Sunday, February 10, 2019

Bill Kelly's Review of Freaky Fred's "I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak"

Bill Kelly’s Review of Freaky Fred’s “I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak”

Okay, I finally forked out $4 for Fred Litwin’s pulp paperback on Kindle and it was a waste of good money I could have spent on a beer.

I usually learn something conspiratorial from most every anti-conspiratorial book I read and the only thing I learned from this book is that there is no real difference between silly conspiracy theorists and lone nutters like Litwin. They are all True Believers in the Eric Hoffer mold who compile all of the known facts to support their position and ignore the rest, and really know nothing.

For me, regardless of the role of the accused assassin - sixth floor sniper or fall guy, it doesn't matter once you understand that whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza, it was a covert intelligence operation that was designed to deceive and protect those actually responsible. 

Peter Dale Scott once said that a third type of independent researcher was emerging – one who reads all the books and records, someone who keeps an open mind, who doesn’t support a final position until all the facts are in and one who tries to answer the outstanding questions.

When Peter said that I thought of Paul Hoch, who with Scott edited an early anthology on The Assassinations that sets a real tone for real inquiry, and it was Litwin’s reference to Hoch as one of the persons who taught him how to evaluate evidence – cough, cough.

Even as I write this, Peter Dale Scott posted on Mary Ferrell some new ONI records that Hoch had acquired decades ago. Office of Naval Intelligence

After discussing Litwin’s endorsement of Hoch with Dr. Gary Aguliar in Dallas, I later learned that Aguilar confronted Hoch about it at the San Francisco researcher’s summit last December, and there was some animosity in the air. 

This book is more about Paul Hoch than it is about the assassination of the President, as Litwin is trying to pull Hoch away from his vaunted status as one of the best independent researchers into the Lone Nut sewer that is occupied by Litwin, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Max Holland and others of their stripe. And while Hoch may not be embarrassed or insulted as I am by this, he is not being pulled by his arm and hair kicking and screaming either.

Litwin quotes Hoch at a 1993 JFK conference in Chicago as saying, “The specific items of Dealey Plaza conspiracy evidence have tended to get weaker over the years. This has been a surprise, naturally underappreciated – especially by newer buffs and non-technical buffs.” 

I guess this is suppose to mean that as we peal away at the silly conspiracy theories, we come to the same realization that Litwin has - Oswald killed JFK alone. But that's not the logical conclusion - the silly conspiracy theories get weaker as we examine the evidence closer, but the official conclusion that Oswald acted alone - is no longer tenable, so one of the conspiracy theories must be correct. 

For Hoch's entire presentation: 
JFKcountercoup: Paul Hoch on Assassination Research 1993

Litwin: “The JFK assassination has become a metaphor for politics. You can tell lies; you can spin incredibly ridiculous stories, you can make outlandish claims that are grounded in complete falsehoods; and there will still be people who believe and quote your every word. But, truth matters, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.1. There was no conspiracy. End of story.”

But it’s not the end of story, and the biggest incredibly ridiculous story is that Oswald killed JFK, something that can and should be dealt with and then put aside as Oswald was the rabbit who was let loose for those who thought they were following the assassin, when in fact he was what he said he was - the Patsy, set up as the fall guy in a crime he didn't commit. 

Oh, there is a footnote there – footnote #1, that I will get back to later, but in looking for the facts and evidence Litwin has for Oswald being JFK’s killer is contained in just one paragraph. In fact Oswald is not even the focus of this book – it is Litwin’s narrow minded too proud conservative viewpoint and rants against silly conspiracy theorists and liberal media.

While praising Hoch, Litwin manages to depreciate the fine work of Josiah Thompson – Ian Griggs -- Vincent Salandria – Harold Weisberg – Sylvia Meagher – Maggie Field – Shirley Martin – Raymond Marcus – Penn Jones, Jr. – Mark Lane – Thomas Buchanan -  M.S. Arnoni – Dick Gregory, Robert Groden, Mort Sahl, Bertrand Russell, Ralph Schoenman, and Jefferson Morley – all of whom made some important contribution to JFK research, whereas Litwin has made none.

Litwin would have us believe that we can just go back in time to what was only known in 1964 and ignore all of what we have learned in the fifty some years since then, and while he can ignore it all, we can’t.

Litwin writes: “The authors of the Warren Report were honourable (Brit spelling ok by me) men who conducted an honest investigation and reached the right answer.…The evidence led them to the only possible conclusion – that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. And the evidence was overwhelming…”.

Are you ready for the overwhelming evidence?  Here goes: “For instance, on the morning of the assassination, Oswald left his wedding ring and $170 for his wife Marina on the bedroom dresser, and he brought a long bulky package to work. His rifle was stored in Ruth Paine’s garage (where his wife was staying) and when the FBI visited after the assassination, lo and behold, the rifle was gone.”

And lo and behold, “After the assassination, he was the only warehouseman missing…..One expert concluded that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit’s body matched the revolve found in Oswald’s possession when he was arrested, another expert said they all ‘could have been’ fired from his gun; the expended cartridge cases matched Oswald’s gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was bought by Oswald; fibers found on the rifle matched Oswald’s shirt, although they could have come from another identical shirt; two bullet fragments found in the limousine and the cartridge cases found in the sniper’s nest matched his rifle ‘to the exclusion of all other weapons’; Oswald’ right palm print was found on the rifle barrel,; and his fingerprints were found on the bag used to carry the rifle to work…..Faced with this massive amount of incriminating evidence, the critics could only chip away at the margins….”

And the margins lead to the heart of the matter. 

Defense Attorney Bill Simpich could destroy each and every one of this "evidence" in just a few minutes in court, but lo and behold, the evidence never made it to a court of law because the principal suspect was killed while in police custody. 

The thing that I just don't get is why these Lone Nutters - to a man - all say Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin who killed the President all alone, but he's always portrayed as a disenchanted, wife beating loner and idiot who couldn't hold a job, instead of being a great marksman and the world's greatest assassin, as he would have to be if he actually did the dirty deed. 

As Litwin puts it, “When I told most people that there was no conspiracy and that just about every issue could be easily explained, they just smiled.”  And that’s because most people know better, and with good reason. There are many good reasons why most - 80% of the people don't believe Oswald alone was responsible for the assassination. 

Okay Fred, easily explain where the bullets came from – the bullets from the rifle and the pistol? Explain where the rifle strap – from an air force officer’s sidearm hostler came from? Explain how the rifle got into the Texas School Book Depository since B. W. Fraser and his sister both said the package was too small to be a rifle. Explain why the brown paper wrapping paper wasn’t photographed at the scene where it was found? Tell us who was seen on the sixth floor with a rifle when Oswald was on the first floor shortly after noon? Tell us who was seen in the six floor window five minutes after the shooting when Oswald was positively on the second floor? Tell us who was the man in the white shirt (Oswald wore brown) in the sixth floor window with a rifle with a very distinguishing bald spot on the top of his head, a trait not shared by Oswald? Tell us who was practicing at the rifle range, calling attention to himself by shooting the wrong targets – a person the Warren Commission said was not Oswald. Tell us who was impersonating Oswald at a dozen – not one or two – but a dozen locations? Tell us why none of the four people on the stairs failed to see Oswald descend the steps? Tell us how Roy Truly failed to see Oswald go through the second floor lunchroom door where Marion Baker saw him a few second later? It’s because Oswald wasn’t on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, did not descend those steps or go through that door. He entered the lunchroom from the secretary’s office, the same way he left.

Now we can get to Footnote #1 -

“1.We will never know exactly why Oswald killed Kennedy. Jean Davison, author of Oswald’s Game, offers a persuasive explanation. Oswald most probably read the New Orleans Times-Picayune story of September 9, 1963 in which it was reported that Fidel Castro said that if US leaders ‘are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe.’ Oswald had made attempts to infiltrate pro-Castro groups in New Orleans and he might have been aware of plots against Castro. In late November 1963, it was announced that Kennedy’s motorcade route would pass right in front of the building in which he worked. Strictly by chance, Oswald was able to strike a blow for the revolution.”

For the complete story read the article: timespicayune.JPG (510×799)

JFKCountercoup2: Harker's Complete Original Report

We will never know exactly why Oswald killed Kennedy because he didn’t. But we can come to know how and why JFK was killed by following this lead, and can thank Jean Davison for turning us on to it. 

The story Oswald “probably” read was written by the AP correspondent in Havana Daniel Harker, who quoted Castro in an interview at the Brazilian embassy the day after Dr. Orlando Cubella (AMLASH) met with a CIA case officer in Brazil. The CIA case officer was encouraging Cubella to kill Castro, and another case officer met with Cu bella in Paris at the very moment of the assassination. It wasn’t strictly by chance that Cubella also owned an apartment in Veradero beach where the JMWAVE Pathfinders were to use as a staging area to shoot Castro in the head with a high powered rifle as he rode past in an open jeep.

As the Microsoft computerized review of the most recently released JFK assassination files concluded, the assassination had something to do with Cuba, and as Jean Davison has called our attention to, the assassination had something to do with the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. And as Carlos Bringuier and others have said, what happened in Dallas was directly connected to the JMWAVE commando raids against Cuba – that Castro was harping about in the story Oswald “probably” read. Those commando raids, BTW are also featured in stories in both of the communist publications that Oswald is seen holding in the backyard photos with the rifle and pistol said to be used to kill JFK and officer Tippit.

Litwin has a whole chapter dedicated to the New Orleans aspects of the assassination but doesn’t even mention Oswald’s arrest with Bringuier and his DRE pals.

The whole chapter is devoted to the charges against Clay Shaw, and Litwin, in his Canadian TV interview falsely says that Garrison indicted Shaw because he was a homosexual.

Garrison didn’t indict Shaw at all. Clay Shaw was indicted by a New Orleans Grand Jury because Shaw was seen in Clinton, Louisiana in the summer of 1963 with David Ferrie and Oswald – the man Litwin says was responsible for the murder of the President.

And Ferrie was considered a suspect, not because he too was gay, but because of his participation in the Houma Bunker raid that obtained guns and explosives that were to be used by anti-Castro Cubans or anti-deGaulists. For more on Houma Bunker raid see: JFKcountercoup: The Houma Bunker Raid Revisted

It should be noted that Litwin himself is gay, and with his gay boyfriend visited Dealey Plaza – the scene of the crime, in 2018, shortly before the publication of this book.

His previous book Conservative Confidential, is apparently about his conversion from being a stupid secretly gay liberal to an newly enlightened openly gay conservative. 

Litwin writes that, “Garrison started to think about the Kennedy assassination was some sort of homosexual plot.”

Then he quotes Paul Hoch: Echoes of Conspiracy – “Garrison apparently failed to weigh the likelihood of a secret but social and non-conspiratorial relationship between Shaw and Ferrie. By refusing to do so – and targeting someone who would not come out of the closet in his own defense – I think Garrison crossed the line into objectively homophobic persecution.”

And Garrison thought enough of Hock to respond to him writing, “Throughout our trial, in everything I have ever written and in every public statement I have ever made – I never once made any reference to Clay Shaw’s alleged homosexuality. What sort of human being is Mr. Hoch that he is impelled to so gratuitiously make such a reference in a newsletter which he widely distributes to the public?”'

Litwin writes: “Muckraker Jack Anderson, partner of syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, also spent some time talking to Garrison. According to Pearson’s March 24, 1967, diary entry, Garrison told Anderson, ‘The CIA definitely had a plot to assassinate Castro and had approached Clay Shaw, a reputable, wealthy homosexual businessman, as a man who could execute the plot. Shaw was part of a homosexual ring, including Ferrie and Ruby in Dallas.”  

Read recently released FBI report on Jack Anderson's diner with Garrison: - JFKCountercoup2: Jack Anderson on Jim Garrison

For more on Litwin's New Orleans escapades he titles Garrison’s Excellent Homosexual Adventure - read what Jim DiEugenio has recently posted at Kennedys and King - Jim Garrison vs. Fred Litwin: The Beat Goes On - Part 2 - Kennedys And King - Jim Garrison vs. Fred Litwin: The Beat Goes On (part 2)

Jack Anderson also failed to publish but told his FBI case officer that after his dinner with Garrison he believed Garrison was on to something. And he certainly was, but it wasn’t the New Orleans bozos who pulled off the Houma Bunker caper who killed JFK in Dallas. That was a very well planned and executed covert intelligence operation the origins of which were the CIA-Mafia plan to kill Castro with a high powered rifle as he drove by in an open jeep – the plan that was redirected to JFK in Dallas.

For more on this see Pathfinder Parts 1-5 JFKcountercoup: PATHFINDER - Parts 1 - 5 The Plan to Kill Castro Redirected to JFK at Dallas

That’s what history will show.

As Litwin makes continued attacks on the truth, advocates of the truth and depreciates what we’ve come to know about the assassination over the past fifty years, I will return to address some of the issues he raises that deserve attention, but for now, I will give him a break.

And I am looking forward to buying, reading and reviewing a book that is worth the price - a book that I know will be a game changer – John Newman’s “Into the Storm,” Volume 3 of his multi-volume history of the Kennedy Assassination from someone who really does know how to evaluate evidence. 


Steve Howsley said...

"We will never know exactly why Oswald killed Kennedy because he didn’t."

The weight of the evidence shows LHO was as guilty as sin of two murders and there's no evidence to show that he was part of a conspiracy. The case was solved decades ago.

David Roytenberg said...

What Steve Howsley said. I suggest your readers buy Litwin’s book and make up their own minds. Personally, I found Fred’s meticulous arguments very convincing.

Unknown said...

The reviewer appears to be a poor thinker. Not one defensible specific in the review to support his childish tendentious comments. And, to boot, he doesn't recognize the British spelling of honorable, "honourable," used by Canadians. Who could we blame for his superficial comments?

Unknown said...

Bill, check out page 231....:)

GayandRight said...

Actually, I posted the evidence that Oswald was more than an adequate marksman. Afterall, he qualified as a sharpshooter in the U.S. Marines.

Patrick Collins said...

I just shake my head in frustration when I read this kind of entry level and frankly rank amateur assimilation of the assassination.

I actually thought Fred Litwin's book was truly excellent - mainly because it reminds us of the obvious - not that the American public have been lied to for 50 + years by the Govt to cover up a conspiracy, but that the subject was hi jacked by a long list of duplicitous authors who misled and indeed lied to the American public.

This next paragraph would be a fine example of the sort of deception you would find:

For example:

"instead of being a great marksman and the world's greatest assassin, as he would have to be if he actually did the dirty deed."

Nonsense, sheer palpable deception.

Oswald fired two shots that struck a slowly moving target in approx 5.2 seconds at 65 and 88 yards. He was trained to fire at distances three tiles that. He may have fired an earlier missed shot making the total time probably 8 to 9 seconds....

And then this:

"Explain how the rifle got into the Texas School Book Depository since B. W. Fraser and his sister both said the package was too small to be a rifle."

Boy is this entry level pro conspiracy silliness....

Explain...easy....Frazier made a mistake.....and he readily admitted he paid little attention to the package.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Oswald did not need an excuse to go get some curtain rods from the Paine house to visit his wife! All he had to say was he was picking up some documents that he needed for the a bank letter or anything.

He used the curtain rod story as a ruse to prepare Frazier for the fact that he would be taking a package to work the next day!

He told Frazier Ruth Paine had offered to give him some curtain rods.....she did not, they were never discussed and ......a spare curtain rod was in the garage and it was still there that afternoon. There were no others for Oswald to take....!

And another bunch of silly questions all easily addressed:

"Tell us why none of the four people on the stairs failed to see Oswald descend the steps?"

There were not 4 people on the stairs, there were two and Oswald almost certainly beat them to it.

He would be passing floor 4 down to 2 between approx 35 and 50 seconds after the shots - assuming that he moved quickly - which he would have if he had assassinated JFK. I know these numbers Bill Kelly because I was timed re-enacting this in 1983 at the TSBD by a police liaison officer assigned to help me as a visiting post graduate student from Cambridge, England - studying the assassination for a masters.

"Tell us how Roy Truly failed to see Oswald go through the second floor lunchroom door where Marion Baker saw him a few second later?"

Probably because Oswald reached the lunchroom in less than 50 seconds and Truly arrived about 70 seconds after the shots - these numbers have all been crunched...where have you been Mr Kelly? Oswald on hearing steps may have spun round - there are several options here.

So, I have well over 400 books on the subject and I would say Fred Litwin's book is a fine assessment of the actual, likely historical truth.

You say it should be noted that Mr Litwin is gay.....why should it be noted...?

Should it be noted that you are married, or not...or a Christian or not...agnostic.....what has that got to do with anything....

I'd pick out around 20 pro no conspiracy books as must reads on this case and Fred Litwin's would be one of them.

The remaining question is did Oswald have direction or was he influenced.....we will never know and it is possible.

If you understand real world crime and how it is solved, you know that Oswald was the lone assassin beyond reasonable doubt.

I do wish I was in the US Mr. Kelly and nearby, I would so enjoy a public debate I really would. It would be like taking candy from a child.....

Miguel Cercone said...

Come on people - It's 2019 - not 1969.

Nobody needs to pretend anymore that Clay Shaw wasn't CIA, that cat has been out of the bag for some time.

Nobody needs to pretend anymore that Clay Shaw didn't know Lee Oswald - over a dozen Clinton Witnesses put an end to that.

Nobody needs to pretend anymore that Clay Shaw wasn't already "investigated" by the FBI before Garrison ever got to him - Ramsey Clark let that one slip.

Nobody needs to pretend that Shaw didn't associate with Oswald's other anti-Castro associates - namely David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

Nobody needs to pretend Clay Shaw didn't phone Dean Andrews - Andrews and his secretarial staff confirmed this.

Nobody needs to pretend Clay Shaw wasn't "Clay Bertrand" - the FBI already uncovered that information through its own informants before Garrison did - and suppressed it.

Nobody needs to pretend anymore that Shaw didn't admit the fact that he was Bertrand himself at the N.O. police station. Nobody needs to pretend he didn't sign into the Moisant Airport of his own accord with that moniker. Nobody needs to pretend that the French Quarter witnesses who all knew that Shaw was Bertrand were either mistaken or crazy.

And nobody needs to pretend that high-ranking CIA figures like Ray Rocca didn't surmise that Garrison would get a conviction on the strength of his evidence in the Shaw trial. Nobody needs to pretend that the CIA did not infiltrate and sabotage his case after Rocca and the Garrison Group put that assessment down on paper.

You can still argue in 2019 that Shaw may not have known about the conspiracy to kill JFK - its unlikely, but it is within the realm of possibility. You can still argue that Garrison was guilty of "overreach" in some ways, because he proceeded with the case without having fully developed all the angles.

What you cannot argue is that Jim Garrison was targeting people at random for being homosexual. And you certainly can't argue that Bill Kelly is a "poor thinker" or a "rank amateur" as some of the commentators do above.

GayandRight said...

Sorry, Miguel, you are entitles to your opinion, not to your facts. Clay Shaw was not CIA; he was only a domestic contact in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The Clinton witnesses have been totally debunked - you need to read Patricia Lambert's book. Clay Shaw was not being investigated by the FBI before Garrison; Ramsey Clark just misspoke. If you think he didn't, then please post the FBI report on Clay Shaw from before Garrison. Shaw did not phone Andrews - you might be aware that Dean Andrews testified on Clay Shaw's behalf and testified under oath that Shaw was not Bertrand. If you look at the early Garrison internal reports, Andrews never IDed Shaw as Bertrand. Shaw did not identify himself as Bertand at the police station - there is a good police witness who said as much, and even the judge would not admit that evidence.

Miguel Cercone said...

Lookit GayandRight - Nobody's saying you can't still pretend.

If you want to act in 2019 as if Andrews wasn't convicted of perjury, the Clinton Witnesses were all lying, Clay Shaw was just a domestic contact and Ramsey Clark "just misspoke" - then have at it. My advice would be to at least try and use more modern and/or reputable sources while doing it. Bringing out Patricia Lambert's book in 2019 to try and debunk the Clinton Witnesses is like trying to use the Bible to debunk homosexuality.

GayandRight said...

Nonsense. As I say, if you think that the FBI investigated Clay Shaw before Garrison, the produce the FBI report. Go ahead. Take my challenge. Show me up. Publish it. The problem is, and you know it, is that there is NO such FBI report, and therefore you cannot show it. As for Andrews being convicted of perjury, well so what? Have you not read Milton Brener's book on how the Garrison office worked back in the 1960s? I'm sure you haven't read his book.

Miguel Cercone said...

Oh my God - Fred Litwin - is that you? Are you "Gay and Right"?

You are the author of the book in question and you're telling me, a layman, that "as for Andrews being convicted of perjury, well so what?"

So what? Seriously? That is the sum total of your Andrews research?

You keep asking me to produce and FBI report and publish it, when as everybody knows - we haven't found any report stating that the FBI investigated Shaw - (at least, none that have been released publicly as of yet). That's why you are asking for it. Anybody wishing to explain away why a high ranking official like Clark would say what he did at the worst possible time always tries to justify the whole bizarre episode with this cheap tactic. They say Clark must be mistaken, so you must produce a document that says otherwise. Here's a thought - maybe the report met the same fate as Shaw's 201 file?

What I have actually suggested above is that Ramsay Clark stated publicly that Shaw was investigated by the FBI - a statement that was corroborated at the time by his Justice Department Information Officer, Cliff Sessions. Sessions actually went even farther then Clark did and suggested to the newspapers that the department knew Shaw actually was Bertrand. So while we've never seen such a document, its hard to believe that both these men were simply speaking off the cuff. Their information had to come from somewhere - otherwise, why would they convey it? More likely, they were told to walk back their statements by Hoover and Deke Deloach immediately after they gave them.

This is really great - if it is you I'm debating here. Fred Litwin, debating here live, in the comments section, criticizing the review of his own book. "So what?" Hahaha. I love it! Keep 'em coming!

GayandRight said...

As I expected, you have nothing. You cannot prove your statements. There is no evidence that the Clay Shaw was investigated prior to the Garrison scandal. In your world, people don't make errors, and bureaucrats never make mistakes. So, you cannot provide one document that supports your claim that Shaw was investigated. Not one. As for Shaw working for the CIA, you cannot support that either. The facts in this case are clear - Shaw did not work for the CIA; but even if he did, so what? He had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. The Garrison scandal was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in US history.

Miguel Cercone said...

Fred! You're back! It's you!

And look at this bombshell you've brought with you after months of scouring the ARRB files! It's a milestone in the case!

"Shaw did not work for the CIA, but even if he did - so what?"

That's awesome!

Someone needs to tell Malcolm Blunt he can leave the Archives and never come back. There's no need to connect any of the dots anymore! No need to explain the QKENCHANT clearance! Fred Litwin has unlocked the case. There's no need for people like Jeremy Gunn to try and track down Shaw's destroyed 201! Because even if he found it - So what? There's no need to discuss the CIA documents stating that Shaw was a "highly paid CIA contract source"! No need to wonder why such a finding comes from the CIA's chief historian! No need to explain the FBI teletypes from February 24 and March 23, 1967, detailing their intel that Shaw was Bertrand! The "so what" movement sees past all that. This is cutting edge stuff, Fred! It really cuts through all the FOIA and ARRB crap!

Am I allowed to use the statements of Sessions and Clark, along with the FBI teletypes to make the case that the FBI investigated Shaw? Or do these fall under the category of "So what"? I defer to you, Fred - the researcher's researcher. Nobody knows the pre-1969 files better than you!

If I can't use them as evidence, then I give up. You win!

After all, Lee Oswald might not have even fired a weapon that day, but in the end - so what? He's guilty. The breadth of your research cuts too wide a swath to tolerate any other incongruous "nonsense."

I can't wait for you to produce your second volume of new findings! Tell me now - Will this be a 5 volume set?

GayandRight said...

No need for a five volume set. We know the truth and the truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. You can bark up the Clay Shaw tree all you want - most respectable JFK critics (like Anthony Summers) have long abandoned the Garrison craziness. Sylvia Meagher knew from the outset that Garrison was a fraud. Edward Jay Epstein wrote extensively about the Garrison fraud. Post the FBI teletypes, please. As I said earlier, if you HAVE ANY evidence that Shaw was investigated before the Garrison burlesque show, then post it. I keep pleading with you to post evidence.

Miguel Cercone said...

Fred - I've given you the dates of the 2 FBI teletypes above. February 24, 1967 and March 23, 1967. You can find them at Mary Ferrell or the Black Vault.

Here's another interesting one which I will post in part. The 3rd paragraph is the relevant one. Here, DeLoach relates to Clyde Tolson that Shaw had "come up in their investigation". I'm sure he misspoke. Or miswrote. Or whatever. Even if the FBI did investigate Shaw though...So What?

RIF : 124-10040-10147
FBI # : 62-109060-4635

Memo C. D. DeLoach to Clyde Tolson 3/2/67

"The Attorney General called at about 9:50 this morning and made reference to one Clay Shaw, a businessman in New Orleans whom District Attorney James Garrison has arrested in connection with the captioned matter. The AG asked for details concerning this matter.

I told the AG the Director was forwarding a letter to him this morning concerning this matter. I stated the Director had given specific instructions that letters be forwarded both to the AG and to the White House, on an expeditious basis. The AG inquired whether he would receive this communication within the next thirty minutes and I told him I felt certain he would.

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963, as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw. I stated we had attempted to ascertain the identity of an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand, but to no avail. I mentioned it had been alleged that this was an alias used by Shaw. I stated also that we had conducted considerable investigation regarding a man whose name was Andrews."

GayandRight said...

Nothing there in that memo. If there were "several parties" furnishing information abut Shaw - then who were they? You can't produce ANY evidence of ANY party producing information on Shaw - which is evidence that they missspoke.

They couldn't find Bertrand - just like Garrison couldn't find Bertrand. They mentioned the allegation that "this was an alias by Shaw," but they did not confirm. I'll keep on saying it - they misspoke about Shaw and you will NEVER find any FBI report from December 1963 or 1964 that mentioned Clay Shaw. I'll keep on challenging you -produce the FBI memo or report about Shaw from 1963 or 1964.

GayandRight said...

Here's an FBI Memo:

March 10 1067
1 Inspector Jensen
1 Mr Sullivan
1 Mr Branigan
1 Mr Lenihan
The Attorney General
RE4+ "
'Dir.cto ( /l
NOVBMBS.A 22 1963
We have received information from our Kew Orleans
Office that Mt Ed Itgzaua eas of the attorneys for
Kr Clay Elam has indicated his intention to contact you
in an effort to obtain results of investigation Allegedly
Conducted by this bureau regarding Clay Shaw It appears
that Mr Wegnann if trying to use remarks attributed to
you by the news media regarding Clay Shaw in his atteupt
to"Obtain access to FBI material which be feels will aestet
hint has his defense of Clay Shat
The Deputy Attorney General
Mr Vted M Vinson Jr
Assistant Attorney General
1 Kr J Walter Yeagley
Assistant Attorney General
1 Mr harold Barefoot Sanders Jr
PAssistant Attorney General
IiEL:kmg y~
"~ +
(;:01r)l NOTE On March 2 1967 Attorney Or4ra_
16-fhe press which the .press had interpreted/ as stating that
the FBI had investigated:Clay"Shaw in New Orleans in November
and December 1963 1.his of course is not true We did
not investigate Clay Shaw in connection with our investigation
of the assassination'And hit; name is not contained in the
Warren Commission Report index The Attorney General contacted
Mr DeLoach 3/3/67 as reported in memorandum Mr DeLoach to
Mr Tolson at which time the Attorney General stated he had
been misquoted by reporters It is now apparent that Shaw's
attorneys are attempting to use the Attorney General's r

Miguel Cercone said...

So weird! Why is everyone misspeaking? And then writing it down in memos? And then destroying 201 files after the fact? It sure is confusing for me - John Q. Public - who's sitting here at a computer trying to make sense of it all. I wish the government would've just not destroyed the files and said what they meant to say here. I wish we didn't have those FBI teletypes of their informants telling them that Bertrand was Shaw. I wish Deloach wasn't writing mistaken statements like the one I quoted above, where he mentions he told Ramsay Clark that "Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963, as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." It makes things so confusing.

Thankfully, your book is here to clear things up. I guess it really is like you say - bureaucrats just make mistakes. After all, Jim Garrison was a bureaucrat. He sure made mistakes. The big goof kept targeting random homosexuals like Clay Shaw, and then pretending they were associated with the CIA! Then the FBI kept forgetting that they didn't investigate him and started writing memos that made it look like Garrison had a case! And forgetful Ramsay Clark and Cliff Sessions were also taken in by these things and went and told the media at the worst possible time! And then the CIA's Chief historian comes along 30 years later and tells us Shaw was "highly paid". And the Grand Jury goes along with everything. And Dean Andrews gets convicted of perjury. And then a dozen Clinton witnesses show up.

Garrison - You charlatan! Picking people at random! Misspeaking and making mistakes! The D.A. was drawing names out of a hat and landed on Shaw. The lengths evil men will go to to attain higher political office.

Kyle Kenley Kopitke said...

Great Blog Bill....Where do you find the time to do all of this; I admire your use of pictures and dialog. Talented are you. Can I please use your quote: "once you understand that whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza, it was a covert intelligence operation that was designed to deceive and protect those actually responsible" in my book?
His Peace to you, Kyle