of David Lifton, who pointed out that his disagreements with Stone and Garrison were not about the existence of a conspiracy or the importance of foreign-policy issues to the assassination. This letter was published ten years after his book, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Here is a link to essays by David Lifton on Jim Garrison from the May 31 and June 6, 1968 editions of Open City. You can also download a facsimile copy of both articles on my Documents page. Here is a memo that David Lifton wrote to other researchers about Kerry Thornley and Jim Garrison. Here is a companion piece written by Kerry Thornley.

New York Times journalist Tom Wicker wrote a long review of Oliver Stone's JFK on December 15, 1991: Some key quotes from Wicker's article: In fact, of all the numerous conspiracy theorists and zealous investigators who for nearly 30 years have been peering at and probing the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mr. Garrison may be the most thoroughly discredited -- and not just by the NBC documentary. His ballyhooed investigation ended ignominiously when his chosen villain, Clay Shaw, was acquitted; and the whole Garrison affair is now regarded, even by other conspiracy believers, as having been a travesty of legal process. But there's a gaping hole in the movie's advance counterattack: If a conspiracy as vast and consequential as the one claimed could have been carried out and covered up for three decades, why did the conspirators or their heirs allow Mr. Stone to make this movie? Why not murder him, as they supposedly murdered others? Why, for that matter, didn't they knock off Mr. Garrison himself when -- as Mr. Stone tells it with so much assurance -- the New Orleans District Attorney began so fearlessly to follow their trail? And Wicker's conclusion: My dissent from Mr. Stone's film is not that he believes that Oswald was a patsy or there was a conspiracy or even that he depicts the conspiracy as fascist, a corruption of Constitutional government so far-reaching as to threaten the end of the democratic system in America. He has a right to believe those things, even to believe against the evidence that Mr. Garrison's shabby investigation was a noble and selfless search for truth. But I have other Americans have an equal right not to believe such things, a right to our own beliefs. Mr. Stone insists on one true faith about Nov. 22, 1963 -- as though only he and Mr. Garrison could discern the truth, among the many theories of what happened that terrible day. Moreover, he implies that anyone who doesn't share his one truth faith is either an active part of a cover-up or passively acquiescent in it. Finally, he uses the powerful instrument of a motion picture, and relies on stars of the entertainment world, to propagate the one true faith -- even though that faith, if widely accepted, would be contemptuous of the very Constitutional government Mr. Stone's film purports to uphold. Here is Oliver Stone's reply, along with a comment from Tom Wicker, which ran on December 22, 1991: Harold Weisberg then wrote Tom Wicker: Tom Wicker wrote back: And here is Weisberg's reply: Previous Relevant Blog Posts Harold Weisberg on Jim Garrison Highlights from an interview with Barry Ernest. Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letter from Weisberg to Stone. The Outline for Harold Weisberg/George Lardner book They had plans to write about Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone.

Conspiracy theorist Paul Bleau recently published an article at James DiEugenio's website entitled "The Garrison Files and Oswald's Escort." His article alleges that Lee Harvey Oswald had an escort who accompanied him on many occasions. Bleau believes that the escort "was often described as short, stocky, in his early to mid-twenties, dark complected and he spoke little English or English with an accent." I have actually dealt with this ridiculous allegation in this blog post: Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar? Somehow Bleau missed the scar. Bleau presented 30 witnesses who described this supposed escort, and yesterday I covered #27 - Harvey Wade: Here is Bleau's #1 - George Clark: George Clark – (Garrison Files, confidential memorandum, Sciambra to Garrison April -23 1969, Shaw leads 2) This first event is the only one that does not relate to a Latin escort. But, if true, would perhaps shed light on the strange relationship between down and outers like David Ferrie and Oswald with the upper crust Clay Shaw. George Clark, a plumber, was doing some work in Clay Shaw’s apartment in the Winter of 1959 (sic; 1956 - see document below) when he saw a 16-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald in his CAP uniform – David Ferrie had trained Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol – along with another young fellow who looked to be about 17 years old. During his second day of work he saw Clay Shaw arrive after a day’s work at the ITM. Does this explain the travel bookings that were made out of the ITM by Oswald when he went to Russia? In the Garrison files there are a number of episodes described where former CAP students seem to be dragged into irresponsible situations by Ferrie and a number of sightings of him with Clay Shaw and young companions. It crossed my mind that Ferrie may have helped set up Shaw with young male dates. I discussed this with Jim DiEugenio and he sent me this jolting information in December 2021: “I interviewed Larry Delsa in New Orleans. We had lunch and talked for about 4 hours. He was the HSCA investigator, along with Bob Buras, for New Orleans. He told me that Ferrie would take his cadets on bivouacking excursions to Keesler air base in Mississippi. Somehow Ferrie was allowed to do this which told him that Ferrie was really in tight with the military. He said that from the interviews he did, he got the impression that while working with the CAP that he was securing young men for Shaw. I don't recall how he attained this information. If it was through interviews he did or files he secured. But that was the definite impression he conveyed to me. Unfortunately, he just passed away so I cannot call him. But he was really reliable.” Where to even begin? After the Clay Shaw trial was over, Garrison charged Shaw with perjury and sent his staff out to chase down old and new leads. He needed evidence to bolster his non-existent case against Shaw. Many memos were written under the rubric "Shaw Leads II" and my book, On the Trail of Delusion, lists some of the craziest ones. One of the memos dated March 23, 1969, listed nine leads and George Clark was #8: So, a painter and carpenter saw Oswald at Shaw's house playing cards in 1963. Shaw was not there. On April 2nd, Clark was interviewed: Now the story is that in the winter of 1956, Clark saw a young Lee Harvey Oswald at Shaw's apartment. Shaw was not there for part of the second day. Does any of this sound credible? This was thirteen years later. Clark had not come forward in 1963-1964, nor had he come forward before the Clay Shaw trial (as far as I know). Needless to say, George Clark is not mentioned in Jim Garrison's book. Joan Mellen finds it all suspicious and she even finds corroboration for this in the anonymous letter sent to Garrison about Woodrow Hardy who also worked on Shaw's apartment. Now, whatever you think about this lead, how on earth does this lead to a conclusion that David Ferrie was procuring boys for Clay Shaw? James DiEugenio bills himself as "One of the most respected researchers and writers on the political assassinations of the 1960s," and somehow he believes this is cutting-edge research? There is actually no evidence that Clay Shaw knew David Ferrie: James DiEugenio writes in Destiny Betrayed: "As Jim Garrison revealed in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, he had statements from a number of witnesses who had seen the two together. And this is besides the witnesses in Clinton and Jackson. These witnesses included Jules Kimble who took a plane trip with the two men; David Logan who, after being introduced to Shaw by Ferrie, had a homosexual tryst with Shaw; Nicholas and Mathilda Tadin who saw Ferrie with Shaw at the New Orleans Airport where Ferrie was giving their son flying lessons; and Raymond Broshears who had a drink with Shaw and Ferrie, and later joined them for dinner." (page 209) The following four blog posts debunk the stories of David Logan, the Tadins, Jules Kimble, and Raymond Broshears: Did Clay Shaw know David Ferrie? Part One James DiEugenio claims that David Logan was introduced to Clay Shaw by David Ferrie. This is totally untrue. After the party, someone pointed out to Logan that Ferrie was at the party. Did Clay Shaw Know David Ferrie? Part Two A look at Nicholas and Mathilda Tadin's claim that they saw David Ferrie with Clay Shaw. Did Clay Shaw and David Ferrie Fly to Montreal? When Kimble first talked to Garrison's investigators, he said nothing about Clay Shaw. Reverend Raymond Broshears Reveals the Shaw-Ferrie Link! Raymond Broshears was a fabulist, and DiEugenio falls for his nonsense. Here are other witnesses, mentioned by DiEugenio, that I have debunked: Did Clay Shaw's Secretary See David Ferrie in Shaw's Office? James DiEugenio claims that Clay Shaw's former secretary, Aura Lee, saw Ferrie in Shaw's office. Only problem - her name was not Aura Lee; and she was not Shaw's former secretary; and there are no direct statements from Aurelie Alost. Did Herbert Wagner See Shaw and Ferrie Together? While James DiEugenio does not claim that Herbert Wagner saw Shaw and Ferrie together, he does claim that Ferrie admitted to Wagner that he was part of Operation Mongoose. This is totally untrue. Did Sandra Anderson Have a Photograph of Clay Shaw with David Ferrie? This is James DiEugenio's favorite type of evidence -- non-existent. Did David Ferrie Fly Clay Shaw to Canada and to Cuba? DiEugenio's allegations about Freeport Sulphur only suffer from lack of evidence. Did David Ferrie Speak to Clay Shaw on the Telephone from Guy Banister's Office? Joseph Newbrough never said a word about this allegation until he spoke to a conspiracy theorist. Was he weaving a story? Did Woodrow Hardy see Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald together? A ridiculous anonymous letter is good enough for James DiEugenio. Did David Ferrie Go Fishing with Clay Shaw? The witness did not get a good view of either man he took fishing. Did Charles Krop Have a Recording mentioning Shaw & Ferrie? More evidence that never turned up. Niles "Lefty" Peterson - Another Forgotten Witness James DiEugenio claims that Lefty Peterson remembered a "Leon Oswald" at David Ferrie's house. This is totally not true.

A picture of Roland Brouillette from Jim Garrison's files. Conspiracy theorist Paul Bleau recently published an article at James DiEugenio's website entitled "The Garrison Files and Oswald's Escort." His article alleges that Lee Harvey Oswald had an escort who accompanied him on many occasions. Bleau believes that the escort "was often described as short, stocky, in his early to mid-twenties, dark complected and he spoke little English or English with an accent." I have actually dealt with this ridiculous allegation in this blog post: Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar? Somehow Bleau missed the scar. Bleau presented 30 witnesses who described this supposed escort, and yesterday I covered #9 Edward Girnus. Here is Bleau's #16 - Roland Brouillette: Roland Brouillette - (Garrison Files: Miscel. Materials 2, page 87) IRS employee Brouillette claimed to have seen Oswald with two foreigners entering a drug store (“it could have been Cubans”), during the Summer of 63. Here is part of what he had to say: “Three men came up to me and the middle one I later identified as Oswald, the other two looked like foreigners. They were taller than Oswald, they looked like they were fresh from Cuba. They were tall and dark. They were between slight and heavy build… I was looking toward Canal Street and immediately then a heavy-set fellow backed out of the side entrance of Waterbury 's and asked the fellow coming out with him in a matter of fact tone, he said "How are you going to kill the President?" Once again, Mr. Bleau will believe anybody. Here is Mr. Brouillette's complete statement: So, the first time Mr. Brouillette saw Oswald was in the summer of 1963 when he and two other men came up to him. Somehow, they startled Oswald, and then Brouillette heard a voice: They went into Waterbury's Drug Store. Whey they were in there, I heard a voice. While I was standing by the showcase side entrance I attributed it to be a spiritual one and it told me to listen. I said to myself, "listen to what, I don't hear anything." Brouillette was by this time at the side entrance of the Drug Store and then one man came out talking to Oswald and asked, "How are you going to kill the President." They knew that Brouillette had heard them, and they became quiet. The next day Brouillette saw Oswald again. I counted a total of 8 times that he saw Oswald. I loved this section: In one of the men's rooms in the old federal building there was a man standing next to me by the urinals who was carrying a newspaper package. It appeared to me to be a gun. I couldn't positively say that this was Oswald because I didn't get a good look at him. I immediately left the rest room after him and he caught one elevator and I caught another. Brouillette said he went to the FBI with his story, but he didn't tell them everything "because it was near 5:00 (quitting time) and employees were coming in and out and getting their hats and coats." Sounds like a good reason, no? In fact, Brouillette did go to the FBI, and here is their report: In the FBI report, Brouillette said that a group of four, possibly five men, came out the side door of the drug store. His Garrison statement says three people. And he left out six of his sightings of Oswald. Brouillette is not mentioned in Jim Garrison's book, and he is not even mentioned by Joan Mellen in her book -- and she typically includes just about every conspiratorial story coming out of the Garrison investigation. I wonder why. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Paul Bleau and the Forger Edward Girnus was in prison for forgery and he told a fanciful story about Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald. Paul Bleau and the Three Tramps Leander D'Avy told the HSCA he saw Oswald and Ferrie with the three tramps. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau Paul Bleau's Reign of Error Bleau's analysis of Garrison's files is full of errors. Paul Bleau's Plots Bleau believes there were seven plots against JFK before Dallas. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK Bolden's allegation that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago has changed over the years. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Supposed Tampa 'Patsy' There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Tampa. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago.