On The Trail Of Delusion

[Gerry Down]

Because he interviewed a homosexual?

fred

Well I'm not sure a gay rights activist would have got involved with Garrison if he thought he was homophobic.

[Fred Litwin]

He wasn't quite the gay rights activist just yet...and of course, Broshears pissed people off in the gay
community in san francisco. Look, he was a fabulist, and he wanted to tell stories. He got a free trip
to New Orleans, where he had an awful lot of fun.

fred

[Fred Litwin]

Exclusive: Jim Garrison tells the HSC that Fred Crisman was one of three tramps
Here is another tape of Jim Garrison being interviewed by the HSCA in late July or early August of 1977. He tells that that Fred Crisman was one of the three tramps; that Kerry Thornley's father might have been involved with the backyard photographs; that Thornley might have been the second Oswald, and the Paines were intelligence assets. Yes, it's Jim Garrison at his craziest.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/exclusive-jim-garrison-tells-tells-the-hsca-that-fred-crisman-was-one-of-the-three-tramps

[Fred Litwin]

A Look Back at Clay Shaw's Trial
The Baton Rouge Advocate Looked back on the trial of Clay Shaw in 1994
Columnist John McMillan said Garrison's case was "one of the biggest abuses of judicial power in the history of the country." He concludes "there may have been conspiracy, but I'll tell you one thing: Jim Garrison didn't know a damn thing about it if there was."

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-look-back-at-clay-shaw-s-trial

[Steve M. Galbraith]

A Look Back at Clay Shaw's Trial
The Baton Rouge Advocate Looked back on the trial of Clay Shaw in 1994
Columnist John McMillan said Garrison's case was "one of the biggest abuses of judicial power in the history of the country." He concludes "there may have been conspiracy, but I'll tell you one thing: Jim Garrison didn't know a damn thing about it if there was."

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-look-back-at-clay-shaw-s-trial

What's a bit remarkable is that the major conspiracy theorists/proponents of that time - people like Lane, Lifton, Meagher, Weisberg, Epstein - all denounced or came to denounce Garrison's fraudulent investigation and abuse of power (although Weisberg was a bit late to the game, e.g., read his exchanges with Garrison during his grand jury testimony; they were having a ball).

But Garrison's is the only conspiracist name to, broadly speaking, survive; at least in terms of what he believed happened (sure, most people today likely have little or no idea who he was). Of course, this is all due to Stone's disgraceful lie of a movie. For the Garrisonites the ends justifies any means. If Shaw or others have to have their lies destroyed or smeared, well that's in service to the greater cause of exposing the evil people who killed JFK. To their credit, the other conspiracists had some standards, some principles they wouldn't toss aside. And Garrison's claims violated all of them.

Here is Weisberg's GJ testimony: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1210
He's not putting up much of a fight with Garrison's reckless statements. He would do so later.

[Fred Litwin]

The Persecution of Clay Shaw
A terrific article from the August 26, 1969 issue of Look Magazine. Clay Shaw on Garrison and his case: "What a man like this has going for him is the will to believe. It's very, very strong in many people. It doesn't matter what the evidence is or how many nuts he puts on the stand; people just go on believing."

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-persecution-of-clay-shaw

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Persecution of Clay Shaw
A terrific article from the August 26, 1969 issue of Look Magazine. Clay Shaw on Garrison and his case: "What a man like this has going for him is the will to believe. It's very, very strong in many people. It doesn't matter what the evidence is or how many nuts he puts on the stand; people just go on believing."

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-persecution-of-clay-shaw

I remain puzzled, completely, as to why Garrison never considered *any* role of organized crime, of elements of the mob, in the assassination. None. Not even on the periphery. In fact the accounts are that when asked about any role he would get very angry and simply dismiss the question. Yes, he'd have to admit that the Mob was operating in New Orleans. But that's an odd concern.

From the Patricia Lambert book: "The Mafia [was] the only group he ever specifically absolved of involvement in the assassination. As [New Orleans Times Picayune reporter] Rosemary James wrote, "Garrison always refused to investigate any leads that pointed in [the direction of the Mafia]". Reporters who made such suggestions were threatened personally with grand jury inquisition and indictment. It make you wonder what Garrison and his acolytes then and now really are about. Creating smoke screens perhaps?"

I doubt that last point - "creating smoke screens" - but it's perplexing. Lambert, by the way, thought element of the mob were involved.