Garrison was a respected prosecutor who had an exemplary service record. The only thing he failed at was proving that Clay Shaw was complicit in the murder of JFK. You, as usual are full of crap regarding Jim Garrison who was a great and courageous man. Look up his record champ.
No in fact he was held in dubious suspicion by many who saw him as corrupt and his record was very spotty. Even before the JFK assassination he was prone to describing shadowy conspiracies whenever he was challenged on his shady actions. Actions such as purchasing his home from suspected organized crime figures who frequently visited him. He was known and documented to drink on the job often taking 4 hour martini lunches. He bragged about shutting down brothels and illegal gambling dens in New Orleans but strangely enough he only shut down selected brothels and gambling dens owned by the competitors of those he bought his home from. Claw Shaw was not even remotely complicit in the murder of JFK and that is fact. To this day what Garrison did to Shaw is considered an egregious case of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power. Garrison lost the case against show and lost it in SPECTACULAR fashion. Shaw was acquitted and rightly so as Garrison never produced SHRED of evidence implicating Shaw in any such conspiracy sorry it is you ignorant of the Garrison record now do study
The Warren Commission huh? Some members of the Commission were reluctant to serve on it. Lyndon Johnson initially resisted the idea of forming a federal commission to investigate Kennedy’s assassination, preferring to allow the state of Texas to review what he called a “local killing.” But after learning that both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives were considering launching their own inquiries, the newly-installed President assembled the Warren Commission in the hope of avoiding multiple and possibly conflicting reports on the shooting. Johnson wanted the Commission to include members from each of the different branches of government, but many of his preferred choices were hesitant to participate. Wary of the possible legal entanglements of serving, Chief Justice Earl Warren turned down the opportunity to chair the commission multiple times, and only agreed after Johnson argued that an inadequate report could incite a public panic and even spark a nuclear war. Meanwhile, conservative Senator Richard Russell flatly refused to serve because he disliked Warren’s liberal judicial record. Johnson waived off Russell’s protests and publicly named him to the Commission anyway, saying his participation was necessary “for the good of America.” 2 Gerald Ford secretly provided information on the Commission to the FBI While serving as a leading member of the Warren Commission, future U.S. President Gerald Ford also acted as an inside informant for J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Several months after his death in 2006, a cache of declassified documents revealed that Ford, then a U.S. congressman, had approached FBI Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach and offered to confidentially keep the Bureau informed on the Commission’s deliberations. Among Ford’s many leaks was the revelation that two unnamed members of the Commission—most likely Richard Russell and Hale Boggs—remained unconvinced by FBI evidence that the kill shot had been fired from the Texas School Book Depository. 3 Earl Warren suppressed key evidence from the Commission. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a close friend of the Kennedy family, and his personal attachment may have interfered with his duties to the Commission. In one of the most infamous episodes of the investigation, Warren denied his fellow Commission members access to Kennedy’s autopsy photos because he deemed them too disturbing. He later refused to allow the Commission to interview certain witnesses whom Lee Harvey Oswald may have known in Mexico, and even tried to block an interview with first lady Jackie Kennedy because he didn’t want to invade her privacy. 4 The Commission secretly interviewed Fidel Castro. Many believed that Fidel Castro might have conspired in Kennedy’s murder, and it turns out that the Cuban dictator personally proclaimed his innocence in an off-the-record interview with the Warren Commission. According to journalist Philip Shenon, at one point in the investigation, Commission lawyer William Coleman met face to face with Castro on a fishing boat off the coast of Cuba. During a three-hour exchange, Castro repeatedly denied having any involvement in the assassination. No notes were taken during the secret rendezvous, and only Earl Warren and one other investigator were ever made aware of it. 5 The FBI and the CIA intentionally misled the Commission. The FBI and the CIA had monitored Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before the assassination, but both agencies later tried to downplay their knowledge of him to the Warren Commission. Oswald had once even left a threatening note for an FBI agent at the Bureau’s office in Dallas. Fearful of catching blame for not preventing the assassination, the FBI later destroyed the note and even removed the agent’s name from a typewritten transcript of Oswald’s address book provided to the Warren Commission. Congressman Hale Boggs would later say that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover “lied his eyes out” to the Commission’s investigators. Evidence also suggests that the CIA had Oswald under surveillance when he made a trip to Mexico in September 1963 and visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies, but the agency repeatedly denied any connection to the alleged shooter. The CIA also neglected to inform the Commission about its many covert operations in Cuba—including several schemes to assassinate Fidel Castro—even though those revelations might have helped shape the investigation. 6 The Commission offered no clear explanation of Oswald’s motives. While the 888-page Warren report went into great detail outlining how Lee Harvey Oswald could have killed Kennedy, it gave little explanation of why he did it. In its findings, the Commission stated that Oswald’s actions could not be explained if “judged by the standards of reasonable men,” saying only that he was an isolated individual plagued by a life of failure and disappointment. The report would later conclude that, “the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives.” 7 Both Lyndon Johnson and members of the Kennedy family privately disagreed with the Commission’s report. Although they praised the Warren Commission report in the media, many government leaders had serious misgivings about its findings. Commission member Richard Russell reluctantly signed the Warren Report even though he could not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, and he later admitted to having “lingering dissatisfaction” with many of its conclusions. Congressman Hale Boggs had similar doubts about the report, in particular the “single bullet theory”—the argument that one shot had stuck both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally. Lyndon Johnson remained in lock step with the Warren Commission’s findings for most of his career, but he privately disagreed with the single bullet theory and reportedly believed that the Cubans had engineered the assassination. Likewise, President Kennedy’s brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, publicly commended the Warren Report even though he suspected a conspiracy had taken place. 8 Public trust in the report plummeted after only a few years. When the Warren Report was first released to the public in September 1964, polls showed that only 56 percent of Americans agreed with its “lone gunman theory.” But within months, critics began to poke holes in its conclusions and methodology, and conspiracy theories cropped up alleging the involvement of everyone from the Mafia to Lyndon Johnson himself. By 1966, a second poll would show that only a meager 36 percent of people still had confidence in the report. Today, studies show that around two-thirds of Americans believe in some form of conspiracy surrounding the assassination. 9 A second government investigation came to a different conclusion. After the public release of new information including the Zapruder film—an amateur recording showing the Kennedy assassination in shocking detail—the U.S. House of Representatives formed the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations and reopened the investigation on the president’s murder. In 1979, the HSCA stated that acoustic evidence from a Dallas police officer’s radio showed it was likely that two shooters had fired on Kennedy’s limousine, and it concluded that the assassination “probably” involved a conspiracy. Although subsequent investigations have cast doubt on the radio evidence, the HSCA’s report helped fuel public dissatisfaction with the efforts of the Warren Commission.
you took him to school on that major big time.It was never a fair trial in the first place in the fact that he was being bugged by the FBI as he later discovered bugging devices,plus he had CIA plants that had infiltrated his office as well as the fact that facts we know NOW about clay shaw connections to the CIA were supressed from him back then making it impossible for him to prove his connections to the CIA and to oswald and ferrie. btw WHY do you bother with someone who clearly knows they are wrong,especially after everyone else has him hung out to dry by an island by themselves abondoning him after they could not counter facts?
best advise in the country,do not reply,ignore and discuss with the people that can see the obvious,that it was a CIA operation.
A claim without evidence. What is obvious is only that it is you imagimation at work - - - Updated - - - Miserable failure actually not one discrediting fact in the whole spiel
Well you have repeatedly claimed that the Warren Commission has been discredited. It never has and your entire scatter shot of crap is proof it HAS NOT. The history of why LBJ established the commission is well documented and nothing in your first claim is new or ominous nor does it discredit the commission. All it does is to explain that it was a perfectly valid commission established for perfectly valid reason. Gerald Ford providing parts of the commissions documents to the FBi does NOT discredit the commission or it's findings. Your third claim has a big MAY HAVE in it making the whole thing speculative and therefore not discrediting. Secretly interviewing Castro means nothing and discredits nothing even if true. There is no record of such an interview making it again speculative. Motives can never be clearly explained when the subject is dead and therefore beyond questioning. Just as many speculate about Hitlers motives one can only speculate about Oswalds. Again not discrediting and perfectly obvious and irrelevant. None of the clams of LBJ or Robert kennedy disagreeing is supported by evidence it is merely a wild claim and again not discrediting. Public trust is irrelevant since consensus does not equal truth and discredits nothing. The conclusion of the HSCA has long since been debunked. The HSCA only concluded a probable conspiracy based on one piece of evidence and ONLY one piece of evidence. That evidence was the recording from the Dallas police motorcycle officer which proven to have been recorded after not during the assassination. Without that evidence the HSCA finding is crushed and debunked leaving the WC report and it's mountain of overwhelming evidence the only valid investigation and the only accurate conclusion. You have failed miserably to address even part of the enormous evidence of the WC and you failed to discredit the WC. The evidence proves you and the other theorists wrong again and again and again and again
You ought to try reading what you quote. And then there's the fact that the CIA has admitted they withheld information from the WC.
No kidding. The CIA admits that it withheld information about the JFK assassination from the Warren Commission...and you don't think that reflects on the accuracy of that commission? Stubbornly stupid is no way to go through life son.
The information omitted was not relevant to the conclusion that is fact. It is you stubbornly stupid and willfully ignoring facts
No I base it on what was omitted and has now been made public it is not significant or material to the evidence. You obviously are as ignorant of those details as you are the WC itself which you never read. You can only claim it is all wrong and you never provide evidence. Your effort to do so was CRUSHED by me.
No I base it on what was omitted and has now been made public it is not significant or material to the evidence. OK...be specific. Tell us what you think was omitted that isn't of value. Of course you won't because you're just making noises.
No the burden is on you to show specifically which omission refutes the conclusion, It is you blowing hot air claiming that any omission discredits the whole thing. This is a foolish claims so fire away
You made a claim. You can't back it up...as always. The CIA has ADMITTED they withheld information. Do you deny that?
I clearly did not deny it and I have always backed up HST I said. It is you who never does. The burden here is on you to show specifically what was omitted and why it discredits the proven conclusion. Just saying omission means ....... Nothing.
So you don't deny that the CIA has admitted withholding evidence but you want me to prove it anyway. LOL. Ya just can't make this BS up. If you claim what they withheld was unimportant then you tell us what it was and why it wasn't important or simply say some more ignorant garbage
You are wise. Best summary of the JFK coup that I have ever seen. You really know your stuff. An American citizen, not US subject.
Withholding is not evidence of what you are specifically claiming. It does not dispute the WC conclusions nor does it implicate the cia in the murder. Yes one cannot make it up bit you are trying. You lack comprehension of logic and reasonable false. One more time the burden is on you to prove the claim it is not on me to prove the negative. But you cannot because you have nothing and you know it.
I know one thing that totally discredit the WC - and yes, it's a movie. Abraham Zapruder's movie, which happen to have filmed the assassination. On it one can see Kennedy being fatally shot from ahead of him. That makes two gunmen. Were they related? Now that would be some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing koinkidink, isn't it? Anyway, all of the rest is conjecture. All but that clear frontal shot. What more evidence does one need? I suspect that deep inside, nobody with a functionning brain here can believe in the WC. But at this point, they invested so much energy defending it (mostly for dichotomic partisan reasons) that they're long past the point of no-return. * * * Okay, here is what I believe happened. Powerful poeple of various backgrounds and loyalties who had in common the desire to see Kennedy "out" somehow got together (via underlings) under the "ennemy of my ennemy,,," principle (I don't know who intiated the meetings or how they did it). They decided to act in two phases: 1) The assassination itself, the simplest part of the plan, which was a success and 2) the cover-up, which proved a lot less satisfying.
The Zapruder film shows and proves no such thing. It only shows and proves he was shot not precisely from where he was shot or which direction. So you see you have no evidence whatsoever of a second shooter. the autopsy proves ALL of the wounds entered from behind and above and exited the front of both Kennedy and Connally. That is proven by evidence unlike the zapruder film. The WC has evidence. The people without a functioning brain keep trying to say it has been discredited but CANNOT offer any such evidence to discredit, This means YOU have a functioning imagination but not the working brain. Once again there is no need to defend it when it is supported by evidence and your beliefs are not. Just like all other conspiracy theories. The claim of a partisan based defense for the WC is simply a manufactured lie.
