On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

Yes, but does that make him a "highly paid contract source?" Could be, but I am not convinced. Carpenter also says Shaw was not an employee and recieved no compensation. Now, I have always thought Shaw would be a good candidate to be a CIA asset of some sort. He was ex-military and traveled for his job as you point out. The unfortunate thing is if Shaw's relationship was anything beyond DCS the conspiracy people will have a hayday even though he was innocent of any involvement in JFK's death.

The CIA currently is struggling to protect their assets abroad. Many have been lost in the last decade or so.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575384-cia-admits-to-losing-dozens-of-informants-around-the-world-nyt

In a recent conversation about that topic, I listened to a former CIA officer explain why some people become assets or informants. He explained that many of them, but not all, are motivated by money.

I assume that Shaw, who was already wealthy, didn’t do it for the money. Maybe he just felt it was his patriotic duty to help his country’s national security.

I also don’t see anything inherently nefarious about his being a CIA informant.

[Fred Litwin]

Of course, Shaw was correct. He had not worked for the CIA.

fred

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Let's try this: If a businessman from, let's say China, was asked by Chinese intelligence, on multiple occasions, to gather information on subject "A" in the US - say quantum computers or Elon Musk's SpaceX - and then did so, multiple times, I think we would all agree that that person was working for Chinese intelligence. Or had "worked" for them. Even if he was not given money for it. Wouldn't we?

If it all hinges on whether he was financially compensated for these efforts then it's correct in the literal definition of work that he didn't "work" for Chinese intelligence. It's perhaps not, in the legal sense, perjury for him to say he didn't; but is it true? If so it's a rather narrow legalistic definition of work.

BTW, Carpenter states that Shaw said numerous times when asked that he had "no connections" with the CIA. I don't have the exact quote but if true then that's very difficult to defend.

Several things can be true at the same time (they often are): Shaw was a patriot, he was smeared by Garrison, he had nothing to do with the assassination, and he was misleading about his relationship with the CIA. Whether he perjured himself depends on what defines as work.

[Fred Litwin]

I am just saying that at the trial. Shaw was only asked if he worked for teh CIA. His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked
if he had any connections with the CIA.

fred

[Jon Banks]

I am just saying that at the trial. Shaw was only asked if he worked for teh CIA. His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked
if he had any connections with the CIA.

fred

It's true in some circumstances that CIA informants and contractors don't work "for" the CIA.

But if someone is wittingly working/collaborating "with" the CIA, it's a distinction without difference.

And as Steve pointed out, it would be even clearer if we're talking about a businessman connected to the intelligence services of one of our adversaries. 

[Jerry Freeman]

Of course, Shaw was correct. He had not worked for the CIA.

Nice of you to take his word for it.

  His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked if he had any connections with the CIA.
 

I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie  professional spies.
  Are you a spy? Who is going to admit--yeah sure I'm a spy...no biggie.  Would that not be really kind of stupid?
The ceremonious conclusion from the Shaw trial ---Shaw is acquitted---therefore there must have not been a conspiracy in the assassination after all
I can't help but notice that this same dumbass mentality still prevails.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Nice of you to take his word for it.
I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie  professional spies.
  Are you a spy? Who is going to admit--yeah sure I'm a spy...no biggie.  Would that not be really kind of stupid?
The ceremonious conclusion from the Shaw trial ---Shaw is acquitted---therefore there must have not been a conspiracy in the assassination after all
I can't help but notice that this same dumbass mentality still prevails.

Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?

No one that I've ever read on "my side" of this question of who killed Kennedy has stated that because Shaw didn't conspire with Oswald and Ferrie and others, as Garrison claimed, that that proves no other  conspiracy occurred. Certainly no one in this thread. That's not just a strawman argument it's an invisible strawman at that.

Maybe I need to get out more.

To add: the most influential, for good or bad, pro-conspiracy work on the assassination was Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." Which promoted the Garrison claim that Shaw conspired with others to kill JFK. The reason many lone assassin believers focus on the matter is largely because of this (and the fact that Garrison was a disgrace who smeared and ruined numerous innocent lives). This was not some obscure claim here; this was a major movie that was seen by millions around the world.