JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on June 14, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
-
Both of these books are probably the two leading books dismantling the case that Jim Garrison made against Clay Shaw. The question is - what is the difference between these two books and which one is better? Or perhaps there is a third option and both books should be read (if they both offer something unique). But I would prefer to read only one book on this topic as Jim Garrison seems to be a fraud so I don't want him taking up too much of my time.
Here is a video promo for "On The Trail of Delusion":
And here is the documentary that was made based on Patricia Lamberts book "False Witness":
-
When I decided to write my book on Jim Garrison, I decided to not only tell the story of Clay Shaw, but to also
tell the stories of other people he went after. And this is where my book differs from Patricia Lambert - she only
focused on Clay Shaw and Oliver Stone. And so, I tell the stories of Clyde Johnson, Edgar Eugene Bradley, Thomas
Beckham, Fred Crisman, Kerry Thornley, and I also have a very large chapter on Permindex. I am one of the few
people to go through the papers of Louis Bloomfield, who was a Montreal lawyer who represented several
investors in Permindex. And so, if you want the real truth about Permindex/CMC, read my book.
-
When I decided to write my book on Jim Garrison, I decided to not only tell the story of Clay Shaw, but to also
tell the stories of other people he went after. And this is where my book differs from Patricia Lambert - she only
focused on Clay Shaw and Oliver Stone. And so, I tell the stories of Clyde Johnson, Edgar Eugene Bradley, Thomas
Beckham, Fred Crisman, Kerry Thornley, and I also have a very large chapter on Permindex. I am one of the few
people to go through the papers of Louis Bloomfield, who was a Montreal lawyer who represented several
investors in Permindex. And so, if you want the real truth about Permindex/CMC, read my book.
Would you recommend reading "False Witness" too or is your book more or less good enough as a one-stop book on this topic?
Also, what did Gus Russo mean by the book is lavishly illustrated? What kind of pictures are in your book?
-
I would certainly recommend people read False Witness. It is a terrific book.
I have put a lot of documents into my book. As well as pictures. I wanted people to
see the documents for themselves.
fred
-
I would certainly recommend people read False Witness. It is a terrific book.
I have put a lot of documents into my book. As well as pictures. I wanted people to
see the documents for themselves.
fred
Thanks. False Witness is so old at the stage its hard to consider picking it up if there is a more up-to-date version like "On The Trail of Delusion".
-
I tell the stories of Clyde Johnson, Edgar Eugene Bradley, Thomas Beckham, Fred Crisman, Kerry Thornley.
Did you skip David Ferrie, the focus of Garrison’s investigation when it was first publicized on February 17, 1967?
Ferrie died on February 21, four days after Garrison’s investigation became public.
And did you skip Eladio Del Valle?
An October 1967 letter from the CIA to the Justice Department’s “Internal Security Division” states that Eladio Del Valle, who had been described as a “valuable witness” by Jim Garrison, had been “murdered in Miami on February 22, 1967,” the same day that the body of Ferrie was discovered.
Del Valle “had been involved in anti-Cuban operations.”
With David Ferrie and Eladio Del Valle both dead, which would be the original target of Garrison’s investigation and a “valuable witness” in the investigation, Garrison focused his prosecutorial efforts on Clay Shaw in order to make his case for a conspiracy.
The CIA told the Justice Department’s Internal Security Division that Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw was exposing “people who have been involved in Cuban operations.”
The CIA gathered intelligence on Garrison and on all aspects of his investigation. An abundance of CIA memorandums and communications reveal top-level CIA officials focused on the Garrison investigation.
Two months after Del Valle and Ferrie were murdered, an April 26 CIA memo stated that there are “loads of possible concern to CIA because of what may be an intent to involve the Agency directly or indirectly.”
A June 1967 CIA memo, written shortly after the CIA realized they had a “problem,” states, “The activity of District Attorney James C. Garrison of New Orleans shows no signs of abating . . . . We shall continue to study all available information about the New Orleans investigation.”
In September 1967, the CIA documented, “Since the Garrison investigation was first publicized in February 1967, we have kept book on all persons in the case: 139 to date.”
The CIA also established the “Garrison Group,” consisting of some of the senior-most officials in the CIA; the Executive Director, the Deputy Director for Plans, the Deputy Director of Support, the CIA General Counsel, the CIA Inspector General, and Raymond G. Rocca, the Chief of Research and Analysis in the CIA’s Counterintelligence Division.
A CIA memo states that at the first meeting of the Garrison Group on September 20, 1967, “Rocca felt that Garrison would, indeed, obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”
The memo also quotes the CIA Executive Director as having said, “The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial, and what might be feasible during and after the trial.”
The CIA also engaged in a world-wide propaganda campaign to discredit Garrison.
In July 1968, the CIA sent a dispatch to all CIA stations and bases around the world, and it contained a nineteen-page article critical of Garrison and his investigation. The dispatch states, “You may use the article to brief interested contacts, especially government and other political leaders.” It also states that the article should be used to demonstrate “that there is no hard evidence of any such conspiracy.”
The CIA had previously issued a “Propaganda Notes” Bulletin when the Warren Report came out in September 1964, and copies of the Warren Report were sent to CIA “field stations” so that “covert assets” in the United States and around the world could “explain the tragedy” of President Kennedy’s assassination. The CIA also issued “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report” in January 1967.
And now, in 1968, the CIA was engaged in a worldwide effort to disparage a New Orleans District Attorney and his investigation.
It’s all in my book. Click the link.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
-
You don't know the first thing about Eladio Del Valle. Here is the truth:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-eladio-del-valle-david-ferrie-s-paymaster (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-eladio-del-valle-david-ferrie-s-paymaster)
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-eladio-del-valle-one-of-the-assassins-1 (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-eladio-del-valle-one-of-the-assassins-1)
-
I know that Eladio Del Valle is dead. The CIA was obsessed with Garrison's investigation and with preventing anyone from connecting anti-Castro Cubans to the JFK assassination.
The CIA was obsessed with the JFK assassination because they were behind it.
-
Both of these books are probably the two leading books dismantling the case that Jim Garrison made against Clay Shaw. The question is - what is the difference between these two books and which one is better? Or perhaps there is a third option and both books should be read (if they both offer something unique). But I would prefer to read only one book on this topic as Jim Garrison seems to be a fraud so I don't want him taking up too much of my time.
Here is a video promo for "On The Trail of Delusion":
And here is the documentary that was made based on Patricia Lamberts book "False Witness":
I have only read “False Witness” and will agree with Fred that it is a terrific book. It is well written, so I stayed interested throughout the book. And it seemed to thoroughly dispel any ideas that Garrison was on to the truth. So I don’t have a desire to dig into this subject any further. That said, “On The Trail of Delusion” does sound like it provides some additional information. So, if I ever change my mind and want to dig some more on this subject, it sounds like a good place to start. Maybe someone who has read both books will chime in?
-
Both of these books are probably the two leading books dismantling the case that Jim Garrison made against Clay Shaw. The question is - what is the difference between these two books and which one is better? Or perhaps there is a third option and both books should be read (if they both offer something unique). But I would prefer to read only one book on this topic as Jim Garrison seems to be a fraud so I don't want him taking up too much of my time.
Here is a video promo for "On The Trail of Delusion":
And here is the documentary that was made based on Patricia Lamberts book "False Witness":
As Fred Litwin pointed out above, the Lambert book focuses almost exclusively on the Clay Shaw trial and investigation by Garrison and little else. If you want to read about Garrison's other outrageous and corrupt behavior during the matter - his other claims about the CIA and a long list of people he smeared and defamed - then it's probably better to read Mr. Litwin's book. Lambert, who died I believe just 3-4 years a few years ago (and didn't release, as far as I know, any updated version), believed that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that it involved elements of the Mob, e.g., Marcello et al. Mr. Litwin doesn't believe there is evidence showing a conspiracy.
Here's a good overview of the Lambert book written by the first reporter to break the story that Garrison was investigating the assassination, Rosemary James. Link: https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/james_on_lambert.htm
James covered the whole farce from beginning to end. She first broke the story and then was stunned that the next day or two dozens of reporters from around the world showed up in New Orleans looking into the matter. Surprisingly she says that every time someone suggested a possible role by the Mob into the assassination that Garrison vehemently shut the issue down. You could suggest Martian leprechauns were involved and that was acceptable; but if you broached the possibility of any Mob role - however small - Garrison would stop the discussion immediately. Very odd.
If you really want to get into the tall grass about Shaw, you can read Donald Carpenter's incredibly detailed book on him called "A Man of a Million Fragments." That gives almost a weekly if not daily account of Shaw's life. Shaw was a fascinating man; very intelligent and extremely hard working. He was drafted into the Army in 1942 and left it in 1946 as a Major. Yes, he went from a private to a Major - and was highly decorated (Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, et cetera) despite seeing no combat - in four short years. Although calling a year in a war a "short year" is probably wrong. And when he came back he single-handedly put together the Trade Mart, working on its design and seeing through its completion and then spending years promoting it around the world.
BTW, I deleted the videos to save space/bandwidth.
-
You don't know the first thing about Eladio Del Valle.
Besides knowing that Eladio Del Valle was murdered after Garrison’s investigation became public, I know that David Ferrie, the original target of Garrison’s investigation, died after Garrison’s investigation was made public.
I also know that five Cuban exile leaders were killed after Congress set up the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976.
On January 14, 1977, the Tampa Tribune reported that they had been “assassinated” in Miami “in the last few months,” including one who was “gunned down as he left his front door last week.” It also reported that a total of seven Cuban exile leaders were “assassinated in Miami in the past three years.”
As it states in my book, “KGB officers inside the CIA had no problem manipulating anti-Castro Cubans into actively planning President Kennedy’s murder with a hope that Castro would be implicated in the assassination . . . . But the KGB officers were not about to ‘outsource’ the assassination, and once the deed was done, the Cuban exiles were left holding the bag.”
The KGB officers obviously got rid of anyone who could disclose that Cuban exiles were planning to kill JFK but that JFK was actually assassinated before the exiles could execute their plan.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
-
I have only read “False Witness” and will agree with Fred that it is a terrific book. It is well written, so I stayed interested throughout the book. And it seemed to thoroughly dispel any ideas that Garrison was on to the truth. So I don’t have a desire to dig into this subject any further. That said, “On The Trail of Delusion” does sound like it provides some additional information. So, if I ever change my mind and want to dig some more on this subject, it sounds like a good place to start. Maybe someone who has read both books will chime in?
Garrison was not on to the truth like you said. But he did have a few hit and misses. He was right that Shaw had some CIA connections. Though this was more a guess than anything else and being in touch with the Domestic Contacts Division is a pretty tenuous connection.
Also, I have some belief that Garrison was right that Shaw and Ferrie did know each other in some capacity. Nothing obviously to do with the JFK assassination or Oswald but that they knew each other. That wouldn't be unusual as the gay scene in New Orleans would have been small i'd imagine.
-
There is no evidence that Shaw knew Ferrie.
fred
-
There is no evidence that Shaw knew Ferrie.
fred
Didn't Russo say in one of his early statements that he had seen ferrie and shaw in a car at a service station. My understanding is Russo said this at a time when Russo was not putting Oswald and shaw at ferries house party. And so this gave credance to this account of ferrie and shaw in the car.
-
Perry Russo's identification of Shaw at Ferrie's service station is questionable.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-talks-in-baton-rouge-part-three (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-talks-in-baton-rouge-part-three)
fred litwin
www.onthetrailofdelusion.com
-
Perry Russo's identification of Shaw at Ferrie's service station is questionable.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-talks-in-baton-rouge-part-three (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-talks-in-baton-rouge-part-three)
fred litwin
www.onthetrailofdelusion.coma
Thanks. So Russo was positive that ferrie was talking to a big man at his service station but has no idea who this big man was other than he was big. Could have been Jim garrison for all we know. As far as I know (I'm not very familiar with the garrison angle of the JFK case) this was the main identification putting shaw and ferrie together and it is so flimsy as to make it non existent. Need to research this area more and looks like On The Trail of Delusion is a pretty good place to start.
-
By sheer coincidence I ordered a copy of 'On The Trail of Delusion' last night (Disappointed there is no hardcover version. Fred, have a word with your publishers and make it happen ;D).
From Posner's account in 'Case Closed' to Lambert's 'False Witness' I've always found the whole Garrison trial completely bizarre and laughable. I can't believe how some people still support the Clay Shaw theory, let alone how Oliver Stone could have based a Hollywood movie on it.
With the exception of 'On The Trail of the Assassins', can anyone recommend a book that analyses and supports Garrison's theory? I'm just intrigued as to what nonsense they can possibly conclude.
-
With the exception of 'On The Trail of the Assassins', can anyone recommend a book that analyses and supports Garrison's theory? I'm just intrigued as to what nonsense they can possibly conclude.
Destiny betrayed by Jim dieugenio is probably the main one. I've just finished reading it and had to fact check every second sentence as it contains a lot of nonsense.
-
Ah, Dieugenio of 'Reclaiming Parkland' fame. Why does it not surprise me that one of his books contains lots of nonsense?
Thanks for the recommendation. I shall add it to my library and save it for when I need a good laugh :D
-
By sheer coincidence I ordered a copy of 'On The Trail of Delusion' last night (Disappointed there is no hardcover version. Fred, have a word with your publishers and make it happen ;D).
From Posner's account in 'Case Closed' to Lambert's 'False Witness' I've always found the whole Garrison trial completely bizarre and laughable. I can't believe how some people still support the Clay Shaw theory, let alone how Oliver Stone could have based a Hollywood movie on it.
With the exception of 'On The Trail of the Assassins', can anyone recommend a book that analyses and supports Garrison's theory? I'm just intrigued as to what nonsense they can possibly conclude.
You can try Joan Mellen's book "Destiny Betrayed." Mellen is, like DiEugenio, a Garrisonite so she essentially repeats his claims; and also Garrison's. I don't recall her breaking any new ground on Garrison's allegations so it's essentially just repeating many of them. And the book is filled with errors and falsehoods.
For example, Mellen says that Shaw, while in the Army, worked for was called the SOS: which is true, he did work for the SOS. But Mellen identifies that as the “Special Operations Section" and "an Army counterintelligence group." Completely false. The SOS that Shaw was assigned to was the Army's "Services of Supply", a group created to provide supplies to the forces that landed on Normandy and invaded Europe. In other words, Shaw was a supply officer not a counterintelligence officer.
-
You can try Joan Mellen's book "Destiny Betrayed." Mellen is, like DiEugenio, a Garrisonite so she essentially repeats his claims; and also Garrison's. I don't recall her breaking any new ground on Garrison's allegations so it's essentially just repeating many of them. And the book is filled with errors and falsehoods.
For example, Mellen says that Shaw, while in the Army, worked for was called the SOS: which is true, he did work for the SOS. But Mellen identifies that as the “Special Operations Section" and "an Army counterintelligence group." Completely false. The SOS that Shaw was assigned to was the Army's "Services of Supply", a group created to provide supplies to the forces that landed on Normandy and invaded Europe. In other words, Shaw was a supply officer not a counterintelligence officer.
Thanks for the recommendation Thumb1:
-
You can try Joan Mellen's book "Destiny Betrayed."
I think you mean "A Farewell to Justice".