Not surprisingly, Jim Garrison received a lot of letters, tips, and phone calls once his JFK investigation went public. Many people in prison wrote him letters, no doubt hoping that he would help get them out or get their sentences reduced. Today, I am posting memos about two prisoners - Edward Whalen and Edward Girnus. I am focusing on these two prisoners because Garrison listed them in his memo to the HSCA as leads that should be followed-up. Edward Whalen wrote Garrison on August 31, 1967. He had information about Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Dante Marachini, and Perry Russo. He claimed that he met many of the principals at the Absinthe House in New Orleans during Mardi Gras in 1965. He said there was "grave concern over you at that time and there were discussions of the necessity of your physical elimination." Garrison sent James Alcock to interview him, and here is his memo: You can decide for yourself if Whalen's story is credible. If Garrison believed it in 1967, he could have charged Clay Shaw with attempted murder. He didn't - I wonder why. Garrison had to know there was nothing there. Whalen was 43 in 1967 and had already spent most of his adult life in prison. He was also in and out of mental institutions, and he told doctors that "people were putting things in his food, and that the court, defense and prosecution attorneys and Senator John Tower of Texas were all conspiring against him." Whalen wasn't going to give up. He sent another letter to Garrison: And, wouldn't you know, Whalen only told him a "portion of that information vital to your investigation." Why, even Sirhan Sirhan was on the payroll of the CIA. Why not come on back? The other prisoner was Edward Girnus. A prisoner wrote a letter to Garrison's office: Garrison's staff send Edward Girnus a letter: James Alcock then went to Atlanta to interview Girnus: Girnus sent Garrison an FAA flight plan that was supposedly submitted by David Ferrie with Hidell [Oswald's alias] as a passenger. Garrison should have realized that the flight plan was bogus. Lee Harvey Oswald was in Dallas on the date in question. Girnus' rap sheet included several forgery offenses, and you'd think that that would have alerted Garrison. Nope, he still told the HSCA that the document "looked quite credible, and that it made sense in some way." Here is Girnus' rap sheet: Final Update to this story: Edward Girnus made it into Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell To Justice. She clearly thought his story had credibility. Oh, and Edward Whalen made her book, too. She claimed that Garrison didn't call these two witnesses because he didn't want "to call any witnesses who had been in trouble with the law.' Nothing about their credibility.

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 #13 Leander D'Avy. Here is Bleau's #9 - Edward Joseph Girnus: 9. Edward Joseph Girnus - (Garrison Files: Dean Andrews Page 10) Sometime around May or June 1963, Girnus described this scene with Shaw, Oswald and another unidentified party. While not short per say, he is definitely stocky: “SHAW was in the office and they started talking about guns. SHAW allegedly knew people who wanted to buy some guns. SHAW made a telephone call, and sometime thereafter two men came to the office. One of the men was LEE HARVEY OSWALD. OSWALD was introduced by SHAW to GIRNUS as LEE. GIRNUS cannot remember the name of the man who came in with OSWALD. He was well dressed in a business suit, 5’11” tall, 210 pounds, and he had dark black hair. OSWALD was wearing khaki pants and a white shirt.” Bleau does not tell you that Girnus was interviewed while a prisoner at the United States penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia. He was serving a sentence of 28 years. You can read the entire memo about his interview here. He told Garrison that Shaw was involved in running guns. Here is one of his stories: Girnus sent Garrison an FAA flight plan that was supposedly submitted by David Ferrie with Hidell [Oswald's alias] and Shaw [using the alias Lambert] as passengers. Garrison should have realized that the flight plan was bogus. Lee Harvey Oswald was in Dallas on the date in question. Girnus' rap sheet included several forgery offenses, and you'd think that that would have alerted Garrison. Nope, Garrison told the HSCA that the document "looked quite credible, and that it made sense in some way." Here is Girnus' rap sheet: Why on earth does Paul Bleau find Edward Girnus to be a credible witness? If you search a variety of newspaper archives, you can find many mentions of Girnus, for instance: The Greenville News, May 17, 1966 Previous Relevant Blog Posts 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.

A picture I took during my April 2022 trip to New Orleans 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 presents 30 witnesses to this supposed escort, and I want to highlight his #13 - Leander D'Avy and Eugene Davis. A future blog post will examine his other witnesses. Here is what Bleau writes: 13. Leander D’Avy and Eugene Davis – (Garrison Files, Memo Sciambra to Garrison, August 14 1967, Interview with Leander D’Avy and Eugene C. Davis (Gene Davis), Grand Jury testimony June 28, 1967) Leander D’Avy was a doorman at the Court of the Two Sisters, a well-known gay establishment at the time. In May or June 1963, he was approached by someone looking for a Clay Bertrand, whom he did not know. He saw the manager Eugene Davis talk to this person. Interestingly, even though he estimated the weight of this person to be 185 lbs, he believed he looked like Oswald. D’Avy goes on to say that he saw Eugene Davis talk to Clay Shaw, who began frequenting his place of work at about this time. D’Avy also makes this connection which caught Garrison’s attention: Mr. D’AVY also said that GENE DAVIS was very close friends with a Cuban waiter who worked there and whose name was PEPE or JOSE. He said PEPE or JOSE was around 29 to 30 years old with black hair and palled around with a fellow named HAROLD SANDOZ, who was stocky, muscular and had some previous military training and appeared to be rugged. Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio investigated this further and added the following: “Davis spoke to Oswald at the bar and later told D’Avy that the man had been behind the Iron Curtain… In early November 1963… He found Davis in an upstairs storeroom that was being used as a makeshift apartment. With Davis were Oswald, Ferrie, a Cuban, and three unidentified men… Davis was an active informant for the FBI, designated symbol informant 1189-C, as of October, 1961.” Davis did admit to Garrison that he knew Clay Shaw very well. Bleau is wrong to claim that Pease and DiEugenio investigated this claim. While the quote above is indeed taken from page 115 in their book, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, it actually is in an essay by John Armstrong. So, who was Leander D'Avy? He was the doorman at the Court of Two Sisters, a bar/restaurant in New Orleans. He first contacted Jim Garrison's office on August 14, 1967. And he had a variety of stories to tell about what he had seen at the Court. The quote from DiEugenio and Pease says that D'Avy found Davis in a storeroom with Oswald, Ferrie, a Cuban, and three unidentified men. Here is a question for Mr. Bleau. Who were the three men? It is clear that Mr. Bleau did not read Leander D'Avy's testimony before the HSCA where he did identify the three men. Who were they? Why they were the three tramps! And one of the tramps now had whiskers! Here is an excerpt from his testimony on June 23, 1977: A few pages later, he repeats the allegation: You can download D'Avy's HSCA testimony here: D'Avy was again interviewed by the HSCA in December of 1977. He repeated the story about the tramps: The problem with Mr. Bleau's research is that he just accepts documents in the Garrison files as truthful. All sorts of people came out of the woodwork to speak to Garrison and spin their tales. His office was inundated with letters from prisoners who had important information. None of this stuff panned out. I went to the National Archives to get Leander D'Avy's deposition before the HSCA. Perhaps Mr. Bleau should spend some time in the National Archives before making grand pronouncements about Garrison's files. You can read the whole Leander D'Avy story here. He was just another fabulist telling Garrison stories he wanted to hear. 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.

The San Jose Mercury News asked Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson to review Oliver Stone's JFK right after it opened: Some important quotes: Paul Hoch: I think the rhetoric of the closing argument (in which the Garrison character makes the case for conspiracy) would have been more convincing coming from any critic other than Jim Garrison, because he did prosecute someone I believe was innocent. Josiah Thompson: The problem is: if you use Garrison's book as the basis for your screenplay, then the story's going to be the story of Garrison -- a story completely without merit to be told again; one of the obscure, rather unhappy footnotes of history. Paul Hoch: There was no sense of the wildness of Garrison's theorizing or speculation at the time ... It would have been a much more interesting film if Shaw had been presented as completely confident in his own innocence, not campy and sleazy. I found it objectionable that the only objections that were raised against Garrison came from Bill (a member of Garrison's staff who turns against his boss in the film after being contacted by the FBI) ... and Liz Garrison, the only one to raise the persecution-of-homosexuals issue. She is, I think, pretty clearly presented as someone who, until the very end, just doesn't get it. Josiah Thompson: In cleaning up (Garrison), he made him into a one-dimensional figure, which is cardboard. Josiah Thompson: I hoped the Garrison thing would just be the armature on which the story was hung, but it's not. The Kennedy assassination gets boring! I could not believe it, but I got bored! Previous Relevant Blog Post Josiah Thompson on Jim Garrison Quotes on Garrison from Thompson's latest book, Last Second in Dallas. Jim Garrison Feigns Indignation at the Mention of Clay Shaw's Homosexuality Garrison feigns indignation at Paul Hoch's mention of Clay Shaw's homosexuality -- an incredible exchange of letters.

In a post on the Education Forum this week, James DiEugenio has once again accused me of libeling him: He is now reduced to asking his critics to ask me to explain my libel. For the past couple of years, he has insisted that I libeled him in my book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. Here is the relevant passage: (pages 217 - 218) Still, the drumbeat of conspiracy bangs on. A new wave of books continues the trend of rejecting evidence, making the plot even more bizarre. James DiEugenio's book, The JFK Assassination rejects just about every piece of physical evidence in the case. He's examined the chain of custody for the various bullet fragments and the bullet found in Parkland Hospital (CE399) and believes he has found enough discrepancies to throw everything out. He then goes one step further and claims that all that evidence was planted. Think of what it would take to plant everything. Someone would have to decide what would have to be left somewhere and get someone to do it. And how could you be sure you wouldn't end up with too much evidence, like an extra bullet? DiEugenio can find no witnesses, no paperwork, no anything to back up such a fantastic claim. Of course he is dead wrong on the chain of custody. For example, the chain of possession of CE 399 can be traced from the time it was found to the time it ended up in the FBI laboratory. Even so, as JFK expert John McAdams noted, even if it was inadmissible in a trial, it would still be "absolutely dispositive where *historical* judgments are concerned." Here is what he wrote in his review of my book: Towards the end of his book, Litwin mentions this reviewer specifically. (Litwin, p. 216) He writes that in my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, that I believe I have found “discrepancies” in the chain of possession of CE 399. Discrepancies? Can the man be real? Bardwell Odum denying he ever showed the bullet to O. P. Wright, or anyone else, is not a “discrepancy.” Frazier getting the bullet before Todd gave it to him is not a “discrepancy.” The FBI lying about Todd’s initials being on the bullet is not a “discrepancy.” His initials are not there. All of this constitutes fraud and evidence alteration. In this same passage, he then makes a leap—actually more like a Sergey Bubka pole vault. He says that I have written that all the evidence in the case is planted. (p. 216) In his references, he does not supply a footnote as a basis for that imputation to me. (See p. 270) I do not recall ever saying such a thing. For instance, I do not believe the David Lifton/Doug Horne body alteration concept. I am an agnostic on the Zapruder film being faked. I disagreed with just about everything in each of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy installments after the initial series was broadcast in America in 1991, e. g. the theories of the late Tom Wilson. I even disagreed with some of the original broadcast. I also have severe problems with writers like Robert Morningstar and Jim Fetzer and I consider most of their ideas to be outlandish. I have written about many of these disagreements and Litwin could have found them if he wanted to. What I do in The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today is simply review the core evidence in the case in light of the revelations of the ARRB and the revisions in the record made after the Warren Report. The revelations and revisions in that record were both plentiful and disturbing. After distorting what I wrote, Litwin then applies another smear: he says I have no paperwork, witnesses, not anything to back up such a sensational claim. As noted above, I don’t recall making the claim he says I made. But each claim I do make is backed up with credible evidence. In that book, concerning the subject of evidence manipulation, I only go as far as the record establishes. And that record is not something I created or embellished. It’s there in the record for all to see. The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today has over 1800 footnotes in it, many more than the book under review. Litwin does not want the reader to know that, so he air-brushes it out. But let me use one example to show just how untrustworthy Litwin is. On the subterfuges around CE 399, here is the evidence I outline. Witnesses: · O. P. Wright, security chief at Parkland Hospital who gave the bullet to the Secret Service · Bardwell Odum, FBI agent who allegedly showed the bullet in question to witnesses at Parkland Hospital · Josiah Thompson, who interviewed witnesses at the hospital in November of 1966 · Gary Aguilar, who interviewed Odum in November, 2001 · John Hunt, who examined Robert Frazier’s 11/22/63 work product Paperwork: · Interview of Wright in Six Seconds in Dallas · Interview of Odum in The Assassinations · Complete absence of FBI 302 reports on Odum’s alleged interviews about the bullet · Frazier’s work product as shown in Hunt’s essays · Receipt for transfer of Magic Bullet from Secret Service to FBI on 11/22/63 · Blow up pictures of the Magic Bullet at the National Archives This is having no witnesses or paperwork? Most people would say it is a surfeit of witnesses and paperwork. I could do the same with other examples from my book. But an important point to understand is this: Litwin does make reference to my book, which means he had it in some form. I am not an attorney, but I do know the laws of libel in California. I will be making consultations about the issue. After that, I will do a cost-benefit analysis and then decide whether or not to file an action. Where to even start with such nonsense? DiEugenio claims that I wrote that he said, "all the evidence in the case is planted." But that is not what I wrote at all. I claimed that the evidence in which he has issues with the chain of custody, in his mind, is planted. Not all the evidence. Compare: Litwin: He then goes one step further and claims that all that evidence was planted. DiEugenio: He says that I have written that all the evidence in the case is planted. DiEugenio notes that "Litwin then applies another smear: he says I have no paperwork, witnesses, not anything to back up such a sensational claim." This in indeed true. But what sensational claim am I talking about? Not his claim that there are discrepancies in the chain of custody; but DiEugenio's claim that the evidence has been planted. Just read the three paragraphs from my book, and it becomes quite clear. Of course, DiEugenio can present his so-called discrepancies in the chain of custody. The problem is his leap of faith that they indicate that the evidence was planted. I've written before about Oliver Stone's poverty of imagination - and this holds true for DiEugenio. He cannot come up with a non-conspiratorial explanation, and so his only recourse is to conclude the evidence is planted. And his assertions about chain of custody have been proven wrong. Take CE 399 where his big claim is that Elmer Todd's initials are not on the bullet. DiEugenio wrote that "The FBI lying about Todd’s initials being on the bullet is not a “discrepancy.” His initials are not there." This has been proved to totally wrong -- Todd's initials are indeed on CE 399. DiEugenio could have used the NIST hi-res photographs to find the initials, but he decided to rely upon another researcher's usage of lower-res photographs. He's also wrong about Tomlinson and Wright, and he is wrong about the chain of possession. What makes this even stranger is that DiEugenio's claims about my so-called libel keep changing: James DiEugenio Uh oh, Fred is feeling the heat. He refuses to reply to my questions about giving McCloy a pass on the Holocaust, about Garrison looking for Bertrand in 1963, about never mentioning Finck at the Shaw trial and his libel about me concerning the ballistics evidence and brain photos. And this is what he comes up with to divert from that. Well, at least we got him off Max Lerner. Now, the libel concerns the brain photos. Or here: James DiEugenio I have now waited one full week for Fred to reply to any of my five questions. Instead he has posted Art Buchwald, Max Lerner and now Dixon. Recall my five questions that he will not deal with. They were about McCloy and the Holocaust, his libeling me on CE 399 and medical evidence, his claim that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963, his excision of Finck from his review of the Shaw trial, and Ferrie's attempts at obstruction of justice and his outright perjury the week after the JFK murder. Somehow he will not reply to any of these rather crucial questions, which most rational people would think are important to any forensic review of the JFK case. After I posed the questions, I then reviewed as to why I thought they were important. He still did not reply. I think its pretty obvious that Fred is something like the Wizard of Oz. Toto has now pulled the curtain back, Dorothy has tapped her heels three times, and we are back in Kansas. And this is the wizard/Professor Marvel who has the chutzpah to call Garrison deluded. Whew. Here the libel is on CE 399 and the medical evidence. Or here: James DiEugenio Steve Roe and Fred Litwin were knocked for a loop by JFK Revisited. Fred Litwin actually wrote in his first piece of crud book on the JFK case that I had no evidence for saying that CE 399 was an utter fraud. He really said that I had no paperwork or evidence to show that was the case. This was utterly and completely false. And he knew it was false when he wrote it which is two thirds of the test for libel. Here the libel is just about CE 399. Or here: James DiEugenio Just remember so we do not miss the point. Fred said that in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I had no paperwork or witnesses to prove fraud in the medical and ballistics. Well, there they are in the film. Everyone can see it e.g. CE 399 and the brain photos. So this proves Fred libeled me, since he had my book in front of him when he wrote that canard. Now the libel is on the medical and ballistics. Or here: James DiEugenio · 2m ago [as of 8:05 PM] One last point Andrew: ask Fred why he refused to debate me on the web and why he libeled me in his book. With my book in front of him, he actually said I had no testimony or paperwork to show fraud about CE 399 or the autopsy photos. Wrong. Its right there in the film for all to see, taken from my book. Stringer said he did not use Ansco film or the press pack technique for the brain pictures. They were both used in the pictures he saw for the ARRB. End of story. This is why Fred will not debate me. Now the libel includes the autopsy photos. Or here: James DiEugenio @jimmydie1963 Gerry [Gerald Posner], did you know that Freddie committed libel in his first book on JFK. In that book, he wrote that had had no witnesses or paperwork to prove subterfuge in the evidence chain. That is utterly false. In the case of CE 399 I had five witnesses to do just that. 11:47 PM · May 11, 2022· Twitter Web App Now the libel is about subterfuge in the evidence chain. How long will this feigned indignation go on for? Playing the victim is never a good look. I asked Mark Zaid, one of the best lawyers in the United States, for his comments on libel law: Any claims of you libeling him are for show only at this point. Your book was published beyond the statute of limitations in every state in the country for a viable legal claim. Plus, despite the unfortunateness of this fact, DiEugenio would be considered a public figure for purposes of any JFK assassination related libel claim and the standard of proof he would have to show by way of harm would be higher than for most people. Having represented both plaintiffs and defendants in libel cases, including related to the JFK assassination (including Secret Service Agent George Hickey and former JFK mistress Judith Exner), It is so easy for people to shout libel at the top of their lungs but rarely is there ever any substance to it or do they ever pursue it. What makes this all so ridiculous is that James DiEugenio is the master of the insult. You can read some of his best insults here, and here. He's the Marjorie Taylor Greene of the JFK conspiracy world - but without the charm. And as for something libelous, in this post DiEugenio accuses me of changing a word in a document: Of course, I did nothing of the sort. You can read my post for yourself. I actually posted the exact document cited by Joan Mellen, which is a summary of the CIA segregated collection. There is no underlying document that supports the allegation that Shaw was a "contract source." He was a "valued source" of the CIA's Domestic Contact Service. Will James DiEugenio even read this post? Probably not, because he has blocked me on Facebook, and he typically puts non-conspiracy people on 'ignore' at the Education Forum. It seems he only likes echo chambers. Update Here is DiEugenio's reply to the posting of this article on the Education Forum: Previous Blog Posts on the Scholarship of James DiEugenio 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

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers on the bullet found at Parkland Hospital, CE399. They imply that Darrell Tomlinson, the maintenance employee who found the bullet, said that bullet he found didn't look like CE399. The truth is somewhat different. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (47:55 from episode 2) Dr. Gary Aguilar: I was very interested in finding out what the Review Board would show us about this. So we began scouring their evidence, and we found out something very interesting. We found out that the Warren Report had, from the FBI, a report saying that the guys that found the bullet later identified that as the bullet they'd seen. The internal record didn't show that at all. The internal record said this bullet didn't look like that bullet at all. But the FBI reported to the Warren Commission that it did, it lied. Here is the FBI Airtel that is shown in JFK: Destiny Betrayed: That Airtel was based upon interviews from June 12, 1964 that indicates that Tomlinson and Wright did say that CE399 looked like the bullet that was found in Parkland: Tomlinson told the FBI that C1 (CE399) "appears to be the same" bullet he found at Parkland. O. P. Wright said that C1 (CE399) "looks like" the bullet found at Parkland. In 1966, Raymond Marcus spoke to Tomlinson and asked him about CE399. He told Marcus that the bullet he found was pretty intact: And then Tomlinson told Marcus that CE399 looked like the bullet he found: While it is true that Tomlinson and Wright could not 'identify' the bullet, they did say that CE399 "appears to be the same" and "looks like" the bullet found at Parkland. This is not all that surprising since they both did not mark CE399. They never said that CE399 was not the bullet they found. JFK: Destiny Betrayed gives the false impression that CE399 did not look like the bullet that was found. Update: In April 1977, Tomlinson told Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz that some federal agents “came to the hospital with the bullet in a box and asked me if it was the one I found. I told him apparently it was, but I had not put a mark on it … If it wasn’t the bullet it was exactly like it.”

Igor Lopatonok was the director of Oliver Stone's ridiculous 'documentary' on Ukraine - Ukraine on Fire, and was also the director of his 'documentary' on Nazarbayev. Here is one of his actual tweets: Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Look Who Oliver Stone Took Money From ... Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

Oliver Stone (left) and Igor Lopatonok on the red carpet of the Rome Film Festival last year, where “Qazaq” was shown. Oliver Stone's hagiographic documentary about Nursultan Nazarbayev. of Kazakhstan was financed by a foundation controlled by Nazarbayev. Released in 2021 as both an eight-hour miniseries and a feature film, Qazaq: History of the Golden Man turns a flattering lens on Nazarbayev as he reminisces about his years in power and shares thoughts about the country’s future. As it turns out, a charitable foundation named after and controlled by Nazarbayev paid at least $5 million for the production, a conflict of interest that was not disclosed. Last year, Stone and the film’s director, Igor Lopatonok, told the Guardian that the Kazakh government was not involved, but refused to discuss who had funded it. The film was not widely reviewed, but regional experts panned it as a “hagiographic ode” that became “part of [Nazarbayev]’s ongoing cult of personality.” Nazarbayev ruled Kazakhstan for nearly 30 years, presiding over an oil-fueled development boom that enriched his family and close associates, even as ordinary Kazakhs saw little benefit. During his reign, human rights groups documented severe restrictions on freedom of speech and political expression, impunity for torture, politically-motivated prosecutions, and other violations. I am sure that Oliver Stone won't comment on this report, nor will he actually tell us who paid for this ridiculous documentary. Stone did not respond to requests for comment sent through his agent. Last year, he rejected criticism that his film was hagiographic and ignored human rights issues and other problems in Kazakhstan. “What’s wrong with celebrating Nazarbayev for 30 years in office?” Stone told the Guardian. “Give him credit for building up the country and keeping the peace and not turning it into a trash heap like Ukraine.” Here is more about Nursultan Nazarbayev. Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

From left to right: Oliver Stone, Paul Bleau, and James DiEugenio Conspiracy theorist Paul Bleau just published an analysis of Jim Garrison's files on James DiEugenio's website. When I started going through Garrison's papers a few years ago, I quickly realized that there is an awful lot of nonsense in his files, and that if I really wanted to understand what was going on, I had to examine additional primary documents. I then embarked on a mission to find every Garrison file I could find. So, I went to Georgetown University to examine the Richard Billings files. They were important because they contained hundreds of primary Garrison memos not included in Garrison's files. I also went to New Orleans to look at the papers of Irvin Dymond, Clay Shaw's trial attorney. I also went to Baylor University (papers of Gus Russo), to the University of Boston (papers of James Kirkwood and Gerald Posner), the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas (papers of Patricia Lambert), the Library of Congress (papers of Elmer Gertz and George Lardner), and made several visits to the National Archives (papers of Clay Shaw, Edward Wegmann, William Boxley, Harry Connick and the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans). Mr. Bleau has done none of this and it shows. His analysis of these primary documents is extremely shallow. What I don't understand is how someone like James DiEugenio, who claims to be the only person who really understands New Orleans, could let something like this be published. Here is my analysis: 1. Mr. Bleau writes that "Oswald was assigned at least one Cuban escort." I assume that he will cover this in a future article. The supposed 'escort' was a figment of Garrison's imagination. Bleau also says this: One member of this network that has not been discussed yet was a muscular Latino who was often seen accompanying Oswald, or perhaps an Oswald double. He was considered so suspicious that the whole Garrison team was on the look-out for him. He was never identified. He was seen so often and described in corroborative terms that can leave no doubt that Oswald, the supposed lone-nut drifter, had at least one escort. Garrison had his men looking for someone with a scar. And whenever they found someone with a scar, they let Garrison know. Garrison mentions this on pages 57-58 in his book, On The Trail Of The Assassins: "After Lee Harvey Oswald returned to New Orleans and began handing out pro-Castro leaflets, this man with the scar was always present on the edge of the crowd. It is standing operating procedure for an intelligence agent engaged in a provocative activity to have a nearby bodyguard to protect him against a violent reaction from the crowd. It seems probably that this man with the scar was Oswald's bodyguard because of the regularity of his presence - invariably on the outer edge of the scene and invariably wearing sunglasses. The sunglasses were large, but they could not conceal the vertical scar that ran up through this man's left eyebrow. We learned of his consistent attendance from our questioning of persons present at the leaflet handout, many of whom we had identified from our copies of the news photos." Here is my blog post: Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar? 2. Paul Bleau says that "David Ferrie admitted his part in the plot to a room-mate." Once again, I assume that Mr. Bleau will deal with this in a future blog post. This supposed 'roommate' was none other than Raymond Broshears. Yes, the fabulist Raymond Broshears who said on the Stan Bohrman show in 1968 that he had channeled Lee Harvey Oswald at a seance. I have spent a fair bit of time writing about Raymond Broshears. There was no way that Jim Garrison was going to put him on the stand during the Clay Shaw trial. It's laughable that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio buy into his story. In this document alone, Broshears says the following: - Hale Boggs was part of the conspiracy, and Clay Shaw was responsible for keeping Boggs in office. - Two men from Garrison's office threatened Ferrie in 1965. - Ferrie was working for a group of people who wanted to take over the United States. - Ferrie told Broshears that Lyndon Johnson killed JFK. - Broshears repeated the story about the two assassins being killed in a plane crash in Corpus Christi - they were supposed to have been flown by Ferrie from Houston to South Africa. - Broshears said that Ferrie said that Oswald was one of the best lays he ever had. - Broshears said he threatened the life of Lyndon Johnson, and he was then detained in a VA psychiatric hospital in New Orleans. - Perry Russo stole $2,300 from Clay Shaw. - Broshears was threatened by Secret Service agents after appearing on the Bohrman TV show. - Three people who worked in the TSBD were part of the cell that Oswald had infiltrated. Tippit was sent to kill Oswald because Oswald had infiltrated the cell for the FBI. Oswald had gone to Russia on work for the FBI. - Ferrie met Jack Ruby in New Orleans. But wait, there's more! Here is a list of my previous posts on Raymond Broshears. First Garrison Interview with Reverend Raymond Broshears Bill Turner sent a memo to Stephen Burton saying that he should find and interview Raymond Broshears. Here is Burton's memo. David Ferrie's Roommate Reveals the Assassination Plot! Broshears revealed the plot to the LA Free Press Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells All to Stephen Jaffe and Mark Lane! Lane and Jaffe pay the good Reverend a visit. Reverend Raymond Broshears Reveals the Shaw-Ferrie Link! Broshears even identified the three tramps. Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells Even More in New Orleans! Of course, they had to fly Broshears to New Orleans to tell more stories. Reverend Raymond Broshears Makes a Startling Revelation! Broshears outs a Garrison suspect. The good Reverend writes about Jim Garrison Broshears' newsletter discusses his trip to New Orleans Reverend Raymond Broshears Talks to the HSCA Hard to believe but the HSCA actually interviewed Broshears. What do JFK conspiracy books say about Raymond Broshears? For some reason, conspiracy theorists believe Broshears is credible. Who was Leon Oswald? James DiEugenio believes that Raymond Broshears corroborates the existence of a Leon Oswald. By the way, there is no evidence that Broshears was Ferrie's roommate. And was Broshears even in New Orleans: In connection with my Ferrie biography, Broshears was one of the first persons I contacted in the late 70s by telephone. Some of the things he said initially seemed in conflict with other documented information (example: that Ferrie flew for Eastern Air Lines when Broshears roomed with him in the 1965 period), so I decided to slip in a few "test questions". I made a reference to the layout of Ferrie's apartment and he replied with incorrect information. I asked a follow-up and he avoided answering. I pressed a bit harder and he again seemed completely unfamiliar with Ferrie's apartment ("When you came up the back stairs, the door opened into the kitchen, wasn't it?" "Yeah, the kitchen."). I then pressed a bit about the general layout of streets in the neighborhood and New Orleans, and he seemed completely unfamiliar with the city. I came away from the call thinking he had never even been to New Orleans. In subsequent interviews with acknowledged friends of Ferrie, I could find nodody who even recalled him. This feeling was strengthened when the HSCA and other interviews with Broshears became available in the early 90s. I think it is very unlikely that Broshears was ever Ferrie's roomate. 3. Bleau claims that "Clay Shaw was not only a well-paid CIA asset, he was likely known by, if not connected to, Allen Dulles." We will have to wait until future articles to determine the relationship between Dulles and Shaw. I have seen no evidence that they knew each other, but perhaps Bleau has uncovered new material. Of course, he is wrong about Shaw being a "well-paid CIA asset." 4. Bleau presents "Further evidence that Clem Bertrand is Clay Shaw." Interesting that he uses Clem rather than Clay. Perry Russo used the name Clem in one of his hypnotic sessions, and it was probably just a casual mistake. The name associated with Dean Andrews is Clay Bertrand, not Clem Bertrand. Bleau presents the booking sheet with the alias Clay Bertrand. Supposedly officer Aloysius Habighorst asked Shaw about his aliases when he was being fingerprinted, and Shaw told him Clay Bertrand. I debunked this allegation here. Bleau doesn't tell his readers that police officer Jonas Butzman was present when Shaw was being fingerprinted and he did not hear officer Habighorst ask about an alias. Here is an excerpt of a memo written by Shaw's defense team regarding an interview with Butzman: The whole story was so ridiculous that Judge Haggerty, who was very pro-Garrison during the Shaw trial, ruled that Habighorst's testimony was inadmissible. Bleau then presents the affidavit of Jessie Parker who said that Clay Shaw signed the VIP Room registration book as Clay Bertrand at the New Orleans airport. I debunked this allegation here. Paul Bleau does not tell readers that Parker signed two different affidavits. The first one said that Shaw was accompanied by four people from Caracas, Venezuela who also signed the guestbook. He also does not tell readers that Garrison's investigators spoke to these people who said that Shaw was not there. And Bleau certainly does not tell readers that Parker then swore out a second affidavit that excised the Venezuelans. Don Carpenter summed up this episode best in his book Man of a Million Fragments: (page 392) Jessie Parker's testimony remains somewhat of a mystery. However, with the discovery of the conflicting versions of her recollections, the mystery has shifted from why Shaw would sign such a notorious alias in the guest register for no obvious logical reason, to how the prosecution was able to convince, or perhaps pressure, Jessie Parker to say the contradictory things she supposedly said, including her final trial testimony. 4. Bleau then posts a "Library card made out to, and signed twice by, Clem Bertrand of the ITM." Even the library said this was a prank. But Bleau took it seriously and even took the card to a handwriting expert who said, "it possible to retain the hypothesis (subject to) that they were executed by the same hand." Sounds definitive, no? Here is my debunking of this supposed library card. And Bleau shares none of the skepticism of the HSCA: Bleau does not bring a "jaundiced eye" to his examination of the library card. 5. Bleau has a section on the "544 Camp Street Network." He writes that "The revelation of the 544 Camp Street address stamped on Oswald’s FPCC flyers caused lone-nutters fits." I am not sure if he aware that Oswald did not stamp 544 Camp Street on his flyers. He only stamped 544 Camp Street on a few of the Corliss Lamont pamphlets. First-generation researcher Paul Hoch did a lot of work on this, and you can read it in this blog post. Perhaps Mr. Bleau could get James DiEugenio to explain the use of fake flyers in the so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed. 6. Did people see Oswald at 544 Camp Street? Bleau claims that "As Jim DiEugenio points out in this reply to Alecia Long, at least seven witnesses either saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street, or with Guy Banister on the streets in New Orleans." I have debunked every witness who has claimed to have seen Oswald at 544 Camp Street. This includes Delphine Roberts, and Mary Brengel. 7. Was Carlos Quiroga part of the assassination team? Bleau writes that Quiroga's "testimony to Garrison was polygraphed… His lies were plentiful, blistering and confirmed by another polygraphed witness. Quiroga deserves a section of his own." Quiroga did fail several questions on his polygraph, including this question: Did you have any first-hand knowledge of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy? Does Bleau really believe that Quiroga knew about the supposed conspiracy? He doesn't mention this question in his text. If Mr. Bleau had read my book, he would understand why Carlos Quiroga did not do well on the polygraph. He was a nervous wreck and was in no position to take a polygraph. Here is an excerpt from my book: On April 14, Quiroga was asked to undergo a lie detector test. Garrison had told Richard Billings that he was going to hammer Quiroga and would arrest him if he refused the polygraph test. Quiroga agreed on the provision that he be given copies of the questions to be asked. When he arrived, he was told he could not see the questions, and he refused to be tested. Garrison was called, and he ordered Quiroga to take the test or risk being arrested. Quiroga agreed but resisted signing a statement saying the test was voluntary. His wife started crying, and he finally told the polygraph operator that “I’m signing this paper against my will because if I don’t, Mr. Garrison is going to put me in jail. I hereby sign under protest.” Quiroga, in his own words, was “scared, nervous and furious” and was “having stomach pains from all the tension.” He was in no state to undergo a polygraph examination, and in any case, the test was rigged. The operator would stop the machine and tell Quiroga in advance what the question would be—for instance, “if he had seen Ferrie and Arcacha together in 1963.” Then the machine would be turned on, and the same question would be asked, but without the year. Quiroga stated, with good reason, that this made it impossible for him to answer the question correctly. Bleau claims that David Lewis, another witness prone to fabulism, supported Quiroga: While his testimony and character have been the subject of numerous attacks, there was no denying that his own polygraph results bolster the proof of deception brought forward by Quiroga’s polygraph. I am not sure if Bleau realizes that Lewis failed his lie detector test and was abandoned as a witness by Garrison. You can read more about David Lewis here. 8. Propinquity theory as fact. Jim Garrison was a big believer in the theory of propinquity. I wrote: Jim Garrison had a very important investigative technique to get at the truth - his unique theory of propinquity. What a great word! But, not so great a concept. Here's how staffer Tom Bethell described it: "If two people lived near one another, say within two or three blocks, it's suspicious. If any closer - they are 'linked.' If, on the other hand, they live at opposite ends of the city, get a list of friends of each (from their address books). Two such friends are very likely to live in the same block, or even know each other. Presto - the link." Garrison wrote two memos titled, "Time and Propinquity; Factors in Phase 1." And his concept of propinquity went beyond geography - any sort of relationship - numerical, even sexual - was enough to set off alarm bells. Garrison told Bethell that "sooner or later, because people are lazy, you catch them out on propinquity." It appears that Mr. Bleau is a big proponent of the theory of propinquity. Take a look at this excerpt from his article: In my first prior plots article, I based my research on author Van Gosse’s work to estimate maximum FPCC membership to be between 5 and 7 thousand in 1961 and argued that such a low number made it impossible for persons of interest like Richard Case Nagell, Oswald, Policarpo Lopez, Vaughn Marlowe, Harry Dean, John Glenn, Santiago Garriga--who were potential patsies to varying degrees--to all be coincidently linked to the FPCC; especially for those in the Deep South where the FPCC had much less activity. Based on recent data that I have obtained, the odds are astronomically worse than what I first thought. And then there is this: From January 4th to January 20th, First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan of the Soviet Union visited the U.S. During his stay, Mikoyan met Under Secretary of State Douglas Dillon, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and President Eisenhower and was profiled by Allen Dulles head of the CIA. One of the organizations that was debriefed by Dillon was this MPWTCA highlighting further the proximity between Dulles and Shaw. The proximity between Dulles and Shaw??? MPWTCA stands for the Mississippi Valley World Trade Council, a non-profit corporation. Clay Shaw was the secretary of that organization. But is that nefarious? After all, he was head of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans. Makes sense for him to be associated with related organizations. 9. Did David Ferrie and Clay Shaw Bomb Cuba in 1947? Paul Bleau included this memo because it was "so information-packed that I will share it intact": It is not surprising that the story was not verified, and that the source became nervous and refused to give Shaw's first name. In 1947, David Ferrie lived in Cleveland, and his father gave him an airplane on February 16, 1947, and it was registered with the CA on May 8, 1947. And Batista was not in Cuba in 1947 - he was living in Florida and returned to Cuba in 1952. I am greatly looking forward to further installments of Mr. Bleau's analyses of Garrison's documents. If this is the best that conspiracy theorists can do, well ... they need to have a serious rethink. I won't hold my breath.

Jim Garrison listed Thomas Beckham twice in his leads memo from November 1967. Here is the first: This is the only reference I have seen to Charles Spiesel identifying Beckham as being at the party in which Ferrie and Shaw discussed the assassination. There is no other memo that says this - it may well have been destroyed. See my earlier blog post on Garrison's files. In one of my earlier posts, I showed that Thomas Beckham was identified as being in Clinton with Shaw and Ferrie. Garrison's men were always showing the same group of photos to people - and this is why I think Beckham kept on being identified. You can see that anonymous letter here. Here is the second Beckham mention in the leads memo: As we have earlier written, Beckham was a con man. He dressed up as a priest to get people to donate money - he had a life-long habit of forging University diplomas and professional certifications. What I find interesting above is the mention of the "scar on his [Oswald's] left cheek." Was Beckham impersonating Oswald? Here is a Garrison notation on Beckham's rap sheet: Garrison documents are full of memos mentioning scars on people's cheek. Have a look at this document related to the Bolton Ford incident*: Garrison mentions this on pages 57-58 in his book, On The Trail Of The Assassins, He then adds: "After Lee Harvey Oswald returned to New Orleans and began handing out pro-Castro leaflets, this man with the scar was always present on the edge of the crowd. It is standing operating procedure for an intelligence agent engaged in a provocative activity to have a nearby bodyguard to protect him against a violent reaction from the crowd. It seems probably that this man with the scar was Oswald's bodyguard because of the regularity of his presence - invariably on the outer edge of the scene and invariably wearing sunglasses. The sunglasses were large, but they could not conceal the vertical scar that ran up through this man's left eyebrow. We learned of his consistent attendance from our questioning of persons present at the leaflet handout, many of whom we had identified from our copies of the news photos." A footnote claims that "these witness statements were also stolen." There is also a notation on the document above that says "double LHO." Here's an article from the New York Times that describes a Garrison lead. Note the last three paragraphs: And, here is what I believe is the underlying memo for that lead: Garrison's men were always on the look out for men with scars. Here is one such memo: *The Bolton Ford Incident is probably just mistaken identity. The 'Oswald' who supposedly came in to buy trucks was never identified as Lee Harvey - the Oswald we know was in the Soviet Union at the time. The assistant manager of Bolton Ford, Oscar Deslatte, could not identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the person who came into the dealership. And, Deslatte denied the whole story when he talked to Garrison. This incident has become a staple for the second Oswald theory. Update Here is a possible solution to the Bolton Ford mystery.

In the middle of the Garrison investigation, this library card turned up. Bill Turner wrote about the card in his article, "The Garrison Commission," in the January 1968 issue of Ramparts Magazine: "Thus it may be significant that Oswald obtained library cards in Dallas and New Orleans, and usually visited the libraries on Thursday. The possible implication of his visits was not overlooked by the FBI, which confiscated every book he ever charged out, and never returned them. A piece that may fit into the puzzle is the discovery by Garrison of an adult borrower's card issued by the New Orleans public library in the name of Clem Bertrand. The business address shown is the International Trade Mart [Shaw's former place of employment], and the home address 3100 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, a wrong number, but conspicuously close to that of David Ferrie at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. There may be a pattern here, since Oswald supposedly carried a card issued to Ferrie when arrested in Dallas." But was this card legit? Clay Shaw's legal team did some investigating and here is their memo on the library card: The issue of the library card turned up again, after Shaw's acquittal, in one of the memos of 'new leads,' So, they decided that perhaps they should re-examine the lead! From there the memo goes into la-la land. Shaw did not sign his name as Clay Bertrand in the V.I.P. Room. He was supposedly with a group of U.S. State Department visitors who had a military escort. The military man did not recognize a photo of Shaw, and while one State Department employee did recognize Shaw - it was only because he knew Shaw professionally, and he said Shaw was not at the airport. You can read more about the V.I.P. Room here. Note that Garrison frequently believed that libraries were excellent meeting places for agents. Check out my blog post on Norman Gallo. I have not found any further Garrison memos that refers to the library card.

Gilberto Policarpo Lopez Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, alleges that there were plots to assassinate JFK in Chicago and Tampa in November of 1963. In addition, the documentary alleges that Thomas Vallee and Gilberto Policarpo Lopez were patsies-in-waiting in Chicago and Tampa respectively, who would have been arrested had the supposed plots succeeded. The only problems with this thesis is that there is no evidence that there was a plot in Chicago. And there is no evidence of a plot in Tampa as well. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (25:06 in Episode four) Oliver Stone: And what about the trip to Florida? Paul Bleau: On November 18th, Kennedy was scheduled to do a 27 mile-long motorcade in Tampa. The Secret Service was very nervous about the Floridian Hotel [sic, should be the Floridan Hotel] where the motorcade would have gone by. It would have forced a sharp turn. Nobody fired away at him. But in this case, the alternate patsy would have been a Gilbert Policarpo Lopez. He was a Cuban exile. He, uh, attended Fair Play for Cuba Committee meetings. One day after the assassination, on November 23rd, he makes his way to Mexico City. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee loaned him money for his travel, and he ends up being the lone passenger on an airplane to Cuba. The CIA, they found out about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, the weird trip to Mexico City, the fact that he was a lone passenger on a plane to, uh, Cuba. And they didn't pass on the information to the Warren Commission. So when the HSCA found out about this lead that wasn't pursued, even they called it egregious. Oliver Stone: And what do you think was the relevance of it? Paul Bleau: Well, if he had been assassinated in Tampa, Lopez, he would have been the potential patsy. If they had to admit to a front shot, because Oswald was behind, there were rumors that he had assisted Oswald in the assassination in Dallas. Bleau's source on the supposed plot in Tampa and Gilberto Lopez is Lamar Waldron's 2005 book, Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. (pages 254 - 259, 500 - 504, 698 - 703) The only difference is that Waldron believes the Mafia was behind the JFK assassination conspiracy, while the producers of JFK: Destiny Betrayed believe it was the CIA and the military-industrial complex. There is no evidence to support either theory. Let's start with the supposed threat against JFK in Tampa. Waldron referenced two articles that appeared in local newspapers: Tampa Tribune, November 23, 1963 Miami Herald, November 24, 1963 There is additional information about the threats from Gerald Blaine's 2011 book, The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence. Blaine was a Special Agent of the Secret Service on the White House Detail who worked on security in Tampa. He had called the Protective Research Section (PRS) in New York and asked for a list of potential threats. One file that came back was of Wayne Gainey, and here is the "flash card" on him that was provided to Blaine: A local agent, Arnie Peppers, had been visiting with Gainey's parents and his psychiatrist. His parents were cooperative and they made sure that Gainey was with them during JFK's visit to Tampa. An agent was also sent out to keep surveillance on their home. The other threat was from John William Warrington. He was fifty-three years old and had written a series of threatening letters to Kennedy in October 1963. He was arrested in Tampa on October 18, 1963 for sending an extortion letter to a bank president. Warrington had been in out and out of mental hospitals for years and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic. He was still in jail when Kennedy visited Tampa. Those were the main threats on Kennedy's life. Kennedy visited Tampa on November 18, 1963. Here are some pictures from his almost thirty-mile long motorcade: It doesn't appear that the Secret Service was all that concerned and JFK was actually standing during a large part of the motorcade. Paul Bleau mentioned some concern about the Floridan Hotel. Once again, he got this directly from Waldron's book: Waldron interviewed Tampa Police Chief Mullins who said he was concerned about several tall buildings. However, one of his comments is revealing. Waldron says Mullins "said he depended on hotel staff to keep him abreast of any suspicious or strange people." Really? You're really worried about the hotel but you rely on hotel staff? There is no mention of Mullins' concern about the Floridan Hotel in Blaine's book. There was no assassination attempt in Tampa despite Waldron's claim that the Floridan Hotel was a better vantage point than the Texas School Book Depository: (page 710) Ninety-nine windows of the hotel had an unobstructed view overlooking the intersection where JFK's limo would have to slow to a crawl to make a hard left turn. The angle to JFK's limo was even better than that of the Texas School Book Depository, meaning a shooter would not have to extend their rifle out of the window to get a good shot. Perhaps there was no attempt on JFK's life because there was no assassination plot. But what does any of this have to do with Gilberto Policarpo Lopez? Well, absolutely nothing. You can read about Gilberto Policarpo Lopez in the HSCA Final Report. This document has detailed biographical information on Lopez: January 26, 1940: Born in Havana, Cuba. His mother Esperanza Rodriguez y Castellamos was born in Key West, Florida and was an American citizen. June 2, 1960: Received an American passport in Havana which was valid until January 25, 1963. Lopez told them he planned to move to the United States. February 23, 1962: Lopez was classified as 4-F by the Draft Board because of "a language barrier." The Board also received a letter from Dr. James Malgrat noting that Lopez had been treated for Grand Mal Epilepsy for the last six months. He took daily medication for convulsions. August 11, 1962: Lopez married to Blance Andrea Leon in Key West, Florida. In June 1963, they moved to Tampa. He had had recurrent attacks of epilepsy and in early 1963 was hospitalized at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. August, 1963: Lopez's wife returned to Key West because of marital difficulties. November 17, 1963: Lopez attended a meeting of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Tampa at the home of Mary Quist. Someone was showing color slides taken in Cuba. While at the Quist home, Lopez awaited a telephone call from Cuba on whether he could visit. November 20, 1963: Lopez obtained a Mexican tourist card in Tampa, and on November 23rd, he arrived in Mexico on his way to Havana. Lopez entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo. He registered at the Roosevelt Hotel and on November 27th boarded a Cubana flight to Havana. He was the only passenger. The photograph you see at the top of this page was taken at the International Airport in Mexico City on November 27th. To get to Cuba, Lopez borrowed $150 from people in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee of which he only paid back $25. July 14, 1964: Lopez's wife received a letter from her husband and was surprised he was in Cuba although he had told her he wanted to return before their marriage broke up. She believed that he returned to Cuba "because of his close relationship with his parents." CIA interest in Gilberto Policarpo Lopez started in December 1963 when Mexican security asked the Mexican City CIA station for information: In March 1964, a source told the CIA that a Lopes [sic] was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Here is that message: The Church Committee discussed this lead and criticized the FBI and the CIA for not giving enough information to the Warren Commission to evaluate the lead for themselves. The FBI had not told the Warren Commission about Lopez's attendance at an FPCC meeting - and that it might have relevance since V.T. Lee had written a letter to Oswald suggesting that he get in touch with the Tampa branch of the FPCC. [Please note that the Church Committee was wrong - Lee had never made that suggestion.] In 1977, the CIA Inspector General, in response to the Church Committee report on Lopez's travel, followed up on the lead. They noted that there were numerous errors in that initial report about Lopez: The HSCA felt that the failure of the CIA to tell the Warren Commission about the Gilberto Lopez lead was "egregious." The CIA disagreed with that conclusion: An HSCA memo also came up with a reason why the lead was withheld from the Warren Commission: The LIFIRE operation referred to cooperation between the CIA and Mexican federal officials who participated in a plan of photographing passengers on flights departing for Havana from Mexico City. In any event, the HSCA concluded: From the information gathered by the FBI, there appeared to be plausible reasons for both Lopez' desire to return to Cuba and for his solicitation of financial aid from the Tampa FPCC chapter. Lopez' contacts in Florida appeared to have been innocent and not connected with the assassination, and while there was a suggestion in the Senate committee's report that Lee Harvey Oswald was also in contact with the Tampa FPCC chapter, the committee could find no evidence of it. Nor could the committee find any evidence that Oswald was in contact with Lopez. By the way, the FBI submitted two reports to the Warren Commission which mentioned Gilberto Lopez. One mentioned his trip to Cuba, and the other was about his passport. It can't be denied that the HSCA and the Church Committee said that the FBI and the CIA were delinquent in their obligation to inform the Warren Commission. But there is absolutely no evidence that Gilberto Policarpo Lopez had any connection to the JFK assassination. And as I have shown there was no plot against JFK in Tampa. So why on earth do people believe that Gilberto Lopez was going to be a patsy? Well, Lamar Waldron notes that there "eighteen parallels" between Oswald and Lopez which "demonstrate" that they were both "being manipulated by the same people." (page 502) But consider some of the so-called parallels: They each had a job within the vicinity of JFK's motorcade. Not surprising that Lopez might have been near the Tampa motorcade - it was almost thirty miles long. Both men were in a Texas city the week of November 22, 1963. Neither man was a good driver and neither owned a car. Both were white males and 23 years of age during 'most' of 1963. Both spent part of 1963 "in a southern city that was headquarters for one of the two mob bosses that the HSCA says were most likely behind the JFK assassination." Both are "said" to be informants for "some US agency." Both were living apart from their wives. This is the kind of propinquity that perhaps Jim Garrison would appreciate. How does Waldron tie this all to the Mafia? He quotes a 2003 article from the Key West Citizen in which they note that Lopez "worked in the construction industry in Tampa -- which has had a long-established organized crime connection with Key West - before traveling to Texas at the time of the assassination." That's a pretty loose connection. While Paul Bleau dismisses the Mafia theory, he does believe there are 'parallels' between not just Oswald and Lopez but a large number of alternative patsies. Here is his "potential alternative patsy comparison chart: Every good researcher should keep this cheat sheet handy. Perhaps you can add your own column for a patsy of your choice. This is indeed cutting-edge JFK assassination research, no? The last part of Bleau's segment on Gilberto Lopez is just plain ridiculous: Paul Bleau: Well, if he [JFK] had been assassinated in Tampa, Lopez, he would have been the potential patsy. If they had to admit to a front shot, because Oswald was behind, there were rumors that he had assisted Oswald in the assassination in Dallas. Bleau elevates old rumors into a spurious allegation. Two patsies in Dallas? The segments in JFK: Destiny Betrayed on the supposed plots against JFK in Chicago and Tampa are outright embarrassing. There is no evidence of any plot in either city, and the notion that there were 'patsies-in-waiting' cannot be taken seriously. 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.