I have respect for you as a researcher Tom. But I often disagree with you. The purpose of the Garrison investigation (IMO) was to gain publicity for Mr. Garrison so that he could pursue higher office. He prosecuted an innocent man for his own gain. The WC was not perfect but they did identify the killer of JFK (IMO).
I hope we can agree that the best explanation is one that encompasses and then confronts, considers and attempts to address and reasonably allow for all that is pertinent to a matter under debate, especially a major historical controversy in reaction to or as an outgrowth of a momentous historical controversy.
In his research, writing, presenting, and posting about the Garrison investigation, Jim DiEugenio does not do that and neither do other published authors, Davy, Mellen, or Garrison or his autobiography editor, Zachary Sklar, co-writer with Oliver Stone of the screen play, "JFK, the Movie". Garrison critic Nicholas B. Lemann doesn't do that, either.
Fred Litwin in what he has already published, seems to limit himself to countering DiEugenio and Garrison himself. Fred's efforts would be reasonable except for being selective, especially considering posts by Tom Purvis date back at least 17 years! But Litwin's contemporary blog posts are unreasonable as he acquires more knowledge yet fails to address any of it.
Tom Purvis knew post bellum southern society history and pecking order, especially about New Orleans. Purvis emphasized that descendants of rebel leaders like Robert E. Lee conducted their alliances and wielded their power and influence similarly to the largest portion of a iceberg, out of view, easily underestimated.
Purvis did not accept that a Garrison or a Willard Robertson could waltz in to what amounts to a closed society of long tradition, relationships, and ritual without permission from the local "PTB", including running for elected office or creating either I.N.C.A. or "Truth or Consequences" or commencing an investigation like Garrison's or even seek a party's nomination to run for the office of NODA. For example the CIA domestic contacts office was initiated and staffed in exactly the opposite way as the Garrison investigation. New Hampshire's and Iowa's Robertson and Garrison vs. Stephen B Lemann of Monroe Lemann, William P. Burke, Jr., Hunter Leake, and Dorothy Brandao of the local CIA office.
Link to Purvis's post of 17 years ago supporting that the local CIA office was an extension of NOLA's most prominent secret societies, themselves associated with descendants of rebel leaders like Robert E. Lee :
https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/tHPQCcmb/lho-the-cia-other-secret-organizationsPurvis posrs as EmptyPockets on Narkive but identified himself at the end of his post, linked above.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/thread-15156-post-119187.html#pid119187
Tom Scully - 11-03-2017,
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....38&p=44704
Thomas H. Purvis, Posted 10 November 2005
Lynne Foster, on Nov 9 2005, said:
As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."
Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.
Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.
Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.
Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".
In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.
Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.
Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".
(Tom Purvis again, three days later in the same thread.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....38&p=44888
....................
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted 12 November 2005
Garrison played the circus act long enough that everyone was quite tired of the show. Then, with his dramatic presentation of evidence, he succeeded in convincing many that everyone who even discusses this subject is quite possibly as "off" as was he.
Pretty hard act to follow!
When some factual interest again began to grow, then we were treated to "Garrison Resurected" aka/JFK per Oliver Stone.
And again, another good piece of "sleight-of-hand" which continues to prove that a good "con" can be repeatedly utililized so long as the general populace is given adequate time to "forget" the last time the con was utilized.
Since it is extremely doubtful and unlikely that either JEH or LBJ had anything to do with the assassination of JFK, Garrison "Side Show" & Company was not in the business of anything other than "diversion" away from the actual facts of the assassination, which of course JEH and the WC fully lied about.
Garrison's purpose was quite similiar to the female bird who goes into the "broken wing" act when any predator gets near the nest.
With the "broken wing", the mother bird will lead the predator off and astray, so far away from the nest that the predator is unlikely to find it's way back to the nest.
However, in the Garrison case, many of those who followed him are obviously still completely "lost" in the woods.
Certainly good for an occassional laugh, if nothing else.
