Patricia Lambert's "False Witness" - Another Crank Attack On Jim Garrison And Oliver Stone- Amazon Reviewers' Delusions To The Contrary

When people find out that I resided in New Orleans  at the time of the Garrison trial (of Clay Shaw) in connection to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the question most often asked is: What was the most memorable event or person? 

The most memorable moment?  When the Judge in the case,  Edward Haggerty,  disallowed entry of Clay Shaw’s alias (‘Clay Bertrand’)  as evidence, which effectively torpedoed Jim Garrison's case (A key scene shown in the Oliver Stone movie, 'JFK').  Interestingly, years later under the JFK Records Act, we’d learn (on extracting relevant released documents) :

“A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security  approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]” 

In other words, Shaw was indeed a CIA contract agent as Garrison claimed.    From the available files – disclosed long after Garrison’s efforts ended – it was  evident Shaw used his QKENCHANT clearance  to “plan or coordinate  CIA activities” as well as “initiate relationships with non-agency institutions or person.”  In this guise, and as I show in my book The JFK Assassination- The Final Analysis,  e.g.

Shaw was effectively part of the CIA’s clandestine services with Covert Security Approval, working under cover.

Incredibly,  a book by Patricia Lambert (who I'd wager anything is related to Warren Commission toady James K. Lambert) is making the rounds again and attempting to smear both Garrison and film maker Oliver Stone in one fell swoop.  Evidently, too many daft, ignorant and gullible Amazon reviewers aren't aware of the real history of the case, else they'd not be gushing about how Lambert's effort "tells the whole truth".    I warrant most of these enthusiasts  aren't aware  of subsequent file releases - or if they are- haven't truly delved into them, say to ferret out Oswald's CIA files.  These include: the OS- 351-164 (‘Office of Security) file,  the 201- 289248 and 64-500 files.  All of which are fully documented in Military Science professor John Newman's monograph: Oswald and the CIA.

  But going that further step, before swallowing  Lambert's  anti-Garrison screeds hook, line and sinker, would  necessitate a serious research inclination most of the gushers lack. 

Indeed, this holds especially given there is little or no mention of other key aspects, including how Shaw's funding of the Guy Banister operations in New Orleans, on 544 Camp Street,  also linked to the CIA covert strategy of George Joannides, e.g.


 Especially his handling of the DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil ) whose members were all at the forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro. A once-secret memo with portion noting the use of the DRE originally came under control and oversight of Gen. Edward Lansdale and described how the DRE operatives were to be deployed in Miami and New Orleans. (Not long after, Oswald was filmed on Canal Street in New Orleans in an altercation with  Carlos Bringuier.)

According to a CIA memo found at the JFK Library, Joannides was giving $25,000 a month (about $147,000 in today's dollars) to the DRE at the time when the group's New Orleans delegation decided to collect intelligence on and publish propaganda about Oswald.  Indeed, Joannides' use  of the DRE  by mid -1963 was  primarily to assist in painting Oswald as a fellow-traveler and communist sympathizer. In fact, the evidence from Oswald's CIA files suggests he was trying to infiltrate the group. 

Absence of this background information, especially in any would –be critic’s quiver, definitely discloses  slipshod work – probably designed more as an ad hominem in the guise of a screed-imbued book.

Don't take my word for it.  Avail yourself of the vastly more authoritative review by another long time JFK researcher- Joan Mellen – in The Baltimore Sun-   soon after the original incarnation of Lambert's book appeared (co-authored then with an "M. Evans"). As Ms. Mellen wrote (1999 review, ‘As JFK Lore Witness Rings False’, also appearing in The South Florida Sun Sentinel, i.e. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1999-05-02-9904300760-story.html

“‘False Witness’, alas, is little more than an unpleasant one-sided diatribe, a belated, curious valentine to the elusive Shaw. Lambert's named sources (most are unidentified) are primarily Shaw's own lawyers. Her tone is venomous, the word "fraud" a verbal tic. "Reportedly" is a constant adverb.”

All of which supports the take of Lambert’s book being a 352 page ad hominem attack, and on a dead man who can’t defend himself to boot.  

Ms. Mellen goes on to point out:

"Department of Justice spokesmen soon confirmed that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were the same person. The officer booking Shaw reported that Shaw admitted to the alias "Clay Bertrand," an admission not admissible in court, but no less true for that. And a mailman testified under oath at the Shaw trial that he delivered mail to a "Bertrand" at the home of one of Clay Shaw's closest friends.

No matter. Bent on asserting that Clay Bertrand did not exist, a point necessary to exonerate Shaw -- the goal of this book -- Lambert without foundation suggests that these witnesses were either bribed or mentally deficient. The general reader would not know from Lambert that New Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy was looking for Clay Bertrand before Kennedy even interviewed Dean Andrews.”

As for Lambert's author bona fides, we learn from Ms. Mellen they are  flimsy at best, i.e.:

“The author description on the book jacket and press release describes Lambert, cryptically, as a "writer/editor." Yet no book that she ever wrote is mentioned.  Not a single magazine or newspaper article is cited. Her book twists the facts, suppresses an enormous amount of material, and offers so distorted a picture as to render it of scant historical merit.”

One of the few  direct takedowns of Lambert's schlock on Amazon  is a review written by C.E. Krah:

"This book, after all is said and done, is the Warren Commission and countless other naysayers words coming out of a suspiciously naive drone of a woman's mouth. She is not the first nor the last person to attack Jim Garrison and call him egotistical(among other things). The claims made mostly rely on Clay Shaw and cohorts telling the truth, and it's blindingly irritating how she takes each at his word. Sure, to the newcomer, her work may seem honest and investigative but to the more informed person, she is either incredibly near-sighted, or one of the many people who are paid in one way or another to add to the official cover story."

The last underscored point is incredibly germane and shows that the gap between WC defenders and the professional research community is generally determined by the willingness to access (and properly plumb)  the vast constellation of documents- especially released since the 1992 JFK Records Act.

The main takeaway here is an actual conspiracy was found for the JFK assassination, irrespective of all the efforts of Warren Commission hacks, toadies and puppets to claim otherwise.  The evidence is there, including the physics, the ballistics.  Let us also note the last actual investigation (not the mockery under LBJ’s control) was the House Subcommittee on Assassinations  (HSCA) which concluded a “96% probability of conspiracy” . 

The secondary takeaway is that despite all Jim Garrison's rumored and actual faults-   and especially because he can no longer defend himself against  the many slurs and slanders of  disgruntled WC apparatchiks-   'False Witness' will remain a false narrative.  This is especially given what we've since learned of Shaw.

For those interested, my own book provides both detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses –including of the backyard ‘LIFE’ magazine photos, as well as the shot sequence (impulse profiles)  in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 - matched up with a test firing simulation using echo correlation in 1978.

See also:

Why I Trust Oliver Stone over Bob Woodward


A Hard Fact: All Necessary JFK Files HAVE Been Rel...

James K. Lambert- Another WC Toady and Tool - Trie...


NOVA 'JFK Cold Case' Special - Another Hit Job - ...

Books to read for the serious person interested in the Kennedy Assassination:

1) Crenshaw, Dr. Charles A., 1993: JFK- Conspiracy of Silence, Signet Books.

(The  link to a .pdf version of Dr. Crenshaw's book can be found below:
http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

 2)Douglass, James: 2007,JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books.

3) Fonzi, Gaeton: 1993, The Last Investigation. Thunder’s Mouth Press.

)  4)Prouty, L. Fletcher: 1992, JFK, The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Carroll Publishing. 

REELz TV 'Killing Kennedy: 50 Questions' :More Absurd Answers On Single Bullet Theory, Garrison Trial, Conspiracy

We now resume with more of the questions from REELz TV 'Killing Kennedy: 50 Questions Answered' - starting with Q17: What is the Single Bullet Theory?

The answer given is that one bullet (through the upper back of JFK) made all the wounds in him and Connally. Of course, the answer totally omits consideration of the fatal head wound. Meanwhile, the argument is made that with the "right alignment" (in 2 dimensions) the case can be made for it. (The theory was originally advanced by Arlen Specter - a junior WC lawyer). To quote one of Specter's critics (Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist):

"this one bullet  hit the President in the back, exited through his throat, passed through  Connally's body, breaking a rib, then shattered a bone in his wrist, and finally entered his left thigh".

The problem is that it doesn't add up, and any critical thinker examining the placement and geometry can see that.  What was needed is a three dimensional portrayal which would immediately show the SBT is an impossible fantasy.

This is afforded by examination of FIg. 1 from the Warren Commission Report:


The upper inclined blue arrow shows the trajectory of the bullet that the Warren Commission first believed would be needed in order to account for BOTH the JFK backck wound AND the neck wound - then entering Connally to make his wounds (assuming the 2D diagram - i.e. limo view seen from above-  is correct).

The problem here is that the upward angle trajectory doesn't work.  The angle wasn't right- the shooter would've had to have been firing from street level)  which would have eliminated a TSBD shooter (alleged to be Oswald). Thus, at least one WC member (Gerald Ford) realized for the SBT to work the Commission's drawing had to reset the placement higher - changing it to the light yellow trajectory through the base of the neck, and a downward angle.. .

The initial draft of the report(conforming to the blue upward trajectory)  had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine." 

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
 
Clearly, Ford wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth  (requiring now the yellow shot arrow) and would stoop to altering a document on record to attain the goal.  The problem for Ford and the Warrenites is one of basic anatomy. The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th .

That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics!

The problem for Ford and  his WC cohort is the bullet wound actually was in the BACK (see right side of image below)::

To make matters worse for Ford et al, the throat wound was described by Parkland surgeon Malcolm Perry (who should know his business given having to deal with multiple Dallasites' gunshot wounds at Parkland) as an ENTRY wound..

The neck wound placement (from Perry) is shown in the collage on the lower left..  Also included is the Zapruder film frame showing the instant JFK grabs at his neck, signifying the bullet impact. This was for the neck entry wound.

Moving on, the '50 Questions & Answers' totally ignores the most important one: What caused the fatal head wound?    Since REELZ avoids it, we will take it on.


The Warrenite version of the head shot - the kill shot - is that it entered from the rear, because of course, they have Lee Oswald to the rear (in the Texas School Book Depository).  The image is shown  along with the frame from the Zapruder film showing the head shot (Z-313):

The noticeable backward motion of JFK's head in the film is attributed to the reaction of a forward spray out - in what has been called the 'jet effect". (Similar to the well known rocket effect, where fuel leaves the exhaust under pressure and the rocket moves in the opposite direction).

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't comport with Jackie's motion over the limo trunk - as shown in the lower left graphic. The fact she is moving over the limo trunk to the REAR, and her WC testimony (supported by recently released audiotape testimony from 1964) was she was attempting to retrieve a skull fragment (likely the missing occipital bone reported by the Parkland drs.) means that  the shot had to have come from the FRONT. This would be in the grassy knoll area.  This is further supported by the actual autopsy photos which belie the corrupted Warren versions, e.g.
Photo specialist Robert Groden ('The Killing of a President') has indicated that the fake photo image was likely taken after the rear of the head was reconstructed using mortician' plaster.

Again, we are confronted by blatant efforts to conceal the actual wound so as not to diverge from the dogma and presumption that Oswald did it, firing from the rear. Under no circumstances could the c-word be allowed to rear its head. The American people had to be mollified and quieted that it was just a lone deranged nut, and god forbid they know their own government had a hand in it!

Q 16: Was anyone tried for the assassination of President Kennedy?

The answer given was 'Clay Shaw' which is correct. And then we're treated to more editorializing from Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth who asserts: "It was a terrible mscarraige of justice"

In fact not.. With release of files under the JFK Records Act, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent. As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security  approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKENCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"

Under the CIA  banner QKENCHANT one is cleared for intelligence procurement. Such clearance meant you were a safe contact  for the Agency and hence could be used as a "cut out" , with the CIA giving you only a certain amount of information. Clay Shaw then, had the ability to recruit other agents, thereby granting them security approvals. From the available files disclosed long after Garrison's efforts ended, Shaw used his QKENCHANT clearance to "plan or coordinate CIA activities" as well as "initiate relationships with non-Agency persons or institutions." In this guise, Shaw was effectively part of the CIA's clandestine services with Covert Security Approval, working under cover. 

Again, why didn't REELZ Tv try to obtain the file instead of shooting from the hip with a red herring in partial response to Question 16.

Q. 15: When did the government finally acknowledge a conspiracy?

Well, the answer was with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which was in fact the first REAL federal commission, given the Warren Commission was LBJ's own creation.  The answer states that the HSCA concluded "there was a high probability at least two persons were involved" but "the Committee was unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy".

In fact, we now know why the HSCA was neutralized and more details were obstructed. Most of it is laid out in Gaeton Fonzi's excellent documenting of the work in 'The Last Investigation'.  Much of the goings on are summarized in this FAQ from 2013:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

At the very least, we can thank the HSCA for revealing at least one character involved in the framing of Lee Oswald, which was he 1st leg of the three- stage conspiracy. ( In 1995,  Peter Dale Scott  advised us - based on FOIA files- that 3 different conspiracies need to be distinguished by the researcher: 1) a sophisticated intelligence operation (or complex of operations), i.e. to frame Lee Oswald, 2) the conspiracy to kill the President and 3) the ensuing cover-up.)

While we may never know the principals in (2),  and (3) is sitll going on, we do know the main conspirator for (1) was CIA Mexico City Chief David Atlee Phillips. It was Phillips who helped forge the cables that portrayed Oswald as suspicious.


Invoking the resources of HSCA investigator Dan Hardway and as also reported by HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation,  p. 292 ) Scott discerned that  “most of the individuals originating the false reports (in cables etc.) were assets of the Mexico City Station’s Chief of Covert Action and Cuban Operations, David Atlee Phillips.”

It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut, likely in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas, on Nov. 22, 1963.

The original plan was to "kill Kennedy, link Oswald to Castro, and use this as a pretext to invade Cuba". (ibid. ) Note the parallels here to the October, 1962 Missile crisis- when the Joint Chiefs tried to get Kennedy to invade Cuba on the basis of the Soviet missiles there. JFK refused, and in so doing put another nail in his coffin, while his enemies looked for other ways to achieve their goal- ending up at assassination of Kennedy - by a Castro dupe. Or so the CIA hoped people would believe.

In other words, the CIA aimed for a 'trifecta':  blaming the USSR as an accomplice of Oswald; 'invading Cuba,  and killing Kennedy. But they ended up with only the last of the three - but to be sure a huge one - as it's distorted this nation's history ever since.

None of this new information on Phillips (also known as "Maurice Bishop" and fingered in one FOIA file by Anthony Veciana)  appears in any of the answers for REELZ' '50 Questions' which can only mean the producers didn't want to "get into the weeds" and preferred to stick with the simplistic. 

Q 11: What is a conspiracy?

Provides an answer, given by author Jim Marrs, e.g. "When two or more people act in concert to effect an action or objective" but then diverges by averring "those involved have managed to silence the truth for 50 years" - the implication being that someone ought to have squealed by now.

The fact is the government is quite capable of keeping key operations and programs hidden, and the conspiracies associated with them. Indeed, 'black operations' ('black ops') are totally dedicated to that premise! In the JFK case, it is even more possible- given that no formal documents or papers were probably ever generated (by the architects) to sign off on the hit. Though, as serious researchers have noted, one can examine exactly who profited in its wake. One can also look at who DIED - and how material they were to a given case.

Indeed, author Richard Charnin has proven - to a mathematical certainty, the JFK assassination material witnesses -  such as David Ferrie, Lee Bowers, George de Mohrenschildt etc.  could not have been offed by "coincidence" or some other claptrap. See: 

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Thus, there was likely a JFK "Witness Death project" -  carried out by CIA contract  hit men (such as killed William Bruce Pitzer at Bethesda Naval Hospital), it obviously will also "keep" if dozens are killed - one by one as they are called to testify before any given investigation. (See Charnin's link and proof.)

Q.10: How lucrative is the JFK conspiracy industry?

This is largely an irrelevant question given it sheds no light on the assassination itself. Rather it appears to attack the aftermath and those who refuse (with good reason) to accept the Warrren Report.  This is confirmed when we are told as part of the answer "Americans' thirst for knowledge on this case only seems to grow"

Well, the question is WHY? Obviously because the only two earlier investigations were compromised from the start, so the truths remained hidden. Indeed, even today millions of files remain buried in the National Archives, especially to do with CIA psychological operations agent George Joannides who also had a major hand in framing and manipulating Oswald.

It stands to reason then, and given all that we've learned since the files released under the JFK Records Act, that Americans are perfectly justified pursuing this case with even greater gusto since the final chapter has not yet been written.  The discovery of Oswald's CIA files alone has been a treasure trove and immediately casts the WC version of events - that of a lonely deluded commie nut -into the dumpster.

Q.  9: Will We Ever Know the Whole Truth?

This again is an open ended speculative question but it provides yet another opportunity for Hugh Aynesworth to spout nonsense such as:

"It's more fun to believe in conspiracy"

What is he, mad or drunk? FUN?  A conspiracy in Kennedy's killing means we are not the final deciders of our government or its priorities. It means a hidden cabal can seize it with brutal violence and most of our fourth estate - to which Ayensworth belonged- can just hide in the corners and refuse to probe or ask the tough questions because it's preferable to retain  financial security. 

Contrary to Aynesworth's idle ruminations a conspiracy is the most terrifying thing imaginable far more so than simply believing a lone,  deluded nut acted. At least with the last we don't have to worry about the extensive network of conspirators still having their hands on the machinery of state in some way. Nor do we have to worry that a branch of our own government - one still in existence - offed Kennedy and could act again to take a leader away if the right conditions emerged.

As deep politics researcher Michael Parenti has pointedly noted ('The Dirty Truth'. p. 186), those who pursue the conspiracy angle:

"are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy."

Parenti also notes (op. cit., p.174):

" Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: 'Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room, plotting things?' For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers.  But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels?"


 Now we come to the end with the final two questions (the questions were given in countdown form in the program):

Q2 :Why has this case fascinated the world for 50 years?

Q1: Who Killed President Kennedy?

The first is easily answered though the producers only speculate. The reason is that this is the first assassination in relative recent history. Also, the victim was a popular, much beloved President. (At least by many of us who lived in the era). Kennedy's speeches were electric, they electrified crowds and motivated people to higher standards.

In addition, a preponderance of people around the world are convinced the Warren Commission was a whitewash, and are indignant that ITS findings are the ones most often invoked to explain events

As for WHO killed Kennedy, it is not so much a matter of identifying individuals but rather the section of gov't  or agency responsible. Because those of us in deep politics know that all the facts point to the CIA. They were fed up with Kennedy and his firing of their two top officers, including Allen Dulles, and wanted revenge. They also were incensed at JFK's moves against them following the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Kennedy retaliated by firing Allen Dulles, and his deputy Gen. Charles Cabell. (Recall that Cabell's brother, Earl, was Mayor of Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963) JFK also vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" so furious was he at the level of CIA treachery. JFK went further by emulating Ike in setting up a Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board - the express purpose of which was to bring the CIA under the control of the President. Kennedy addressed the group on May 15, 1961 and informed them he was "undertaking a total reassessment of U.S. covert action policies and programs".

Kennedy went further, creating a Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible to him alone, and soon mandating all overflights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do. By the end of 1961, JFK's 'Special Group' had no less than 17 recommendations for the "reorganization and redirection of the CIA".

Without Kennedy's knowledge or oversight, the CIA clandestine services under Richard Bissell had mounted an assassination program to target Fidel Castro. Specifically, the program operated under 'CIA Staff D', a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

Soon after the CIA learned Kennedy was pursuing rapprochement with Castro in late 1962, the ZR/Rifle program was turned against Kennedy. He had betrayed the spooks and now he'd pay.

Could the CIA be involved in assassinations of heads of state, see the link  below and you be the judge:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (3): The Garrison Investigation

Introduction: One of the sad outcomes in the aftermath of the JFK assassination was the tarnishing of the reputation and investigation of New Orleans' DA Jim Garrison, from 1967-69. Much of this I attribute to the skullduggery of CIA assets in spreading lies, hearsay muck and misrepresentations about  him, and denigrating his efforts, including use of Operation Mockingbird assets in the media. I lived in New Orleans during the peak of the investigation and many people in the city took it very seriously, not to mention people involved as possible witnesses, or actual witnesses (a number of whom died under mysterious circumstances, including David Ferrie.).    To use the words of one witness, Donald P. Norton:

"Jim Garrison was closer to the truth about conspiracy than anybody has ever been."

I concur with this, and that the origins of the plot were spawned in New Orleans, across a spate of unsavory characters - many with CIA contacts - despite the actual deed being carried out in Dallas. For this reason it's important to at least be aware of some of the aspects of the New Orleans' setting, how Oswald became ensnared and how he was further set up to be the Dallas' patsy.

Questions:

Was Oswald's involvement in New Orleans, in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee real, or a role?


All indications and evidence - taken in concert - disclose that his involvement was entirely contrived. Let's look at some of the facts, bearing in mind that the political divisions of 'left' and 'right' were alive and quite well at the time, and the right definitely had JFK in their sights, particularly after he federalized the Alabama National  guard to force de-segregation over Gov. Geo. Wallace's howls of protest:

- Guy Banister who ran the 544 Camp Street Office, was an extreme right wing former FBI agent, who published  a right wing rag known as 'The Louisiana Intelligence Digest', who accused JFK of having 'pinko support for blacks', and had informants on the Louisiana State and Tulane campuses[1].

(This author has seen old issues of the LID floating around the Tulane campus on visits-excursions to that campus, as late as Sept. of 1964,  while attending  Loyola University - adjacent to Tulane on St. Charles Ave.).

 

- Banister maintained the offices in conjunction with the CRC or Cuban Revolutionary Council.  The CRC was "the successor to the Frente Revolutionario Democratico, set up by the CIA in Mexico during the last year of the Eisenhower Administration to overthrow Castro by military force.

-  Oswald himself called into a radio program in Miami ('The Alan Courtney Show', WQAM)  November 12, 1962, declaring his support for the on-air guests (Jerry Patrick et
al) involved with the training of anti-Castro troops. (He used the pseudonym Oswald Lee, however)

 

- Evidence shows that two different stamp configurations were used for the FPCC handbills Oswald handed out on New Orleans' streets[2]. These were

 

FPCC  A J Hidell P.O. Box 30016,   and   FPCC  544 Camp Street

According to Prof. John Newman what was presented entailed[3]:

 

"evidence that was deliberately falsified at the Government Printing Office during the publication of the Warren Commission exhibits."

 

 

 

How do the various New Orleans' locations point to a sheep dipping scenario?

 

Banister's office at the intersection of Camp St. and Canal,  the building housing the  New Orleans HQ of  intelligence agencies (DIA, ONI), and the Trade Mart were all within 6 blocks of each other ca. 1963. Banister had his office at 544 Camp St., and that's where the FPCC handbills were disseminated from. Oswald earlier worked at 640 Magazine St. (his regular job at Reilly Coffee Co., before he lost it, and did handbill pass outs for Banister). Both Magazine St. and Camp converge on opposite sides of the block, to Canal St.

 

Lafayette Street runs perpendicularly into Camp and Magazine Streets. No surprise then that Banister could run two operations from the same building: his main office at 531 Lafayette, and the address at 544 Camp (from which Oswald operated). Much has been made of the two entrances being 'sealed' from each other, but that doesn't mean there weren't regular contacts and 'traffic' between the offices. Indeed, Banister may have preferred it thus, to keep his separate operations apart.

 

 

As a further note, the Camp St. entrance - directed to the first floor only, was originally the 'Stevedore's & Longshoreman's  Bldg'. Meanwhile the 531 entrance was directed up a flight of stairs, to the 2nd  floor offices of Guy Banister & Associates proper. It was within these 2nd floor offices that Oswald was permitted to 'do his thing' with the FPCC  handbills, nicely sequestered from the right wing realities on the first floor.

 

Across Lafayette St., the U.S. Post Office Bldg. occupied almost an entire block. The  main part of the building. housed the New Orleans' Secret Service operation, and upstairs, the New Orleans' HQ for ONI. (Office of Naval Intelligence). A few blocks down Canal, from the corner of Magazine, brought you directly to the International Trade Mart, of which Shaw was director. The Crescent Garage, also on Magazine St. was:

 

"where FBI and other government vehicles were serviced and housed"

From a downtown map (of New Orleans) one can easily see that all these locations are within 1/2 mile of each other.

 

What interest did Banister have in Lee Harvey Oswald, after the latter left Reilly Coffee Co., to work at the Camp St. office.?  John Newman writes ('Oswald and the CIA', p.309 ):

 

"What might Banister have used Oswald for? Banister and the extreme right wing in New Orleans had targeted left wing professors at Tulane like La Violette and Reissman and organizations like the New Orleans Council on Peaceful Alternatives (NOCPA), of which Professor Reissman was a member."

 

 

Oswald's manipulations, including passing out FPCC handbills, and his altercation on Canal Street with Bringuier  of the CIA-run Cuban Student Directorate (DRE),  not to mention his 'over the top' "Marxist" interview on New Orleans' WDSU-TV, could all have been  orchestrated for the purpose of tarring leftist - leaning academics and organizations throughout the New Orleans area.

 

 

 

Wasn't the Garrison case a total fiasco and didn't it do permanent damage to the conspiracy cause?
 

Not at all. What isn’t stated when the Garrison case is ever cited, is that the jurors did believe Garrison had proven conspiracy,  it was just that they didn’t think he had "plugged Shaw into it beyond reasonable doubt"[5]. The reason is clear:  the judge in the case "refused to allow the booking officer to testify re: the alias used by Shaw as 'Clay Bertrand'. Had this been allowed, it would’ve been a no-brainer and slam-dunk with Jim Garrison hailed as a champion for truth.

The same would have occurred had a key witness not been intimidated into altering his testimony. Evidently, this witness had been in flight, just prior to his taking the stand, for 14 days and "made 22 calls" to his secretary over that time. According to the secretary, who knew him well: "he was hiding because he was afraid someone was after him.[6].

 

 

Years later, with release of files under the JFK Records Act, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent. As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

 

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security  approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKENCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"

 

Under the CIA  banner QKENCHANT one is cleared for intelligence procurement. Such clearance meant you were a safe contact  for the Agency and hence could be used as a "cut out" , with the CIA giving you only a certain amount of information. Clay Shaw then, had the ability to recruit other agents, thereby granting them security approvals. From the available files disclosed long after Garrison's efforts ended, Shaw used his QKENCHANT clearance to "plan or coordinate CIA activities" as well as "initiate relationships with non-Agency persons or institutions." In this guise, Shaw was effectively part of the CIA's clandestine services with Covert Security Approval, working under cover. Again, all this came out decades later, thanks to Oliver Stone's film, 'JFK' which infused the firestorm demand for release of files that otherwise would have remained sealed (under LBJ's orders) until 2037 - when most of us pursuing the case were long since dead.

 

Another little known fact which bore out Garrison's suspicions is that Guy Banister - who ran Oswald at his 544 Camp St. address- was recruited by Shaw under his QKENCHANT clearance. The date of recruitment was for August, 1960 and a CIA document reveals 'Guy Banister Associates, Inc.' was of interest to the Agency for "QKENCHANT purposes".

 

Years later, the key aspects and findings of Garrison's investigation would be confirmed by Gaeton Fonzi - an investigator in the HSCA's own investigation,  as substantiating Garrison's case that Oswald had been manipulated by the Shaw-Banister operations in New Orleans.  This was at the behest and direction of David Atlee Phillips (see Part 2) and George Joannides.

 

Sadly, the substantiation came too late to repair Garrison's reputation (after the CIA used assorted assets to tarnish it) - but truth seekers thank him for shedding much needed light after the fiasco of the Warren Commission Whitewash.

 

 

 

---

[1] Warren Hinckle and William Turner: 1992, The CIA-Mafia War Against Castro and the Assassination   of JFK, Carroll & Graf, p. 231.

 

[2] Newman, op. cit., p. 307.

 

[3] Newman, ibid.

[4] Walt Brown: 1995, Treachery in Dallas, Carroll & Graf, . p. 227.

[5] Hinckle and Turner, op. cit., p. 258.

 

[6] ASU Professor Recalls Famous New Orleans Trial Involving JFK Conspiracy', The Mountain News, January 16, 1992, p. 13