On The Trail Of Delusion

[Fred Litwin]

But so what? We have enough documentation on Clay Shaw and the CIA to know exactly what he did and what
he did not do.

At some point, those documents will be released...and then you will complain that there is nothing in writing.

fred

[Jon Banks]

But so what? We have enough documentation on Clay Shaw and the CIA to know exactly what he did and what
he did not do.

At some point, those documents will be released...and then you will complain that there is nothing in writing.

fred

I won't complain at all because I don't see any reason at this point to suspect that Shaw played a role in the JFK assassination.

However, it's weird that you are jumping through hoops to deny that Shaw had a relationship with US intelligence when it's documented that he in fact did. We know his role as a "paid informant" ended in 1956 but we can't say with 100% certainty that his relationships with US or Western intelligence (US-UK and other western countries have a very closely linked intelligence apparatus since the 1940s) ended in 1956.

[Fred Litwin]

Shaw wasn't a paid informant. He was just a domestic contact like 150,000 other businessmen. There is nothing nefarious about this. You
have no evidence that he any other connection to intelligence...and no evidence that he had any connection after 1956.

fred

[Jon Banks]

Shaw wasn't a paid informant. He was just a domestic contact like 150,000 other businessmen. There is nothing nefarious about this. You
have no evidence that he any other connection to intelligence...and no evidence that he had any connection after 1956.

fred

Shaw is described as a “highly paid CIA contract source until 1956” per those who have seen his CIA file (see page 4 / #7 at the link below).

https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Shaw-as-informant.pdf

[Fred Litwin]

That is no doubt an error. There is no such thing as a "contract source" You won't find that in other documents. The document that you cite is
an overview of a set of documents given to the HSCA. There is no underlying document that supports that. The person probably meant a highly valued
contact.

fred

[Jon Banks]

That is no doubt an error. There is no such thing as a "contract source" You won't find that in other documents. The document that you cite is
an overview of a set of documents given to the HSCA. There is no underlying document that supports that. The person probably meant a highly valued
contact.

fred

And you know this how?

I don't understand how you can be so certain about this stuff unless you've seen all the classified files.

Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that Jim Garrison unfairly targeted Clay Shaw while also true that Shaw was a CIA asset.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

And you know this how?

I don't understand how you can be so certain about this stuff unless you've seen all the classified files.

Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that Jim Garrison unfairly targeted Clay Shaw while also true that Shaw was a CIA asset.

Jon,

Not to butt in, but I see both sides here. I appreciate that you recognize that Shaw was not in on a conspiracy to kill JFK. But Fred is also right. So far at least, no one has been able to find the document that the CIA historian referred to. I suspose it could be yet to be released but it appears that he was referring to a collection that is now available. And I have to assume that conspiracy-mined researches would have unearthed it by now if it existed. At this point, it appears to be an error by the historian, but I could be wrong.