False Witness

[Charles Collins]

The mad charade by Garrison in New Orleans never made any sense to me. I just finished reading an eye opening book by Patricia Lambert: “False Witness” that tells the real story of Jim Garrison’s investigation and Oliver Stone’s film “JFK.”

If you have read this book, I would be interested in your thoughts about it. If not, I highly recommend this book.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The mad charade by Garrison in New Orleans never made any sense to me. I just finished reading an eye opening book by Patricia Lambert: “False Witness” that tells the real story of Jim Garrison’s investigation and Oliver Stone’s film “JFK.”

If you have read this book, I would be interested in your thoughts about it. If not, I highly recommend this book.

It's a pretty stunning look into the recklessness of Garrison as it details the almost weekly absurd claims that he made as to who was behind the assassination. I didn't learn much of anything new but it's remarkable reading the book how easily Garrison jumped from claim to claim. She has a section near the end where she chronicles the wild theories that he put forth. It's interesting that in all of his claims Garrison never once connected organized crime to the murder. Pretty interesting.

And if I recall correctly she believed there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK and that the mob was involved. So she wasn't a lone assassin believer (Lambert died I believe either this year or last year).

As to the Shaw matter: This never made a lick of sense to me. Garrison's claim was that Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald first planned the assassination at a party that they attended. Apparently they discussed it openly with all sorts of people around them. No they wouldn't. Then somehow these three individuals got major elements of the CIA to go along with their scheme. No they wouldn't either. Then after pulling this all off Shaw calls an attorney (Dean Andrews) and requests that he defend Oswald. No he wouldn't.

[Charles Collins]

It is a pretty stunning look into the recklessness of Garrison as it details the almost weekly absurd claims that he made as to who was behind the assassination. I didn't learn much of anything new but it's remarkable reading the book how easily Garrison jumped from claim to claim. She has a section near the end where she chronicles the wild theories that he put forth. It's interesting that in all of his claims Garrison never once connected organized crime to the murder. Pretty interesting.

And if I recall correctly she believed there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK and that the mob was involved. So she wasn't a lone assassin believer (Lambert died I believe either this year or last year).

As to the Shaw matter: This never made a lick of sense to me. Garrison's claim was that Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald first planned the assassination at a party that they attended. Apparently they discussed it openly with all sorts of people around them. No they wouldn't. Then somehow these three individuals got major elements of the CIA to go along with their scheme. No they wouldn't either. Then after pulling this all off Shaw calls an attorney (Dean Andrews) and requests that he defend Oswald. No he wouldn't.

Patricia Lambert sets the record straight by citing what really happened and backing up her accounts with proper documentation.

Garrison is exposed for what he really was. Here is a passage that I have to agree with (after reading her book):

...Shaw was acquitted. But Garrison launched a new offensive. Judge Christenberry ended the game and convicted Garrison. But Garrison turned to his typewriter and reinterpreted his fall. Examining the real record of Jim Garrison’s investigation is like viewing up close the mangled wreckage of a high-speed car crash. In his book, Garrison reshaped that wreckage into a brand new vehicle, the latest model, irresistible, gleaming on the showroom floor. Oliver Stone climbed in and drove it home.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Patricia Lambert sets the record straight by citing what really happened and backing up her accounts with proper documentation.

Garrison is exposed for what he really was. Here is a passage that I have to agree with (after reading her book):

...Shaw was acquitted. But Garrison launched a new offensive. Judge Christenberry ended the game and convicted Garrison. But Garrison turned to his typewriter and reinterpreted his fall. Examining the real record of Jim Garrison’s investigation is like viewing up close the mangled wreckage of a high-speed car crash. In his book, Garrison reshaped that wreckage into a brand new vehicle, the latest model, irresistible, gleaming on the showroom floor. Oliver Stone climbed in and drove it home.

The irony is that Stone's movie "JFK" led to the congressional act which in turn led to the release of many of the Garrison files on his investigation into the assassination (or whatever the hell he was doing). And Lambert (and others) have used those files to reveal the absurdities that Garrison went through. So some of Garrison's undoing can be directly traced to Olive Stone's efforts (and remember: Garrison said that Shaw conspired with Oswald - Lee Oswald - to kill JFK. Nowhere in Stone's movie does he mention this).

To be fair to the conspiracy crowd (some of them), many of the leading conspiracy authors like Lifton and Weisberg and even Mark Lane (probably the most dishonest of all of the conspiracy believers) criticized Garrison's investigation.

[Charles Collins]

The irony is that Stone's movie "JFK" led to the congressional act which in turn led to the release of many of the Garrison files on his investigation into the assassination (or whatever the hell he was doing). And Lambert (and others) have used those files to reveal the absurdities that Garrison went through. So some of Garrison's undoing can be directly traced to Olive Stone's efforts (and remember: Garrison said that Shaw conspired with Oswald - Lee Oswald - to kill JFK. Nowhere in Stone's movie does he mention this).

To be fair to the conspiracy crowd (some of them), many of the leading conspiracy authors like Lifton and Weisberg and even Mark Lane (probably the most dishonest of all of the conspiracy believers) criticized Garrison's investigation.

Yes, Patricia does a good job of pointing out the ironies too. Stone’s film did what you said. Ironically, the reason that it succeeded in that is because so many people believe that the story that the film told is true!

[Jerry Freeman]

Oh boy! Another book..another distraction. Reminds me of the guy that jumped off a 20 story building--19  floors down he says to himself "I don't see any problems so far"
Garrison demonstrated in court that the Warren Report was a lie. It was.

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy! Another book..another distraction. Reminds me of the guy that jumped off a 20 story building--19  floors down he says to himself "I don't see any problems so far"
Garrison demonstrated in court that the Warren Report was a lie. It was.

This book was first published in 1998. If you want to learn about the real investigation, it is well worth a read. Garrison only demonstrated in court that he was out of his mind.

Edit: Additionally, Judge Herbert W. Christenberry, in 1971, enjoined Orleans Parish District Attorney Jim Garrison from continuing to prosecute Clay L. Shaw for alleged perjury and other criminal charges after Garrison's unsuccessful trial of Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy on grounds that Garrison was engaging in unconstitutional prosecutorial misconduct.

[Jerry Freeman]

This book was first published in 1998. If you want to learn about the real investigation, it is well worth a read. Garrison only demonstrated in court that he was out of his mind.

I didn't claim it was a new book. I only mention that it was just another one. Milton Brener's The Garrison Case came out in 1969...said essentially the same thing 22 years earlier. Yeah...the Garrison case was a fiasco. Take a look at politics today and someone tell me it isn't upside down, inside out, and totally backwards. The back stabbing has only just begun.