JFK Truth Movement -- lessons
Bogus Evidence sabotaged the only trial of
a conspirator in the coup against President Kennedy
related page:
A disinformation campaign was waged to
discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy
-- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who were used to misdirect
the investigators. The most memorable occurrence was during
Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated
in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver
Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who
claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald
and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally
shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and
after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore,
this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence
that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by
the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed
he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy
to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.
http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0019b.html
The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi
"The first question I tried to get approved was the one by experience
in investigating the case had dictated as a priority: Was there an intelligence
agency connection through anti-Castro Cubans and Oswald to the Kennedy
assassination? That, I knew, would never pass muster because of the investigative
approach and effort it would require. By the nature of its operations, an intelligence agency doesn't leave authentic
tracks. One had to look for patterns. The issue I wanted to pursue involved
the patterns of verified misinformation -- almost all
linking Oswald to Castro -- which were born in Miami immediately after
the assassination."
[emphasis added]
"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy
theorist' came to be shorthand for 'discredited whacko' in the invisible
guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand
why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper
attention in accepted media channels.
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver
of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific
inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat
drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks,
author of "The Big Wedding"
(note: Hicks has shifted from pointing out that some of the 9/11 claims are false toward a position of promoting some of the worst nonsense claims. It's hard to find a rational and sincere explanation for publishing a book admitting the "no plane" stuff is false and then going on to promote events with its adherents.)
"Although none of the evidence we had gathered definitively implicated the CIA, I realized that sophisticated intelligence agencies rarely left smoking guns lying around. Amazingly, though, leads pointing to the agency continued to come in. This must have worried somebody at Langley because my staff was infiltrated and gradually, over time, I learned that the Agency was actually attempting to obstruct our investigation."
-- New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison describing the early part of his investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy in his memoir "On the Trail of the Assassins," pp. 207-8
from Jim Garrison, "On the Trail of the
Assassins,"(1988 original edition, reprinted by Warner
Books 1991)
The bomb that shattered our case exploded quickly enough. His name
was Charles Spiesel. The accountant from New York whom we had belatedly
added to our witness list too the stand next. He said that on a trip
to New Orleans he met David Ferrie at Lafitte's Blacksmith Shop in the
French Quarter. Later they joined Clay Shaw in a building Spiesel recalled
as being at "Dauphine and Espanade," which is approximately
where Shaw's residence was located. After everyone relaxed and had a
number of drinks, Spiesel said Ferrie and Shaw began discussing the
possible assassination of John Kennedy. Although Spiesel was surprised
when the subject first arose, everyone had been drinking heavily so
the indiscretion of the conversation was understandable for him. He
recalled the exchange of comments between Shaw and Ferrie in great detail,
each explaining why Kennedy should be eliminated and how it should be
done.
On cross-examination, the chief defense counsel uncannily seemed
to know just what questions to ask Spiesel. First, Dymond asked
if Spiesel had ever publicly complained about "hypnosis and psychological
warfare" being used on him. Speisel replied that he indeed had
been hypnotized in New York and New Jersey, and during several visits
to New Orleans, in the period between 1948 and 1954.
Asked who hypnotized him, Spiesel said he did not always know. He said
he could tell that hypnosis was being tried "when someone tried
to get your attention -- catch your eye. That's a clue right off."
Dymond then asked him what happened under hypnosis. Spiesel replied:
"They plant certain thoughts in your mind and you are given the
illusion that they are true." He added that he had become "rather
an expert" at knowing when people were trying to hypnotize him.
Under further cross-examination, Dymond brought out Spiesel's belief
that the New York City police had hypnotized him, tortured him mentally,
and forced him to give up his practice as an accountant.
"Have you had trouble recently with a communist conspiracy,"
Dymond asked, "People following you, and tapping your phones?"
"Well," replied Spiesel hesitantly, "not particularly
recently."
Then Dymond zeroed in for the kill. Was is not a fact, he asked,
that when Spiesel's daughter left New York to go to school at Louisiana
State University he customarily fingerprinted her? Spiesel replied in
the affirmative.
Dymond then asked if it were not also a fact that he customarily fingerprinted
his daughter again when she returned at the end of the semester. Again,
the witness acknowledged that this was true.
Dymond then asked him why he fingerprinted her.
Spiesel explained that he did this, in effect, to make sure the daughter
who was returning from L.S.U. was the same one he had sent there.
For one very long moment, while I am sure that my face revealed no concern,
I was swept by a feeling of nausea. I realized that the clandestine
operation of the opposition was so cynical, so sophisticated, and, at
the same time, so subtle, that destroying an old-fashioned state jury
trial was very much like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun.
Our only hope now was that our subsequent witnesses could drown out
the memory of Spiesel .... (pp. 276-7)
"it was clear by now that no jury would find an eminently
respectable, prominent, distinguished community leader guilty of conspiring
to kill the President, especially following an unforgettable example
of genuine lunatic testimony from a prosecution witness."
(p. 293) [emphases added]
book review by NameBase
www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/UJ
Fonzi, Gaeton. The Last Investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. 448 pages.
This is the first comprehensive insider account of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Fonzi was a staff investigator for the HSCA, and before that an investigator for Senator Richard Schweiker, who was interested in the JFK assassination as a member of the Church Committee. Strapped for resources and under deadline pressures, HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey steered the investigation along avenues that would look good in their report. Blakey gave the CIA plenty of room to maneuver around his investigation, either to enhance his own insider status or because of his realpolitik pragmatism. He blames organized crime for the assassination, while Fonzi is much more interested in anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA. Committee staffers were unable to pursue many promising leads in this area.
Fonzi spends much energy trying to establish that CIA heavyweight David Atlee Phillips was the "Maurice Bishop" that Alpha 66 founder Antonio Veciana saw with Oswald before the assassination. He convinces his readers on this point, but since there's no corroboration for Veciana's story that Bishop met Oswald, it's unclear where this leaves us. The most interesting portions of the book, therefore, revolve around Fonzi's occasional evidence of disinformation and false leads planted in the paths of Committee investigators, apparently by U.S. intelligence assets.
ISBN 1-56025-052-6
www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/sal1web.htm
Correspondence with Vincent Salandria (1993-1999)
VS 10/25/93
My sense of the critical community is that it was from the beginning
heavily infiltrated by the intelligence community. Powerful
persons and forces which consummate a successful coup would not be satisfied
to surrender to honest critics the task of analyzing the implications
of the cover story or stories and the consequent effects of the coup
on our society. It is safe to say that the killers would place in the
critical community various persons who would occupy the whole spectrum
of possible analyses.
One or more would defend the Commission's findings but attack the Commission's
methodology and explain away mistakes on the basis of poor methods,
sloppy execution, time constraints, etc. Others would entertain a possible
conspiracy but would emphasize the prolix nature of the evidence, the
need to ascertain all the hows of the execution of the killing and the
error of seeking to draw any conclusions about the meaning of the assassination
until all the mysteries of how it was accomplished were resolved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Others would undertake to apply scientific analyses to the data of the
Commission's findings and seek to attribute evidence that ran contrary
to the Commission's conclusions as requiring further experimentation.
Others would leap to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy of a
communist nature. Others would emerge from the Birchite direction to
announce that there was a U.S. governmental conspiracy so as to discredit
that explanation. Others would leap forward with various other false
sponsors such as the Mafia, low-level right-wing, rogue intelligence
elements, and the like.
Others would come forward with an all-inclusive combination of big oil,
big business, military-industrial, C.I.A., Joint chiefs, Mafia, Johnson,
Southern Rim, etc. to make the conspiracy so large as to reduce it to
an absurdity. Others would emerge to trash JFK as the quintessential
cold warrior and point in the direction of Castro. We can go on and
on with this. I feel that I can identify persons who came forward with
these approaches with the result that rather than improved political
insight and knowledge growing out of the killing of Kennedy we got babble.
VS (10/18/94)
Thirty years of microanalysis has converted simple, incontrovertible
proof of a high-level coup for significant policy reasons into a cloud
of mystery. I submit that such "truth hunting" serves the
purpose of hiding the truth under a pile of worthless dung. I further
submit that this research has been to a great extent government driven
and directed by skillful agents.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
Copyright Michael B. Green August 3, 2005
"Loose Change"
An analysis by Michael B. Green
I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers
who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget
a simple essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary
crimes, but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic
means. The proof of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture
of the means of government from the ground up. People naturally
do not wish to do this, and are propagandized to believe the contrary,
so any effort to get their attention should be with evidence that is
simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or debatable.
I do not pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think"
provides that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function
in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. ...
If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the
attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for
an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better
use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously
supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the
crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating
moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical
questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove
the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into
pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumb ones, is
to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story
simply and clearly.
|
