Twitter News, Sports, Video, TV listings, Email and more!
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, for entertaining fringe video clips
Visit International News Limited for the best values on: 
domain names-domain transfers 
YahooMail  HotMail   GMail   AOLMail USA MAIL 

Click here to get you daily dose of  Real  Independent USA News with Amy Goodman at Domocracy Now

GamingHarbor, Download Games to get 1000’s of Games!

Welcome to Gaia | Gaia Online

The Official Site of Major League Baseball: Events: 2009 All-Star Game Sprint Final Vote

Make Money At Home Online

Read Free Manga Online at One Manga. Online manga scans reader.

Mozilla Firefox Start Page

Inspirational Quote
"The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.? Thomas Merton"
Your Daily Motivation from Inspiration Line Add Inspiring Daily Quotes to YOUR Website

Click Here For Your Up To Date World Live Sports Scores
INLNews  YahooMail  HotMail  GMail  AOLMail USA MAILMyWayMail 
 CNNWorld IsraelVideoNs INLNsNYTimes WashNs WorldMedia JapanNs AusNs World VideoNs WorldFinance ChinaDaily IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNsABCAust 
WANs NZNews QldNs MelbAge AdelaideNs 
TasNews ABCTas DarwinNsUSA MAIL

ABC News Video  FOX News Video  FOXBusiness Video  CNN Video  AP Video  BBC News Video  Reuters Video  AFP Video  CNET Video
CNBC Video  Australia 7 News Video   Rocky Mountain News Elections Video Video  NPR Audio  
Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone Video
Richard Bangs Adventures Video  Charlie Rose Video   Expanded Books Video  Assignment Earth Video Video 
Guinness World Records Video Video  AccuWeather Video  You Witness News User Video

NPR Audio BY CATEGORY Top Stories  Politics  World  Business  Sports 
Technology  Health & Science  Arts  U.S. 

VIEW LOCAL VIDEO KVUE-TV Austin  WJZ 13 Baltimore  WBZ Boston 
WCNC Charlotte  CBS 2 Chicago

CBS 11 Dallas  CBS4 Denver  13 News, WVEC Hampton Roads  11 News Houston  
CBS 2 / KCAL 9 Los Angeles

WHAS TV11 Louisville  CBS4 Miami  WCCO Minneapolis  WWL-TV, 
Channel 4 New Orleans
  CBS 2 New York

CBS 3 Philadelphia KTVK 3TV Phoenix  KDKA Pittsburgh  
KGW NewsChannel 8 Portland, Ore. Raleigh

CBS 13 / CW 31 Sacramento  KENS 5 - TV San Antonio  Channel 8 San Diego 
CBS 5 San Francisco

KING5 Seattle Spokane/Coeur d'Alene  KMOV 
Channel 4 St. Louis
  FOX 11 Tucson

Video by Category
U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports

Click Here For Your Up To Date World Live Sports Scores

More Great World News Links

R & R


World Liberal News Links




Conservative News



  NEWS   NBA   NHL  Tennis   Golf   NFL   Soccer  NASCAR WORLD   LOCAL FINANCE    

More  Popular   Buzz  News 

Web Directory Listings of the top sites in each category.







Blog Web Discovery Machine







Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent Reveals Horrifying New Details About JFK's Assassination

jfk assassinationTasked with protecting First Lady Jackie Kennedy, Secret Service agent Clint Hill was the man standing between her and gunfire the day her husband was killed. 

Now, nearly fifty years after the shooting, Hill has written a memoir, Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir, about his encounters with the first lady.

The book includes a detailed account of the harrowing minutes before and after the shooting of President Kennedy. Hill also spoke about the day on NBC's Today show.

Here are some of the most chilling moments. 

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

Source: Daily Mail

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

Source: Daily Mail

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Source: Daily Mail

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

Source: Today

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Source: Daily Mail

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Source: Daily Mail

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Source: Today

Read more:

Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent Reveals Horrifying New Details About JFK's Assassination

jfk assassinationTasked with protecting First Lady Jackie Kennedy, Secret Service agent Clint Hill was the man standing between her and gunfire the day her husband was killed. 

Now, nearly fifty years after the shooting, Hill has written a memoir, Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir, about his encounters with the first lady.

The book includes a detailed account of the harrowing minutes before and after the shooting of President Kennedy. Hill also spoke about the day on NBC's Today show.

Here are some of the most chilling moments. 

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

Source: Daily Mail

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he sa

Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent Reveals Horrifying New Details About JFK's Assassination

jfk assassinationTasked with protecting First Lady Jackie Kennedy, Secret Service agent Clint Hill was the man standing between her and gunfire the day her husband was killed. 

Now, nearly fifty years after the shooting, Hill has written a memoir, Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir, about his encounters with the first lady.

The book includes a detailed account of the harrowing minutes before and after the shooting of President Kennedy. Hill also spoke about the day on NBC's Today show.

Here are some of the most chilling moments. 

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

Source: Daily Mail

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

Source: Daily Mail

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Source: Daily Mail

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

Source: Today

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Source: Daily Mail

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Source: Daily Mail

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Source: Today

Read more:

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

Source: Daily Mail

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Source: Daily Mail

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

Source: Today

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Source: Daily Mail

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Source: Daily Mail

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Source: Today

Read more:

General Edward Landsdale stands between Allen Dulles and General Cabel.

It is difficult to imagine 3 more lethal persons on the planet.


March 6, 1990

Essentially a copy of a letter Fletcher Prouty sent to Jim Garrison at a time when Garrison was having difficulty finding a publisher for his manuscript, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS. Garrison gave a copy of this letter to his publisher who gave a copy to Oliver Stone. When Stone read this he said, "I can make a movie of this." That was the start of "JFK", a feature film receiving 8 Academy Award nominations. See also the article MR. X REVEALS THE IDENTITY OF GENERAL Y in the INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION section on this site.

Dear Jim,

It is amazing how things work, I am at home recuperating from a major back operation (to regain my ability to walk); so I was tossing around in bed last night...not too comfortable...and I began to think of Garrison. I thought, "I have got to write Jim a letter detailing how I believe the whole job was done."

By another coincidence I had received a fine set of twenty photos from the Sprague collection in Springfield, Mass. As the odds would have it, he is now living just around the corner here in Alexandria. Why not? Lansdale lived here, Fensterwald lives here. Ford used to live here. Quite a community.

I was studying those photos. One of them is in the "Tramps" picture that appears in your book. It is glossy and clear. Lansdale is so clearly identifiable. Why, Lansdale in Dallas? The others don't matter, they are nothing but actors and not gunmen: but they are interesting. Others who knew Lansdale as well as I did, have said the same thing, "That's him. What's he doing there?"

Prouty spots Landsdale, the Chief U.S.Covert Opperations Officer in this famous Dallas Texas photo.

As I was reading the paper the Federal Express man came with a book from Jim, that unusual "Lansdale" book. A terrible biography. There could be a great biography about Lansdale. He's no angel; but he is worth a good biography. Currey, a paid hack, did the job. His employers ought to have let him do it right.

  "....I had known Ed since 1952 in the Philippines. I used to fly there regularly with my MATS Heavy Transport Squadron. As a matter of fact, in those days we used to fly wounded men, who were recuperating, from hospitals in Japan to Saigon for R&R on the beaches of Cap St Jacque. That was 1952-1953. Saigon was the Paris of the Orient. And Lansdale was "King Maker" of the Philippines. We always went by way of Manila. I met his team.

He had arrived in Manila in Sept 1945, after the war was over, for a while. He had been sent back there in 1950 by the CIA(OPC) to create a new leader of the Philippines and to get rid of Querino. Sort of like the Marcos deal, or the Noriega operation. Lansdale did it better. I have overthrown a government but I didn't splash it all around like Reagan and Bush have done.

Now, who sent him there? Who sen him there in 1950 (Truman era) to do a job that was not done until 1953 (Ike era)? From 1950 to Feb 1953 the Director of Central Intelligence was Eisenhower's old Chief of Staff, Gen Walter Bedell Smith. Smith had been Ambassador to Moscow from 1946 to 1949. The lesser guys in the CIA at the time were Allen Dulles, who was Deputy Director Central Intelligence from Aug 1951 to Feb 1953. Frank Wisner became the Deputy Director, Plans (Clandestine Activities) when Dulles became DDCI. Lansdale had to have received his orders from among these four men: Truman, Smith, Dulles, and Wisner. Of course the Sec State could have had some input...i.e. Acheson. Who wanted Querino out, that badly? Who wanted HUKS there?

In Jan 1953 Eisenhower arrived. John Foster Dulles was at State and Gen Smith his Deputy. Allen Dulles was the DCI and General Cabel his deputy. None of them changed Lansdale's prior orders to "get" Querino. Lansdale operated with abandon in the Philippines. The Ambassador and the CIA Station Chief, George Aurell, did not know what he was doing. They believed he was some sort of kook Air Force Officer there...a role Lansdale played to the hilt. Magsaysay became President, Dec 30, 1953...."

Len Osanic Eulogizes Col. L. Fletcher Prouty 

Fletcher Prouty Funeral 

I regret to announce the passing of Fletcher Prouty June 5th 2001. 

"Fletch" as most close friends called him was a man of rare qualities. I was lucky enough to become one of his good friends. I treasured every conversation we had. 

Fletcher was very hard working and to his wife's lament never knew the word "Retirement". After his service in the Pentagon, by accident he stumbled into a writing career that will keep his wisdom and spirit alive for years to come. 

Fletcher wrote, lectured, spoke on Radio shows, and was on Television many times, often regarding political intrigue from Watergate to the JFK Assassination. Of course he worked with Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and Zachary Sklar on the film "JFK" 

Fletcher Prouty was one of the most warm and amiable men you could ever meet. Almost endlessly, people from around the world came to visit and interview him. All you had to do was ask and he would give of his time. It will be his selfless and dogged effort to educate and inform that I feel he will be remembered for. For there was much opposition to the ideas Fletcher wrote about. 

Whenever I was at his upstairs office at his home there was always a stack of letters that he would be replying to. Not a few, but a stack! 

He wrote two books and close to 100 articles for various publications. I know he was very proud of everything thing he had written, but especially his two books, "The Secret Team", and "JFK, Vietnam the CIA, and the plot to assassinate JFK". 

He had a wisdom that inspired many to look behind the story. This came out in his writing, the idea that things were so many times not what they were reported by news organizations. In response (or retaliation) he had suffered personal attacks in the press, but told me several times he was just "trying to level the playing field". He was truly a man of his convictions. He will be remembered for his integrity and courage. 

Fletcher Prouty was the most intelligent man I knew. He was always up on current events, yet he had a strange habit these days. He never watched TV. And through a few phone calls to his network of associates and friends thoughout the world, he seemed to be better off and more informed than most which is a sad state for the news coverage today. 

The power or articulation was another of Fletcher's gifts. He could speak at great lengths without having to correct himself or backtracking, which made him very easy to listen to. 

He was very organized with his thoughts and those of us who sat through long conversations can attest to his attention to detail in describing events of the cold war period. 

I consider myself a better person for knowing Fletcher Prouty. I am indebted to him for all his time he shared so unselfishly. He will be sorely missed. 

His Funeral will be at the Arlington National Cemetary July 6th 2001 1pm

In lieu of flowers the family has asked to make a donation to a local Humane society 

Leonard Osanic 

Memorial show on Black Op Radio

Obituaries Friday, June 8, 2001 

Leroy Fletcher Prouty Jr.

Air Force Colonel 

Leroy Fletcher Prouty Jr., 84, a retired Air Force colonel who also worked for Washington area corporations, died of multiple organ failure June 5 at Inova Alexandria Hospital. He lived in Alexandria. 

Col. Prouty was born in Springfield, Mass. As a young man, he sang with professional big bands in New England. He was a graduate of the University of Massachusetts. 

He served with the Army Air Forces during World War II as a transport pilot in North Africa and Saudi Arabia. 

After the war, he was assigned to Yale University, where he established an ROTC program, and to the Air Defense Command in Colorado Springs in 1950. 

He was a squadron commander stationed in Japan during the Korean War. Prior to his retirement in 1963, he worked at the Pentagon. His honors included the Legion of Merit. 

After he left the military, Col. Prouty was vice president for general operations of General Aircraft Corp., vice president and Pentagon branch manager of First National Bank of Arlington and vice president of marketing at Madison National Bank. 

Prior to his second retirement in the 1970s, he helped establish the government marketing division at Amtrak and was a speechwriter for the corporation's president. 

Col. Prouty held a patent for a disposable razor with a continuous, rotating blade and wrote two books, "The Secret Team" and "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy." 

He was a consultant to Oliver Stone on the movie "JFK." 

His other interests included painting. 

Survivors include his wife of 59 years, Elizabeth Prouty of Alexandria; three children, David Prouty of Laurel, Jane Prouty of Santa Fe, N.M., and Lauren Prouty of Lynchburg, Va. 

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (USAF) 

Born: Springfield, Mass., January 24, 1917. Attended public schools. President, High School Student Government. Member, undefeated Golf Team. Vocalist with Big Bands, sang in most large dance halls, hotels and colleges in Northeast. Graduate: Mass. State College 1941, A.B. degree and 2nd Lt. Commission, U.S. Cavalry. 

June 1941
Began military career with 4th Armored Division, Pine Camp, NY. At Communications Officer School, Ft. Knox, KY, on December 7, 1941[Pearl Harbor]. Transferred to Air Force 1942. Earned Pilot's wings November, 1942. Arrived British West Africa [Ghana], February 1943 as pilot with Air Transport Command. 

Assigned to V.I.P. flying, summer 1943. Personal pilot for Gen. Omar Bradley, Gen. J. C. H. Lee and Gen. C. R. Smith (Founder and President - American Airlines), among others. Landed U.S. Geological Survey Team in Saudi Arabia, Oct 1943, to confirm oil discoveries for Cairo Conference. 

Assigned special duties at Cairo and Teheran Conferences, November-December 1943. Flew Chiang Kai Shek's Chinese delegation (T.V. Soong's delegates) to Teheran. 

Chief Pilot (1,200 pilots), Cairo for Air Transport Command. Led special air mission into Soviet Union, and others into Turkey, 1944. Evacuated "Guns of Navaronne" British commandos from Turkey to Palestine. Assisted in capture of leader of German Gold smuggling ring (The actor, Bruce Cabot) in Turkey and Cairo. Led large flight of transport aircraft to Turkish-Syrian border to evacuate 750 American POW's and OSS-selected Ex-Nazi Intelligence experts from the Balkans, September 1944. The first "overt" Cold War mission. 

Transferred to SW Pacific, flew in New Guinea, Leyte and was on Okinawa at end of war. Landed near Tokyo at surrender with first three planes carrying Gen. MacArthur's bodyguard troops. Flew out with American POWs. Photographed Hiroshima, that date. 

Assigned by Army to Yale University to begin first USAF ROTC program. Taught "Aeronautics" and "Evolution of Warfare". Transferred to U.S. Air Force ROTC headquarters to write college text books. Wrote the college textbook on "Aeronautics" and another on "Rockets and Missiles". 

Transferred to Colorado Springs to establish Air Defense Command. There, Director, Personnel Planning for Command (77,000 men) and first to put personnel records on Computer. Attended Nuclear Weapons school, Sandia, N.M. Selected for Air Force Command and Staff College, Montgomery, Ala. 

1952-54 Assigned to Korean War duties in Japan. Military Manager, Tokyo International Airport (Haneda) during Occupation. Commander, Military Air Transport Service, Heavy Transport Squadron responsible for military and diplomatic flights from Toyko to Saudi Arabia and back, in addition to daily flights to Korea, Honolulu and Pacific Islands. Founder, Toyko Toastmasters Club. Attended, JCS operated Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, 1955 

Assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Air Force and directed to create an Air Force world-wide system for "Military Support of the Clandestine Operations of the CIA", as required by a new National Security Council Directive, 5412 of March, 1954. Wrote this policy in conjunction with Air Force General Counsel and CIA's General Counsel. Set up a TOP SECRET world wide support force and communications system. Was sent around the world by the Director, Central Intelligence, Allen W. Dulles, to meet the CIA Station Chiefs, 1956. Directed Air Force participation in countless CIA operations during this period. As a result of a CIA Commendation for this work, awarded the Legion of Merit by the Air Force, promoted to Colonel and assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to carry out this same type of work for all military services. Assigned to the Office of Special Operations. 

With the creation of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Secretary McNamara and the abolishment of the OSO, was transferred to the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create a similar, world-wide office and was the Chief of Special Operations, with the Joint Staff all during 1962-1963. 

Received orders to travel as the Military Escort officer for a group of VIPs who were being flown to the South Pole, Nov 10 - Nov 28, 1963, to activate a Nuclear Power plant for heat, light and sea water desalination at the U.S. Navy Base at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. 

Retired as Colonel, U.S. Air Force, 1964 and was awarded one of the first three Joint Chiefs of Staff Commendation Medals by General Maxwell Taylor, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

VP International Operations, General Aircraft Corporation... a company created by MIT and Harvard specialists that designed and built aircraft that were used by the CIA and Army Special Forces. 

VP-Manager, Pentagon Branch, First National Bank, Arlington, VA, later VP-Marketing, 1965-1968. VP-Marketing, Madison National Bank, Washington, DC, 1968-1971. 

Graduate, Graduate School of Banking, University of Wisconsin, 1966 - 1968. 

Charter Member, American Bankers Association committee for Automation, Planning and Technology to develop plans to convert all U.S. banks to automation, including the Federal Reserve System. 

President, Financial Marketing Council of Greater Washington, D.C. 

Member, Advertising Club of Washington, D.C. 

1971 AMTRAK, as Manager, created nationwide Government and Military Marketing organization. Senior Director, Public Affairs, corporate speechwriter for Presidents and members of the Board, 1972-1982. Retired. 

Author, Public Speaker, radio and TV, 1950 to present. Book "The Secret Team", Prentice-Hall, 1973, and paperback by Ballantine, 1974. 

Worked with all major USA TV networks, and with BBC-TV, CBC-TV, Japanese, Australian Broadcast Commission and others. 

For McGraw-Hill Scientific Encyclopedia wrote "Railroad Engineering" section, and for its "Scientific Yearbook-1982" yearbook, wrote "Foreign Railroad Technology". 

For Traffic Quarterly and Congressional Record, wrote "Transportation at the Crossroads", July 1981. 

Numerous magazine articles from New Republic to Air Force, Gallery, Genesis, and Freedom magazines. 

Recently - Consultant: Rail Transportation for Northrop Services Inc., Northrup Corp. and for Ohio Rail Transportation Authority. Assisted Chairman, Joint Economics Committee of the Congress to set up International Hearings and to write "Rail Passenger Services Act of 1981". 

At request of Oliver Stone, worked as Creative Advisor (1990-1991) on production of his film "JFK" and was the original for "Man X" character played by Donald Sutherland. 

New Book, "JFK, the CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" published by Birch Lane Press, 1992. 

Director, National Railroad Foundation and Museum
National Press Club, and Foundation
Rotary Club of Washington, formerly a Director
Member, Society of Historians for American Foreign Relations
Wife: Elizabeth 
Son: David 
Daughter: Jane 
Daughter: Lauren

Additional data:
a) By direction of the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a Founder, of the International Air Traffic Controllers Assn.
b) Founder, Tokyo Toastmasters Club
c) A Charter member, American Bankers Assn, Committee of Automation Planning and Technology.
d) A graduate of the American Bankers Assn, Graduate School of Banking, University of Wisconsin.
e) Guest Lecturer, American University.
f) Staff, Cairo Conference, 1943
g) Staff, Teheran Conference, 1943

September 1975

An Introduction to 
the Assassination Business


by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty

FLETCHER PROUTY spent his early working life in the Army Air Corps and the Air Force. He flew covert missions for the OSS during the war, and the CIA after, then rose to the upper reaches of the Pentagon, where, during the 50s and early 60s, he routinely briefed the Dulles brothers and the Joint Chiefs -- and ran the Air Force liaison unit that provided air power for the CIA when its dirty little wars needed a lift or a big bang.

From his perch in the Pentagon Prouty concluded, within hours of John F. Kennedy's murder, that a large-scale and well prepared covert op was underway, and that people he worked closely with were involved. He resigned his commission months later, early 1964, and spent the remainder of his life writing exposes about covert operations and the crime of the century.

The Secret Team of 1973 remains required reading for understanding not only how our Vietnam war and JFK's murder came about, but:

-- how the brotherhood of Briefers, housed in various organs of the national security apparat, controls foreign policy by controlling the information given to the civilian leadership, and

-- how operators working on behalf of third parties cycle through those organs, as a secret team working on behalf of clients other than the State and often at odds with the national interest.

After 30 years of hard-to-find obscurity, the book was re-published, for good reason, during the Bush-Cheneytime.

In the mid 70s Prouty was the political editor at Gallery maga- zine, which did its best to compete with Playboy and Penthouse, not only by flashing fine femme flesh but by publishing interviews and political stories the mainstream magazines wouldn't touch.

And then in the early 90s he became something of a household name, as an advisor to Oliver Stone on the film JFK. Colonel X, played by Donald Sutherland, was modeled entirely on Prouty -- who with the film's success published his second book, JFK, to update his thoughts about the assassination.

Colonel Prouty died in June 2001: a kindness, perhaps, to have been spared 9/11. But I miss him. Despite nearly forty years of sustained criticism of the Apparat, he was given a great formal funeral by the Pentagon with full honors and much brass in attendance, which, one surmises, constitutes confirmation.

The following begins as a primer on assasination -- in particular, the use of faux suicide in places like Washington D.C., where drive-by blasts won't do. Then the author winds his way back to the watershed -- his own and the Republic's -- of November 1963.

The piece appeared in the September 1975 issue of Gallery, with a story by Harlan Ellison and an interview with Freddie Prinze.

ASSASSINATION IS A BIG business. It is the business of the CIA and any other power that can pay for the "hit" and control the assured getaway.

The CIA brags that its operations in Iran in 1953 led to the pro-Western attitude of that important country. The CIA also takes credit for what it calls the "perfect job" in Guatemala. Both successes were achieved by assassination. What is this assassination business and how does it work?

In most countries there is little or no provision for change of political power. Therefore the strongman stays in power until he dies or until he is removed by a coup d'etat -- which often means by assassination.

For instance, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, for all of his wealth and seeming power, died from an assassin's bullet even though he was protected by an elite guard trained by a private contractor selected by the United States Department of Defense.

This brings up the question of mechanics.

Foreign assassinations, and to a degree domestic assassinations, are set in motion not so much by a specific plan to kill the intended victim as by efforts to remove or relax the protective organization around the target.

Thus, if the CIA secretly lets it be known that it is displeased with a certain ruler and that it would not act against a new regime, some cabal will certainly move against him. Firstly, such CIA sentiment encourages cabals into action and, secondly, it frightens the existing "elite corps."

Most palace guards are hated because they are oppressive. When they learn that their CIA support is being removed or weakened, they think of themselves first and begin to head for exile, leaving the ruler vulnerable to the designs of a cabal.

This is how the passive "displeasure" of the CIA kills.

The same applies to domestic assassinations. Consider the following event.

The autopsy was routine: suicide. A high government official, recently promoted, was found alone in his house, dead and with his rifle beside him.

A single bullet had shattered his head. There were no other signs of violence.

A poorly typed note to his wife and son lay on the table near him. The hastily scribbled signature was his own.

But the "suicide" was an assassination.

After his promotion, the official had found papers in the files of his predecessor that showed that the law had been broken, that huge payoffs had been made, and that cases had been judged on the basis of favoritism and bribery. Consequently, a major industry had suffered grievously.

An earlier administration had accepted this corruption as part of its technique of staying in power.

The new official, a fair and honest man, had been deeply troubled by what he had found. He had told his superiors and was stunned when they told him to keep his mouth shut, that they would take care of things.

He had begun to drink heavily, and when he was drunk, he had talked. He had become tense.

But he worked long hours and went through all the cover-up files. He reconstructed what had happened and prepared a complete report and had just about finished it. He did much of his work late at night at home.

On one of those evenings his wife had gone off on a visit and his son was at college. The phone call was calm and official-sounding.

"This is the police. Have you heard from your son recently? Well, something has happened."

The policeman said he would come right over to talk about it, and added that he was out of uniform and was driving an unmarked car. Yes, he would have identification: Fairfax County Police.

The car pulled up quietly. There was a quick knock on the door. The policeman entered, showed his identification and was invited to sit down.

At the split second when the official turned to usher the "policeman" into the house, he was hit a sharp blow on the back of the head. He suffered a massive concussion and was dead.

The "policeman" went to a closet where he knew a rifle was kept (the house had been well cased). The rest was simple.

He hoisted the body up on the end of the rifle with the muzzle in the victim's mouth. One shot blew the top of the head off, removing evidence of the first blow.

The suicide note had already been typed on the official's typewriter and the signature had been lifted from another paper signed with a ball point pen.

In moments the "policeman" was on his way.

The unmarked car was left in back of the Forrestal building, where it had been taken from a pool of cars, and the assassin was on his way by taxi to Washington National Airport.

He shuttled on the last flight to New York. He had already made arrangements for a series of flights that would take him to Athens.

Less than twenty-four hours later, he was on the beach south of the city, among old friends and acquaintances in the modern world's equivalent of the Assassin Sect. He was a faceless, professional, multinational "mechanic." He earned good money and was convinced he was doing an essential job for the power center that he believed would save the world from communism.

This story is, in most particulars, true.

SOME TIME ago it was revealed that the CIA had been issued a number of identification kits in the name of the Fairfax County, Virginia, police department. This does not necessarily mean the CIA planned to use those identities for the purpose of assassination. In fact, it isn't clear what the CIA planned to do with those documents.

The CIA has many gadgets in its arsenal and has spent years training thousands of people how to use them. Some of these people, working perhaps for purposes and interests other than the CIA's, use these items to carry out burglaries, assassinations, and other unlawful activities -- with or without the blessing of the CIA.

Crimes such as these, some of which have remained open for years, cannot be solved by any one individual. But there are patterns and motives that serve to expose methods.

IN 1963, about one month before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, a prominent Washington lawyer died. It was ruled a suicide because it appeared that he had put his own rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

His name was Coates Lear, and he was a law partner of Eugene Zuchert, then Secretary of the Air Force.  Lear knew a lot about special airlift contracts and about the plans for Kennedy's fatal visit to Texas. Then, for unexplained reasons, he began drinking excessively. And when he drank, he talked. Soon he was dead.

The same pattern fits the case of William Miles Gingery, the scenario of whose death we have outlined above.  He had been promoted to chief of the office of enforcement of the Civil Aeronautics Board. He had found many irregularities in that office when he took over, and he was scheduled to appear before Senator Edward M. Kennedy's Committee of Administrative Practices and Procedures.

Gingery, a nondrinker, had begun drinking and was obviously terribly upset. One night he was found dead. His death, in early 1975, was ruled a suicide; it was found that he had put the muzzle of his rifle into his mouth and fired.

These are interesting cases. There were many reasons why both of these men might have been assassinated and they both died in the same manner. That type of "suicide" is one of the trademarks of the professional "mechanic," the kind of killer who works in the international assassination game.


WE HEAR much today about the CIA and the subject of assassinations. The agency has been linked to the assassination in 1963 of Ngo Dinh Diem, the then president of South Vietnam, and of his brother Nhu. The Diems were killed in October 1963. [Ed: The coup de grace came on November 2.]

During the summer of 1971 Charles Colson and E. Howard Hunt, among others, were interested in seeing what could be done to forge and alter official State Department messages to make it appear that President John F. Kennedy was directly implicated in these assassinations.

This is an important point. If the White House wanted so badly to tie in a dead president to that plot, it must have known then that President Kennedy was not involved and that records proved that he wasn't.

The timing of this "dirty tricks" project is interesting.

Some months previous, the New York Times had published the Pentagon Papers. The Times version of the Papers contained a somewhat detailed but mixed-up version of the events in Saigon during the late summer of 1963, just before the Diems were killed.

Anyone reading those papers carefully would discover that the CIA had been close to the assassination plan and that it had men on the scene. But nowhere in the Pentagon Papers is there any message or directive that states in so many words, "The Diems will be assassinated."

Even lacking this explicit document, many researchers will still conclude that the CIA was mixed up in the affair, and will conclude also that Kennedy did not order the murders. In 1963 Hunt was an active CIA agent and was deeply involved with the then former Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired.

So when the Nixon White House directed Hunt to forge State Department records in order to make it appear that JFK had directed the assassination of the Diems, the White House knew what it was doing, the CIA knew what it was doing, and Hunt most certainly knew what he was doing. But they goofed.

Even if they had succeeded in making it appear that JFK had ordered the killing of the Diems, it would not have stood up, because that is not how political assassinations are done. The clue is that assassination is a murder of an enemy of the sect (and this can mean many things today), and that it is performed as a sacred religious duty. No one has to direct an assassination -- it happens. The active role is played secretly by permitting it to happen.

Take the case of the Diems.


Eisenhower, J.F. Dulles and Diem in the 50s

BY THE SUMMER of 1963 the Diem regime had been in full control of South Vietnam for ten years and the country was going from bad to worse. By August 1963 memoranda were being circulated in the [U.S.] government; they were unmarked, with no classification, and were hand-carried from person to person.

These memos stated such things as, "We must find a way to get rid of the Diems." This was the summer of extreme and fanatical discontent in Vietnam, including Buddhist uprisings and self-immolations.

The situation led to a series of inquiries from the CIA in Washington to Saigon in order to assess the opposition -- what its strength might be and whether any of its prospective leaders might be better suited for the interests of the United States than were the Diems.

The CIA, which had placed the Diems in power, was severely split over this problem. One faction wanted to keep Diem and go along with his further demands. Another was ready to drop him and begin again with someone else. There were two favorites in Washington and many more in Saigon. Thus the ground work for an assassination began.

Word got out that the United States "might" withdraw its support of the Diems. This played into the hands of every Saigon cabal.

But it did something more important. As the word got out, the people affected most were those who benefited from the Diem regime. The Diems' secret police, their elite guard, and the Diems' inner circle began to realize that they had better move fast. They had been oppressors, murderers. They had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars. Without the support of the United States, the CIA, and the Diems these inner elite were dead.

As word began to get around Saigon, everyone began to think of evening their scores against the hated Diems. Death was in the air. As the elite began to fade away, the Diems' strength was dissipated rapidly.

Yet in Washington, removed from the harsh reality in Saigon, it seemed only wise to study the situation from every angle. As August gave way to September, President Kennedy vacillated, the State Department did little, and the CIA kept firing out messages to its agents on all sides.

Gradually a plan took shape. Madame Nhu, who had ridiculed the Buddhist victims by saying that if they wanted to "barbecue" themselves it was none of her business, suddenly realized that it might be a good time to take a long trip to Europe and the United States. This was the first phase.

Next would be to get the Diems out of the country. Plans were made for them to attend an important meeting in Europe and they received formal invitations. A special plane was to fly them there.

As their departure date approached, the CIA instructed its agents to work closer with the prospective new regimes. This hastened the disintegration of the Diems' elite guard.

Then, for reasons that have never been clear, the Diems having gone as far as the airport, turned, stepped back into their car, and sped to their palace. They must not have understood how the game worked. If they did not leave the country, they would be dead.

They returned to an empty palace. All of their guard had fled. The actual killing was a simple thing -- "for the good of the cause." The United States and the CIA could wash their hands of it, for they had nothing to do with it. Like all assassinations, it just happened.


Diem dead, three weeks before Kennedy

IN WASHINGTON the White House had tried to "save" the Diems, and by so doing, had preordained their deaths. This is the assassination scenario and it works in almost all cases, even when there is no elaborate plan.

It would have seemed that the [Nixon] White House, and especially an old professional like E. Howard Hunt, would have known that it had happened that way and that changing the records would only have implicated them deeper than they already were by the summer of 1971. And now, in 1975, there has been a flood of charges about assassinations.

Of course the CIA has been involved. It made it its business to get close to the elite guards of a great many of the Third World countries. As long as these nations' leaders play the game, like King Hussein and the Shah of Iran, all goes well; but if one of them gets out of line, or if some cabal begins to grow in power and offer what might seem a better deal, then, as in the case of the Diems, the power of the United States will be withdrawn. Then, without doubt, the King is dead.

Most Americans are not aware of the fragility of Third World governments. Many have a military no larger and no more effective than a good-sized army band. Many have a "King's Guard" that is inadequate. The most trusted of the guard control the ammunition supplies; every time ammunition is issued for training, a close count is kept of expended rounds.

Therefore no matter how wealthy the king may be, or how much wealth his country may possess in valuable raw materials, it will not assure his security. Rather, his money tends to threaten his life.

Thus these puny sovereigns must appeal to some greater power for their protection. For many years the United States, usually through the CIA, has provided the training for the elite guard.

Without his guard, King Hussein of Jordan would have been dead or deposed long ago. His guard is trained by the CIA, even including paratrooper training by a clandestine military assistance program provided by the United States Air Force and the Army, though it is under CIA control.

Similarly, many rulers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America owe their positions and in most cases their lives to the United States and the CIA, and most recently, to private corporations hired to train, and thereby control, the "elite guard."

This is how it begins; then comes the escalation. An elite guard is a small organization. As the ruler realizes his vulnerability, like the Diems and like the now deposed Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, he begins to look beyond the guard. He discusses an increase of his small and unskilled army with his "trainers" -- the CIA. They are quick to say that he should have a larger army and that they can get him a military assistance program from the United States, provided he pledges undying loyalty.

Now the program begins to pay off. A modest military assistance program of, say, fifty million dollars is begun. Of course, the entire amount is spent in the United States for American equipment.

An old rule in the military assistance program is that whenever a piece of equipment is provided, ten times its cost will be spent for spare parts before it wears out. This is where the manufacturing companies make a real killing, for with spare parts they can charge whatever they want.

The next escalation is as follows: if the ruler of one country has been given a fifty-million-dollar program, each of his neighbors asks for similar programs for self-defense. Since World War II this has been a trillion-dollar business. Meanwhile, trade missions from the United States begin to work over the client states to see what natural resources can be acquired and for what price, while the CIA works with selected American manufacturers to portion out various franchises, such as Coca-Cola and Singer Sewing Machines.

Through this device other selected families in the client country are put on the road to becoming millionaires and powers in their own country. This creates power centers that at times are played off against each other, as the CIA sees fit. Eventually, the structure explodes, the elite guard weakens, and unless the ruler is a hard-headed pragmatist and leaves immediately, he will be assassinated.


SINCE WORLD War II, there have been hundreds of "coups d'etats" -- a euphemism for assassination. That list will grow as long as the United States does its diplomatic work clandestinely. Why else has Henry Kissinger "shuttled" from country to country in the Middle East? If his relationship with each of these countries is an undercover relationship, then he cannot meet with them publicly and in a group.

Eventually, practitioners of assassination by the removal of power reach the point where they see that technique as fit for the removal of opposition anywhere.

That was why President Kennedy was killed. He was not murdered by some lone, gunman or by some limited conspiracy, but by the breakdown of the protective system that should have made an assassination impossible. Once insiders knew that he would not be protected, it was easy to pick the day and the place.

In fact, those responsible for luring Kennedy to Dallas on November 22, 1963 were not even in on the plan itself. He went to Texas innocuously enough: to dedicate an Air Force hospital facility at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. It was not too difficult then to get him to stop at Fort Worth -- "to mend political fences." Of course, no good politician would go to Fort Worth and skip Dallas.

All the conspirators had to do was to let the right "mechanics" know where Kennedy would be and when and, most importantly, that the usual precautions would not have been made and that escape would be facilitated.

This is the greatest single clue to that assassination. Who had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that always are in effect whenever a president travels?

Castro did not kill Kennedy, nor did the CIA. The power source that arranged that murder was on the inside. It had the means to reduce normal security and permit the choice of a hazardous route. 
It also has had the continuing power to cover up that crime for twelve years.


ED NOTE: As is usual with Colonel Prouty, one wishes that his writing was better organized and less hesitant at crucial moments.

But, having read about everything he ever published, including his foundational first blast, The Secret Team (1973), abook-length interview with David Ratcliff in 1989, his JFK of 1992, numerous magazine articles, and an unpublished ms he sent me in the early 90s ...

All I can say is that he should be taken seriously, that odd-sounding locutions have meaning and, if it eludes, need to be worked with by cross-reading, and that when he fails to name a name he likely has a good reason, having something to do with the health of his family or an old friend from the service.

To my knowledge Prouty named only one name in the JFK murder, but did so numerous times: career OSS and CIAist Edward Lansdale, who among other things was the kingmaker, from the CIA Saigon station he opened in 1954, of South Vietnam's ill fated Diem. In the late 50s Lansdale had been given an Air Force general's uniform and meal ticket, and sat atop the Air Force staff in the Pentagon, where he and Prouty worked together making sure the CIA had what it needed in the way of aerial equipment and staff.

Clearly, in the piece above, re JFK, Prouty emphasizes his conviction that the fix was in at the Secret Service. In the Ratcliff interview at one point he implies belief that McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's National Security Advisor, was also in on the game.

To my knowledge, this is the extent of what he felt able to say: Lansdale, Secret Service leadership both in DC and on the ground, and maybe, just maybe, McGeorge Bundy. I imagine this is roughly the extent of what he considered his knowledge. He seems not to wander beyond what he knew first hand or through trusted friends.

For example. He writes of the Diem assassination many times, and at least once with more detail than above -- stating that the brothers actually boarded a jet in Saigon, which the CIA had provided to take them to Paris, there to join Madame Nhu in permanent exile. But then, Prouty writes, they unaccountably panicked, disembarked, and drove back to the palace, where death at the hands of their successors was waiting.

The detail of this one telling suggests to me that Prouty -- who flew covert missions in east Asia during the war and after, then organized the air power supporting them from the Pentagon -- was either himself the pilot of the CIA jet or a friend of that pilot, who later told him what had happened.

Similarly: Another story Prouty tells many times is about an Army intelligence unit in Texas that routinely provided screening and street protection during public appearances by the president and other high officials. According to Prouty, the commanding general of that unit received a call from Washington shortly before the murder and was told to "stand down." You're not needed. Do not go to Dallas. And the order was obeyed.

If memory serves, Prouty does, once in the many tellings of this story, provide the name of the otherwise anonymous general who took this call. But he never identifies the other voice on the line, neither by name nor branch of service or government. I read this to mean that Prouty was told of the call by the general who took it, and granted permission to tell the story in the careful way he has.

Moreover, it seems that Prouty means, and perhaps expects, it to be clear that the call came from atop the Secret Service, the manager of presidential security. Any other voice, issuing such a surprising order, would have provoked a flurry of phone calls from the general -- to the Secret Service, up the Army's chain of command to the Pentagon, etc. Only a routine call -- from the usual boss -- would have been simply obeyed.


THE THEME OF Withdrawn Protection is central to all of Prouty's carefully withdrawn writing -- but one also finds it voiced concretely in detail by Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig, of the Dallas Sheriff's department, who saw things that day in Dealey Plaza that flatly contradict the official story on several important points, and that haunted him for life.

Craig told his story on film in 1974 -- very much worth watching -- and his opening remarks concern the unusual lack of participation in security along the parade route by Dallas city police and county sheriffs.

Months after telling his story on camera, Deputy Craig was dead. A rifle blast to the chest. Which the coroner ruled a suicide.

It's hard, is it not, to always look away?

March 6, 1990

Essentially a copy of a letter Fletcher Prouty sent to Jim Garrison at a time when Garrison was having difficulty finding a publisher for his manuscript, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS. Garrison gave a copy of this letter to his publisher who gave a copy to Oliver Stone. When Stone read this he said, "I can make a movie of this." That was the start of "JFK", a feature film receiving 8 Academy Award nominations. See also the article MR. X REVEALS THE IDENTITY OF GENERAL Y in the INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION section on this site.

Dear Jim,

It is amazing how things work, I am at home recuperating from a major back operation (to regain my ability to walk); so I was tossing around in bed last night...not too comfortable...and I began to think of Garrison. I thought, "I have got to write Jim a letter detailing how I believe the whole job was done."

By another coincidence I had received a fine set of twenty photos from the Sprague collection in Springfield, Mass. As the odds would have it, he is now living just around the corner here in Alexandria. Why not? Lansdale lived here, Fensterwald lives here. Ford used to live here. Quite a community.

I was studying those photos. One of them is in the "Tramps" picture that appears in your book. It is glossy and clear. Lansdale is so clearly identifiable. Why, Lansdale in Dallas? The others don't matter, they are nothing but actors and not gunmen: but they are interesting. Others who knew Lansdale as well as I did, have said the same thing, "That's him. What's he doing there?"

Prouty spots Landsdale, the Chief U.S.Covert Opperations Officer in this famous Dallas Texas photo.

As I was reading the paper the Federal Express man came with a book from Jim, that unusual "Lansdale" book. A terrible biography. There could be a great biography about Lansdale. He's no angel; but he is worth a good biography. Currey, a paid hack, did the job. His employers ought to have let him do it right.

I had known Ed since 1952 in the Philippines. I used to fly there regularly with my MATS Heavy Transport Squadron. As a matter of fact, in those days we used to fly wounded men, who were recuperating, from hospitals in Japan to Saigon for R&R on the beaches of Cap St Jacque. That was 1952-1953. Saigon was the Paris of the Orient. And Lansdale was "King Maker" of the Philippines. We always went by way of Manila. I met his team.

He had arrived in Manila in Sept 1945, after the war was over, for a while. He had been sent back there in 1950 by the CIA(OPC) to create a new leader of the Philippines and to get rid of Querino. Sort of like the Marcos deal, or the Noriega operation. Lansdale did it better. I have overthrown a government but I didn't splash it all around like Reagan and Bush have done.

General Edward Landsdale stands between Allen Dulles and General Cabel. It is difficult to imagine 3 more lethal persons on the planet.

Now, who sent him there? Who sen him there in 1950 (Truman era) to do a job that was not done until 1953 (Ike era)? From 1950 to Feb 1953 the Director of Central Intelligence was Eisenhower's old Chief of Staff, Gen Walter Bedell Smith. Smith had been Ambassador to Moscow from 1946 to 1949. The lesser guys in the CIA at the time were Allen Dulles, who was Deputy Director Central Intelligence from Aug 1951 to Feb 1953. Frank Wisner became the Deputy Director, Plans (Clandestine Activities) when Dulles became DDCI. Lansdale had to have received his orders from among these four men: Truman, Smith, Dulles, and Wisner. Of course the Sec State could have had some input...i.e. Acheson. Who wanted Querino out, that badly? Who wanted HUKS there?

In Jan 1953 Eisenhower arrived. John Foster Dulles was at State and Gen Smith his Deputy. Allen Dulles was the DCI and General Cabel his deputy. None of them changed Lansdale's prior orders to "get" Querino. Lansdale operated with abandon in the Philippines. The Ambassador and the CIA Station Chief, George Aurell, did not know what he was doing. They believed he was some sort of kook Air Force Officer there...a role Lansdale played to the hilt. Magsaysay became President, Dec 30, 1953.

With all of this on the record, and a lot more, this guy Currey comes out of the blue with this purported "Biography". I knew Ed well enough and long enough to know that he was a classic chameleon. He would tell the truth sparingly and he would fabricate a lot. Still, I can not believe that he told Currey the things Currey writes. Why would Lansdale want Currey to perpetuate such out and out bullshit about him? Can't be. This is a terribly fabricated book. It's not even true about me. I believe that this book was ordered and delineated by the CIA.

At least I know the truth about myself and about Gen. Krulak. Currey libels us terribly. In fact it may be Krulak who caused the book to be taken off the shelves. Krulak and his Copley Press cohorts have the power to get that done, and I encouraged them to do just that when it first came out. Krulak was mad!

Ed told me many a time how he operated in the Philippines. He said, "All I had was a blank checkbook signed by the U.S. government." He made friends with many influential Filipinos. I have met Johnny Orendain and Col Valeriano, among others, in Manila with Lansdale. He became acquainted with the wealthiest Filipino of them all, Soriano. Currey never even mentions him. Soriano set up Philippine Airlines and owned the big San Miguel beer company, among other things. Key man in Asia.

Lansdale's greatest strategy was to create the "HUKS" as the enemy and to make Magsaysay the "Huk Killer." He would take Magsaysay's battalion out into a "Huk" infested area. He would use movies and "battlefield" sound systems, i.e. fireworks to scare the poor natives. Then one-half of Magsaysay's battalion, dressed as natives, would "attach" the village at night. They'd fire into the air and burn some shacks. In the morning the other half, in uniform, would attack and "capture" the "Huks". They would bind them up in front of the natives who crept back from the forests, and even have a "firing" squad "kill" some of them. Then they would have Magsaysay make a big speech to the people and the whole battalion would roll down the road to have breakfast together somewhere...ready for the next "show".

Ed would always see that someone had arranged to have newsmen and camera men there and Magsaysay soon became a national hero. This was a tough game and Ed bragged that a lot of people were killed; but in the end Magsaysay became the "elected" President and Querino was ousted "legally."

This formula endeared Ed to Allen Dulles. In 1954 Dulles established the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam...counter to Eisenhower's orders. He had the French accept Lansdale as its chief. This mission was not in Saigon. It was not military, and its job was subversion in Vietnam. Its biggest job was that it got more than 1,100,000 northern Vietnamese to move south. 660,000 by U.S. Navy ships and the rest by CIA airline planes. These 1,100,000 north Vietnamese became the "subversive" element in South Vietnam and the principal cause of the warmaking. Lansdale and his cronies (Bohanon, Arundel, Phillips, Hand, Conein and many others) did all that using the same check book. I was with them many times during 1954. All Mathuseanism.

I have heard him brag about capturing random Vietnamese and putting them in a Helicopter. Then they would work on them to make them "confess" to being Viet Minh. When they would not, they would toss them out of the chopper, one after the other, until the last ones talked. This was Ed's idea of related to me many times. Then Dulles, Adm Radford and Cardinal Spellman set up Ngo Dinh Diem. He and his brother, Nhu, became Lansdale proteges.

At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him.

By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way.

Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00.

I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate.

Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job.

He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam.

Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation get Castro...ostensibly.

The U.S. Army has a think tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then.

Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done.

The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs, They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery.

Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy.

He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police.

The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for The CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples.

The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in TExas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.

The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him. "No trial in Texas...ever."

The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY.

The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald.

Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world.

Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook ha has the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.?

Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy????

At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White HOuse where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job?

General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas?

See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows.

One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy?

The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program."This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.

I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soon and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official).

This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe-oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc.

There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers." You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.)

Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating.

L. Fletcher Prouty

Go now to the PROUTY ARCHIVES.



P.O. Box 58,
Tempe, Arizona 85280
(602) 241-1998



LEN OSANIC & Black Op Radio — the voice of political conspiracy research

I would like to see more effort in cleaning
up the past with regards to real history.

If you don't understand the assassinations
of JFK, RFK, MLK, it is hard to
ask someone to investigate the
Paul Wellstone plane crash or 911.

Dealey Plaza

Big money and governments
protect themselves and kill to protect.

That is a fact of life people
have found uncomfortable
to examine.

Now if you examine big drug cartels
and vaccinations you will
find the same thing.

Follow the money
was never more true.


Learn and understand first,
then we can suggest solutions.

Being Canadian I am simply amazed
that Bush and Limbaugh just go on
as if nothing has happened.

Len Osanic

Anita Langley and Len Osanic in the Black Op studio.

Len Osanic and Dr. William F. Pepper
Feb 2003

Len Osanic and Col. L. Fletcher Prouty
July 1996

Len in his recording studio

New American Dream Interview

LEN OSANIC, 51, lives in Vancouver, Canada.

Since 2000 he has been the host of Black Op Radio, with a conspiracy research format.

The show runs once a week and recently hit the 400 mark.

The rest of the week Len works as a Recording engineer.

NAD: Len, hello, welcome.

How did you get started with the show?


How did you get to know Fletcher Prouty?

Was the show in any way his idea?

I had been doing radio interviews with Col. Fletcher Prouty to promote his CD-ROM I produced and when he became ill, I considered I could do as good a job as the interviews I was getting so I started call the people I wanted to talk to.

I own a recording studio and just started.

NAD: You had a guest-host at one time, now you are flying solo? Correct?

Isn't that a lot of prep work, production work, promotion work, funding work for one person?

It is an interest so I don't see it as work. I don't have to answer to anyone so it is ideal really

I do have fans who help. One sends out the podcasts and another writes the show notes

NAD: You've been grinding this out week after week for a long time, and through some times when perhaps the only encouragement you got was to quit.

How did you keep going? 

Do you feel you and we have come through the worst times, as far as coming through the fog of disbelief and disinformation? Is there any reason for hope?

Being interested in history and human nature is not grinding to me.

Trying to understand the world we live in.

And I provide information for others, that is my service to the community.

I hate interviews where they cut people off always getting to something important then saying hold that thought we'll be right back.

Then they never do.

So I archive what I think are important interviews with authors, film makers, writers to get their views.

NAD: Any idea how many listeners you have?

Any idea what impact you are having? Are you having a good time?

Do your listeners become your friends.

How does the show help you in any personal way?

Do you feel better because you are at least trying?

I am getting a couple thousand a week and about 700 podcast subscribers

NAD: Do you have a favorite subject? JFK, RFK? 911?

Do you also go into UFOs?

I don't talk about UFO's, leave that to George Noory. 

I interview people who have some real research to offer mostly to illuminate what is already out there. 

And Black Op Radio is a catalyst for researchers.

I am often getting new book and films so they is research work going on.

NAD: What does your family think about your efforts?

Why is a Canadian so interested in all these American History problems?

What do you think about America? Do you hate us? Do you see any hope in Clinton? I mean, in Obama?

Family has no opinion. I doubt they listen. 

First of all you have to know a fair bit to really get Black Op Radio.

I think someone would be overwhelmed with the information if they were not already familiar with the topics discussed.

NAD: What else would you like to add?

What else should I have asked?

I would like to see more effort in cleaning up the past with regards to real history.

If you don't understand the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK it is hard to ask someone to investigate Paul Wellstone plane crash or 911.

Big money and governments protect themselves and kill to protect.

That is a fact of life people have found uncomfortable to examine.

Now if you examine big drug cartels and vaccinations you will find the same thing.

Follow the money was never more true.

Learn and understand first then we can suggest solutions.

Being Canadian I am simply amazed the Bush and Limbaugh just go on as if nothing has happened.

I also run the Col. L.Fletcher Prouty Reference Site.

Len Osanic


"Dealey Plaza & The Dream"



THE New American Dream Feature Interviews

If you search the archives below, you will find, in a sort of order [last to first], interviews with:

Levi Asher, a writer and literary critic in New York City

Geov Parrish, 
Seattle journalist, activist

Bill Polonsky, 
Yukon 9/11 Truth

Daphne Webb, 
Denver writer, activist, green wedding planner

Michael Boldin, 
a populist blooms in L.A.

Greg Mitchell, 
editor of Editor & Publisher magazine

Will Braun, 
editor of Geez Magazine,

Ben Heine, 
political artist in Belgium

Matt Sullivan, 
editor of The Rock Creek Free Press

Sam Smith, 
editor of The Progressive Review

Jarek Kupsc, 
9/11 Truth filmmaker, "The Reflecting Pool"

Bill O'Driscoll, 
arts editor, Pittsburgh City Paper

Gerry McCarthy, 
editor of The Social Edge

Jim Cullen, 
editor of The Progressive Populist magazine

old-school blogger from Tulsa

Lee Rayburn, 
radio show host from Madison, Wisconsin

Aimee England, 
bookseller in Michigan

Al Markowitz, 
poet for the working woman & man

Timbre Wolf, 
a Tulsa peace minstrel goes to Hawaii

Steven Stothard, 
a radical grows in Indiana

Dale Clark, an artist in the desert

Jacqui Devenuau, Green Party organizer in Maine

Don Harkins, co-editor of The Idaho Observer

Stewart Bradley, independent film producer

Rick Smith, Cleveland area radio host

William P. Meyers, independent book publisher, political activist

Ian Woods, Canadian publisher, 9/11 Truth activist

Richard D. Brinkman, Edmonton, Canada 9/11 Truth

Lynn Berg, New York City actor

Alejandro Rojas, of MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network

Brian Kasoro, publisher of The Liberator magazine

Brother Raymond, walked from Denver to D.C., for truth

Korey Rowe, one of the producers of Loose Change

Dave Zweifel, editor of The Madison Capital Times

Cathleen Howard, expatriate, from Tucson to Mexico, to pursue her dreams

Sander Hicks, Brooklyn radical entrepreneur, writer, publisher

Joe Bageant, America's blue-collar author

Frida Berrigan, a lifetime of faith, hope and love

Denise Diaz, brewing up a revolution, at The Ritual Cafe in Des Moines

Deanna Taylor, Green Party activist, teacher, in Salt Lake City

Rossie Indira-Vltchek, writer, filmmaker in Jarkarta, Indonesia

Nora Barrows-Friedman, Pacifica reporter in Gaza

Delaney Bruce, Friends of Peltier

Keith McHenry, co-founder of Food Not Bombs 

Michael Sprong, South Dakota Catholic Worker

Brian Terrell, Des Moines Catholic Worker

Bob Graf
One of the Milwaukee 14

Loren Coleman, Bigfoot researcher

Monty Borror, Sci-Fi artist from Virginia

David Ray, Great American Poet

Jack Blood, radio show host, in Austin, Texas

Danny Schechter, A Real Reporter

Bob Kincaidhost, Head-On Radio Show

Tony Packes, Animal Farm Radio Host, Keeping An Eye on Big Brother

Richard FlamerWorking With the Poor in Chiapas

David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Truth activist author

Barry Crimmins, U.S. comedian, author, social activist

Bret Hayworth, political reporter for the Sioux City [IA] Journal

Lisa Casey, publisher of website All Hat No Cattle

Joe & Elaine Mayer, activist couple in Rochester, Minnesota

Fr. Darrell Rupiper, U.S. priest revolutionary

Whitney Trettien, MIT student, Green Party activist

Meria Heller, radio show host

Phil Hey, professor, poet

John Crawford, book publisher

Steve Moon, Iowa Bigfoot researcher

Carol Brouillet, California social activist, 9/11 Truth

Russell Brutsche, Santa Cruz artist

Kevin Barrett, professor, radio show host, 9/11 Truth activist

A'Jamal Rashad Byndon, social activist in Omaha

Chris Rooney, Vancouver, Canada Catholic Worker, website publisher

Marc Estrin, political novelist, from the left

Peter Dale Scott, poet, professor, author, activist

Anthony Rayson, anarchist zine publisher, works with prisoners

Alice Cherbonnier, editor of The Baltimore Chronicle, an independent newspaper

Posted by at 5:55 AM 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

a nice interview. Len does a wonderful show each week. I've listened to him for years. Nice to see someone else appreciates him.

Rachel in UK

June 6, 2009 7:14 PM


Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent Reveals Horrifying New Details About JFK's Assassination

jfk assassinationTasked with protecting First Lady Jackie Kennedy, Secret Service agent Clint Hill was the man standing between her and gunfire the day her husband was killed. 

Now, nearly fifty years after the shooting, Hill has written a memoir, Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir, about his encounters with the first lady.

The book includes a detailed account of the harrowing minutes before and after the shooting of President Kennedy. Hill also spoke about the day on NBC's Today show.

Here are some of the most chilling moments. 

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

"Her eyes were filled with terror," Hill wrote about First Lady Jackie Kennedy. "She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the President's head."

Source: Daily Mail

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto ceme

The gunshot was deafening, Hill writes. "The impact was like the sound of a melon shattering onto cement," he said.

Source: Daily Mail

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Kennedy held her husband in her arms shouting, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?"

Source: Daily Mail

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

She refused to let him go, not wanting people to see him die. "I recognized that the problem was she didn't want anyone to see him," Hill said on the Today show. "It was a gory situation. And so I took my jacket off and I covered his head and upper back. Then she let go."

Source: Today

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Hill knew exactly what he had to do. "Somebody had fired a shot at the President, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the President and Mrs. Kennedy," he wrote. "Nothing else mattered."

Source: Daily Mail

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Hill remembers that, after the shooting, the First Lady cut her husband's hair with a pair of scissors that another secret service agent had brought.

Source: Daily Mail

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Hill still feels guilt over the shooting, saying that he could have taken the third bullet had he moved sooner. "I had problems sleeping," he said on the Today show. "I had nightmares, I went into a very deep depression, I cut myself off from friends and family."

Source: Today

Read more:

Fletcher Prouty Commentary - February 
Anatomy Of An Assassination

(Transcript of speech from the 1970's) 

This subject which I am going to get into, I might call the anatomy of assassination, or the politics of assassination. Assassination is big business, in fact assassination is the business of big business. I've written quite a bit on this subject in various magazines and for those of you who have managed to get past some of the pictures that occur in some of those magazines, you'll know that in the November issue of Genesis I wrote on the subject of the Kennedy assassination. Just last month, March issue of Genesis I wrote about international assassination. I have to write five months ahead of time, I have an article completed and in the mail 24th of March, on assassinations in which I talked about the possibility of further assassinations in the Middle East. 

As I went to the Post Office on the 25th with a newspaper under my arm about the assassination of King Faisal, I had the intention of taking the article home and bringing it up to date. You see it's that kind of a subject.What was your first thought when you read about the assassination of King Faisal? What goes through the minds of perpetrators of assassinations. Are we again confronted with a young man who was a lone nut, who kept a diary and friends on a grassy knoll, down there in Saudi Arabia? Or was the King killed by some sort of a machine or conspiracy that had other plans for action in the Middle East? Mr. Kissinger had left the Middle East the day before. Mr. Nixon had tallied in Dallas until the morning of the assassination. 

So there's a theme running through these things that the King is dead, but what is the meaning then of the controls that go through these things. In this case the resumption of power in Saudi Arabia almost seemed to be a little too, even too, easy. What had really happened there? I think what had really happened there will give us a picture of what goes on in assassination, how they come about, and then we can take that kind of a picture and begin to unravel some of the others and then we might come a little closer to the mark. 

Technically what happened in Saudi Arabia is that the King's guard, the King's elite, was broken. Now you can keep a man alive, if you don't believe that read your history of General De Gaulle. Even in the deepest darkest days of World War II there were thousands of people who would like to have taken a shot at De Gaulle. I remember after the Cairo conference in Marraketch, Morocco, Churchill was recovering with a bout of influenza and DeGaulle came to visit him several times. You can imagine the security measures that were taken in Morocco to keep the good General alive. I was in Lima, Peru, in March of 1964 when DeGaulle came and captivated the country of Peru. Hundreds of thousands of Peruvians filled Plaza DeArmas to such an extent that they were pressing against the walls and trampling the trees and yet General De Gaulle, who is a good many inches taller than I, walked among these Peruvians that night with search lights on him in that huge arena, among hundreds of thousands of people, and no one took a shot at him because in the six months before he went to Lima the people whose business it was to keep De Gaulle alive, the guerillas, if you remember their term of endearment, had thoroughly worked over the city of Lima. They had combed every list for people in that city who might be anti-De Gaulle, and had provided them with resort hotels a long way off. They had made sure when the General came to town he would stay alive.What is it then that keeps these people alive? In every country the King would not live if there was not an elite guard. Who trains the elite guard? The Vinnell Corporation. 

It seems to me that there's a point to the subject that appeared just a while ago in The New York Times, the Washington Post and a great number of other papers. To the effect that there had been a contract issued with the Vinnell Corporation, and I don't have any idea what their corporate connection's are, and the Defense Department of the United States, and the fact that the Vinnell Corporation had signed this contract for the purpose of training first of all , the National Guard of Saudi Arabia, and National Guard there means more or less police, and the Kings elite guard. I wonder which team they had in mind, because when you control the elite guard of a country, when you train that guard, when you arm that guard, when you teach them the jump from an airplane at Fort Benning and in Fort Bragg and give them all kinds of weapons training, bring them down to Camp Ferry in Virginia where there's a nice little resort, that guard knows how to keep a man alive, as long as that guard agrees to keep that man alive. So I don't know whether the death of King Faisal preceded the work of the Vinnell Corporation or whether the Vinnell Corporation's contract began on the 25th of March. It is awfully important because whether those men stay alive or not is the function of their inner guard. Once you relax the guard you open up a hornets nest. A lot of people would like to control the bank accounts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the rest of them. What keeps the King alive is not the election of the populous because they don't go through that there, it's simply his guard.This is a key to it and the guard of many of these countries throughout the world where there have been so many coup d'etats, - a euphemism for the work of mechanics or assassination. These guards for many, many years in my experience for more than twenty-five years, (I was in Saudi Arabia in 1943 on clandestine activities ), is the work of the Central Intelligence Agency. The people who let the contracts for the Central Intelligence Agency are called the Department of Defense. The people who do the work are called such companies such as the Vinnel Corporation or Air America, or some of these others. So you begin to see what comes about, and since I didn't come here this afternoon to really get into the assassination picture too deeply, I wanted to set a stage. 

So let me jump to some of the things we know about without having to dig too far under the surface.In 1953 the CIA had a problem, only this time it was in the country of Iran. Mosadeque died of lead poisoning and the Shah who was escaping to the Riviera was brought back to resume the long 2500 year line of Cyprus, King Cyrus, and now he leads the country of Iran at the pleasure of the Agency's number one man in the world today, Richard Helms, who is called Ambassador, and so as long as the guard in Iran can keep the Shah alive, he will be our man there. As long as the Shah is our man, he'll probably be alive.In Jordan, where King Hussien jets around and lives by grace of his elite guard, that guard has been trained through various corporate devices by the Central Intelligence Agency for at least twenty years. King Hussien has at about the same chances as surviving that Faisal or Hassen or the Shah have, and that is if he plays the game his guard will take care of him. 

These are important considerations because they are right there in the record, the thing is we in this country don't think of it that way very often. You see they don't have elections in many of these third tier countries. How do you replace somebody? How do you replace people in countries where there is not provision for election? People in power hold the power until somebody else is strong enough to take it away. That ability to take it away is a very fleeting thing sometimes as it was in the case of Trujillo or in the case of Diem. But in every case there are many people willing to move in and become heads of state and if the guard which is trained in many cases by our own CIA, part of their business. Now many people write about that or know about it but that's part of their prime business in the clandestine area. Then the men have the defense to keep them alive. 

Now I'll close with an example but I think it's a extremely pertinent one because it leads to what will follow me in this program. The case of Ngo Dinh Diem. . .when Diem assumed the power in Vietnam 1954. If you'll remember, his country had no antecedent it was simply a piece of real estate lying south of the seventeenth parallel. When you take over a piece of real estate like that and begin to rule, who are your police? Who is your army? Who are your generals and who are your sergeants? Where is your power? This is important, where is your power? Ed Lansdale, probably one of the best agents the Agency ever set in motion, came over from the Philippines where he had created a man named Magsaysay as President of the Philippines, pretty good job as far as that went. He brought his team with him to Saigon, I happened to be pilot on that airplane. We went into Saigon with the same what we used to call "Robin Hood technique" that if you can fool the people, you can fool the people. Diem was created by a secret police trained by special forces, the Green Berets, in those days I don't think they wore the green berets, I'm talking about 1955/1956/1957. 

Diem owed his existence at the time to two clever maneuvers. One was the rapid placement of a good secret police and, secondly, the purchase of an army. If you remember, there were two army's in Cholon, they were more or less mercenaries and they purchased the army. Now as long as Diem had that backing, he was in pretty good shape by the summer of 1963, a summer that we all could write about and research about a lot more, that was a very important summer. 

There were papers coming across my desk - at that time I was working in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - papers with no "top secret" stamps on them, no "eyes only" stamps on them, no register numbers on them. That meant they were really secret, if they are really secret you don't put anything on them. Then a man would come up to me and say have you seen this? And it would say we have had enough of Diem, what are we going to do about him? Well just that idea means that it won't be long until bullets are flyingbecause, what happens in Saigon, somebody like Lou Conien is told, "hey go check out the Generals, find out which general could take over the job. General "Big" Minh or Ngyuen Khahn or Ky, or Ky not ready but Khahn or Minn might be ready, check them out." The minute you tell people that in a city like Saigon - you could do it today - the minute you tell people that, they go back to their sources of power and they say, "Hey, you know what, the United States is changing its policy." It was changing its policy. 

It's like you stand on a stack of bibles, Chuck Colson and Howard Hunt tried to rewrite the stack of bibles to prove that is was Kennedy that said shoot him, but nobody in Washington said shoot Diem, you don't do an assassination that way. The way people are assassinated is by taking away the power that had been created to keep them there, it's a lot easier that way. More interest to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald and all the rest is, who said, "Lets go to Dallas Jack." I understand that Kenny O'Donnell feels real bad about it. I understand that Bobby Kennedy's said from time to time he wished he'd have put his foot down about it. Gerry Bruno, the greatest advance man in politics went there, but did Gerry Bruno pick the route? Maybe Mark can tell you. Who did, who decided let's go to Dallas? You've been to Fort Worth, you've got to go to Dallas. That's important because whoever decided that knew some things.I have worked with the Secret Service in their good work to keep presidents alive. I went to Mexico City when Eisenhower was going down there in 1956 and I'll tell you, the Secret Service knows the game, just like the guerrillas in France knew the game. They can keep the President alive. Where were they? 
How does it happen you can have a six story building with a lot of empty floors. They never wired or sealed the doors as their manual says they will, nor had anybody on the roof with high powered guns and with radios as their manual says they will, or had a man in Dealey Plaza to look at the man on the roof and to look at the windows as their manual says they will. If you don't drive over 44 mph, a nice figure but it works out in tests, why did they bring that car down to a crawling speed. Those are more important to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald or anybody else on the grassy knoll.I think I'll stop there. That's what 

Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?

The late Clay L. Shaw remains the only person in history to ever stand trial for the crime of conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The jury acquitted him, but was he really innocent?

The verdict in the trial of Clay Shaw
THE COURT: The jury has returned. Gentlemen, have you arrived at a verdict? Don't state what it is, just say yes or no.
(The Foreman nodded affirmatively.)
THE COURT: Sheriff, will you give it to me, please.
(Verdict handed to the Court.)
THE COURT: Stand up, Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Clerk, you may read it, sir.
THE CLERK: (Reading) "March 1, 1969, New Orleans, Louisiana.
"We the Jury find the defendant not guilty."
THE BAILIFF: Order in court, please.
THE COURT: Read the rest of it.
THE CLERK: Signed "Sidney J. Herbert, Jr."
THE COURT: Does the State wish to poll the Jury?
THE COURT: The State has not requested a poll of the jury, so let the verdict be recorded as a legal verdict. Will you just have a seat, Mr. Shaw. I will order you discharged without date; I would like you to just have a seat until I get rid of the jury.
Sheriff, I have the discharge certificates for the twelve jurymen, and I have put a memorandum of service January 21 to March 1, and this will be a memento of your service, and I am further writing an order to the Jury Commissioners ordering your names removed from the wheel for the rest of your lives.
Now on behalf of all concerned I want to thank you citizens for having discharged such an onerous burden without cost to the City. Let everybody have a seat, Sheriff, and let the jurors be escorted out of the court.
Quiet, please.
Gentlemen of the Jury, you are herewith discharged from the case, and I thank you for your citizenship. Let the jurors leave first, and after they leave then the press can leave after that.
This court stands adjourned until next Wednesday morning, March 5.
.... Thereupon, at or about 1:15 o'clock a.m., the proceedings herein were concluded ....

Opening statement by Jim Garrison
1426 (30)
May it please the Court:
Gentlemen of the Jury, you have been imposed on, to some extent unavoidably, because you have to be sequestered, and I am about to impose on you one more time, because I have to read to you a rather lengthy opening statement. The reason I have to read it is because under our law we cannot introduce evidence which has not been described, at least generally, in the opening statement, so as a result prosecuting attorneys in Louisiana have to read their opening statements in order to make sure they have touched every point of evidence that they intend to introduce. So I hope you will bear with me, and I will try and make it as painless as possible. I am going to read it verbatim, because I intend to give a copy to the Defense for their convenience as soon as I finish, and I want the copy I give them to be precisely the same as I have given you.
The State of Louisiana is required by law in all criminal trials to make an opening statement to the Jury. This statement is merely a blueprint of what the State intends to prove. It has no probative value and should not be considered as evidence in the case.
The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY. The crime of criminal conspiracy is to find in the Criminal Code of Louisiana as follows:
"Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination."
As required by the definition of criminal conspiracy, the State will prove the following overt acts:
1. A meeting of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, DAVID W. FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, in the apartment of DAVID W. FERRIE at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans during the month of September, 1963.
2. Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination.
3. A "trip to the West Coast of the United States by CLAY L. SHAW during the month of November, 1963.
4. A trip by DAVID W. FERRIE from New Orleans, Louisiana to Houston, Texas on the day of November 22, 1963.
5. LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963. The Criminal Code defines murder in the following terms:
MURDER: "Murder is the killing of a human being:
"(1)When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm."
The evidence will show that in New Orleans, in the Summer of 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was engaged in bizarre activities which made it appear ostensibly that he was connected with a Cuban organization, although in fact the evidence indicated that there was no such organization in New Orleans. This curious activity began on June 16th, when he distributed "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" leaflets on the Dumaine Street Wharf. This distribution took place at the docking site of the United States Aircraft Carrier, the USS Wasp.
Upon request of the commanding officer of the Wasp, Officer GIROD RAY of the Harbor Police approached Oswald and informed him that he would have to stop passing out the leaflets and leave the wharf area. At this time, Officer RAY confiscated two pieces of the literature being handed out by LEE HARVEY OSWALD. One of these was a leaflet, yellow in color with black print, entitled "Hands Off Cuba!" The body of the leaflet contained an invitation to join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. The other item taken by Officer RAY was a pamphlet entitled "The Truth About Cuba" published by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, 799 Broadway, New York 3, New York. In conjunction with Officer RAY's testimony, the State will offer into evidence copies of these two pieces of literature.
The evidence will further show that in June, 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, was present at a party given in an apartment in the French Quarter of this City. Among the guests at the party was DAVID FERRIE, a man known as an accomplished airplane pilot. During the course of the party, the conversation among a small group of those present turned to President JOHN F. KENNEDY. In this group were DAVID FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY SHAW. The comment was made that PRESIDENT KENNEDY should be killed and that the job could best be done by a rifle. At this point, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, suggested that the man doing the shooting would probably be killed before he could make his escape. The defendant, after making this observation, turned to FERRIE and asked if it might not be possible to fly the gunman from the scene of the shooting to safety. DAVID FERRIE replied that this would be possible. At this point, the conversation was turned to other subjects.
Later in June of 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, was observed speaking to LEE HARVEY OSWALD on the lakefront in the City of New Orleans. The defendant arrived at the lakefront in a large, black 4-door sedan, and was there met by LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who had walked to the meeting point along the lakefront from a westerly direction. The defendant and OSWALD had a conversation which lasted approximately fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of this conversation, the defendant gave OSWALD what appeared to be a roll of money which he immediately placed in his pocket. In shoving the money into his pocket, OSWALD dropped several leaflets to the ground. These leaflets were yellow in color with black printing and dealt with Cuba. The color, contents and size of these leaflets were identical with the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" leaflet taken from OSWALD earlier that month on the Dumaine Street Wharf by Harbor police Patrolman GIROD RAY. The evidence will show that on August 9, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was arrested by members of the New Orleans Police Department as a result of his becoming involved in a fight with several Cubans who were protesting his passing out "Fair play for Cuba Committee" literature. This literature was confiscated by the New Orleans police Department. The State will offer into evidence three of the seized items, one of which is a yellow leaflet with black print entitled "Hands off Cuba!" This is the same type of leaflet taken from OSWALD at the Dumaine Street Wharf on June 16, 1963, and also the same as the leaflet dropped by OSWALD at the lakefront in the latter part of June, 1963. The State will also introduce the Bureau of Identification photograph taken of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at the time of his booking. A week later, on August 16, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was again distributing "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets. Once again the distribution was done more as if to attract attention than to actually accomplish distribution. The actual distribution lasted only a few minutes, ending shortly after the news media departed. The State will introduce pictures and a television tape of this distribution, which took place in front of the International Trade Mart whose Managing Director at the time was the defendant, CLAY SHAW.
The State will show further, that in the latter part of August or the early part of September, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD went to Jackson, Louisiana, a small town located not far from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. While in Jackson, he talked to witnesses in reference to his getting a job at the East Louisiana State Hospital in Jackson, Louisiana and registering to vote in that parish, so as to be able to get the job. The State will introduce the witnesses who talked to LEE HARVEY OSWALD on this occasion. The State will show that shortly thereafter still in late August or early September, 1963, the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID W. FERRIE drove into Clinton, Louisiana -- which is very close to Jackson -- in a black Cadillac, parking the Cadillac near-the Voter Registrar's Office on St. Helena Street. While the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW and DAVID W. FERRIE remained in the car, LEE HARVEY OSWALD got out of the car and got in line with a group of people who were waiting to register. The State will introduce witnesses who will testify that they saw the black Cadillac parked in front of the Registrar's Office and who will identify the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID W. FERRIE as the individuals in that car. The State will introduce a witness who talked to the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, on this occasion. In asking Mr. SHAW for his identification, he was told by the defendant, that he (SHAW) was from the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, Louisiana. The State will introduce a witness who will identify LEE HARVEY OSWALD as the person he talked to in the Registrar'S Office and who will also identify the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, and DAVID W. FERRIE as the two men seated in the black Cadillac that brought LEE HARVEY OSWALD to Clinton, Louisiana. The State will also introduce into evidence a photograph of a black Cadillac car that the witnesses will identify as either the same car or one identical to the one that they saw in Clinton that day.
The evidence will show that in the month of September, 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD participated in a meeting in which plans for the murder of President JOHN F. KENNEDY were discussed and refined. This meeting took place in DAVID FERRIE's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans. SHAW (using the name of CLEM BERTRAND) FERRIE and OSWALD (using the first name of LEON), discussed details of the conspiracy in the presence of PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after FERRIE gave assurance that RUSSO was all right. The plan brought forth was that the President would be killed with a triangulation of cross fire with at least two gunmen, but preferably three, shooting at the same time. One of the gunmen, it was indicated, might have to be sacrificed as a scapegoat or patsy to allow the other participants time to make, their escape. No one indicated to OSWALD at the meeting that he was going to be the scapegoat and there was no indication of any awareness on his part of such an eventuality. They also discussed alternate routes of escape, including the possibility of flying to other countries. The defendant and DAVID FERRIE agreed that as part of the plan they would make sure they were not at the scene of the assassination. Their plan for the day of the shooting was to be engaged in a conspicuous activity in the presence of as many people as possible. The defendant, SHAW, stated he would go to the West Coast of the United States. FERRIE, not as positive about his alibi, said he thought he might make a speech at a college in Hammond, Louisiana. As the State will show, SHAW made his way to the West Coast and FERRIE, after his long drive back from Texas, made his way to Hammond, Louisiana, where he slept, not in a hotel room, but on a bed in a college dormitory. By a month after the meeting, LEE OSWALD had moved into a rooming house in Dallas, under an assumed name. By the following month when the time for the president's parade arrived, OSWALD was on the parade route at the Texas School Book Depository, where a job had been found for him. By the night of Friday, November 22nd the president was dead, FERRIE was driving through a thunderstorm to Houston, Texas and the defendant, SHAW, was out on the West Coast. LEE OSWALD, however, was in a Dallas jail ending up as the scapegoat. As to the planning -- the conspiracy -- our jurisdiction is limited to New Orleans, although we will later offer evidence concerning the assassination in Dealey Plaza in Dallas --
MR. DYMOND: Excuse me. If the Court please, we object to this.
THE COURT: On what ground?
MR. DYMOND: The Court has repeatedly ruled that the actual assassination in Dallas has no place in this case, that there may have been 50 conspiracies, as Your Honor put it, to assassinate President Kennedy. A conspiracy within this jurisdiction is alleged the overt acts have been alleged. The State is certainly bound by the answer to the application for a bill of particulars as to overt acts. Consequently, any other allegations or any other proof as to additional acts by anyone would be outside the scope of these pleadings.
THE COURT: I need not hear further.
MR. DYMOND: -- irrelevant to the issues.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. I cannot tell the State how to run its case. 
If they wish to overprove their case, they may do so.
 Clay Shaw trial: Opening statement by Irvin Dymond
. . . . Pursuant to the recess, the proceedings here in were resumed at 1:40 o'clock p.m., appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .
THE COURT: Gentlemen, I have been requested by Mr. Bob Jones, representing the news media, all angles of it, to take a short recess after Mr. Dymond makes his opening remarks. I told them I would comply with that request.
(Jury returned to the box.)
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: We are ready.
MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready.
THE COURT: Make a note that the Jury is in panel, the Defendant present, and both sides ready to proceed. The status of the case is that the State has made their opening remarks, and it is the option of the Defense whether they wish to make an opening statement or not.
MR. DYMOND: May it please Your Honor: Gentlemen of the Jury, as Judge Haggerty has stated, the Defense is not required to make an opening statement in criminal court, but it does have that right. We are here exercising that right, and while we do not intend to set forth in this opening statement every detail of the defense which we intend to present, there are certain salient facts in connection with that defense which I feel should be mentioned at this time.
THE COURT: Just a second, Mr. Dymond. I notice the reporters straining back there. Would it inconvenience you to take that microphone and hold it up? I think it is a movable microphone.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I would rather not carry a microphone around with me. If they want to set one up here, that is all right.
THE COURT: Set it up.
MR. DYMOND: Gentlemen, let me say here and now that we are not here to defend the findings of the Warren Commission. In our humble opinion, that is not this case at all, and should not and is not to be confused with the issues in this case. We have neither the inclination nor the desire, nor did we have the money to try to do that. The Warren Commission interviewed some 25,000 witnesses, and we certainly did not have the resources to undertake any such thing as that. In opening, let me say that although the defendant in a criminal case is not called upon to prove anything, it is our intention to prove to you that not only did Clay Shaw not engage in a conspiracy with David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy, but that he never knew nor ever laid eyes on either of these two individuals.
Now, it is our intention in the defense of this case to strike at the very core of the State's case, that is, the alleged conspiratorial meeting between David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Mr. Clay Shaw (indicating).
We will show you that this alleged meeting was never even conceived until after the death of David Ferrie, the last living barrier between the State's hand-picked Defendant here and the tragedy of this prosecution. When David Ferrie died, the roaches came out of the woodwork.
Now, in a case of this kind when you are called upon to prove a negative, which we in effect are, there are two courses of action that can be taken by a defendant ordinarily. One is to prove that he was elsewhere at the time of the alleged happening.
Let me say now that this would be impossible. First of all, never at any stage of these proceedings has the State seen fit to set forth any precise date upon which this meeting is supposed to have taken place, and even if they had done that, Mr. Shaw would have been called upon to go back three and a half years and account for his whereabouts at a particular time. I don't have to tell you the impossibility of doing such a task as that. The other alternative that a defendant has is to prove that whoever said that he was at such a meeting or committed such an act lies. And, gentlemen, I stand here now and tell you that we will prove that the man who claims this, Perry Raymond Russo, is a liar, a notoriety seeking liar whose name does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with honesty, justice, and propriety. We will prove that to you gentlemen.
Now, gentlemen, I think that at this stage it would be well for us to go into the history of Perry Raymond Russo's rise from obscurity to fame.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object at this time. This is more an argument than an opening statement. They are not outlining the proof that they will attempt to adduce during the course of their trial. This is going beyond an opening statement.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I intend to prove --
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Dymond; but it is bordering on argument rather than a bird's eye view of what you hope to prove.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court, please, I said I intend to prove Perry Raymond Russo is a liar and --
THE COURT: That is going to some other matter.
MR. DYMOND: I am trying to --
THE COURT: That is going into history.
MR. DYMOND: Certainly. It is going into the history of his participation in this case and pointing out the individual's history which we intend to prove.
THE COURT: It is argumentative. I agree that it is argumentative.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I am not permitted to present what evidence I can present to show this man is lying? Is that your ruling?
THE COURT: My ruling is that you can't argue.
MR. DYMOND: I am not going to argue.
THE COURT: Present whatever you intend to prove.
MR. DYMOND: I will say what evidence I intend to prove.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. DYMOND: We will begin from Perry Russo's first entrance into this case, gentlemen. A few days after the death of David Ferrie, Russo wrote a letter to the District Attorney saying that he knew David Ferrie and some of his friends, "and I am willing to tell you what I know about them." That was Move Number One that we will prove.
The following day, which was February 24, 1967, Perry Russo was interviewed by a reporter by the name of Bill Bankston who works for the Baton Rouge State Times, in Baton Rouge. Russo we will show later told a witness that this interview lasted approximately 45 minutes, and that he granted it because he wanted to get down with somebody everything that he knew about the case. We will show that in this interview on February 24 with Bill Bankston, Perry Raymond Russo did not mention Clay Shaw, Clay Bertrand, Clem Bertrand, nor any conspiratorial meeting.
We will show that when Mr. Bankston's story appeared in the Baton Rouge State Times, the reporters more or less converged on Russo. He was interviewed by at least three newsmen in Baton' Rouge. To none of these three newsmen did Perry Raymond Russo mention anything about Clay Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald, Clay Bertrand or Clem Bertrand, nor did he say a word about an alleged conspiratorial meeting.
That gets us up to February 24. Then on the next day, February 25, 1967, we will show that Mr. Sciambra, Assistant District Attorney participating in this case, went to Baton Rouge to interview Perry Raymond Russo; that the interview lasted in the neighborhood of three to three and a half hours; that Mr. Sciambra returned to New Orleans, and on February 27, two days later, wrote a memorandum consisting of approximately 3,500 words, reporting to Jim Garrison, the District Attorney, the information which he had gotten from Russo.
We will show, gentlemen, that nowhere in the report of this interview is there any mention of Clem Bertrand, Clay Shaw, a conspiratorial meeting -- nothing whatsoever! We will show that this man, Russo, was asked by Mr. Sciambra whether he had ever seen Clay Shaw. He was shown a picture of Clay Shaw. He said, "Yes, I have seen him twice, once at the Nashville Avenue wharf and once in an automobile at David Ferrie's filling station" -- no mention, gentlemen, being made of any contention that he had seen him at a conspiratorial meeting at David Ferrie's apartment, no mention whatsoever of the very heart of this case against Clay L. Shaw, that is, a meeting between Mr. Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald, wherein a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy was hatched. It will show none of those things.
Shortly after the memorandum of February 27, which was based on the February 25 interview, Perry Raymond Russo testified in the preliminary hearing in connection with this case, giving a very vivid description of a conspiratorial meeting, placing Clay Shaw there, saying that he had seen Shaw three time now -- once at the Nashville Avenue wharf, once at Ferrie's filling station, and at this conspiratorial meeting. That came out in the preliminary hearing. Now, after the preliminary hearing, and, more specifically, on March 21, 1967, Perry Raymond~Russo admitted to a reporter for a nationally syndicated magazine that the first time that he had ever mentioned this alleged conspiratorial meeting was after he came down here to New Orleans, after he had given a 3,500-word account of what he knew to Mr. Sciambra. These things, gentlemen, will be shown to you by competent evidence.
Now, in April of 1967 this reporter, noting the peculiarities of Russo's statements, had many conversations with him during this month of April. We will show that during one of these conversations Russo told this man in effect these words: "If Garrison knew what I told my priest after the hearing, he would go through the ceiling." The reporter didn't press him, but the man went on and volunteered what he had told his priest. He told the priest that he would like to get alone with Mr. Shaw in a room and hear him -- in his words "talk and breathe, so that I can resolve some of the doubts that are in my mind about his identification."
When this was told to the reporter, gentlemen, we will show you that the reporter volunteered to set up such a meeting, and did tentatively arrange such a meeting between the Defendant Clay Shaw and Perry Raymond Russo. We will show that at the last minute Perry Raymond Russo cancelled the plans for this meeting, telling the reporter that he was afraid to participate in it because if Garrison ever heard about it he would hit the ceiling. We will then show that later on Perry Russo admitted to this reporter, "I have lied to you about why I didn't go through with the meeting. I was afraid to get with Mr. Shaw for fear I would find out that I was mistaken." He said, "If I should find that out, I don't know what I could do. I could go to Mexico, I could go to California and become a beatnik, but I couldn't run away from myself." So he would not go through with this meeting.
Later on this same reporter had a conversation with Russo in which Russo admitted to him that he does not know the difference between truth and fantasy. We will prove that by the testimony of a competent witness. The final meeting that this reporter had with Perry Russo was on May 28, 1967, here in New Orleans. At this meeting the reporter pointed out to Russo the many inconsistencies in his statements, the past things that Russo had said to him, and Russo replied, "I can't argue with any of that. It has been bouncing around in my head, but I don't know what to do. I have no way out without getting clobbered. If I stick to my story. Shaw and the lawyers will get me, and if I change my story, "Garrison will ruin me." We will show you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that that is the type of witness with which the State hopes to prove this conspiratorial meeting.
There is another witness whose name was mentioned in connection with an alleged happening on the New Orleans Lakefront. I am going to generalize on this witness and merely assure you that we will show to you and prove to you that this witness is totally unworthy of belief by any jury or anyone else, and certainly not the type of person on whom any conviction of any kind could ever be based.
Now, gentlemen, there are other witnesses who will be presented, to whom Russo has made admissions as to the falsity of his testimony. They will be presented to you during the course of this trial.
Now, in closing, I would like to touch briefly upon three of the alleged overt acts. I say three of them, because two of them are necessarily embodied in the Russo contention which I feel has been adequately covered. The overt acts to which I have reference are, first, the trip by Mr. Clay L. Shaw to the West Coast of the United States. Let me say here and now that we will not try in any way to dispute the fact that this trip was taken. It was taken. We will present evidence to you that this trip was taken in the course of Mr. Shaw's employment. He went on a speaking engagement for the World Trade Conference, not at his solicitation but at the solicitation of the person in charge of arranging speakers at this World Trade Conference.
In this connection we will further point out that as the State contends there was need for an alibi for Mr. Shaw, there is no way in the world of feeling that an alibi could be necessary. We will show that he was employed at the Trade Mart and engaged in his occupation every day, associating with upper echelon people who could certainly account for his whereabouts at any time.
We will next get onto the trip by David Ferrie to Houston on the night of the assassination. Actually we will show you that had David Ferrie wanted an alibi, he went from a real good alibi to a not so good alibi. David Ferrie on the day of the assassination was actively engaged, as we will prove to you, as an investigator on the staff of G. Wray Gill, a local attorney who was handling the case of the United States versus Carlos Marcello. We will show that it had been a prolonged case, that Mr. Ferrie had been in attendance at that case. The case ended on the day of the assassination, and what better witness as to his whereabouts than a Federal Judge and Federal Court first of all. We will show that Ferrie went to a party after the Marcello case ended on that day. We will also show that there was no way of telling when the case would end.
With respect to the overt act concerning Oswald taking the gun from the residence of Mrs. Paine to the Book Depository in Dallas, gentlemen, it is our sincere belief that there is no need whatsoever for us to go into this. Clay Shaw, as we will prove to you, did not even know Lee Harvey Oswald. It is our firm and sincere contention that what went on in Dallas, Texas, had nothing to do with this case.
Before closing, I would merely like to remind you gentlemen that we are not trying the Warren Report in this courtroom, and I will ask that you be careful, scrutinize yourselves so as not to permit the pageantry of the presentation of evidence concerning what happened in Dealey Plaza to obscure the actual issues in this case. I implore you to be careful about that, and I feel confident that after having heard all of the evidence, your one alternative will be a verdict of not guilty. Thank you.
THE COURT: Now, Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs. At the request of Mr. Jones, I am going to take a ten-minute recess. We will reconvene at 2:15. Take the Jury upstairs.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

Clay Shaw trial: Closing arguments by Irvin Dymond
1426 (30)
February 28, 1969
THE COURT: Well, it is about seven and a half, almost eight minutes to six. Mr. Dymond, I suspect you will be the next person to argue, and I think this would be the right time -- rather than to let you start and interrupt, I think it would be best to break for supper. The security agents are here from the Sheriff's office.
THE BAILIFF: Order in court.
THE COURT: Gentlemen, you are the best judges of this. I am just trying to find out. Do you think since the Rowntowner Motel is not too far away and we can get there quickly in the bus, do you think you can manage with a one-hour dinner recess? Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, we are going to recess until 7:30. You understand what is going to happen. Mr. Dymond, you will then argue, and I will expect the State to follow you tonight. If I have time at that point, I have my charge finished, and I will check it out. I have it prepared, but I will not hold up the case in any way with reference to my charge to the Jury. Now, how far we are going to work tonight depends on when we start at 7:30, and depending how long it gets to be, at the right time, after I have given my charge, depending on the hour, it is a question of whether or not the Jury feels too fatigued to start deliberating or whether they wish to deliberate for some small period of time or would rather go ahead and get a night's sleep and start delib- erating tomorrow. I think we will just leave that question in abeyance at the moment and see what time it takes for the argument and for my reasonable charge to the Jury. All right, Gentlemen of the Jury, I am going to excuse you for the dinner hour. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: We stand recessed until 7:30.
(Thereupon, at 6:00 o'clock p.m. the jurors were placed under the Rule, and Court recessed until 7:30 o'clock p.m.)
. . . . Pursuant to the recess, the proceedings herein were resumed at 7:40 o'clock p.m., appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: we are ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: May it please Your Honor: Gentlemen of the Jury, first I would like to join Mr. Alcock in thanking all of you for the very obvious close attention that you have given to a long, tedious trial. I know it has not been easy on you, but you have certainly discharged your duty well. Also at the outset I would like to further state what Mr. Alcock in fairness has stated, and that is that once the Defense sits down from this argument and turns the argument over to the State in rebuttal, we are of necessity finished. The fact that we do not get up and answer anything that is said by the State in its rebuttal is certainly not because we have nothing to say in answer to that, not because we can't answer it, but because we are prohibited by law from doing so. I wanted to make that abundantly clear to you, gentlemen.
Gentlemen, let me say at the outset that I do not think that a criminal trial is any place for innuendoes, veiled accusations, hints of guilt of wrongdoing or the like. I say that by way of suggestion that if the State means to charge the Government of our country with fraud, deceit, dishonesty, unscrupulous conduct, and most every other derogatory word of which you can think, let them come forward and say so. Certainly the hint, the innuendo, up until this point has been to that effect. Now I think that you all know, and I know that you all should know, that the Warren Commission is not on trial in this courtroom, the Warren Report is not on trial. This is a case against Clay Shaw, who is charged specifically with having conspired to murder President Kennedy.
Now, first let me make my position clear, and that is that I as an American citizen, as what I feel and think to be a loyal American citizen, cannot and will not accept the suggestion that the Warren Commission was guilty of one giant fraud, that the United States Government was guilty of one giant fraud, as the State would have it, a deliberately conceived fraud, fraudulent plan to deceive the people of the United States as to the circumstances surrounding the death of our late President. I cannot and will not buy that nor accept it.
Let me say, gentlemen, that I will be the first to admit that the Warren Commission did not do a perfect job, but again I say that it is my feeling that the members of this Commission discharged their job, discharged their duties honorably and well, and to say that they are a fraudulent group and that this fraud is joined in by our very Government, I cannot believe.
When I hear such accusations as these, gentlemen, I must ask myself why and how. Have you ever stopped to think just how inconceivable it is that the Federal Government -- and when I say the Federal Government, I can go beyond that -- that our Secret Ser- vice, our FBI, the Justice Department, the Dallas Police Department, the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, the doctors in the Bethesda Naval Hospital, would all join together to try to make our American public believe that our President was killed by shots fired from the sixth floor of the School Book Depository when in fact he was killed by bullets from elsewhere? Gentlemen, what earthly conceivable reason could there be for that? If there is one, I do not know of it.
Now, gentlemen, I say how, and when I say how, I call upon you as intelligent mature individuals and ask you whether you think it is possible -- and I accent the word possible as distinguished from probable -- that there could be this many people -- the Dallas police, the FBI, the Justice Department, the Secret Service, right on down the line, the doctors, all the people in that crowded autopsy room -- that there could be all of those people a party to this fraudulent scheme, and that five and on-half years could have elapsed and not one person would have come forward and said, Look, I want to tell the truth; I was told to lie but I am not going to stick to it any more. Gentlemen, I submit to you that that is absolutely beyond belief.
Now, yes, you have seen things pointed out about the Warren Report that are subject to question. I am the first to admit that. But a fraudulent scheme as the State would have you believe, no.
Now, gentlemen, I am launching into what you would consider a tirade in defense of the Warren Report, and, as you know, we have been very limited in the evidence that we have presented along those lines, but once again before I launch into what evidence we did have in that connection, let me say that I know that you are not lawyers, but I also know that you don't have to be lawyers to distinguish between a contest over the validity of the Warren Report and a contest over the question of whether this Defendant, Clay Shaw, sat in an apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway with Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie and planned the killing of the President of the United States, conspired to kill him.
Gentlemen, please bear in mind that that is the question that you are here to pass on. There may be some among you who violently disapprove of the Warren Report. To these I want to accentuate this statement: that is, that a verdict of acquittal of Clay Shaw does not constitute your stamp of approval on the report issued by the Warren Commission. I say that not apologetically, gentlemen, but I say it out of practicality, recognizing the possibility that there may be among you those who feel that way. Now, gentlemen, getting on to the Warren Report, as I say, we came before you in the opening statement and told you that we had neither the time, the inclination, nor the money to come here and defend the Warren Report. That statement was a true statement. However, we did feel that it was well and necessary to present to you some of the basic indispensable evidence that should be given to you, if for no other purpose, to show you the real purpose of this presentation, this pageant, this trial of Clay Shaw. As you will remember, the first witness that we put on in connection with the Warren Report was Mr. Frazier, the FBI ballistics expert.
Gentlemen, I was somewhat taken aback when the State actually had the temerity to come before you in a closing argument and question the fact that this man was an expert. The reason that it shocked me, gentlemen, was that upon an examination of the State's opening argument, what do you see but a statement to the effect that not the Defense but that the State will offer the testimony of Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an expert in the field of ballistics.
Gentlemen, we didn't get Mr. Frazier down here, the State subpoenaed Mr. Frazier, got him down here and obviously didn't like what they heard, so we decided to use him. Great criticism has been thrown out, the testimony of Mr. Frazier has been violently attacked. The State comes before you and says, what does this man mean trying to tell you about a re-enactment in Dallas which was the monumental flop of the century?
Let me remind you, gentlemen, that this re-enactment was done in furtherance of the basic purpose of the Warren Commission, for the purpose of determining the facts surrounding the death of President Kennedy. The Warren Commission nor anyone else at that time had any idea, had any reason to believe that when the President's Commission did issue its report that it would be pounced upon by a group of vultures, that it would be used by a group of people previously relatively obscure, and as a means to climb to fame and fortune over the body of our dead President. The Warren Commission was told what the purpose of its formation was, and it went ahead and did its job.
Mr. Frazier told you how the scene was re-enacted, Mr. Frazier told you that he was in the sixth floor window of the Book Depository and a complete presidential parade was re-enacted there, and that as a result of this examination it was his opinion as an expert in the field of ballistics that the President was hit in the back with one shot from the School Book Depository window, and in the back of the head with another shot from the window.
Now, just what the State's position is in regard to Mr. Frazier, I don't know. Do you they contend that he isn't an expert? I hardly see how they could have subpoenaed him as an expert themselves. Do they contend that he is just flat lying? Possibly they will come before you and say that. They may well do that if they see fit to come before you and allege that giant, impossible, fraudulent scheme that I have mentioned.
Next, gentlemen, we put on the stand Dr. Pierre Finck. Gentlemen, when Dr. Finck finished his testimony on direct examination, the State pounced upon him like a mountain lion on a chained goat; and I will say this, that they made great capital of the language difficulty which I am sure was obvious to all of you, but I will also say this, that I know, I am confident, that there is not one man on this Jury who doubted the integrity of that little doctor, who doubted his professional ability and his devotion to his profession. I don't think there is one man here who had any doubt on any of those.
It quite amused me, gentlemen, to hear Mr. Oser in his closing argument referring to Dr. Finck as a "Quote Pathologist." Gentlemen, could Mr. Oser have forgotten the testimony of Dr. John Nichols to the effect that he was a student under Dr. Finck at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology? And then Dr. Nichols takes the witness stand and flatly contradicts the testimony of Dr. Finck, and Mr. Oser sees fit to flatly adopt Dr. Nichols'. It seems a little peculiar to me that the good Dr. Nichols would pay money to go and be taught by someone who knows less than he does. It doesn't make too much sense. Then, gentlemen, speaking of devotion to purpose, devotion to profession, motive in testifying, let us also draw another little distinction between Dr. Nichols and Dr. Finck.
This is something of which Dr. Nichols was very proud (exhibiting sketch to jurors.) It is a sketch looking down on the backbone. This sketch was shown to you when it was introduced in evidence, but if you look a little more closely now, you will see that there is something different: "Copyright TV 14490. John Nichols, 1968. All rights reserved." Dr. Nichols had to see to it that he could go into the back office there and protect his money/property rights in that sketch. Gentlemen, I have told you about other people who are attempting and have attempted to rise to fame and fortune over the body of our late President. It looks as though we may have another member of the club.
Now getting on with Dr. Finck, gentlemen, bear in mind that this is not a doctor who arrived at his professional opinions, his professional conclusions, by looking at the Zapruder film, by firing slugs through the wrists of a cadaver. This little doctor from Switzerland, gentlemen, is one of the men who actually performed the autopsy on the body of our late President, who actually viewed these wounds, who actually saw where these wounds were, and who decided whether it was necessary to mangle the neck of the body of our late President to trace the path of a bullet when he could obviously see the point of entrance and a fellow pathologist had told him about the point of exit. Bear in mind, gentlemen, that this isn't a man speaking from movies, from experiments, from theory; this is a man who was there, he was on the scene. And what does Dr. Finck tell us in his opinion? His opinion is precisely that of Mr. Frazier but based upon a different expertise, that our President was hit from two shots from the rear.
We then come to another very unusual spot in the State's presentation, gentlemen. That is with respect to the FBI photographic expert. This case has been going on a long time and you may have forgotten, but this gentleman was not our witness, this gentleman was put on the witness stand by the State, and when the State puts a man on the witness stand they vouch for his credibility, and then they come before you in the opening argument and try to belittle, run down, downgrade the testimony of their own witness. Once again, we have a professional opinion of a true professional photographer, photographic analyst, coinciding with the opinions of the other two experts.
Now, gentlemen, these are just three experts. Add to what about 3,000 more, and I would tell you how many lips would have to be sealed if these people had been told what opinions to form, if a whip had been held over them, if they had been told to cheat, defraud, deceive the American people. I submit to you, gentlemen, that that is utterly and absolutely inconceivable.
Closing summation by Jim Garrison
THE COURT: Do I understand, Mr. Garrison, that you wish to address the Jury?
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. GARRISON: May it please the Court: Gentlemen of the Jury, I am not going to dignify Mr. Dymond's personal inferences about my staff, because I think you have seen them for some days and I think you have seen me here, and I will leave it to your judgment whether or not we would take advantage of any human being in order to try and get any gain of any sort; and I will address myself to the remaining issue of the case which have been posed by Mr. Dymond.
Now I know you are very tired and you have been very patient, and this final day has been a long day, so I will speak only a few minutes and I will probably make one of the shortest closing arguments that has been made in this court, because I think most of the issues are clear to you and I feel that you probably have an understanding of the case by now.
But Mr. Dymond has posed in his last argument one final issue which in a sense raises a question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. So let me talk to you about whether there is government fraud in this case. Now, a government is a great deal like a human being: It is not necessarily all good, and it is not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country, and I love it and you do, too, but we have nevertheless a government which is not perfect, and there have been indications since November 22 of 1963 -- and that was not the last indication -- that there is excessive power in some areas of our government -- and that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things that have happened, some of the assassinations that have occurred, and particularly with regard to the assassination of John Kennedy. Going back to when we were children, I think most of us, probably all of us here in this courtroom, felt that justice came into being automatically, that virtue was its own reward and good would triumph over evil, that it occurred automatically. And later when we found that it wasn't quite so, most of us felt that, hopefully, that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord, but now I think that almost all of us world have to agree that there is really no automatic machinery, not on this earth at least, which causes justice to happen automatically. Men have to make it occur, individual human beings have to make it occur, otherwise it doesn't come into existence, and this is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it is always hard, because justice presents a threat to power, and in order to make justice come into being you often have to fight power.
Mr. Dymond raised the question: Why don't we say it is a fraud and charge the Government with fraud, if this is the case? Well, then let me be explicit and make myself very clear on this point. The Government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud, it was the greatest fraud in the history of our country, it was probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. So that is where I stand on that point. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We are not forced to either leave this country or accept the authoritarianism that is developed, which tells us that in the year 2039 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.
The government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals, the government consists of people. The government consists of people, and our Government consists of juries. And cases of murder, whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land, should be looked at openly in a court of law where juries can pass on them, and not hidden, not buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for 75 years.
Now, you men in recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard, and you have seen what happened to your President, and I suggest to you that most of you know right now that in that area at least a fraud has been perpetrated. That does not mean that our Government is entirely black, and I want to emphasize that. It doesn't mean that the President is bad, it doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is bad. It does mean that in recent years, through the development of excessive power, because of the cold war, forces have developed in our Government over which there is no control, and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice, meaning they will let you know what justice is.
Well, my reply to them is, we already know what it is. It is the jury system. In the issue which is posed by the Government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case, in the issue of humanity as posed to power, I have chosen humanity, and I will do it without any hesitation, and I hope every one of you will do the same, and I do that because I love my country and I want to communicate to the Government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live 75 years longer we may be given more data.
In this particular case, our efforts to look into it -- and it was our duty when we found out that part of the assassination planning occurred in New Orleans -- massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom as it has. The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry, the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, was demonstrated in this case. The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from witnesses about the assassination. Why? Because today in our Government we have a problem area in which too much emphasis is given to secrecy with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis has been given to the question of justice, to the question of humanity.
These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or leave the country. I don't accept that alternative. I don't intend to leave the country, and I don't intend to accept power without truth. I intend to fight for the truth, and I suggest that not only is this not un-American but it is the most American thing we can do, because if the truth does not endure then our country will not endure -- not in the way it was supposed to. In our country the worst of all crimes is when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons if they should dare to fight for freedom, and then announce that they were killed in an industrial accident or shot by the enemy, or God knows what.
But in this case finally it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law, not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens. Now I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you are passing on is equivalent to a murder case. It has the same essential characteristics, and the difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant, and it is very difficult to identify with someone you can't see; and sometimes it is hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems. In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane, is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight, and I suggest to you that if you do your duty you also are not free to forget the victims who is buried out of sight. You know, Tennyson once said that authority forgets the dying king. This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the Government after his murder began while his body was warm and has continued for five years.
In a sense, you have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of some part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed. We presented a number of eye-witnesses, as well as an expert witness, as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out steps Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to see that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.
Now, in this conflict between power and justice -- to put it that way -- just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is the way I don't want my country to be. When our President is killed, he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the state of Louisiana. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth from coming to the people.
But in this case, before the next morning when the sun rose, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And five years later in this courtroom it is continuing in the same way.
We presented eye-witnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense.
MR. DYMOND: Object to this, if the Court please. Mr. Frazier was subpoenaed here as a State witness.
THE COURT: He testified for the Defense. He was called by the Defense, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: He was subpoenaed here from Washington as a State witness.
THE COURT: It makes no difference who subpoenaed him; it is who put him on the stand.
MR. DYMOND: We didn't have anything to do with his coming here on a plane from Washington.
MR. GARRISON: Now, the issue I'm sure every one of you understands is whether or not the Government has created a fraud, and I call your attention that Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness and after eyewitness [sic] -- his explanation is that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well. And I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range, and most of you probably have in the Service -- you were shooting rifles in which the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound, and I ask you to recall if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the firing line and they would say, "Ready on the left, ready on the right, ready on the firing line, commence firing," you heard the shots coming from the firing line to the left of you and to the right of you, and if you had heard, as the result of Frazier's fictional sonic booms, firing coming at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction and you would still remember it. It simply doesn't exist. It is a part of the fraud, a part of the government fraud, and the best way to make this country the kind of country it is supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how powerful it may be, we do not accept fraud, we do not accept false announcements, we do not accept the concealment of evidence with regard to the murder of President Kennedy.
Who is the most believable -- a Richard Randolph Carr seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth, or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we have to actually reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig, and the testimony of all those honest witnesses -- reject that and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country? I suggest to you that there are other alternatives, and one of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana, and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding, where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied, and where a jury of citizens can pass on it, and where there is no government secrecy, where you do not have evidence concealed for 75 years in the name of national security.
All we have in this case are the facts -- facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President, and that the President was subsequently killed in ambush. The reply of the defense has been the same as the earlier reply of the government in the Warren Commission, has been authority, authority, the President's seal outside of a volume of the -- each volume of the Warren Commission, made necessary because there is nothing inside of these volumes. Men of high position and prestige sitting on a board and announcing the results to you but not telling you what the evidence is, because that has to be hidden for 75 years.
You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks eye-witness after eye-witness after eye-witness, and, above all, you saw an eye-witness which was indifferent to power -- the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is indifferent to power, and it tells you what happened, and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They should know what you know now. Why hasn't this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has. But I am telling you that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism: the government's insistence on secrecy, the government force used in counter-attacks against an honest inquiry; and when we do that we are not being un-American, we are being American, because it isn't easy, and you are sticking your neck out in a rather prominent way, but it has to be done, because truth does not come into being automatically. Justice does not happen automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen, and individual men like you have to make justice come into being, because otherwise it doesn't happen. And what I am trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like that, as long as such forces can get away with these kind of actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.
The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence, but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.
Now, you are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw, but you as men represent more than jurors in an ordinary case, because of the victim in this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against government power. You represent humanity which yet may triumph over excessive government power, if you will cause it to be so in the course of doing your duty in this case.
I suggest that you "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people; and if you do that, as long as you live nothing will every be more important than that.
Thank you.
Judge Edward Haggerty charges the jury in the trial of Clay Shaw
1426 (30)
February 28, 1969
THE COURT: Gentlemen of the Jury, I am not going to take a recess. Just remain seated in your jury box. I have promised to give copies to the press. If the gentlemen will come to my chambers, I will give them copies.
Please check, Mr. Sheriff, to see if there is anybody outside. I don't want them coming in or out when I am reading the charge. I want to know if they have locked the front door.
THE BAILIFF: It is now locked, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Take this down. I have been requested, before the case started, by the Defense to give a written charge. I am complying with the law by giving a written charge. I have also, before I am reading this charge, given a copy to the District Attorney and to the Defense, which is required by law.
Let everybody have a seat, Sheriff. That is just what I am talking about.
THE BAILIFF: Nobody is going to interrupt, Judge.
THE COURT: General Charge -- Jury Instructions. It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you. The function of the jury is to try the issues of fact that are presented by the allegations in the indictment filed in this court and the defendant's plea of "not guilty." This duty you should perform uninfluenced by pity for a defendant or by passion or prejudice against him. You must not suffer yourselves to be biased against a defendant because of the fact that he has been arrested for this offense, or because an indictment has been filed against him, or because he has been brought before the court to stand trial. None of these facts is evidence of his guilt, and you are not permitted to infer or to speculate from any or all of them that he is more likely to be guilty than innocent. Gentlemen, you are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me. The law forbids you to be governed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the State and the Defendant have a right to demand, and they do demand and expect, that you will conscientiously and dispassionately consider and weigh the evidence and apply the law of the case, and that you will reach a just verdict, regardless of what the consequences of such verdict may be. That verdict must express the individual opinion of each juror.
Gentlemen, you are the exclusive judges of the facts and of the effect and value of the evidence, but you must determine the facts from the evidence produced here in court. If any evidence was admitted and afterwards was ordered by me to be stricken out, you must disregard entirely the matter thus stricken, and if any counsel intimated by any of his questions that certain hinted facts were, or were not, true, you must disregard any such intimation, and must not draw any inference from it. As to any statement made by counsel in your presence concerning the facts in the case, you must not regard such a statement as evidence; provided, however, that if counsel for both parties have stipulated to any fact, you are to regard that fact as being conclusively proved; and if, in the trial, either party has admitted a fact to be true, such admission may be considered by you as evidence in the case.
The State and the Defendant are both entitled to the individual opinion of each juror. It is the duty of each of you, after considering all the evidence in this case, to determine, if possible, the question of the guilt or innocence of the Defendant. When you have reached a conclusion in that respect, you should not change it merely because one or more or all of your fellow jurors may have come to a different conclusion, or merely to bring about a unanimous verdict. However, each juror should freely and fairly discuss with his fellow jurors the evidence and the deductions to be drawn therefrom. If, after doing so, any juror should be satisfied that a conclusion first reached by him was wrong, he unhesitatingly should abandon that original opinion and render his verdict according to his final decision.
The attitude and conduct of jurors at the outset of their deliberations are a matter of considerable importance. It is rarely productive of good for a juror, upon entering the jury room, to make an emphatic expression of his opinion on the case or to announce a determination to stand for a certain verdict. When one does that at the outset, his sense of pride may be aroused, and he may hesitate to recede from an announced position if shown that it is fallacious. Remember that you are not partisans or advocates, but rather judges. The final test of the quality of your service will lie in the verdict which you return to this court, not in the opinions any of you may hold as you retire. Have in mind that you will make a definite contribution to efficient judicial administration if you arrive at a just and proper verdict in this case. To that end, the court reminds you that in your deliberations in the jury room there can be no triumph excepting the ascertainment and declaration of truth.
If in these instructions any rule, direction or idea be stated in varying ways, no emphasis thereon is intended by me, and none must be inferred by you. For that reason, you are not to single out any certain sentence, or any individual point or instruction, and ignore the others, but you are to consider all the instructions as a whole, and are to regard each in the light of all the others. The order in which the instructions are given to you has no significance as to their relative importance. At times throughout the trial the court has been called upon to pass on the question whether or not certain offered evidence might properly be admitted. You are not to be concerned with the reasons for such rulings and are not to draw any inferences from them. Whether offered evidence is admissible is purely a question of law. In admitting evidence to which an objection is made, the court does not determine what weight should be given such evidence; nor does it pass on the credibility of the witness. As to any offer of evidence that has been rejected by the court, you, of course, must not consider the same; as to any question to which an objection was sustained, you must not conjecture as to what the answer might have been or as to any reason for the objection. The court has endeavored to give you instructions embodying all rules of law that may become necessary in guiding you to a just and lawful verdict. The applicability of some of these instructions will depend upon the conclusions you reach as to what the facts are. As to any such instruction, the fact that it has been given must not be taken as indicating an opinion of the court that the instruction will be necessary or as to what the facts are. If an instruction applies only to a state of facts which you find does not exist, you will disregard the instructions. In arriving at a verdict in this case, you should not discuss or consider the subject of penalty or punishment, as that is a matter which lies with the court.
I am striking the rest of that paragraph out.
Gentlemen, the Defendant at the bar is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The consequences of this rule of law is that he is not required to prove his innocence, but may rest upon the presumption in his favor until it is overthrown by positive affirmative proof. The onus, therefore, is on the State to prove to your satisfaction, and beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused as to the crime charged in the Indictment.
If you entertain any reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the Defendant's guilt, it is your sworn duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of acquittal. Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, yet if it does not establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused. This doubt must be a reasonable one, that is, founded upon a real, tangible, substantial basis, and not upon mere caprice, fancy or conjecture. It must be such a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your minds by reason of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence; one that would make you feel that you had not an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the Defendant's guilt. If, after giving a fair and impartial consideration to all of the facts in the case, you find the evidence unsatisfactory upon any single point indispensably necessary to constitute the Defendant's guilt, this would give rise to such a reasonable doubt as would justify you in rendering a verdict of not guilty.
The prosecution must establish guilt by legal and sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but the rule does not go further and require a preponderance of testimony. It is incumbent upon the State to prove the offense charged, or legally included in the indictment, to your satisfaction, and beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. It should be an actual or substantial doubt. It is such a doubt as a reasonable man would seriously entertain. It is a serious doubt, for which you could give good reason.
The indictment is this case is a mere accusation or charge against the Defendant, and it is not evidence of the Defendant's guilt, and the fact that such an indictment has been found is of no weight, and does not carry any presumption of guilt, and you must not be influenced by it in considering the case. It has no more probative value than a bill of information filed by the District Attorney or an affidavit made by an individual.
Gentlemen of the Jury, you are prohibited by law and your oath from going beyond the evidence to seek for doubts upon which to acquit or convict the Defendant, but must confine yourselves strictly to a dispassionate consideration of the testimony given upon the trial. You must not resort to extraneous facts or circumstances in reaching your verdict. That is, you must not go beyond the evidence to find facts or circumstances creating doubts, but must restrict yourselves to the evidence that you have heard on the trial of this case.
You are the exclusive judges of the facts. You are to find from the evidence which facts have been proved and which facts have not been proved. For this purpose, you determine the credibility of the witnesses, accordingly as you are impressed with their veracity. You may take into account their demeanor, their manner on the stand, the probability or improbability of their statements, the interest or want of interest they may have in the case, and every circumstance surrounding the giving of their testimony which may aid you in weighing their statements.
If you believe that any witness in the case, either for the State or the Defense, has willfully and deliberately testified falsely to any material fact, then I charge you that you are justified in disregarding the entire testimony of such witness as proving nothing and as unworthy of belief. You have the right to accept as true, or reject as false, the testimony of any witness accordingly as you are impressed with his or her veracity.
You are also judges of the law, but in a different sense. You receive the evidence from the witnesses; you receive the law from the Court, and it is your duty to accept the law and to apply it as given to you.
The Defendant is permitted by law to testify in his own behalf. If he exercises his privilege, he is governed by the same rules, in testing his credibility and the correctness of his statements, as every other witness. You have the right to believe or disbelieve him, just as he impresses you as to the truth or falsity of his testimony. When he does not avail himself of this privilege, you should not consider this fact, or permit it to raise a presumption of guilt against him, and you should consider in determining his guilt or innocence, only those facts testified to and brought out on the trial of this case.
The Defendant is entitled to the individual opinion of each juror, but any juror may change his opinion as the result of reasonable persuasion by his fellow jurors. The law requires and obliges the District Attorney, representing the State of Louisiana, to make an opening statement explaining the nature of the charge and the evidency by which he expects to prove the same. The law leaves to the counsel for the Defendant the option of explaining their defense and the evidence by which he expects to establish the same or of waiving his right to make an opening statement.
The function and purpose of an opening statement by the District Attorney is simply to explain the nature of the charge and the evidence by which he expects to establish the same; the opening statement by counsel for the Defendant is to explain the theory of the Defense and the evidence by which he expects to prove same. Whether an opening statement is made by the District Attorney or Counsel for the Defendant, you are not to consider the opening statement as proving anything at all in the case. You are to consider only the evidence in the case and the testimony of sworn witnesses who have appeared before you on the witness stand.
Should either the District Attorney or the Counsel for the Defendant make statement in an opening statement and fail to substantiate them by the testimony of sworn witnesses on the statements made by them, but on the contrary, you should disregard the same as if never having been uttered.
In law there are two methods by which facts can be established; by direct evidence and by circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the evidence of material facts relating directly, and without inference, to the questions at issue, or the facts to be proved. Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of material facts which may be inferred from the existence of other material facts relating to the questions at issue, or the facts to be proved. Circumstantial evidence is legal and competent and must be considered by the jury together with the direct evidence, if any, which may have been adduced at the trial.
The jury should draw inferences only from the facts which have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the evidence in a case consists of both direct and circumstantial evidence, you must not convict unless you are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt.
When the evidence in a case consists exclusively of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis or theory of innocence.
Every expert witness must state the facts upon which his opinion is based. The test of the competency of an expert is his knowledge of the subject about which he is called upon to express an opinion, and before any witness can give evidence as an expert, his competency so to testify must have been established to the satisfaction of the court. Experts are persons who are learned in a particular science, and they are permitted to express their opinion upon scientific matters at issue, but such experts are not called into court for the purpose of deciding the case. You, the jurors, are the ones who, in law, must bear the responsibility of deciding the case. The experts are merely witnesses, and you have the right to either accept or reject their testimony and opinions in the same manner and for the same reason for which you may accept or reject the testimony of other witnesses in the case.
There are certain legal presumptions in law, and these are covered in R.S. 15:432. "R.S. 15:432. Effect of legal presumptions; rebutting evidence; illustrations.
"A legal presumption relieves him in whose favor it exists from the necessity of any proof; but may nonetheless be destroyed by rebutting evidence; such is the presumption attaching to the regularity of judicial proceedings; that the grand jury was legally constituted; that public officers have done their duty; that a relation or subject matter once established, continues, but not that it pre-existed; that the defendant intended the natural and probably consequences of his act; that the defendant is innocent; that the defendant is sane and responsible for his actions; that the person in the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is the thief; that evidence under the control of a party and not produced by him was not produced because it would not have aided him; that the witnesses have told the truth."
"R.S. 14:26 -- Criminal Conspiracy.
"Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination.
"Where the intended basic crime has been consummated the conspirators may be tried for either the conspiracy or the completed offense, and a conviction for one shall not bar a prosecution for the other.
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one nor more than twenty years.
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the crimes of theft or receiving stolen things shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit any other crime shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in the same manner as for the offense contemplated by the conspirators; but such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half the longest term of imprisonment prescribed by such offense, or both."

Jim Garrison's Bizarre Behavior

All Those Assassination Suspects

While belief in big conspiracies may have severe logical problems, it can be very attractive in a lot of ways. To begin with, you don't have to discard any "conspiracy evidence." If you have "evidence" that points to the CIA, and "evidence" that points to Texas oil millionaires, and "evidence" that points to the Mafia, you don't have to decide which you believe. You can believe it all!
If a lot of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, and some of it was produced by the Dallas Police Department, some by the FBI, and some by the Warren Commission, you can dismiss it all, since they were all involved in the assassination or at least the "coverup."
If a lot of people oppose your attempts to "bring Kennedy's killers to justice," you don't have to stop and consider the possibility that you may be off-track. After all, all of them are part of the "coverup."
Which brings us to Jim Garrison.
The following is a list of groups that Garrison publicly implicated in the supposed plot to murder JFK, or in the "coverup." It is draw heavily from Milton Brener, The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power (New York, 1969), Patricia Lambert, False Witness (New York, 1998), and Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy (New York, 1969). It is not inclusive: not every charge or wild statement Garrison made is listed. But it gives a good idea of the size and diversity of the sinister forces Garrison believed killed Kennedy and then opposed him.
Garrison's Charge Garrison's "Logic"
C.I.A & F.B.I. Oswald's associations were "exclusively" anti-Castro, and "these activities were carried out with the full knowledge and consent of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. . . . And yet they remained silent while evidence was presented to the Warren Commission . . . ." [Brener, p. 202]
Lawyers defending people he suspected "We have reason to believe that Mr. Klein [attorney for Alvin Beauboeuf] has recently been to Washington, D.C. . . . We know that Plotkin [attorney for Gordon Novel] has been receiving money, if only through an intermediary, from the C.I.A." [Brener, p. 203]
Thirteen State Regional Democratic Organization "We know that Sandra Moffett up in Iowa, who has no money, is represented by the Chairman of the Thirteen State Regional Democratic Organization." [Brener, p. 203]
Gov. Rhodes of Ohio, Gov. Reagan of California, and Gov. Tiemann of Nebraska They "interfered" with extraditions of Gordon Novel, Edgar Eugene Bradley, and Sandra Moffett McMaines. [Flammonde, p. 200]
Secret Service For reprisals directed against agent Abraham Bolden. [Flammonde, p. 208]
NASA Told William Turner that it was an open secret that the Gentilly NASA complex included an active CIA station that, in Turner's words, "provided a Kelly Girl service for operatives in between assignments." [Hinckle & Turner, Deadly Secrets, p. 239] Garrison also made a point of investigating alleged acquaintances of Oswald, Ferrie or Shaw employed at the Gentilly complex.
Official Washington On the defection of William Gurvich: "A tremendous amount of federal power is being brought to bear on anyone connected with our investigation. . . . It is obvious that the official Washington attitude is that our inquiry must be stopped at all costs. . . ." [Brener, p. 208]
National Broadcasting Company ". . . NBC is owned by RCA - the Radio Corporation of America. RCA is one of the top ten corporations with regard to defense contracts with the federal government." [Brener, p. 208]
Cuban guerrillas Claimed to a Nashville newspaper that a team of Cuban guerrillas had trained secretly in St. Tammany Parish and the killers are "definitely among the Cuban trainees." [Brener, p. 209]
Earl Warren When Warren said there was no evidence to support Garrison's claims Garrison claimed that the statement was "a good sign that the big push is on [to discredit the investigation]." And further, "It is a little disconcerting to find the Chief Justice of the United States on his hands and knees, trying to tie some sticks of dynamite to the case." [Brener, p. 211]
Warren Commission Warren Commission was "totally untrue . . . it was, in effect, a carefully organized concealment of the facts." And further: "The main objective was to fool the people of the United States and, I presume, the rest of the world, into thinking that this was a lone assassin. . . ." [Brener, pp. 211-212]
Big Business Texas Style ". . . big business, Texas style, financed the assassination . . . in which the right wing - paramilitary right-wing elements which were financed and encouraged in their training and given weapons by the Central Intelligence Agency. . . ." [Brener, p. 212]
Paramilitary Right Wing Elements
Central Intelligence Agency
Aerospace Industry Garrison told Ramparts editor Warren Hinckle: "It was the Military-Industrial Complex that put up the money for the assassination — but as far as we can tell, the conspiracy was limited to the aerospace wing. I've got the names of three companies and their employees who were involved in setting up the President's murder. Do you have a pencil?" [Hinkle, pp. 198-199]
Dallas Police Department "Oh, yes, it couldn't have been done effectively without it. . . . you have within the Dallas policy force, you have an element, essentially the Minute Man element, the extreme militant right-wing group, which is actively involved in assassination." [Brener, p. 212]
Elements of the U.S. government ". . . the lone assassin theory, which the Warren Commission developed, is a complete fraud. This is why you now have elements of the United States Government, and a large part of the news establishments doing everything it can, literally desperately, to try and conceal whatever news comes from New Orleans about this." [Brener, p. 212]
Large part of the news media
An element of big business in Dallas ". . . An element of big business in Dallas, Texas, big business was involved. Oil money helped finance it. . . . the Dallas individuals, Minute Men, and so forth, and a handful of White Russians who got control of Oswald actually started this as early as 1962." [Brener, p. 213]
Oil money
Minute Men
Phone company "My phones have been monitored for a long time. . . . the telephone company in a case like this becomes an extension of the United States Government, of what is now a super state. . . ." [Brener, p. 214]
Newsweek The Shaw defense and "elements of the federal government are coordinating pretty effectively." Those elements are "Newsweek, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the National Broadcasting Company, and the Columbia Broadcasting System." [Brener, p. 214]
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
National Broadcasting Company
Columbia Broadcasting System
Dallas Police Force ". . . Individuals of the Dallas police force helped kill Jack Kennedy. Why should they hesitate with Nancy Mooney? . . . It is clear that individuals on the Dallas police force were involved in the assassination and involved in the continuing protection of the assassins and were involved in things like this." [Brener, p. 216]
Robert Kennedy "Kennedy has without any question made a positive effort to stop the investigation and if he denies it here, he is a liar. . . . Who was the Attorney General of the United States when this great fraud was perpetrated and the people of the United States were told it was a lone assassin?" [Brener, p. 217]
Lyndon Johnson Garrison asks a long list of rhetorical questions about "who" has done things to cover up the conspiracy, and then answers it: "The one man who has profited most from the assassination - your friendly President! Lyndon Johnson." [Brener, pp. 220-221]
Texans "And as far as Texans are concerned, he left no doubt that he was headed directly for the 27½ percent [oil depletion] deduction that is something very dear to some people in Texas." [Brener, p. 222]
Ramsey Clark Garrison said he was "doing his best to torpedo the case of the State of Louisiana. Apparently, it is felt in Washington that if the truth of President Kennedy's murder can be kept concealed, President Johnson's promotion to the Presidency will appear to be more legitimate." [Brener, p. 225]
Robert Kennedy Interviewer: "Well, what you're saying, then, is that Senator Kennedy by not cooperating is, in effect, letting the murderers of his brother walk the streets." Garrison: "We, yes, that's a fair statement. Yes." [Brener, p. 219]
Homosexuals "They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold, when they murdered Bobbie Franks in Chicago back in the twenties," Garrison said. "It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime." [Phelan, pp. 150-151]
Masochists Explaining that they would do anything for a thrill, Garrison said that "If you placed a masochist in a room along with a button that would blow up the White House he probably would press that button for the thrill of it." [Lambert, p. 181]
Neo-Nazis In letter to Bertrand Russell Garrison said that people with "Neo-Nazi" political views, including Clay Shaw, killed Kennedy [Lambert, p. 182]
Elements of the Dallas Establishment "There are elements of the Dallas establishment that are deeply involved and some of the members of the White Russian community. . . . elements of the Dallas police. . . . members of the John Birch Society." Assassination sponsored by "insanely patriotic oil millionaires." [Lambert, p. 182]
Member of the White Russian Community
Elements of the Dallas Police
Some Members of the John Birch Society
Insanely patriotic oil millionaires
Authors Henry Hurt and Anthony Summers Claimed conspiracy books by Hurt and Summers, critical of him, were written at the behest of the CIA.
This list benefitted from suggestions from Dave Reitzes
You may wish to see:

Return to Kennedy Assassination Home Page

The Kennedy
By John McAdams
© 1995-2012
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights . . . . It's — it had to be some silly little Communist." — Jackie Kennedy, on hearing that a leftist had been arrested for her husband's murder.
It's the most controversial case in modern American history. Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Kennedy by himself, or did a conspiracy do it? And if a conspiracy did it, did the conspiracy include Oswald?
If you are like most Americans, you believe that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. And if you are like most Americans, you have heard a vast number of bogus factoids about the case.
This web site is dedicated to debunking the mass of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the murder of JFK. If you are believer in Oswald as a lone gunman, you are likely to enjoy this web site, since most of that misinformation and disinformation has come from conspiracists. But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist, you likely understand that the mass of silly nonsense in conspiracy books and documentaries does no service to the cause of truth in the assassination, and simply buries the "case for conspiracy" under layers of bunk.
Regardless of what you believe, several web sites, mostly conspiracy-oriented are worth checking out. And you may also want to check out my list of recommended books on the assassination.
What sort of evidence is there?

Dealey Plaza

What about those witnesses? Didn't everyone hear shots from the Grassy Knoll? What about the Tague wounding? Who was the "Umbrella Man?" Was the rifle recovered really a Mauser? Does "acoustic evidence" show a shot from the Grassy Knoll? Were the Three Tramps suspicious? How could Kennedy's head go "back and to the left?"

The Single Bullet Theory

You've seen Kevin Costner give the conspiracy version of the Single Bullet theory. You know: Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy, at the same height, and facing straight ahead. Was that really what happened?

Lee Harvey Oswald

What sort of person was he? Did he really have "Top Secret" security clearance? Did he shoot at General Walker? Were there two Oswalds? If Oswald shot Kennedy, what was his motive? Was the man exhumed in 1981 really somebody besides Oswald?

Jim Garrison and New Orleans

Did Oswald really share an office with Guy Banister? Did Clay Shaw really use the alias "Clay Bertrand?" Why did Oliver Stone make a movie about the Shaw trial and not even mention Perry Raymond Russo? Did David Ferrie die a "mysterious death?" What about Jim Garrison and the Mafia?

Medical Evidence

Did the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back penetrate only an inch and fall out? Was Kennedy hit in the head by a bullet from in front? Are the autopsy photos and x-rays faked? Did all the doctors at Parkland Hospital believe that Kennedy was hit in the front of the neck, and if so, are their opinions decisive evidence that that is what happened? Was the back of Kennedy's head blown out? Are the autopsy photos faked?

Bogus Evidence

Did you know that all the evidence in this case proven to be forged has been on the conspiracy side? One key piece originated with the KGB! Did you know that the "mysterious deaths" are virtually all not so "mysterious" when you look at them closely? Do you trust authors like Mark Lane to tell you the truth about what witnesses said?

Jack Ruby

The "lone nut" theory of the assassination is really the "two lone nuts" theory. What sort of person was Jack Ruby? A mobster? An intelligence agent? A small-time hustler? The sort of volatile character who might really have shot Oswald out of righteous anger?

Oliver Stone's Movie "JFK"

We expect Hollywood movies to take some liberties with the historical record. But what do we think when Hollywood turns history on its head? Oliver Stone wants to overturn the verdict in the Clay Shaw trial. The jury found that District Attorney Jim Garrison had no case — so Stone invents a case on celluloid. Just how honest was Oliver Stone, Shaw's Hollywood prosecutor?

John Kennedy: Liberal Martyr?

For some in the conspiracy crowd, John Kennedy was a liberal saint, who was going to implement policies that would bring America into a new Utopia. So, of course, a threatened Power Elite had to kill him. Was Kennedy the kind of left liberal who threatened established interests? Was he a hero of Civil Rights? Had he decided to pull out of Vietnam? Historian Eric Paddon dissects these claims in a series of essays based on his posts on the Internet.

Assassination Logic

Some notions about logic, probability and statistics necessarily underlie all discussion of "conspiracy" or "lone assassin." Does the lone assassination theory involve too many implausible "coincidences?" Are there a suspicious number of "connections" between various figures in the case? Is the Single Bullet Theory highly "improbable?"

Assassination Witnesses

In writings about the assassination, as in real-world criminal justice, witness testimony looms large. But just how reliable are the witnesses? How many witnesses are just flat out telling tall tales? How often are apparently sober and reliable witnesses just flat wrong?

Did Oswald Have a Girlfriend in New Orleans?

A woman named Judyth Baker has come forward claiming to have been Oswald's adulterous lover in in summer of 1963, to have participated with him in a secret bioweapons program aimed at killing Castro, and to have inside knowledge of Oswald's "patsy" role in the assassination. It's a good story, and she got a chance to tell it on the History Channel in November 2003. But is it the truth?

The Assassination Context

What we think about the assassination is dependent on what we think about history, and about the behavior of government officials and bureaucrats. Was Kennedy a radical who threatened the status quo? Did top administration officials order a coverup of a conspiracy soon after the assassination? If the FBI and the CIA withhold documents, does this mean that they are protecting assassination conspirators?

Release the Documents!

This has long been the cry of the conspiracy theorists. Supposedly, the documents show that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. In fact, the government in the 1990s released a massive number of documents. The Assassination Records Review Board had a mandate to identify and oversee the release of documents in government hands, and in private hands.

Hear History Happen

Recording devices monitored the two radio channels used by the Dallas Police Department, and these recordings are a vivid "real time" account of the frenzy of activity that followed the shooting. Here are selected audio clips beginning a couple of minutes before the assassination and ending with the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre.


Do you want to ask for more information, or discuss or debate some of the issues raised here? The moderated newsgroup:
run by Peter Fokes and John McAdams, is the place to go — whether you are a "newbie" with questions to ask, or a researcher with some evidence you want to present to the research community.

Featured Articles

I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions these authors have drawn, but everything here is a solid piece of work that deserves your attention. All are copyrighted, and all posted here with permission.
  •  A recent TV special from the National Geographic channel featured enhancements of assassination films and an attempt to study the missed first shot that many researchers believe Oswald fired. From Max Holland's website, here is the technical report giving full details of the project.
  •  The notion that Kennedy was killed because he intended to withdraw from Vietnam has become the conventional wisdom among conspiracists, and a recent treatment of that theory, James W. Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable, has drawn some attention. But unfortunately, the author not only distorts history, but unintentionally paints a very unflattering portrait of JFK. See our review of the book here.
  •  Zombie assassins? The notion that "Manchurian candidate" assassins might be "programmed" to commit murder has been a recurring one. Most often invoked in the murder of Robert Kennedy, it has also surfaced in the JFK assassination. British author Mel Ayton explores this issue in his essay "Bogus Manchurian Candidate Theories."
  •  A recent book by Abraham Bolden tells a most interesting story about the first black Secret Service agent who supposedly knew about conspiratorial goings-on in Chicago, and who was (he claims) framed, convicted and sent to jail on charges of corruption. The media have been rather credulous about his account, but in fact he was almost certainly guilty as charged. Indeed, when the House Select Committee examined his claims in the late 1970s, they found them to lack credibility. While the mainstream media is suitably skeptical when the conspiracy card is played, they suspend that skepticism when the race card is played.
  • Garrisonites are a rather peculiar and paranoid cult among conspiracy believers, and Joan Mellen's book A Farewell to Justice is the latest to defend District Attorney Jim Garrison, whose ill-conceived campaign to convict Clay Shaw of the JFK assassination was the subject of the movie "JFK." Yet, like the movie, Mellen has fallen into the trap of believing the most incredible sources and adopting the most outlandish theories in an attempt to vindicate the DA, as Patricia Lambert shows in this review of the book. In another essay, Dave Reitzes discusses Garrison's central, critical witness, a fellow named Perry Raymond Russo. Mellen accepts his testimony, which Reitzes shows was vastly unreliable. Finally, Lambert shows how Mellen blew off the testimony of a key reliable witness, one Dr. Frank Silva, when it conflicted with the Garrison version of events.
  • When a reputable historian publishes a JFK assassination book with a reputable academic press, it should be judicious in its use of sources and prudent in its judgments. But, alas, David Kaiser's bookThe Road to Dallas turns out to be just another conspiracy book, not too different from scores of others. Read a review by webmaster John McAdams on the e-zine Washington Decoded.
  • Nothing about the assassination is more important than the issue of when the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired. Pick your timing, and it may be consistent with or entirely debunk a single shooter in the Texas School Book Depository. A new essay by Kenneth R. Scearce supports a new theory about the timing that puts the first shot far earlier than anybody has heretofore theorized. Of course, this theory has generated controversy, so you might want to check out a reply from computer animation specialist Dale Myers.
  • Author David Talbot ought to the the sort of sober and serious person we would expect a member of the mainstream media to be on the assassination, but alas he isn't. Veteran journalist Don Bohning, who long reported on Talbot's prime suspects in the Miami Cuban community, finds Talbot's book Brothers to be pretty much another buff book, with credulous acceptance of suspect witnesses and a very selective use of the documentary record.
  • Mel Ayton has a new essay on Conspiracy Thinking and the John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Assassinations." Ayton believes that all conspiracy thinking has several common threads.
  • There has been a recent spate of new books and new theories about the assassination, including a German television documentary called "Rendezvous With Death" from Wilfried Huismann and Gus Russo and the book Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann. Do we have any compelling new evidence or interpretations here, or is this just more unsupported conspiracy theorizing? A new essay by Mel Ayton critically examines the evidence.
  • "Rendezvous With Death", claims to have discovered compelling new evidence that Fidel Castro had John Kennedy killed, using Lee Oswald as hit man and patsy. It has received a mixed reception, at best. A new essay by David Lifton accepts, for the sake of argument, the data produced by the authors of "Rendezvous With Death" and points out that it could be interpreted in a way very different from what the documentary proposes.
  • The History Channel has a record of showing reasonably reliable documentaries on subjects like wars, Nazis, the history of popular culture and the like. But their record on the Kennedy assassination is abysmal. The series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" has a record of touting the most implausible and bizarre theories. But they managed to reach a new low with an episode titled "The Guilty Men" which fingered Lyndon Johnson as the prime mover behind the assassination. In this article, journalist and historian Max Holland dissects the entire series, and especially the installment on LBJ. And veteran JFK researcher Dave Perry critiques the reliability of the supposed "evidence" in an article from his website. And one of the accused conspirators, Malcolm Liggett, sued The History Channelover the supposed "documentary" and received a settlement.
  • The "acoustic evidence" got a boost in 2001, when a scientist named D.B. Thomas published an article claiming to have corrected the statistical treatment in earlier studies and found clear evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. However, a recent careful study of the timing on the events on the Dallas Police tape by Michael O'Dell shows that the "shots" happened too late to actually be shots. Thus the "acoustic evidence" was to acoustic science what cold fusion was to physics: an example of how even reputable scientists can jump to conclusions when faced with the possibility of an "explosive" discovery.
  • Of course there are all kinds of wild and woolly theories connecting Oswald to the CIA. But some responsible and sober researchers have argued that the Agency knew more about and had a more intense interest in Oswald than they have ever admitted. One such researcher is Jefferson Morley, world news editor of His article "What Jane Roman Said" outlines the evidence.
  • Among conspiracy-oriented researchers, there is a deep gulf between the more moderate and sensible ones, and those who'll promote any bogus piece of "conspiracy evidence." Ulric Shannon is one of the former, and he explains in this essay why he thinks the "I'll believe anything that implies conspiracy" crowd is so harmful.
  • Researcher Bill Drenas debuted his essay "Car #10, Where Are You" on this web site in 1997. The current version has some minor factual corrections and much new material. Not pushing any conspiracy theory, but not a debunking exercise either, it's a very careful attempt to nail down Tippit's whereabouts — minute by minute — on the day he died.
  • A related essay from Drenas involves the Top Ten Record Shop. This classic Oak Cliff location was where Officer Tippit stopped shortly before he was shot. It's still in business, and you'll almost certainly want to visit when you are in Dallas.
  • Long-time researcher Gus Russo, author of the recently released book Live By the Sword has an interesting story to tell about his own personal commitment to the case, and his changing views about who killed JFK, and his changing views of John and Robert Kennedy, excerpted from his book.
  • Canadian Peter Whitmey is a conspiracy-oriented researcher who sometimes takes issue with conspiracy arguments and witnesses. His articles on this site deal with issues such as a possibly sinister conversation overheard in a Winnipeg airport, a little-known New Orleans figure named Clem H. Sehrt, an interesting connection between Oswald biographer Priscilla McMillan and a rather suspectNew Orleans witness named Ron Lewis and the phone records of David Ferrie, accused plotter. Another essay outlines what Whitmey considers "Deception and Deceit" in the media in reporting the assassination. Finally, a long essay of his titled "Creating a Patsy" brings his research up to date as of the release of the Vincent Bugliosi book.
  • Gerald Posner and his book Case Closed have come under heavy attack from the community of conspiracy-oriented "researchers." In "Defending Posner" Michael Russ compares what the conspiracy buffs say Posner said to what Posner actually said. It seems buffs are no more accurate when attacking their enemies than when discussing the assassination.
  • Michael Beck was once a JFK "buff" -- a believer in a Kennedy assassination conspiracy. He now believes that Oswald did it all my himself. How did his beliefs change? This is his personal account of an intellectual odyssey.
  • Researcher David Perry has been "doing" the assassination for several years, and has seen a continual stream of "revelations" come and go. In his essay "A Few Good Men" he discusses publicity-seeking, and particularly the Loy Factor story.
  • Tony Marsh's essay "Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll" is now available online. Based on careful analysis of the movements of the occupants of the presidential limo, of the HSCA acoustic evidence, and of a "jiggle analysis" of the Zapruder film, it represents a bold and interesting attempt to put the evidence together in a compelling way. It was originally presented at the 1993 Third Decade Conference.
  • Just how many different people have been accused of being (or have confessed to being) either a shooter or an accomplice in Dealey Plaza? Researcher David Perry has compiled the most complete known list. His Rashomon to the Extreme! is that list. Of the 68 people on this list, at least one is guilty.
  • The essay, A Conspiracy Too Big by Fred Litwin asks about the credibility of any theory that holds that a conspiracy faked all the evidence that conspiracy theorists say is faked.
  • John Locke's FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) outlines the evidence, from the perspective of a person who believes Oswald did it alone. A good briefing for someone who has only read conspiracy books, and wants the other side of the story.
  • A Bad Case of Deja Vu, another essay by John Locke, compares the O.J. Simpson defense to conspiracy thinking in the Kennedy assassination. Would the intellectual habits of the conspiracy buffs have let O.J. go free? Locke says "yes."

Mail JFK Assassination Page WebmasterDo you have comments on this web page? Want to report some technical problems? Send E-mail to John McAdams

You can now search an index containing every document on this site.
Visit the new Photo Gallery with a variety of interesting images.
Take a look at John McAdams' picks of the best resources on other Kennedy assassination web pages. These are "out of the ordinary" offerings by web authors who have made something unique and unusual available on the 'net.
From Tue Dec 10 11:18:35 CST 1996 Article: 1487 of alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated From: Anthony Marsh <> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated Subject: Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll Date: 29 Nov 1996 11:20:04 -0600 Organization: The Puzzle Palace Lines: 344 Sender: Approved: Message-ID: <> Reply-To: To: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Status: O NNTP-Posting-Host: Path:!!not-for-mail Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll (c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993 As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot from the grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect. However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would indicate that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at Z-313 came from the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive proof of a head shot from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of circumstantial evidence which strongly suggest that the head shot came >from the grassy knoll. Some of the examples are well known, but need to be reexamined. The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot. Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies, such as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President Kennedy's head around the time of the head shot. They note that President Kennedy's head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite that as proof of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and everyone else has failed to do is analyze the movements of all the occupants of the rear compartment of the limousine, including the Connallys. That is what I have done. My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is not, unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film as used in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements in 1/60th of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder frames 312 to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The Grassy Knoll Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the center of the window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front edge of his reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the reference line to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not use unadjusted measurements from these prints to calculate precise positions, but can estimate relative movements. This may be due to a variety of factors, such as variations in printing and copying each frame, changes in perspective, mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames are too blurred to allow accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie Connally's position is to the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of John Connally's position is to the front edge of his forehead. Each measurement of Jackie Kennedy's position is to the front edge of her pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's position is to the edge of his hair at the rear of his head. All measurements were lined up against the chrome strip in the background for better contrast. Be sure to remember that increasing measurements for the Connallys represent forward motion, while increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent rearward motion. Notice the direction and amount of movement of each person listed in Figure 1. Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear compartment of the limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all four were hit by bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement must be caused by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due to the limousine having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his study [1] that the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot off the accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from an average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head shot. Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust forward in relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further evidence of this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move forward while President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not done a similar analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start of the occupants' forward movement, so I would urge others to do so themselves, in order to verify my results and observations. Figure 1. Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z313 145 111 87 38 152 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z314 147 113 88 39 151 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z315 151 113 92 33 157 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z316 148 115 93 34 166 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4 rearward 11 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z317 150 117 100 30 177 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z319 153 122 NA 28 182 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 0 forward 4 forward 3 rearward 14 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z320 153 126 130 25 196 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1 ----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Z321 157 NA NA 26 195 Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my opinion, the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest entirely on the acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful for establishing the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds after the microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4 shots on the tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and 145.61 respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and Aschkenasy to be recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses which was rejected by HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked at the waveforms more closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of each shot was recorded, to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate for each shot is 137.702, 139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can get a general idea of the spacing between shots by subtracting one time >from another. But there is an additional variable which must be taken into account. BBN found that the recorder used that day was running about 5% slow, so all times must be multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore the original spacing. A more accurate correction factor might be borrowed >from the work which W&A did on the grassy knoll shot. They found that a correction factor of 1.043 produced the best fit for echo delays compared to their predicted model. Another possible corroboration for the 1.043 correction factor is the 'bell' sound found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd Vaughan believes that it is only electrical interference, if we can determine its true frequency, we can derive the most accurate correction factor. That holds true for many other sounds on the tape, such as car horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN found that the 'bell' sound had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to the note A, which is usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might have been tuned to A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was. Most people have assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train bell, a ship's bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a couple of other possible tunings which would produce a correction factor close to 1.043. If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament scale, it might have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would give us a correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an old English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those into Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames. Figure 2 is a rough approximation of how many frames there were between all 5 muzzle blasts. Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first shot after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President Kennedy and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the last shot with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the head shot came from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Figure 2. origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame TSBD 137.702 162 176 > 1.566 1.633 29.89 TSBD 139.268 192 206 > 1.071 1.117 20.44 TSBD 140.339 212 226 > 4.556 4.752 86.96 Knoll 144.895 299 313 > 0.713 0.744 13.61 TSBD 145.608 313 327 The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the first shot is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and clearly President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The first shot was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at around Z190- 192. The problem with that is that we can see President Kennedy in the Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not yet appear to be reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no indication that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that time, nor at about Z- 210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA rejected. My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the range of Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of Z-226 to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove exactly when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their back wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and mine, regardless of other evidence. Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as matches with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the TSBD as matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350 shows a crack on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6, but is seen in Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot >from which direction caused that crack. I believe that I am the first person to notice something in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you look carefully at CE350, you will notice that the back of the rearview mirror is dented, but you can see that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6. This damage was caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield >from the inside and ricochetted into the rearview mirror. Many people believe this fragment came from the head shot, which would been fired from the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to the limousine, consisting of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview mirror and dented chrome topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find evidence which pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show that it came several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the Zapruder film, Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the windshield was not cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the last shot from the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield. In turn, that would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. I seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented at Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version or mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll shot was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the impulses to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is indicated in brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The jiggle analysis measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To simply and clarify, I have put the groups into ascending order. The group with the largest amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B', etc. I have chosen the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are usually midway between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran at 18.3 frames per second on average. Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data Frames Group 158-159 D 191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not 227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet. 290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before 313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus. 331-332 A2 HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle 137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B 139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1 [140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C 144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1 145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2 The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy knoll. Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot hit what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last shot he heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact had heard the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would not, in and of itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the dent could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would narrow the range during which the chrome topping was dented to between Z-313 to Z-331 and make it more likely that the chrome topping was dented at the same time that the windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier as some have speculated. On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the grassy knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the direct path of gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that the head shot came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the TSBD. Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps leading up to the pergola, said that the shots sounded as if they came from behind him, above his head and to his left. That would place the origin near the fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had come from behind him and whistled past his right ear. Between these two witnesses and behind them is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable shockwave at 24 ms. before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot. Assuming the weapon was aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough calculation of the velocity of the bullet and the resultant angle of the shockwave. Although the calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too difficult for me, a rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet at about 1564.5 fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on either side of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within the cone of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly. How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If it had been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have been outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not have been recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can be found in the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he was shown a very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the viewpoint was looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary Moorman's position, the gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In Moorman 2 we can see the head of a man peering over the fence, about 9 feet from the corner. Interestingly, this is the same spot where W&A located the origin of the grassy knoll shot, unaware of the existence of Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side view of any weapon as we might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever this man was, he moved from that position very quickly after the head shot. There is no one there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton photograph, taken shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has never been analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were unaware of its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I found it at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to properly analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might reveal the presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher, Dale Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner. Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films. Some fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize the danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the grassy knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave whizzing past them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe their reactions was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can see Hudson and his two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola. They do not seem to be reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see that two of the men are reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men would not have reacted to the sound of a shockwave coming from so close behind them. If the grassy knoll shot was the miss before the head shot, we would expect to see these men react before the head shot. The fact that they did not react until after the head shot would seem to indicate that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is more likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing evidence can and should be examined further. More information can be gleaned from existing data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data could provide new clues and allow us to verify certain methods, such as the acoustical studies. I urge other researchers to look for new evidence and perform new analyses. ------ 1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442. 2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16
Authors Henry Hurt and Anthony Summers
Claimed conspiracy books by Hurt and Summers, critical of him, were written at the behest of the CIA.
Transcript of Interview with [EXCERPT] Judge Jim Garrison by Patricia Toole February 18, 1986 New Orleans, Louisiana JUDGE GARRISON: When I saw "Russian examination" and then found out that this was shortly before he received an honorable discharge (not a dishonorable discharge) and within a few weeks he's on his way to Russia, this sounds more like intelligence to me. The next morning I noticed that he had handed out leaflets on which he had printed with a little rubber stamp, "544 Camp." I went down to 544 Camp Street and a little old Union building of false granite and I said well this is the side entrance to the offices of Guy Banister. He used to be in charge of the Chicago Office of the F.B.I., was in Naval Intelligence during the war. He was a fanatic anti-communist. I said Oswald can't be a genuine communist if this is where he was operating from. So then I thought that if he was operating from out of here then Banister had some kind of anti-communist government operation, they would have removed that address immediately. So I checked that and sure enough the second time he was giving something out, the address had been removed. I started off lucky in the sense that from the outset I was on, considering the point of a compass has 360 degrees, I happened to be probably the one critic who started off on exactly the right compass. In other words, all the other deceptions, the "golden apples", as a friend of mine, one critic, called them, to catch your attention -- the mob, Castro, and the oil millionaires of....... MS. TOOLE: I have one book, called THE GARRISON CASE. I'm not sure who wrote it. JUDGE GARRISON: Milton Brenner. It was a surprising venomous book...I had heard about it. I made him an Assistant District Attorney. He was an Assistant D.A. About a year out of my office and he seemed to feel that it was inconceivable that the federal government would do anything like that so he wrote a book attacking me which I never bothered to read. MS. TOOLE So that one is not favorable towards you? JUDGE GARRISON: No. Neither is PLOT OR POLITICS by Rosemary James and if there was some political advantage in fighting the government. I could have been governor if I had wanted when McKeithen ran. My recognition was exactly the same percentage as his in the State. But I liked being D.A. so I chose to support McKeithen. And not to run. But she somehow got the idea that I was in this investigation for political advancement. Frankly, I assumed I'd be killed because I knew I was right. And I had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Here's a book saying politics. The other books such as Anthony Summers which I despise so much but I keep it because they're raisins in it. When the C.I.A. writes a book, basically to say the mob did it, they give things away, material that you don't already have sometimes. They put raisins in it to make you eat the cookie. So I find it very useful for reference. What makes me so mad is that it's full of lies......And there's a new C.I.A. book, REASONABLE DOUBT and Henry Hurt has about thirty pages working me over and attacking....I don't know why anyone would be attacked at all for being the only public official in the country who tried to do something about it to begin with. But that doesn't matter. Their point is discreditation. They wanted to get the message across -- don't believe what Garrison's been telling you about the C.I.A. We're telling you he's wrong. He's involved with the mob. And this one also by Summers said that I was involved with the mob and I had a secret meeting with Joe Tosselli at a Las Vegas hotel that he had. Can you imagine me meeting with Joe Rosselli - your remember the guy that was killed with a bullet in his stomach and his legs cut off - and put in a barrel and dropped in the Bay off Florida?
It was a three-ring circus. A flamboyant district attorney, with visions of conspiracy, proposing a series of theories, most of them bizarre. What he first called a "homosexual thrill killing" evolved, under the influence of the conspiracy buffs who flocked to New Orleans, into a massive CIA and federal government plot. When push came to shove in the courtroom, a jury took less than an hour to acquit Clay Shaw, the man Garrison put on trial.

How Big a Conspiracy?

Just how many people were involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and then to cover up their deed? Sound logic says that any conspiracy theory, to be credible, must include only a limited number of people. How many people did Garrison believe were involved? Nobody has an exact count, but the list of all the groups and individuals he implicated is pretty long.

Sinister Connections?

 Conspiracy books routinely claim that Oswald had an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans, and that this was the "same address" occupied by Guy Banister's detective agency. This, supposedly, is evidence tying Oswald to Banister, Ferrie, and the anti-Castro Cubans. When the House Select Committee examined this issue in the late 70s, they found little solid evidence to place Oswald at that location. More recent research by Dave Reitzes shows that an office at 544 Camp Street was never more than a notion in the head of Lee Harvey Oswald.
 Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Civil Air Patrol as a youth in New Orleans. This raises the possibility that David Ferrie knew Oswald. Many conspiracy books imply that some sinister relationship between the two started at this time. The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined this issue, and this is their report. Does it suggest the possibility that Ferrie knew Oswald? Is there any evidence of a close relationship between the two?

Conspiracy Witnesses

 The most important witness to later (but not during the Garrison investigation) place Oswald with Banister at 544 Camp Street was Delphine Roberts, Banister's secretary. The House Select Committee didn't believe her testimony. Author Gerald Posner interviewed her in 1992, and found her no more believable.
 Unlike Roberts, the Clinton witnesses have been believed by otherwise skeptical investigators like the House Select Committee and Norman Mailer. During and since the Clay Shaw trial, they have told a consistent and apparently sincere story of Lee Oswald, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie visiting Clinton, Louisiana one day in 1963 in a big black car. But what if you look at the Clinton witnesses' earlystatements, before they were influenced by repeated questioning and repeated exposure to pictures of Oswald, Shaw, and Ferrie?
  • Gerald Posner was the first researcher to gain access to very early accounts of the Clinton witnesses, and he outlines his findings in this passage from Case Closed. Posner's conclusion is:
    There is little doubt the Clinton witnesses are telling the truth as they now recall it. However, their original statements to Garrison's staff reveal considerable contradictions, so much so that the very heart of their story is invalidated . . . . It was almost six years after the alleged incident in Clinton that the witnesses first testified at the Garrison trial. Garrison's staff, when questioning the Clinton witnesses, had only presented photos of Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw, and incorrectly said that others had already identified those as the people who had visited the town. This power of suggestion, and later coaching, developed the testimony that today has been repeated so often that the House Select Committee found it so convincing.
    Dave Reitzes is in general agreement with Posner's thesis, but notes several factual errors that detract from Posner's presentation.
  • One example of what Posner found in the documents is the development of the testimony of Corrie Collins. Compare his first statements to Andrew Sciambra (of Garrison's office) with his statements at the Shaw trial.
  • Important findings on the Clinton episode appear in Patricia Lambert's book False Witness. Dave Reitzes, in this review, discusses the book.
  • Finally, Dave Reitzes has written the definitive debunking of the Clinton episode. He shows how what started out as (in Garrison's words) "a whisper in the air" was developed into an impressively consistent facade of Shaw trial testimony.

Was There a "Clay Bertrand?"

 Garrison's entire case was based on the belief that Clay Shaw, using the alias "Clay Bertrand" conspired to kill Kennedy. Where did the name "Clay Bertrand" come from? From an eccentric, rather sleazy New Orleans lawyer named Dean Andrews. Here is an account, abstracted from Kirkwood's American Grotesque, of Andrew's ever-changing testimony.
 It is often claimed that Clay Shaw admitted to using the "Clay Bertrand" alias when he signed a fingerprint card during his booking in New Orleans. The card, listing the alias, was produced by the Garrison prosecution. Did Shaw admit to the alias by signing the card? Examine an account of the prosecution's attempt to have the card entered into evidence in the Shaw trial (taken from American Grotesque). Did Officer Habighorst tell the truth?

Lou Ivon: No "Clay Bertrand"

Like the FBI in 1963, Garrison's researchers combed the French Quarter for "Clay Bertrand," the man Dean Andrews said had called him on the day after the assassination and suggested that Andrews go to Dallas to legally represent Oswald. What was the result? The following memo was written by Garrison's chief investigator, Lou Ivon.
February 25, 1967
To ascertain the location of one CLAY BERTRAND, I put out numerous inquiries and made contact with several sources in the French Quarter area. From the information we have obtained concerning this subject, I'm almost positive from my contacts that they would have known or heard of a CLAY BERTRAND. The information I received was negative results.
On February 22, 1967, I was approached by "BUBBIE" PETTINGILL in the Fountainbleu Motor Hotel, located on Tulane Avenue, whom I had earlier contacted about CLAY BERTRAND. He stated that DEAN ANDREWS admitted to him that CLAY BERTRAND never existed.
Ivon was not the only Garrison staffer to reach this conclusion. Assistant DA Andrew "Moo-Moo" Sciambra was given the task of "squeezing" the French Quarter to get information from homosexual informants. He admitted to author Edward Jay Epstein that he failed to find any "Bertrand." See Epstein's The Assassination Chronicles (New York, 1992), p. 196.
Garrison's shoddy case against Clay Shaw

Justice Assassinated: Garrison's Shoddy Case Against Shaw

 Dave Reitzes is an independent-minded researcher who has done a comprehensive survey of the evidence Garrison presented against Shaw. Here is his four-part essay:
  • Meet Clay Bertrand. It all started with a shadowy (and possibly non-existent) figure named "Clay Bertrand" mentioned to the Warren Commission by Dean Andrews.
  • Who was Clay Bertrand? Reitzes details attempts to discover the identity of this "mystery man" and to connect him with Clay Shaw.
  • Assassin or Fall Guy? Garrison's attempt to link Shaw to an assassination conspiracy.
  • A Question of Perjury. Garrison supporters, unable to show that Shaw conspired to kill Kennedy, often fall back to the claim that "he lied under oath." Is this true?

Garrison's Witnesses

 Garrison had literally dozens of witnesses who would link Clay Shaw to Lee Oswald, or to the CIA, or to David Ferrie, or provide some sort of "sinister" linkage that Garrison thought important. Journalist James Phelan explained the process:
In the two years between the Shaw hearing and the trial, Garrison's staff interviewed hundreds of would-be witnesses. There are certain sensational cases that have a fascination for unstable people and fetch them forth in droves. A classic example was the "Black Dahlia" mutilation murder of playgirl Elizabeth Short in Los Angeles. Over the years, dozens of people came forward and confessed to this crime, which still remains unsolved. Celebrated cases also attract witnesses who are not psychotic, but who falsely identify key figures out of faulty memory or a desire to lift themselves out of dull anonymity into the spotlight. Chief Justice Frankfurter once commented that eyewitness testimony is the greatest single cause of miscarried justice. In a sensational case, a careful prosecutor often spends more time winnowing out false witnesses than he does working with authentic ones.
The Garrison investigation had a disastrously low threshold, across which trooped a bizarre parade of people eager to bolster his conspiracy scenario. (Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels, p. 169)
Not surprisingly, only a tiny handful of Garrison's witnesses had enough credibility to take the stand at the Shaw trial, and most of these were discredited by the defense. Phelan goes on to discuss a few typical ones. Other, more important ones included:

Charles Spiesel

Spiesel testified to having seen Clay Shaw and David Ferrie plotting to kill JFK. He was an impressive witness — until the defense started asking him questions.

Jules Ricco Kimble

He wasn't put on the witness stand in the Shaw trial, but that doesn't stop Garrison from repeating his stories in the book On the Trail of the Assassins. But as Dave Reitzes shows, his credibility could hardly be more suspect.

Jack Martin

Another witness who placed Oswald at 544 Camp and told numerous "interesting" stories was Jack Martin. Out-of-town conspiracy writers were happy to accept Martin's statements at face value, as was Oliver Stone. But local people were more careful:
States-Item reporter, who has spent more time than most listening to Jack Martin talk, describes him "as one of the most interesting men I ever have met."
"He is as full of that well known waste material as a yule hen. On the other hand, he is many times a very competent investigator who has the friendship and confidence of reputable, well-placed individuals. He drinks, often to excess, but bears no real evidence of being an alcoholic. He desperately wants to be loved, and this is his downfall. Often, he wants to please everyone, everywhere so damn much that he ends by hurting the people who have befriended him. He must be taken with a grain of salt leavened by a grain of confidence. If you listen to him for two hours, often you will receive two minutes of useful information. I suppose, to sum him up, he is like a muddy river. You have to use a very fine filter."
Rosemary James & Jack Wardlaw, Plot or Politics?, p. 48.
Jack Martin was well-known in New Orleans, and uniformly regarded as unreliable. Not surprisingly, Garrison never put Martin on the stand.

Richard Case Nagell

Like Martin, Richard Case Nagell was a witness who gave considerable "information" to the Garrison investigation, but never testified. But this doesn't stop Garrison from using Nagell's stories about CIA and KGB foreknowledge of an assassination plot in On the Trail of the Assassins, and saying that "Nagell impressed me as being utterly honest and sincere" and that "I was satisified that a fabricated tale was not in this man's makeup" (On the Trail of the Assassins, pp. 185,186). Read Dave Reitzes' account of Nagell's ever-changing story, and decide whether Nagell was capable of fabrication.
Perry Raymond Russo -- described Clay Shaw at assassination party

Perry Raymond Russo

Jim Garrison's key witness in his case against Clay Shaw was a certain Perry Raymond Russo (pictured at left). During the Shaw trial, Russo told a story of an "assassination party" in which Shaw, David Ferry, and Lee Oswald discussed killing Kennedy. Yet Russo's testimony underwent an interesting "evolution" between the time he first came forward in Baton Rouge and his court testimony. He was repeatedly questioned, repeatedly shown pictures of Clay Shaw, and then given "truth serum" and put under hypnosis at least twice. Russo was, according to Dave Reitzes, the "Way Too Willing Witness," who proved extremely pliable in the hands of Garrison and his staff.

Was Clay Shaw a Spook?

 Jim Garrison charged that Clay Shaw was a CIA agent, and Garrison supporters have accepted this view. But secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti.
Crackpot Shooting Scenario
And how many shooters and co-conspirators were in Dealey Plaza, according to Garrison? In this excerpt from a Playboy interview, he lists the sinister cast of characters he believes were in Dealey Plaza that day.
 Another thing that supposedly linked Clay Shaw to sinister forces was his membership on the Board of Directors of an Italian operation called "Permindex." Conspiracy books all claim that that Permindex was a CIA front. They fail to tell the full story, however, as to where this "information" comes from. The reality was exposed in a classic article in the British journal Lobster. A more recent, and definitive, treatment of this issue by journalist Max Holland appeared in the journal Studies in Intelligence.

Garrison the Man

 Jim Garrison had a skill that has been seldom noted. He was a cryptographer! This passage, from Epstein's Counterplot, shows how he applied his cryptographic abilities to the prosecution of Shaw. It's hilarious, if you can forget that Clay Shaw's life was ruined by this sort of "logic." Other examples of Garrison's bizarre behavior include:
Clinical Psychopathology? In 1952, Jim Garrison was relieved of duty in the National Guard. Doctors at the Brooke Army Hospital in Texas diagnosed him as suffering from a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis" which "interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked degree." The evaluation further said that Garrison "is considered totally incapacitated from the standpoint of military duty and moderately incapacitated in civilian adaptability," and recommended long-term psychotherapy. See Case Closed, p. 423.
In 1986, Patricia Toole interviewed Garrison, and asked him about various authors who had written books on the Kennedy assassination. See what he says about Tony Summers' Conspiracy and Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt. This interview is from the files of the AARC in Washington, DC.

Crackpot Prosecutions

Garrison was always indicting people based on the flimsiest evidence, or the wildest notions of how they might be guilty of something. The most famous of his crackpot prosecutions, of course, was that of Clay Shaw. But there were others.
  • David Lifton is a conspiracy-oriented researcher who, at the time of Garrison's investigation, knew one Kerry Thornley, who had been a Marine buddy of Lee Oswald's. Lifton thought Thornley might be of help to the investigation, and brought Thornley to Garrison's attention. But then, to Lifton's horror, Garrison concluded that Thornley was actually a coconspirator and Oswald "look-alike."
  • Garrison got a letter claiming that one Edgar Eugene Bradley had made inflammatory comments about John Kennedy. Following up, Garrison found that Bradley had been in El Paso, Texas on the day of the assassination. Based on this "evidence," he issued an murder warrant for Bradley, who was living in California. When Garrison's staff failed to produce evidence and witnesses at an extradition hearing, California governor Ronald Reagan refused to extradite Bradley. In this interview, Bradley recounts his experiences.

War Among the Buffs

 The ranks of conspiracy believers have long been split by different attitudes toward Garrison. Many important conspiracy authors (Tony Summers, Henry Hurt, David Lifton) believe Garrison to have been reckless and irresponsible. Yet Garrison has a vocal cadre of supporters among conspiracy buffs. An e-mail feud took place in August 1995 between David Lifton, who had seen Garrison's antics first-hand, and Garrison supporters Gary Aguilar and Lisa Pease. Lifton's view of Garrison:
I think its ugly when the power of the state is arrayed against an innocent man — and the witchhunt that took place in New Orleans back in 1967-69 will always remain exactly that: an ugly incident in the annals of jurisprudence . . .
In spite of the current popularity of Garrison in conspiracy circles, most mainstream conspiracist authors have blasted Garrison and his New Orleans "investigation."
"He went from a highly intelligent eccentric to a lunatic in the period of one year. . . . Every time press interest in the case would start to wane, he would propound a new theory. One week it would be 14 Cubans shooting from storm drains. The next week it would be H. L. Hunt and the far right in Dallas. This was no Robin Hood — no Untouchable either."
Rosemary James in Newsweek, 12/23/91.
Garrison's Defenders 
To see how pro-Garrison conspiracy buffs treat the investigation, check out:

Did Garrison Spy on Journalistic Critics?

 The following is from a typewritten document in the Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington, DC. It is dated August 26, 1967, and has the handwritten notation (presumably by AARC personnel) "Bud Finsterwald's notes."
Notes on interview with Jim Garrison, District Attorney, New Orleans — 1:00 to 4:00 P.M. at Criminal Courts Building, New Orleans. Also present part time: Louis IVON, Garrison's Chief Investigator.
Garrison was extremely interested in our wiretap investigation. Feels strict legislation is very necessary. Says he only uses it against "guys like Sheridan." Feels his office and home phones are tapped by the Bureau but doesn't care.
Walter Sheridan, of course, was one of the journalists who took a critical stance toward Garrison and his "investigation." The notes also say "Sheridan — No good Bastard — Compared him with Nazis."

Insiders Go Public

 When Perry Raymond Russo took the stand during the preliminary hearing at the Shaw trial, he told a story radically different from the one he told Sciambra in Baton Rouge (see above). Journalist James Phelan confronted Garrison with the discrepancy, and a meeting at Garrison's house followed. This passage, from American Grotesque,describes that meeting — which resulted in investigator William Gurvich defecting from the Garrison team. When he wrote On the Trail of the Assassins Garrison denigrated Gurvich, and claimed he had only a marginal role in the investigation. In reality, Gurvich was an important figure at the center of the probe.
 The House Select Committee on Assassinations interviewed Gurvich in 1978. Gurvich gives a fascinating insider's account of Garrison the man and the Garrison investigation.
 James Phelan himself started out as an "insider" — a friend of Garrison's on the basis of a very favorable article he had written about the DA in the Saturday Evening Post. But when Garrison carelessly gave Phelan documents that blew the case against Shaw entirely out of the water, Phelan concluded that Garrison's case was fraudulent, as he explained in an article in the Saturday Evening Post.
 Edward Jay Epstein was trained as a Political Scientist, but early on moved to journalism with a critique of the Warren Commission titled Inquest. When Garrison's investigation became public he, like many buffs, went to work for Garrison as a volunteer. In the wake of Garrison's death in 1992 he described his experiences in "Epitaph For Jim Garrison: Romancing the Assassination" in the New Yorker.
 Tom Bethell was an Englishman who was in New Orleans to write a book on Dixieland Jazz. When the Garrison investigation broke, he got caught up in the enterprise. Working as a staffer for Garrison, he gained an unique perspective on Garrison, the evidence, other Garrison staff members, conspiracy buffs, and reporters covering the trial. Here is his diary, obtained from the National Archives.
  1. 6/25/67-9/13/67
  2. 9/14/67-10/2/67
  3. 10/3/67-10/26/67
  4. 11/3/67-1/28/68
  5. 1/31/68-2/12/68
  1. 2/13/68-2/21/68
  2. 2/22/68-3/13/68
  3. 3/14/68-3/15/68
  4. 3/16/68-4/1-7/68
Diary of Tom Bethell — Garrison JFK investigation insider
 In the 1970s, Bethell wrote an article for the Washington Monthly that summarized his experiences with the Garrison investigation and offered some cogent comments on the intellectual habits of the conspiracy "researchers."

Can you Trust Garrison on Garrison?

 Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins was the basis of the movie JFK. The book is a fanciful historical narrative that bears only a tenuous relationship with reality. Here is a list of the discrete, provable lies in the book.
 Garrison's key witness implicating Shaw in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy was Perry Raymond Russo, but Russo's testimony was elicited during "truth serum" and hypnosis sessions. When Garrison turned over the transcripts of the hypnosis sessions to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977, he doctored them to conceal the fact that Russo told about Shaw conspiring only in response to a highly leading question.
David Ferrie

Really Mysterious?

 Another "mysterious" death was that of David Ferrie (left). Did he commit suicide to avoid being prosecuted for Kennedy's murder by DA Garrison? Was he killed by minions of The Conspiracy? In this article, Dr. Robert Artwohl discusses Jim Garrison's contention that Ferrie died of an overdose of Proloid, a thyroid medication, and Garrison's apparent mishandling of evidence. Ferrie left two supposed "suicide notes," however on close inspection it's not at all clear they are in fact suicide notes.

Did Oswald Have Ferrie's Library Card?

 It's supposed to be a "link" between Ferrie and Oswald: the story that Oswald had Ferrie's library card in his possession when he was arrested. Dave Blackburst, in a message posted on the moderated Internet newsgroupexplains where this factoid came from.
Primary Sources on Garrison
Real historical research is done from "primary sources" — the original documents, transcripts, testimony and so on that are the earliest and closest reflection of the historical event. People who want to study the Garrison investigation are immensely lucky that researcher Dave Reitzes has an ongoing interest in — indeed, almost an obsession with — the topic. His "Perpetual Pages" web site has animpressive collection of primary sources on Garrison, as well as the trial transcript of the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans.
Did the CIA have a campaign to undermine Garrison?

A CIA Campaign Against Garrison?

 Garrison supporters have followed the lead of Garrison himself in claiming that there was a CIA campaign to spy on him, attack him in the press, and disrupt his investigation by feeding it disinformation. Such claims are extremely convenient for the Garrisonites. Faced with staffers who left the probe and claimed it was bogus, they simply assert that the defectors were government agents anyway. Faced with hostile press accounts, they explain that those were produced by CIA "assets." Faced with wild investigative antics by Garrison, they explain that those were the result of disinformation fed to Garrison by agents.
If such a campaign existed, the internal CIA documents describing it should make fascinating reading. And indeed, author Max Holland has discovered several key documents outlining the CIA's reaction to the Garrison probe. The Agency's response to Garrison, however, is rather different from the one claimed by the conspiracists.

"Bill Boxley"

One of the supposed infiltrators Garrison singled out in On the Trail of the Assassins was "Bill Boxley," supposedly from the CIA. Internal CIA documents show "Boxley's" actual relationship with the Agency.

Gordon Novel

Conspiracy books will flatly state that Gordon Novel, an "electronics expert" hired by Garrison to provide anti-eavesdropping services, was a "CIA employee." In reality, Novel had no connection with the Agency, as shown by a secret FBI memo. Novel in fact was a hustler and con artist who already had an arrest record when he showed up in New Orleans to work for Garrison. Numerous internal secret CIA documents show he had no connection with the Agency.

How Many Spooks?

Garrison was convinced that New Orleans was crawling with CIA agents, who had not only plotted to murder Kennedy, but also to oppose his investigation. With the release of assassination-related records in the 1990s, the CIA's own internal documents have become public, and they detail who had what connections with the Agency. A key one, with the subject heading "Garrison Investigation: Queries from Justice Department," shows that very few of the people Garrison claimed were spooks actually were.

Do You Really Want the Records Open?

 Opening up the historical record has been a long-running crusade of conspiracy people. Sometimes, the record reveals things that some buffs would prefer hidden. When author Gerald Posner got access to the documents in the possession of the New Orleans District Attorney's office, he found some hair-raising things. But not about the CIA or the FBI. Read his article here, and them check out his web pagefor more information about him and his projects.
Garrison and the Mafia

Garrison and the Mafia

Although Garrison was willing to include the CIA, the FBI, the Federal government, and just about everybody else you can imagine in his assassination conspiracy, one group was conspicuously missing: the Mafia. Garrison's good relations with various Mafia figures might have something to do with this. When the House Select Committee on Assassinations quizzed Garrison on the possibility of a Mafia connection, and particularly about New Orleans Mafia chieftan Carlos Marcello, Garrison replied as follows:
When asked if he believed Marcello was a man capable of having President Kennedy murdered, Garrison did not directly answer the question. Garrison stated that he has "certainly heard" that Marcello may have once been involved in some kind of criminal activity years ago. He stated that he has some reason to believe that some of Marcello's money was obtained through criminal acts many years ago. Garrison further stated that he has heard of allegations linking Marcello to organized crime and the Mafia, but does not know if they are true. He stated that he has heard over the years that Marcello may be a man of significant wealth, and may in fact be one of Louisiana's wealthier citizens. He stated that Marcello is not active in real estate and is a businessman.
When asked again if he believes that Marcello had the motive and means to assassinate President Kennedy, Garrison again did not respond to the question, and began talking about another subject at length.
You may wish to read the entire interview.
In his book On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison is no more forthcoming.
The periodic allegations that I am on friendly terms with organized crime figures are amusing, in light of my record . . . .
It has been my policy not to respond to each of the many canards which have been part of the campaign to discredit my investigation, nor to waste time trying to prove negatives. For what it is worth, however, I do not even know Carlos Marcello, the man with whom I am frequently linked by my detractors. Nor, for that matter, did I ever in my years as district attorney come upon any evidence that he was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is. (p. 288)
So it seems the District Attorney who claimed to have solved the crime of the century was unable to discover that top New Orleans mob boss Marcello was part of the Mafia!

Jim Garrison

The hero of Oliver Stone's JFK, Jim Garrison (portrayed in the movie by Kevin Costner) claimed to have discovered a New Orleans conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.
Two shots of young Jim Garrison
Losing the biggest case of his career didn't stop Big Jim from getting re-elected
Neither did a 1971 indictment for accepting bribes slow him down. Here he greets constituents after beating the rap.

An Editorial Comment, 1967


Clay Shaw
David Ferrie


Jim Garrison

The hero of Oliver Stone's extraordinary film, JFK, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin Costner) believed that the John F. Kennedy assassination had been the work of CIA personnel, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, homosexuals, and ultra right-wing activists. "My staff and I solved the case weeks ago," Garrison announced in February 1967. "I wouldn't say this if we didn't have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt." When Garrison brought businessman Clay Shaw to trial, however, no such evidence materialized. Jury foreman Sidney Hebert even said he thought more highly of the Warren Report after the trial than before. Today, most reputable conspiracy-oriented authors have denounced Garrison as a complete fraud.

Lee Harvey Oswald

As depicted in JFK, accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (given an aptly enigmatic performance in Stone's film by Gary Oldman) spent the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. Jim Garrison theorized that Oswald's image as a loner and a Marxist was merely a front, and that he had been set up to take the fall in an assassination plot involving New Orleans residents. Many conspiracy theorists continue to believe so.

David Ferrie

Memorably portrayed in JFK by Joe Pesci, David Ferrie (above right, with Bay of Pigs veteran Julian Buznedo) was a highly eccentric pilot and scholar who drove from New Orleans to Houston the night of the assassination, on vacation with two friends. Though the trip was thoroughly investigated by the New Orleans Police Department, the Houston Police, the FBI, and even the Texas Rangers, Garrison was convinced it had something to do with JFK's death. When Ferrie died on February 22, 1967, Garrison quickly labeled him "one of history's most important individuals."

Jack Martin

Jack S. Martin (Jack Lemmon in Stone's JFK) came forward the day after the assassination with a variety of tales about Dave Ferrie, such as the claim that Ferrie "may have hypnotized Oswald and planted a post-hypnotic suggestion that he kill the President." Martin, born Edward Stewart Suggs, was no Jack Lemmon -- he was a diagnosed sociopath and admitted alcoholic with a rap sheet and a history of furnishing false information to the authorities, and he nursed a burning grudge against former pal Dave Ferrie.

W. Guy Banister

In 1963, former FBI Special Agent in Charge Guy Banister was a private investigator, ultra right-wing activist, and associate of David Ferrie's, with an office just around the corner from 544 Camp Street, an address curiously stamped by Lee Oswald on a batch of pro-Castro literature that summer. As depicted in Stone's movie (with Ed Asner in the role of the ex-G-man) Jim Garrison believed that Oswald and Banister must have been working together.

David Lewis

David Franklin Lewis was a roommate of Jack Martin's who'd been discharged from the Navy for "psychiatric" reasons. He tried to bolster Martin's tales, but ended up only an embarrassment to Garrison, which is presumably why he's left out of Stone's film. (In an attempt to boost his credibility, for example, he staged a fake assassination attempt on himself. A polygraph examination indicated deception and he confessed.) Oddly enough, when the DA claimed that he had "solved the case," his "evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt" consisted of the statements of Jack Martin and David Lewis -- and nothing else.

Dean Andrews

Dean Adams Andrews, Jr. (John Candy in JFK) was the jive-talking attorney who told the Warren Commission that he'd been asked by a "Clay Bertrand" torepresent Lee Oswald in Dallas. He described "Bertrand" as a "swinging cat" who occasionally guaranteed fees for some of his homosexual clients. Neither federal nor local authorities were able to locate any trace of a "Clay Bertrand" in New Orleans.

Clay Shaw

A successful businessman, playwright, and pioneer of restoration in New Orleans' French Quarter, Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones in Stone's film) was Jim Garrison's candidate for the elusive "Clay Bertrand." Garrison's evidence? Shaw was a homosexual, the DA observed, and his first name was Clay. Shaw adamantly denied being "Bertrand," insisted he'd never met Lee Oswald, and strenuously denied having anything to do with the death of the man he called "a splendid president." "If there was any one person in New Orleans who believed in John F. Kennedy," a friend of his remarked, "it was Clay Shaw."

Eugene C. Davis

When Dean Andrews refused to name Clay Shaw as "Clay Bertrand" to the Orleans Parish Grand Jury, he was charged with perjury. He then confessed that he had used the phony "Bertrand" name as a cover for his friend and client, Gene Davis, operator of a gay bar in the French Quarter. Davis didn't know Oswald, Andrews explained, but a phone conversation with him had given him the idea to represent the accused assassin. For obvious reasons, he was not mentioned in Stone's film.

Aloysius Habighorst

Officer Aloysius Habighorst of the NOPD testified that when he booked Clay Shaw, he asked Shaw if he used any aliases, and Shaw responded, "Clay Bertrand." However, Captain Louis Curole had assigned Sgt. Jonas Butzman to guard Shaw during the procedure, and Sgt. Butzman testified that Habighorst had notquestioned Shaw, and that the name "Clay Bertrand" had not been spoken by either man. Habighorst also stated that Shaw had been allowed to have his lawyer present for the procedure, a claim flatly contradicted by several eyewitnesses. Even Mark Lane, a close personal friend and longtime supporter of Jim Garrison's,blasted Oliver Stone for his handling of this episode.

Perry Russo

Following the death of David Ferrie, Perry Raymond Russo contacted the DA's Office to say he'd known Ferrie in the early Sixties and that Ferrie had spoken about assassinating the President. He became Jim Garrison's star witness when he claimed to have overheard Ferrie plotting the assassination with a white-haired man named "Clem Bertrand," whom he identified as Clay Shaw. Two years after the Shaw trial, Russo recanted his entire story. Incredibly, he was not portrayed in Stone's JFK, although his testimony became part of the basis for the fictional "Willie O'Keefe" (Kevin Bacon).

Edward O'Donnell

Lt. Edward O'Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department was ordered by Jim Garrison not to reveal that Perry Russo had been unable to complete a polygraph test administered by O'Donnell in June 1967. Russo confessed to O'Donnell that his testimony against Shaw was false. O'Donnell, of course, was of no interest to Oliver Stone.

Andrew Sciambra

Assistant DA Andrew "Moo Moo" Sciambra helped develop the testimony of a number of Garrison's witnesses, including Perry Russo. His contribution to the investigation would become extremely controversial, and he was quietly omitted from Stone's film.

James Phelan

At the DA's invitation, Saturday Evening Post reporter Jim Phelan came to New Orleans thinking he had the inside track to the story of the century. Instead, he became the first outsider to discover major discrepancies in Perry Russo's story.

Richard Billings

As an editor at Life magazine, Richard Billings was one of a select few journalistic insiders to the DA's JFK probe. A longtime supporter of Garrison's, his influence upon the House Select Committee on Assassinations helped rehabilitate the former DA's tarnished image in the late 1970s.

Vernon Bundy

Heroin addict Vernon J. Bundy, Jr., testified that he saw Clay Shaw meet with Lee Oswald by the seawall at Lake Pontchartrain in 1963. When Bundy failed a polygraph examination, assistant DAs James Alcock and Charles Ward tried in vain to convince Garrison not to use Bundy as a witness. In exchange for Bundy's gracious assistance, Garrison quietly sprung Bundy from prison.

Alvin Beauboeuf

Al Beauboeuf (above left, with attorney Burton Klein) was one of two men who accompanied Dave Ferrie on his legendary drive to Houston. Beauboeuf was offered $3,000 and a position with an airline by Garrison investigator Lynn Loisel if he would "fill in the missing links" of Perry Russo's story. Attorney Hugh Exniciossurreptitiously tape-recorded the offer.

Charles I. Spiesel

Intelligent and articulate, New York accountant Charles Spiesel made a devastating witness against Clay Shaw -- until his cross examination, when he revealed that he had a $16 million lawsuit pending against the City of New York for conspiring against him, sending some fifty or sixty people to hypnotize him, ruining his business, destroying his sex life, and planting look-alikes of his family in his own home.

Alvin Oser and James Alcock

Assistant District Attorney Jim Alcock (above right) led the prosecution at the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, with Assistant DA Al Oser (above left) handling the bulk of the testimony and arguments related to the Warren Report.

Louis Ivon and William Gurvich

Bill Gurvich (above right) was a DA's Office investigator who resigned his position in June 1967 and went public with his belief that Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was a fraud. Lou Ivon (above left) was one of Garrison's right-hand men during the JFK probe.

Sergio Arcacha Smith

Out of an office at 544 Camp Street, Sergio Arcacha Smith had been involved in raising funds for the fight against Castro. Arcacha had briefly been an associate of Dave Ferrie's, in mid-1961, and was an early suspect in Garrison's probe. By the time Oswald arrived in New Orleans, however, Arcacha had left both the crusade against Castro and the state of Louisiana behind.

Judge Edward Haggerty

"[Jim Garrison] violated [the pre-trial guidelines to refrain from speaking to the press about the case] more than anyone else. . . . That, in and of itself, it shows you the whole theory behind Garrison. It was not ever leading up or possibly looking for a conviction. He wanted to blast the Warren Commission . . . He was big enough to do it. Damn it, he did it."

Aaron Kohn

Aaron Kohn was managing director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a citizens' watchdog group in New Orleans. Garrison cut off all contact with the commission in late 1966, when Kohn began vocally challenging the DA's claim that there was no organized crime in New Orleans. "I [said when the JFK probe began] I thought it was going to turn out to be a fraud, because this is the way Garrison has functioned."

F. Irvin Dymond

Attorney F. Irvin Dymond led Clay Shaw's defense team, which also included Edward Wegmann, William Wegmann, and Salvatore Panzeca. "The twelve men who pass on this case are actually going to create history in our country. Gentlemen, I implore you not to make a mistake."

Edward Wegmann

When attorney Edward Wegmann received a phone call stating that his longtime friend and client Clay Shaw had been arrested for conspiracy to assassinate the President, Wegmann barked, "I'm in no mood for jokes," and hung up.

William Wegmann

"You have to understand that district attorneys in this area for years controlled the political system at Tulane and Broad."

Salvatore Panzeca

"I recognized Mr. Shaw's name when he identified himself. And I simply took the position -- well, I'll be down there and we'll straighten it out."
The Jim Garrison Investigation
Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?
The late Clay L. Shaw remains the only person in history to ever stand trial for the crime of conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The jury acquitted him, but was he really innocent?
Clay Shaw trial transcript (alphabetical by witness)
David Ferrie: Presumed Guilty
In defense of one of Jim Garrison's primary suspects
Impeaching Clinton
Does solid eyewitness testimony link Oswald to some of Jim Garrison's suspects?
Dean Andrews and the Search for "Clay Bertrand"
Documents, transcripts and articles
Life editor Richard Billings' journal
Based on consultations and interviews with Jim Garrison and his staff
Jerry P. Shinley Archive
Newsgroup posts pertaining to Jim Garrison, Garrison's JFK probe,
and the assassination of JFK
David Blackburst Newsgroup Archive
Newsgroup posts pertaining to Garrison's JFK probe, suspect David Ferrie,
and the assassination of JFK

Who Speaks for Clay Shaw? 
by Dave Reitzes 
Part 1 of 4

Copyright © 1998-2001 by David A. Reitzes 

In March of 1967, Clay Lavergne Shaw of  New Orleans ,  Louisiana  was indicted for conspiring to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. It took exactly two years for his case to work its way through an arduous marathon of motions, continuances, and appeals. It took a jury less than an hour to acquit. 

Did Clay Shaw conspire to assassinate President John F. Kennedy? The case against him will be examined here in its entirety. 

It all began with "Clay Bertrand." 

Meet Clay Bertrand 

It was about 4:00 PM on Saturday, November 23, 1963, when New Orleans secretary Eva Springer became a bit player in one of the most puzzling episodes of the John F. Kennedy assassination investigation. Springer had just arrived home from grocery shopping when the phone rang. The voice on the other end of the line was that of her employer, attorney Dean Adams Andrews, Jr. 

Andrews had never called Springer at home before, but he was hospitalized for pneumonia and needed her help. "I'm representing Lee Harvey Oswald in  Dallas ,  Texas ," he told her.[1] 

A Damon Runyonesque character known for spinning tall tales in hipster argot straight out of the 1950s, Dean Andrews made much of his living representing vice offenders in  New Orleans 's legendary French Quarter. "When not talking, which is seldom," writes a friend of his, attorney Milton Brener, Andrews "is usually wearing a broad, boyish grin or laughing lustily, for he appears to see the world as a huge joke."[2] 

After making it clear to her boss "that she was not going to  Dallas  with him and wanted nothing to do with the case,"[3] Eva Springer asked Andrews who had hired him. One word came back over the line, a word that meant absolutely nothing to her at the time: "Bertrand."[4] 

The next day Andrews called his own attorney and friend, Sam "Monk" Zelden, and offered him a chance to assist with Oswald's defense.[5] As the two men spoke, Zelden saw Jack Ruby murder the accused assassin on live television. "Don't worry about it," Zelden said. "Your client just got shot."[6] 

On Monday, November 25, Andrews phoned the local offices of the FBI and Secret Service and informed them that Lee Harvey Oswald had briefly been a client of his the previous summer and he had been accompanied on occasion by a man named Clay Bertrand. Andrews said that Bertrand had phoned him about representing Oswald in  Dallas . He described Bertrand as "a youthful appearing person age 22-23, 5'7", 160 pounds, blonde hair and crew cut."[7] 

Andrews called Springer and asked her to locate any relevant records in the office. She and investigator R. M. Davis spent a week searching the files, but not a scrap of paper could be found to indicate that Lee Oswald had ever been a client.[8] Questioned by the authorities, neither Springer nor Davis recalled ever meeting Oswald or had any knowledge of his having been in the office. Neither Springer nor Davis knew Clay Bertrand.[9] 

The FBI and Secret Service could locate no trace of a Clay Bertrand in  New Orleans . Bertrand was unknown to the New Orleans Police Department's Bureau of Identifications, their Detective Division, the Narcotics Squad, and the Vice Squad. No trace of the man could be turned up at the New Orleans Credit Bureau, the Louisiana State Employment Service, the Oretna employment office,  Tulane   University , or the Public Library.[10] 

Questioned again on December 5th, Andrews said he had only met Bertrand once. Asked again for Bertrand's description, Andrews characterized him as a well-dressed man of 6'1" or 6'2", with brown hair.[11] 

A few days later, Andrews told the FBI that "based on the discrepancy between his memory and facts as related to him by his employees and further the fact that he cannot identify Clay Bertrand, he can reach only one conclusion, that is, that the call received by him while in Hotel Dieu Hospital under sedation was a figment of his imagination."[12] He added that "after a careful and extensive search of his files,"[13] he could not find any trace of such a client.[14] Investigator R. M. Davis told the FBI that Andrews "is now convinced that the call he received at the hospital was a dream."[15] 

The Warren Commission subpoenaed Andrews to testify about his knowledge of the alleged assassin and provide copies of all relevant records. On  July 21, 1964 , Andrews told commission counsel Wesley J. Liebeler that Oswald had come to his office "accompanied by some gay kids. They were Mexicanos. He wanted to find out what could be done in connection with a [US Marine Corps] discharge . . . so I explained to him he would have to advance the funds to transcribe whatever records they had up in the Adjutant General's office. When he brought the money, I would do the work, and we saw him three or four times subsequent to that, not in the company of the gay kids."[16] Andrews could not produce any records, he said, because his office had been burglarized.[17] 

Asked about Clay Bertrand, Andrews described him as having "sandy hair, blue eyes, ruddy complexion," standing about 5'8" and weighing "about 165, 170, 175."[18] 

Andrews explained: 

I was in Hotel Dieu [Hospital], and the phone rang and a voice I recognized as Clay Bertrand asked me if I would go to  Dallas  . . . and defend [Oswald]. I told him I was sick in the hospital. If I couldn't go, I would find somebody that could go. . . . I had seen Clay Bertrand once some time ago, probably a couple of years. He's the one who calls in behalf of gay kids normally, either to obtain bond or parole for them. I would assume that he was the one that originally sent Oswald and the gay kids, these Mexicanos, to the office because I had never seen those people before at all. They were just walk-ins. . . . 

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you recall talking to an FBI agent, Regis L. Kennedy, and Carl L. Schlaeger on November 25? . . . Do you remember telling [Special Agent Kennedy] at that time that you thought that Clay Bertrand had come into the office with Oswald when Oswald had been in the office earlier last spring? 

Mr. ANDREWS. No; I don't remember. 

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Bertrand ever in the office with Oswald? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Not that I remember.[19] 

Didn't you tell the FBI, Liebeler asked, that "you finally came to the conclusion that Clay Bertrand was a figment of your imagination?" 

Mr. ANDREWS. That's what the Feebees [FBI agents] put on. I know that the two Feebees are going to put these people on the street looking, and I can't find the guy, and I am not going to tie up all the agents on something that isn't that solid. I told them, "Write what you want, that I am nuts. I don't care." They were running on the time factor, and the hills were shook up plenty to get it, get it, get it. I couldn't give it to them. I have been playing cops and robbers with them. You can tell when the steam is on. They are on you like the plague. They never leave. They are like cancer. Eternal. . . . [20] 

Now Andrews added a second encounter with Bertrand to his story. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, I ran up on that rat about six weeks ago and he spooked, ran in the street. I would have beat him with a chain if I had caught him. . . . I am trying to think of the name of this bar. That's where this rascal bums out. I was trying to get past him so I could get a nickel in the phone and call the Feebees or [Secret Service Agent] John Rice, but he saw me and spooked and ran. I haven't seen him since. . . . [21] 

Mr. LIEBELER. . . . Now I have a rather lengthy report of an interview that Mr. Kennedy had with you on  December 5, 1963 , in which he reports you as stating that you had a mental picture of Clay Bertrand as being approximately six-feet-one-inch to six-feet-two-inches in height, brown hair, and well dressed. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Mr. LIEBELER. Now this description is different, at least in terms of height of the man, than the one you have just given us of Clay Bertrand. 

Mr. ANDREWS. But, you know, I don't play Boy Scouts and measure them. I have only seen this fellow twice in my life. I don't think there is that much [difference] in the description. . . . 

Mr. LIEBELER. I think you said he was five-feet-eight-inches before. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I can't give you any better because this time I was looking for the fellow, he was sitting down. I am just estimating. . . . 

Mr. LIEBELER. . . . I am at a loss to understand why you told Agent Kennedy on December 5 that he was six-feet-one to six-feet-two and now you have told us that he was five-feet-eight when at no time did you see the man standing up. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Because, I guess[ed] the first time -- and I am guessing now -- 

Mr. LIEBELER. Is this fellow a homosexual, do you say? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Bisexual. What they call a swinging cat. 

Mr. LIEBELER. And you haven't seen him at any time since that day? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I haven't seen him since. 

Mr. LIEBELER. . . . Has this fellow Bertrand sent you business in the past? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Prior to -- I guess the last time would be February of 1963. 

Mr. LIEBELER. And mostly he refers, I think you said, these gay kids, is that right? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. . . . I wish I could be more specific, that's all. This is my impression, for whatever it is worth, of Clay Bertrand: His connections with Oswald I don't know at all. I think he is a lawyer without a briefcase. That's my opinion. . . .[22] 

"There's three people I am going to find," Andrews told Liebeler. "One of them is the real guy that killed the President; the Mexican [who accompanied Oswald to his office]; and Clay Bertrand."[23] 

Next: The search for "Clay Bertrand." 

Part 1: Meet Clay Bertrand. It all started with a shadowy (and possibly non-existent) figure named "Clay Bertrand" mentioned to the Warren Commission by Dean Andrews. 

Part 2: Who Was Clay Bertrand? Was there really a "Clay Bertrand," and did he have any connection to Clay Shaw? 

Part 3: Clay Shaw: Assassin or Fall Guy? Jim Garrison attempts to link Shaw to an assassination conspiracy. 

Part 4: A Question of Perjury. Garrison supporters, unable to show that Shaw conspired to kill Kennedy, often fall back to the claim that "he lied under oath." Is this true? 

Back to the top
Search this site 
    powered by FreeFind

[1] FBI report of interview with Eva Springer, December 5, 1963; Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2901, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 357. 

[3] FBI report of interview with Eva Springer, December 5, 1963; Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2901, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 357. 

[4] FBI report of interview with Eva Springer, December 5, 1963; Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2901, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 357. 

[5] FBI interview of Sam "Monk" Zelden, November 25, 1963; FBI interview of Dean Andrews, December 5, 1963; Transcript, State of Louisiana v. Clay Shawhereafter Shaw, February 25, 1969, (2038) pp. 62-3; Patricia Lambert, False Witness (New York: M. Evans and Co., 1998), pp. 33, 149-50. Zelden later confirmed this call to Harold Weisberg. (Author's interview with Harold Weisberg, December 2, 1998.) 

[6] FBI interview of Sam "Monk" Zelden, November 25, 1963; FBI interview of Dean Andrews, December 5, 1963; Shaw, February 25, 1969, (2038) pp. 62-3; Patricia Lambert, False Witness (New York: M. Evans and Co., 1998), pp. 33, 149-50. 

[7] FBI interviews with Dean Andrews, December 3 and December 5, 1963; Secret Service interview with Dean Andrews, December 6, 1963; Lambert, pp. 33-4. Bertrand description: FBI interview of Dean Andrews,  November 25, 1963 ; Lambert, p. 298 fn. 42. "Andrews stated that although he has associated the name Clay Bertrand in his mind with the individual described who appeared at Andrews' office with Oswald, he cannot be sure this individual was in fact named Clay Bertrand." 

[8] FBI report of interview with Eva Springer, December 5, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2901, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 357; FBI report of interview with R. M. Davis, December 6, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2902, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 358; FBI interview of Dean Andrews, December 5, 1963; Secret Service report of November 25, 1963, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 335. 

[9] FBI report of interview with Eva Springer, December 5, 1963; Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2901, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 357; FBI report of interview with R. M. Davis, December 6, 1963; Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2902, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 358. 

[10] Secret Service report of December 6, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 3094, Hearings Vol. XXVI, p. 705; Lambert, p. 35. 

[11] FBI interview of Dean Andrews, December 5, 1963; Secret Service report of November 25, 1963; Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 335. 

[12] FBI interview of Dean Andrews,  December 6, 1963 . 

[13] FBI interview of Dean Andrews,  December 5, 1963 . 

[14] FBI interview of Dean Andrews,  December 5, 1963 . 

[15] FBI interview of R. M. Davis,  December 5, 1963 . 

[16]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 326. 

[17]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 326. 

[18]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 334. 

[19]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 326. 

[20]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 334. 

[21]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 334. 

[22]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, pp. 335-37. 

[23]  Warren  Commission Hearings, Vol. XI, p. 334. 
Back to the top
The Trial of Clay L. Shaw
On March 1, 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested businessman Clay Lavergne Shaw on the charge of conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Precisely two years later, Shaw was acquitted. Clay Shaw is the only individual ever prosecuted for conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Here is testimony from the historic Shaw trial, along with other resources.
Dallas witnesses
New Orleans witnesses
Testimony and arguments in connection
with the arrest record of Clay Shaw

(witnesses listed in order of appearance)
The Clinton witnesses
(in order of appearance)
Statements, arguments and rulings
Search trial database chronologically
Additional resources on the trial of Clay Shaw

Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?
The late Clay L. Shaw remains the only person in history to ever stand trial for the crime of conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The jury acquitted him, but was he really innocent?

Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?
The late Clay L. Shaw remains the only person in history to ever stand trial for the crime of conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The jury acquitted him, but was he really innocent?

Australian Comedian- Peter Moon on the come back trail click here to find out more about this wacky character 

Di Bliss and Alan Bond on their wedding day in 1995.

Police confirm Alan Bond's wife dead

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the High Court in London December 5, 2011. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth 

Assange to appeal extradition to UK's top court

LONDON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will appeal to Britain's Supreme Court Wednesday not to extradite him to Sweden over accusations of sex crimes, a move that could push his anti-secrecy website further toward oblivion.
Australian-born Assange, 40, became a worldwide celebrity and infuriated the U.S. government in 2010 when WikiLeaks released secret video footage and thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since then, the scoops have dried up and WikiLeaks has faded from the news headlines, starved of cash by major credit card companies that are refusing to process online donations to it, and bogged down by Assange's protracted legal troubles.
A charismatic but temperamental figure, Assange was detained in Britain in December 2010 on a European arrest warrant issued by a Swedish prosecutor after two female former WikiLeaks volunteers accused him of sexual assault.
His lawyers argue that the warrant is invalid because it was issued by a prosecutor rather than a neutral judge or court.
If the Supreme Court rejects the argument, he may take his case to the European Court of Human Rights but it is unclear whether that would stop his extradition to Sweden.
The Supreme Court hearings will last two days and the court is expected to announce its decision some weeks later.
Assange denies any wrongdoing and has said that the sex accusations, which surfaced at the height of the international furore over WikiLeaks, were an attempt to silence him.
He is convinced that U.S. authorities are looking for a way to go after him in retaliation for WikiLeaks' revelations.
Washington is divided over Assange, with some officials calling for tough action against him to deter would-be leakers and others saying a prosecution would be legally problematic and would give him a boost when he appears headed for irrelevance.
Bradley Manning, a U.S. army intelligence analyst suspected of passing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, is facing a court-martial on 22 charges including aiding the enemy and wrongfully causing intelligence to be published online.
Meanwhile, Assange has been holed up under house arrest for over a year, mostly at the English country mansion of a wealthy supporter.
He has made some unexpected career moves, including a guest appearance in an episode of the satirical U.S. animated series "The Simpsons" due to be aired on February 19 [ID:nL4E8CU791].
In another TV first, Kremlin-funded station Russia Today announced last week that it had hired Assange to host a political talk show called "The World Tomorrow.
(Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Deadly European cold snap spreads

By Anne-Christine Poujoulat | AFP 
A cold snap that killed 30 people in Ukraine over the past five days spread Tuesday to swathes of eastern and central Europe with record lows in Bulgaria and heavy snow in Switzerland and parts of Italy.
Emergency services in Ukraine said most of the dead were homeless people who froze to death on the streets, four were found in their homes, and more than 600 people sought medical help for frostbite and hypothermia.
Authorities opened 1,590 shelters to provide food and heat and were planning to set up 150 more as temperatures plunged to minus 28 degrees Celsius (minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit) in some regions.
Police in Poland reported five new deaths on Tuesday, bringing the overall toll for January to 27 as overnight temperatures dipped to minus 30 Celsius.
In Vilnius, the capital of neighbouring Lithuania, one homeless man was found dead Tuesday, bringing the death toll there to eight since Saturday.
In the Czech Republic, a woman was found frozen to death in a garden shed in the capital Prague, police said.
In the Balkans, a 72-year-old man and a 50-year-old woman were found dead of cold in central and southern Serbia respectively, where the temperatures have fallen to minus 33 degrees Celsius, private B92 television reported.
Since Sunday, three people have died in Serbia and one in neighbouring Macedonia.
Meanwhile, two died in Romania, raising the death toll to eight since Thursday, the health ministry said.
Temperatures plunged to minus 29 degrees Celsius in central Romania on Monday night, sending gas consumption to a record high and forcing a huge increase in gas imports, an official said.
"In Bucharest and across the country, consumption has reached a historic high," from 57 million cubic metres per day earlier this month to 69 million on Monday, economy ministry official Claudiu Stafie told a press conference.
Stafie said imports have risen day after day and were expected to stand at 17.5 million cubic metres Tuesday and hit 20 million on Wednesday.
Neighbouring Bulgaria reported record lows and the Danube started to freeze over, threatening shipping.
Eighteen towns, including the capital Sofia, recorded their coldest January 31 since records started 100 years ago, with the mercury dropping as low as minus 29 degrees Celsius in Kneja, in the northeast, according to the national weather service.
In Switzerland, some 10 centimetres (four inches) of snow fell Tuesday morning, hampering flights, and the weather service predicted temperatures would drop to minus 15 Celsius in the ski resorts of Saint-Moritz and Sils-Maria.
The cold wave began enveloping central and northern Italy on Tuesday, as emergency services braced for the most severe week in 27 years and motorways prepared for traffic disruptions.
Travellers were being advised to postpone long journeys as snow began to blanket the Emilia-Romagna, Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Tuscany regions and the motorways agency said heavy trucks would likely be forced to suspend trips.
Schools and universities have been shut in the northwestern port of Genoa and snow ploughs are on alert at the airport of central Bologna, where the local civil protection agency has declared a state of alert until Thursday.

There was an error retrieving your RSS feed

Kasturi Indian Restaurant ,
 35-37 Shandwick Place, Edinburgh, EH2 4RG. t: 0131 228 2441
 Kasturi Indian Restaurant 
The best place to eat in Edinburgh

Special Offers


Our special offers are running daily and seasonly, please come back and check regularly.

4 Course Business Lunch only £7.95

including Rice and Side Dish

Pint & Pakora £4.49

2.30pm-5.00pm Happy Afternoon Snacks

10% Student Discount

collect order with valid student I.D.

Kasturi Indian Gourmet Restaurant
Located in the heart of Edinburgh's vibrant West End, Kasturi Indian Restaurant offers a haven for the connoisseur of gourmet Indian Food. Ideal for special ...

"Kasturi was used in exotic perfumes for the Mughal Emperors long ago.
 The combination of the fragrance in the room and a menu of spicy dishes, creates
an atmosphere of complete relaxation and satisfaction in the best tradition of an Indian Gourmet restaurant."

Located in the heart of Edinburgh's vibrant West End, Kasturi Indian Restaurant offers a haven for the connoisseur of gourmet Indian Food. Ideal for special evening occasion, for pre-theatre or for sports celebrations. Tourists particularly welcome. Elegant decor and friendly service will make your visit to Kasturi a culinary experience to remember.


Please click here  to view the Kasturi Indian Restaurant  video on YouTube.

International News Limited Domain 
Pricing Per Year
.com* $9.99  | .net* $9.99  | .org* $9.99  | .info* $9.99  | .us* $9.99  | .biz* $9.99  | 
.ws* $9.99 
.name* $9.99 
Save even more on multi-year registrations! 

Visit International News Limited  for the best values on: domain names , domain transfers
  and more

YahooMail HotMail GMail MyWayMail  
AOLMail   INLNs   CNNWorld  IsraelVideoNs NYTimes WashNs WorldMedia  JapaNs  AusNs WorldVideoNs  WorldFinance
ChinaDaily  IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNs ABCAust NZNews
 QldNews WANs   NZNews  QldNews  MelbAge  AdeaideNews  TasNews  ABCTas  DarwinN

YahooMail HotMail GMail MyWayMail  
AOLMail   INLNs   CNNWorld  IsraelVideoNs NYTimes WashNs WorldMedia  JapaNs  AusNs WorldVideoNs  WorldFinance
ChinaDaily  IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNs ABCAust NZNews
 QldNews WANs   NZNews  QldNews  MelbAge  AdeaideNews  TasNews  ABCTas  DarwinN

Top Stories Video/Audio  Reuters AP AFP The Christian Science Monitor U.S. News & World Report AFP Features Reuters Life! NPR The Advocate Pew Daily Number Today in History  Obituaries Corrections Politics  
 LocalNews o BBC News Video Reuters Video AFP Video CNBC Video Australia 7 News Video Video  NPR Audio Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone Video Richard Bangs Adventures Video Charlie Rose Video Expanded Books Video Assignment Earth Video Video Guinness World Records Video
 AccuWeather Video You Witness News User Video
News Services News via RSS  News Alerts Weather Alerts News Badge Yahoo! News Help
 News by Region (Yahoo! Directory) News & Media Sites (Yahoo! Directory)

There was an error retrieving your RSS feed

There was an error retrieving your RSS feed

There was an error retrieving your RSS feed


Katherine Jackson
© Charles Dharapak/AP
Katherine Jackson

More on Wonderwall: Photos of Jackson's final days

Judge backs Michael Jackson lawyer and friend>1=28102
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Michael Jackson's longtime attorney and a family friend should take over the pop singer's estate, a judge said Monday.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff issued his ruling after a court hearing Monday morning. Attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain had been designated in Jackson's 2002 will as the people he wanted to administer his estate.

Jackson died June 25, deeply in debt. But a court filing estimates that his estate will be worth more than $500 million.

The singer's mother, Katherine Jackson, had applied to oversee her son's estate, but that was before the will surfaced. Her attorney, Burt Levitch, expressed concerns about McClain and Branca's financial leadership.

Levitch told Beckloff that Branca had previously been removed from financial positions of authority by Jackson. Branca's attorney says he was rehired by Jackson on June 17, days before Jackson's death.

Katherine Jackson did not appear at Monday's hearing. Branca did attend.

Related: Jackson and mother Katherine had unbreakable bond

Branca and McClain will have to post a $1 million bond on the estate, Beckloff ruled.

Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

Sahel Kazemi.
 (The Tennessean / Associated Press)

Steve McNair played 13 NFL seasons.(Chris McGrath / Getty Images)

Relative: Police suspect GF was McNair shooter

Updated: July 6, 2009, 5:30 PM EDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - As police continued to investigate the Steve McNair homicide case, a relative of the woman found shot to death next to McNair claims police have told him they are almost sure 20-year-old Sahel Kazemi was the shooter, and that Kazemi purchased a gun in the past week.

Farzin Abdi, Kazemi's nephew, didn't know what day of the week the gun was purchased or what type of gun it was.

Nashville police didn't immediately have a reaction to the Abdi's comments.

"There was no way she was depressed and wanting to do this," Abdi said. "She was so happy. ... She just had it made, you know, (with) this guy taking care of everything."

Abdi said Kazemi believed McNair was divorcing his wife and she was preparing to sell her furniture to move in with him.

Shot twice in the head and two more times in the chest, McNair was the victim of a homicide, police declared Sunday. But authorities wouldn't say it was a murder-suicide — even with Kazemi dead at his feet from a single bullet.

McNair had been dating Saleh Kazemi for several months, and Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron said Sunday that a semiautomatic pistol was found under her body. She was shot in the head.

McNair, who was married with four sons, had a permit to carry a handgun in Tennessee, and he was arrested once before with a 9mm weapon although charges in the case were dropped. Police said they had not yet determined who owned the gun found at the scene.

Investigators weren't looking for a suspect but were questioning friends of the couple as well as Kazemi's ex-boyfriend. They were also waiting for results of drug and other laboratory tests before deciding whether McNair was killed in a lovers' quarrel.

"That's a very important part of the investigation as we work to ultimately classify Miss Kazemi's death," Aaron said.

A public memorial and viewings are scheduled later this week for McNair.

The public will have a couple of opportunities to attend viewings in Nashville on Thursday and a memorial will be held later that evening at Mount Zion Baptist Church.

A funeral will be held Saturday in Mississippi but arrangements are not yet final.

Fans are asked to make donations to the Steve McNair Foundation.

The details surfacing after McNair's death stand in stark contrast to the public persona he enjoyed during his career.

McNair repeatedly played through serious injuries and pain to win, though he came up a yard short of forcing overtime on the Tennessee Titans' famous drive to lose the 2000 Super Bowl.

Generous, he frequently took part in charity work for both the Titans and later the Baltimore Ravens after a 2006 trade. McNair even helped load donated food, water and clothes onto tractor-trailers that he had arranged for Hurricane Katrina victims, and paid for three football camps for children himself this year.

McNair and Kazemi were found dead at a Nashville condominium — which overlooks the Titans stadium — that he rented with his friend Wayne Neeley. Police believe both died early Saturday. Neeley found the bodies hours later, and called a friend, Robert Gaddy, who played at Alcorn State with McNair. Gaddy dialed 911.

"People have certain things that they do in life," Gaddy said. "We don't need to look on the situation at this time (but) on the fact we just lost a great member of society."

The quarterback's agent, Bus Cook, said he had never heard Kazemi's name until news of the shooting broke Saturday. What McNair's wife knew wasn't clear Sunday. Cook said Mechelle McNair was "in and out of it." He said she had no comment after the police called his death a homicide.

"It doesn't make any sense. I don't know what to say," Cook said.

Mechelle was "very upset, very distraught" Sunday, Cook said. She was preparing to finish funeral arrangements Monday.

McNair split his time between Nashville and his farm in Mount Olive, Miss. He recently opened a restaurant near Tennessee State University that was aimed at serving healthy, affordable food to college students.

McNair was also seen so often at Kazemi's apartment that a neighbor thought he lived there.

McNair met Kazemi when his family ate often at the Dave & Buster's restaurant she worked at as a server, and the two began dating in a relationship that included a vacation with parasailing. Photos posted on showed McNair gazing and smiling at the young Kazemi.

"She pretty obviously got mixed up way over her head with folks," said Reagan Howard, a neighbor of Kazemi's.

A man who answered the door at a house in the Jacksonville, Fla., suburb of Orange Park said it was the home of Kazemi's family, but said her relatives did not want to comment.

"We don't have anything to say, please leave us alone," he said.

The victim's sister, Soheyla Kazemi, told the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville that the young woman had expected McNair to get a divorce. "She said they were planning to get married."

Kazemi often was dropped off by limousine in the early morning hours and recently went from driving a Kia to a 2007 Cadillac Escalade registered to both herself and McNair. Her niece told The Tennessean that Kazemi thought McNair was divorcing his wife of 12 years soon.

Nashville courts had no record of a McNair divorce case, but a home he owned in Nashville is on the market for $3 million.

The real estate agent declined to comment. Her online listing for property described it as a "gigantic house" of more than 14,000 square feet and photos showed a pool, home theater, baby grand piano and ornate furnishings throughout.

McNair and Kazemi were together Thursday night when she was pulled over driving that Escalade. She was arrested on a DUI charges, and he was allowed to leave in a taxi even though he was charged with drunken driving in 2007 when his brother-in-law was stopped for DUI while driving McNair's pickup truck.

McNair led the Titans to the 2000 Super Bowl, which they lost 23-16 to the St. Louis Rams despite his 87-yard drive in the final minute and 48 seconds. He was co-MVP of the NFL with Colts quarterback Peyton Manning in 2003.

Manning said in a statement Sunday that he had some great battles with the quarterback.

"Sharing the NFL MVP honor with him in 2003 was special because of what a great football player he was," Manning said. "I had the opportunity to play in a couple of Pro Bowls with him, and the time spent with him in Hawaii I'll never forget. I'll truly miss him."

The Titans drafted Vince Young in 2006 to replace McNair, who had mentored him since he was a teenager. They never played together but did play against each other that year.

"He was like a father to me. I hear his advice in my head with everything I do. Life will be very different without him," Young said in a statement Sunday.

McNair grew up in Mount Olive, Miss., and became a football star at Alcorn State, the Division I-AA school in his home state as he dominated the Southwestern Athletic Conference. He became a Heisman Trophy contender as reporters flocked to little Lorman to watch the man known as "Air McNair.

He still holds the Division I-AA (now known as Football Championship Subdivision) records for career yards passing (14,496) and total offense (16,823). McNair was drafted in 1995 by the Houston Oilers, who eventually became the Titans.

Picked four times for the Pro Bowl, McNair finished with 31,304 yards passing and 174 touchdowns. He led both the Titans and Ravens to playoff berths, including two AFC championship game appearances with Tennessee. Injuries finally led to his retirement after the 2007 season

Besides his wife, McNair is survived his sons Junior, Steven, Tyler and Trenton.

Fox News Contributor Rips Into Palin: "The Woman Is Inarticulate, Undereducated" (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post   |  Rachel Weiner 
First Posted: 07- 6-09 01:24 PM   |   Updated: 07- 6-09 01:42 PM

Even Fox News has started to turn on Sarah Palin. In the midst of a segment about the Alaska Governor's battle against "liberal" attacks, Liz Trotta went off-message.

Frankly, "the woman is inarticulate, undereducated," Trotta said, arguing that for once liberal criticism was "well-deserved."

"I think all the liberal stylists ... really have a case. She just begs for adjectives like flaky and wacky." When pressed, she added, "We're talking about somebody who, right from the get-go, has been a flashy person who gets into a lot of trouble and really has no credentials for any 

More in Politics...


Alaskans: Palin Had Gone Fishin' On The...

Alaskans: Palin Had Gone Fishin' On The...

Fred Barnes: Palin Has "Dashed Her Chances

Sarah Palin Flashback: 'Whining' About Media Coverage...

Sarah Palin's Second Chanc

Karen Dalton-Beninato Karen Dalton-Beninato: Pleading the Fifth: The Palin Constitution Revolution
I don't know what to call it but the Convolution Party aired its brand new platform on the steps of a Land of Lincoln courthouse, some in their Glenn Beck Live Free or Die shirts.


Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:


Lance Armstrong and his Astana team were fined for arriving late for the pre-strage registration this morning in Marseille, France. Rules state that riders must show up 20 minutes prior to the start or face a fine of 100 Swiss Francs ($92). Sneering contempt from the Tour de France competitions director is an added bonus.

Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:01 am EDT

Lance and Astana earn a $92 fine for showing up late

By Chris Chase

"Today, and as usual, the Astana team arrived late at the pre-stage registration, in contempt of the crowd, who has once again not seen Lance Armstrong," [Tour competitions director Jean-Francois] Pescheux told Reuters before the start of the third stage from Marseille to La Grande Motte.

"They don't care about the fine. We are going to ask the UCI to be tougher."

Of course they don't care about the fine. Ninety-two dollars? Lance drops more on that at breakfast. Has that amount changed since the first Tour in 1903? The last time I heard of a $92 fine I was watching The People's Court ... in 1987.  

And what's with the attitude, M. Pescheux? Let's not be perpetuating stereotypes about the French. It's bad enough that Lance is reinforcing notions that Americans show up late to everything. 

One of the excuses floated for that late arrival for Astana was that there was bad traffic in Marseille. The irony of showing up late to a bike race because your car was stuck in traffic is something even Pescheux should find amusing.

Update: Armstrong apologized for his tardiness on his Twitter account this afternoon, 

blaming it on a visit from actor Ben Stiller.
Police may have killed suspect in S.C. slayings

Similar vehicle links series of five deaths to man shot overnight in N.C.

Image: Possible suspect
This is an updated drawing of the suspected serial killer in Cherokee County, S.C., made available on Friday.

  Manhunt for S.C. serial killer
July 6: Residents of a South Carolina town were terrorized after five people were shot to death in about a week. NBC’s Ron Mott reports from Gaffney, S.C..

Today show

Video: Crime & courts  
Former DC mayor arrested on stalking charges
July 6: Former Washington D.C. Mayor, and current D.C. Councilman Marion Barry has been arrested for allegedly stalking a female acquaintance. WRC's Darcy Spencer reports.

On the run

The U.S. Marshals want your help finding their "15 Most Wanted" fugitives, a notorious list of suspects fleeing everything from murder and robbery to child sex charges. To date, about 200 of the fugitives profiled on the list have been found. Tips leading to an arrest are rewarded up to $25,000. Click here to see the fugitives. 

NBC, and news services
updated 2:41 p.m. ET July 6, 2009

Authorities were investigating whether a man who was shot and killed Monday morning by police in North Carolina may be linked to the slayings of five people in South Carolina in a week.

South Carolina law enforcement officers were in Gaston County, N.C., near Charlotte, after county police shot and killed the man, who they said opened fire on them Monday morning, NBC News’ Ron Mott reported.

Investigators told NBC station WCNC of Charlotte that a gray or champagne Ford Explorer was found outside the house in Gaston County, about 30 miles north of Cherokee County, S.C., where five people were found shot to death in three incidents over eight days bridging last week.

Cherokee County Sheriff Bill Blanton said Monday that a gray Ford Explorer was believed to link all five of the South Carolina killings.

“The physical evidence, the evidence that we have, the eyewitnesses that we have, puts the same person, we think the same vehicle, at all three locations,” Blanton said in an interview on NBC’s TODAY.

Questioning three people
Gaston County police were questioning three people who were reported to have entered a house about 2:40 a.m. when they discovered that one of them had an outstanding warrant. The man, whose identity was not released, fired a single shot when officers tried to serve the warrant, injuring one of the officers in the leg. Police fired four shots, killing the man at the scene, they said.

The killings began a week ago Saturday in Cherokee County, S.C., when the wife of Kline Cash, a 63-year-old peach farmer, found her husband shot to death in their rural home. Then, on Wednesday, relatives discovered the bodies of Gena Linder Parker, 50, and her mother, Hazel Linder, 83, bound and shot to death in a separate attack at Linder’s home.

Thursday, Stephen Tyler and his daughter Abby, 15, were shot as they were closing the Tyler Home Center near downtown Gaffney. He died Thursday, while Abby Tyler fought for her life for two days before dying Saturday at a hospital.

Blanton said deputies were searching for a man about 6 feet 2 inches tall with salt-and-pepper hair.

Hundreds of people thronged funeral services Sunday for the mother and daughter. Law enforcement officers provided security for the family and mourners. The crime spree terrorizing Cherokee County forced many people to curtail Fourth of July festivities.

Celebration turns to mourning
The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg, S.C., reported that the Tylers’ minister at Cherokee Avenue Baptist Church, Clyde Thomas, urged congregants to keep the faith in the face of tragedy. The newspaper said he had a pistol in his office Saturday.
“As Christians, we don’t live by explanations. We live by promises. We live by faith, not sight,” Thomas said.
Thomas said he had originally planned to deliver a sermon titled “Happy Birthday, America” for the Fourth of July service. But instead of upbeat patriotic music, Sunday’s program was changed to add hymns reflecting a time of mourning.

The killings alarmed many residents, and some talked of arming themselves.
“The irony is that the freedoms we have, we’re locked behind closed doors with firearms,” Thomas said. “We should be celebrating freedom, but we find ourselves very much restrained by fear.”
Blanton, the sheriff, said all the victims were shot. The shootings all occurred within about 10 miles of each other in Cherokee County, a community of 54,000 people set amid peach orchards and farms.

Investigators have released a sketch of the suspect, saying he was in his 40s and roughly 200 pounds.

More on South Carolina

The Savvy Networker

10 Boilerplate Phrases That Kill Resumes

The Savvy Networker

   by: Liz Ryan

The 2009 job market is very different from job markets of the past. If you haven't job-hunted in a while, the changes in the landscape can throw you for a loop.

One of the biggest changes is the shift in what constitutes a strong resume. Years ago, we could dig into the Resume Boilerplate grab-bag and pull out a phrase to fill out a sentence or bullet point on our resume. Everybody used the same boilerplate phrases, so we knew we couldn't go wrong choosing one of them -- or many -- to throw into your resume.

Things have changed. Stodgy boilerplate phrases in your resume today mark you as uncreative and "vocabulary challenged." You can make your resume more compelling and human-sounding by rooting out and replacing the boring corporate-speak phrases that litter it, and replacing them with human language -- things that people like you or me would actually say.

Here are the worst 10 boilerplate phrases -- the ones to seek out and destroy in your resume as soon as possible:

  • Results-oriented professional
  • Cross-functional teams
  • More than [x] years of progressively responsible experience
  • Superior (or excellent) communication skills
  • Strong work ethic
  • Met or exceeded expectations
  • Proven track record of success
  • Works well with all levels of staff
  • Team player
  • Bottom-line orientation

You can do better. What about adding a human voice to your resume? Here's an example:

"I'm a Marketing Researcher who's driven by curiosity about why people buy what they do. At XYZ Industries, I used consumer surveys and online-forum analysis to uncover the reasons why consumers chose our competitors over us; our sales grew twenty percent over the next six months as a result. I'm equally at home on sales calls or analyzing data in seclusion, and up to speed on traditional and new-millennium research tools and approaches. I'm fanatical about understanding our marketplace better every day, week and month -- and have helped my employers' brands grow dramatically as a result."

You don't have to write resumes that sound like robots wrote them. A human-voiced resume is the new black -- try it!

Liz Ryan is a 25-year HR veteran, former Fortune 500 VP and an internationally recognized expert on careers and the new millennium workplace. Contact Liz at or join the Ask Liz Ryan online community at www.asklizryan/group.
The opinions expressed in this column are solely the author's.

Also on Yahoo! HotJobs:

What type of interviewee will you be?
The online essentials for your job search
12 tips to get your resume noticed
Find a new job near you

Other Helpful Tools

  • Career Assessment
  • Career Change
  • Continuing Education
  • Finding a Job
  • Franchising
  • Management
  • Networking
  • Relocation
  • Resume
  • Retirement
  • Salary
  • Work/Life Balance


    American Life League

    Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt