Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part One

[Benjamin Cole]

If the official CIA definition of Clay Shaw, that he was a "highly paid confidential source," is in error, I would like the CIA to correct it.

In 32 years in the public record, the CIA has let that official description of Shaw stand. 

[Tom Graves]

If the official CIA definition of Clay Shaw, that he was a "highly paid confidential source," is in error, I would like the CIA to correct it.

In 32 years in the public record, the CIA has let that official description of Shaw stand.

Bummer, dude.

Why don't you look into it?

BTW, I was editing my previous post when you posted, so here it is in toto for you:

Why would the CIA -- whose official position on false defector-in-place-in-Geneva-in-June-1962 / false-or-rogue-physical-defector-to-the-U.S.-in-February-1964 Yuri Nosenko is that he was a true defector -- correct J. Kenneth McDonald's cobbled-together, typo-replete mischaracterization of Clay Shaw?

Factoid: Putative KGB staff officer Nosenko was "cleared" by Mole Solie in October 1968 via a bogus polygraph exam and a specious report, and the FBI still maintains that KGB Major Aleksei Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) was truly spying for the Bureau's NYC field office for fifteen years!

All I know is that in September of 2021, renowned British JFKA researcher (and conspiracy theorist!!!) Malcolm Blunt said in that YouTube video you watched that Bruce Solie was "all over the Kennedy investigation and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."

Perhaps you can contact him through his colleague, Bart Kamp, at the "Prayer Man" website!

[Fred Litwin]

Benjamin: That document was described Shaw as a highly paid contract source is an analysis of other documents, all of which are
online. There is no underlying document that uses that description and so we know it is an error. Paul Hoch has demonstrated that
there was another error in that document.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-clay-shaw-a-contract-agent-for-the-cia

The 1992 memo was written by J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian. Max Holland spoke with McDonald who told him:

“His recollection was that the memo was assembled from a couple of summaries that were prepared for him by the History Staff”

In an email Holland noted that "Unless someone can produce a document contemporaneous with Shaw's service as a domestic contact source that states he was well-remunerated or compensated, then I think whatever extant documents we have from his actual service trump a description in a summary that was prepared hastily."

And there are many documents in the JFK collection in which it is clearly stated that Shaw was NOT paid, and that he was just a domestic contact.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-clay-shaw-get-the-help-he-deserved-part-three

Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Three

In Part Three of my ten-part series, Clay Shaw's attorney Edward Wegmann goes to Washington to correct an error made by Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

[Tommy Shanks]

Keep up the great work on this, Fred. The research community needs to know the extent to which Garrison's "investigation" was a complete sham.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-clay-shaw-get-the-help-he-deserved-part-four

Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Four

In Part Four or my ten-part series, Jim Garrison goes after the CIA. The CIA sets up the Garrison Group to consider the implications of the Clay Shaw trial. They decide to do nothing to help Shaw's attorneys.

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-clay-shaw-get-the-help-he-deserved-part-five

Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Five

In Part Five or my ten-part series, Shaw's attorneys go to Washington, D.C. to visit with the Department of Justice. They come away empty-handed.