On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

He didn't write the report. An assistant wrote it. You can tell it's a mistake because the CIA doesn't use that terminology -
Contract source. The HSCA saw all those documents and no one one the HSCA said Shaw was anything other than a contact. And no one
has found a corroborating underlying document.

People make mistakes.

fred

Is there a practical difference between a “high paid source” versus a “highly valued” source?

If a source is paid over the course of a few years, doesn’t that suggest the person is “valued”?

No one has “found” a corroborating document?

Isn’t that because his files are still secret?

The CIA allowed HSCA members to view the secret files but some of the files still haven’t been declassified…

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Assuming neither of you has seen the primary source documents, I don't understand how you can be so confident that McDonald was wrong.

What are you basing that conclusion on?

I mentioned what I was basing it on. It is my understanding that the documents McDonald used have been released and so far no one has found anything. Perhaps someday the full truth will be known and I may be proven wrong. Perhaps, as Steve suggests, Shaw had a closer role with the CIA wheather he was paid or not. But the bottom line, as you point out, is that there is no evidence that Shaw had anything to do with the assassination.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I mentioned what I was basing it on. It is my understanding that the documents McDonald used have been released and so far no one has found anything. Perhaps someday the full truth will be known and I may be proven wrong. Perhaps, as Steve suggests, Shaw had a closer role with the CIA wheather he was paid or not. But the bottom line, as you point out, is that there is no evidence that Shaw had anything to do with the assassination.

If the Carpenter characterization is accurate then Shaw was directed or instructed by the CIA to seek out certain areas BEFORE he went abroad. That is, he didn't come back and answer questions; he was instructed to seek out certain areas/subjects ahead of time. And Carpenter documents that Shaw traveled abroad extensively while promoting the Trade Mart (it was, after all, called the "International Trade Mart"). Both to Europe and especially Latin America.

That's a closer relationship than that of the thousands of Americans who were briefed by DCS about what they may have seen or heard when they returned from abroad. I was once interviewed by the FBI in the 1980s about some sort of Polish intelligence operation (I think). It was a pro forma interview about a particular person (she was Polish and had been a co-worker of mine). I knew nothing at all about it. If I had been asked by the FBI before this to look for suspicious behavior by that person at the time we worked together that would be a completely different relationship with them.

BTW, I never really knew what the heck they were looking at <g>. It could have been simple tax fraud or something mundane. But why would the FBI ask me about something like that? Anyway, it's always a good Thanksgiving dinner story; although I'm pretty sure my relatives are sick of hearing it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And as we probably recall, in his trial for conspiracy to murder JFK Shaw was asked this by his attorney F. Irvin Dymond:

Dymond: Mr. Shaw, have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?

Shaw: I have not.

I'll suggest that had Dymond known about the above relationship with the CIA he wouldn't have broached this topic. None of Garrison's people suggested it or asked it during the trial. Dymond risked opening the proverbial can of worms by doing so. A good Garrison team could have seized upon it had they known about it; which apparently they didn't (of course, had Dymond known they did he wouldn't have opened the issue either).

No, it doesn't mean Shaw was guilty of conspiracy. But it would have complicated matters for Shaw.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If the Carpenter characterization is accurate then Shaw was directed or instructed by the CIA to seek out certain areas BEFORE he went abroad. That is, he didn't come back and answer questions; he was instructed to seek out certain areas/subjects ahead of time. And Carpenter documents that Shaw traveled abroad extensively while promoting the Trade Mart (it was, after all, called the "International Trade Mart"). Both to Europe and especially Latin America.

Yes, but does that make him a "highly paid contract source?" Could be, but I am not convinced. Carpenter also says Shaw was not an employee and recieved no compensation. Now, I have always thought Shaw would be a good candidate to be a CIA asset of some sort. He was ex-military and traveled for his job as you point out. The unfortunate thing is if Shaw's relationship was anything beyond DCS the conspiracy people will have a hayday even though he was innocent of any involvement in JFK's death.

[Jon Banks]

Yes, but does that make him a "highly paid contract source?" Could be, but I am not convinced. Carpenter also says Shaw was not an employee and recieved no compensation. Now, I have always thought Shaw would be a good candidate to be a CIA asset of some sort. He was ex-military and traveled for his job as you point out. The unfortunate thing is if Shaw's relationship was anything beyond DCS the conspiracy people will have a hayday even though he was innocent of any involvement in JFK's death.

The CIA currently is struggling to protect their assets abroad. Many have been lost in the last decade or so.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575384-cia-admits-to-losing-dozens-of-informants-around-the-world-nyt

In a recent conversation about that topic, I listened to a former CIA officer explain why some people become assets or informants. He explained that many of them, but not all, are motivated by money.

I assume that Shaw, who was already wealthy, didn’t do it for the money. Maybe he just felt it was his patriotic duty to help his country’s national security.

I also don’t see anything inherently nefarious about his being a CIA informant.

[Fred Litwin]

Of course, Shaw was correct. He had not worked for the CIA.

fred

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Let's try this: If a businessman from, let's say China, was asked by Chinese intelligence, on multiple occasions, to gather information on subject "A" in the US - say quantum computers or Elon Musk's SpaceX - and then did so, multiple times, I think we would all agree that that person was working for Chinese intelligence. Or had "worked" for them. Even if he was not given money for it. Wouldn't we?

If it all hinges on whether he was financially compensated for these efforts then it's correct in the literal definition of work that he didn't "work" for Chinese intelligence. It's perhaps not, in the legal sense, perjury for him to say he didn't; but is it true? If so it's a rather narrow legalistic definition of work.

BTW, Carpenter states that Shaw said numerous times when asked that he had "no connections" with the CIA. I don't have the exact quote but if true then that's very difficult to defend.

Several things can be true at the same time (they often are): Shaw was a patriot, he was smeared by Garrison, he had nothing to do with the assassination, and he was misleading about his relationship with the CIA. Whether he perjured himself depends on what defines as work.