False Witness

[Charles Collins]

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.

Here is the conclusion of W. Tracy Parnell’s review of the book “False Witness” by Patricia Lambert. I found the review on the jfkassassination.net website. I wholeheartedly agree with the review, especially the conclusion that it should be required reading.

Parnell,s Conclusion:
 
Patricia Lambert has done a tremendous service with the publication of False Witness. This book should be required reading for anyone seeing JFK; in fact, they should sell it at Blockbuster Video. I believe that the opinion of Stone and his film among the general public would be much different if it were. Stone knew, however, that the average movie-goer (especially generation “X” types) would not be knowledgeable about the subject, and he would be free to rewrite history.
 
Stone’s motive in all this? Money, of course, but also he sought in this film (as he had in Nixon and Born on the Fourth of July, among others) to inject meaning into his own Vietnam experience. Garrison’s motive in prosecuting Shaw in the first place? Most likely, he sought publicity that he hoped would help him attain higher office.
 
In addition to the material discussed in this review, Lambert adds a full chapter on the Christenberry decision in which Garrison was prevented from further prosecution of Shaw. Also included is an appendix, which lists the many lies and distortions of Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins.
 
In False Witness, Lambert shows without a doubt that Jim Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw was completely without merit. She also demonstrates that any film based on this miscarriage of justice would be congenitally flawed  This is a landmark work and should be required reading for anyone studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy, particularly Garrison’s investigation.

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Charles,

Would that be Oliver "I Like KGB-Boy Putin and My Son Works for RT" Stone?

--  MWT 

[Charles Collins]

Charles,

Would that be Oliver "I Like KGB-Boy Putin and My Son Works for RT" Stone?

--  MWT 

In my opinion, Oliver Stone’s film “JFK” has more in common with Milos Foreman’s film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” than the JFK assassination. I have wondered if Oliver Stone has read Patricia Lambert’s book “False Witness.”

I am in the process of writing a letter to Ken Burns requesting that he consider producing a new documentary about the Garrison investigation and recommending Patricia Lambert’s excellent book as a reference. I think that his work would reach a much larger audience than the book. And I believe that would be a good “antidote” to Oliver Stone’s film “JFK.”  He is very busy though, and I think that additional similar requests might help the chances of this becoming a reality. So please consider making your own request to Ken Burns. The address is:

Florentine Films
PO Box 613
Walpole, NH 03608

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

In court, Garrison claimed that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie and unnamed others to murder JFK.

None of that is true. There is/was no even remotely credible evidence that Garrison presented that those three planned to murder JFK at some party with people listening in (unless you believe one of Perry Russo's ever-changing stories). It's absurd to think that anyone would do such a reckless and stupid thing. Plan to kill the president with strangers listening? And then actually do it? C'mon.

I don't think you believe any of that.

[Richard Smith]

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 is fairly obvious that Garrison suffered from mental illness.  He paranoid and delusional.  He was also a narcissist with a desire for attention.  The real irony with Garrison is that he engaged in all the misconduct that CTers allege that the WC did in confirming Oswald's guilt.  He coerced witnesses, lied, knowingly used perjured testimony, and even facilitated such when it suited his purposes.  A complete and disgraceful abuse of power.  Even many CTers have come to recognize the harm he has done to their cause with his nonsense which is saying a great deal given how far out many such individuals are in their own beliefs.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It is fairly obvious that Garrison suffered from mental illness.  He paranoid and delusional.  He was also a narcissist with a desire for attention.  The real irony with Garrison is that he engaged in all the misconduct that CTers allege that the WC did in confirming Oswald's guilt.  He coerced witnesses, lied, knowingly used perjured testimony, and even facilitated such when it suited his purposes.  A complete and disgraceful abuse of power.  Even many CTers have come to recognize the harm he has done to their cause with his nonsense which is saying a great deal given how far out many such individuals are in their own beliefs.

Some of the same people who complain about Oswald's "rights" being denied him, about not being allowed a defense by the Warren Commission have no problem apparently with Garrison stating in open court that Oswald was one of the murderers conspirators involved in the murder of JFK.

Garrison made all sorts of bizarre claims out of court about Oswald - that he was gay (not something you'd want to be called in 1967), that he was part of a "homosexual thrill kill", that he was really a secret neo-Nazi fascist - and the Oswald defenders still defend Garrison.

But again to be fair: some of the leading conspiracy authors like Lifton and Lane condemned what he did.

[Charles Collins]

It is fairly obvious that Garrison suffered from mental illness.  He paranoid and delusional.  He was also a narcissist with a desire for attention.  The real irony with Garrison is that he engaged in all the misconduct that CTers allege that the WC did in confirming Oswald's guilt.  He coerced witnesses, lied, knowingly used perjured testimony, and even facilitated such when it suited his purposes.  A complete and disgraceful abuse of power.  Even many CTers have come to recognize the harm he has done to their cause with his nonsense which is saying a great deal given how far out many such individuals are in their own beliefs.

More than fairly obvious. The military records show that he was definitely diagnosed as having mental problems.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

More than fairly obvious. The military records show that he was definitely diagnosed as having mental problems.

Yes, but as Lambert pointed out he had a lot of people going along with him. It wasn't just him.

If you read the notes/accounts of the conferences he had with his assistants/staff, it's bizarro land. He makes these outrageous claims - based on the latest "witness" he met or heard from - and everyone else in the room just goes along. Even though the latest claim is completely at odds with what he claimed the month before. A few of his people got fed up and left; but most of them just merrily went along.

As a side note: I know we don't want to get into politics here but Donald Trump sounds a lot like Garrison. Sorry to the Trump supporters but that's how I see it.