The Final Chapter in the Assassination Controversy

[Fred Litwin]

The Final Chapter in the Assassination Controversy

Edward Jay Epstein wrote this article in 1969 in the New York Times.

Much of the rhetoric on the talk shows and in magazine interviews was not designed to enlighten the public. Mark Lane made a practice of introducing pseudoscientific evidence, such as paraffin tests (misinterpreted to "prove" Oswald's innocence), which could only confuse audiences not versed in the nuances of forensic science. Jim Garrison characteristically dwelt on missing evidence, which was being kept "secret" by the Government but of which he miraculously seemed to know the contents. For example, noting that four frames of the famous film of the assassination taken by the spectator Abraham Zapruder -- numbers 208-211 -- were missing from the frame-by-frame reproduction of the film in the testimony and evidence published by the Warren Commission, Garrison claimed in his Playboy interview that these missing frames "revealed signs of stress appearing suddenly on the back of a street sign" and these "signs of stress may well have been caused by the impact of a stray bullet on the sign." But the "missing" frames into which Garrison glibly read stray bullets, while missing from the Warren Report volumes, are not missing from a copy of the film held by Life Magazine, which bought the film, and these frames, which were published after the Playboy interview, show no signs of "stress" or stray bullets.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-final-chapter-in-the-assassination-controversy

[Tommy Shanks]

Thankfully Espstein saw through Jim Garrison's embarrassing charade. Too bad most "researchers" of this case can't bring themselves to do the same.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Immediately before he argued that the controversy was over (with the qualifier that new evidence might emerge; thus the question mark at the end of the title), Epstein wrote something which would completely undermine the idea of closure:

"The lesson that Garrison has made abundantly clear is that the credibility of evidence cannot be divorced from the credibility of the investigator who presents it."

He underestimated how much the public would come to distrust the government as impartial investigator, that Vietnam and Watergate and the revelations of FBI and CIA abuses would essentially destroy that credibility, and that new opportunists building on Garrison would take advantage of that doubt.

It really does start with Garrison. It would have happened without him since there were other causes, the ones I mentioned above. And the questions Epstein raised in "Inquest" remained. But Garrison is the dividing line, the one between the responsible and irresponsible critics. Epstein thought that no line would emerge, that Garrison was completely discredited, and the country would move on. The fact that the Garrisonites still have any credibility is remarkable. Depressing but remarkable.

Still, what do we do with the Meaghers? She saw through Garrison, denounced him from beginning to end. And she still said that the WC was worse (!!?), that their investigation was more abusive and corrupt than Garrison's investigation. As I said, take away Garrison and something like him still comes about.

[Tommy Shanks]

But Garrison is the dividing line, the one between the responsible and irresponsible critics. Epstein thought that no line would emerge, that Garrison was completely discredited, and the country would move on. The fact that the Garrisonites still have any credibility is remarkable. Depressing but remarkable.

Excellent point, Steven. This is currently a full-on epidemic over at the JFK Education Forum, whose members have a remarkable habit of completely ignoring the widespread evidence of Garrison's misconduct and chicanery.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Excellent point, Steven. This is currently a full-on epidemic over at the JFK Education Forum, whose members have a remarkable habit of completely ignoring the widespread evidence of Garrison's misconduct and chicanery.

Obviously, the Stone movie was critical (Garrison's books are simply unreadable) to this but without Garrison there wouldn't have been a movie. Not that one.

There used to be a number of Garrison defenders here who were, let's say, as "interesting" as those at that forum. They had no problem with anything he did, "What misconduct?", and whatever "errors" he did make were because the CIA interfered with his investigation. That is, they were innocent ones, he meant well, he was saving the country.

Even Stone once sort of admitted that Garrison went too far when he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." So Shaw et al. were sacrifices for a greater goal. At least he admitted that there were victims of Garrison's abuses.

[Tom Graves]

There used to be a number of Garrison defenders here who were, let's say, as "interesting" as those at that forum. They had no problem with anything he did, "What misconduct?", and whatever "errors" he did make were because the CIA interfered with his investigation. That is, they were innocent ones, he meant well, he was saving the country.

Even Oliver Stone once sort of admitted that Garrison went too far when he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." So Shaw et al. were sacrifices for a greater goal. At least he admitted that there were victims of Garrison's abuses.

It's interesting that Garrison changed his theory against Shaw from "He masterminded a homosexual 'thrill-kill'" to "He organized it for the evil, evil, evil CIA" as soon as Joan Mellen's ex-husband, Ralph Schoenman, sent him a knockoff translated-from-French copy of an anti-CIA / anti-Shaw ariticle that was published in the Communist-owned Italian newspaper, Paese Sera, three days after Garrison had arrested Shaw.