GARRISON VS. SHAW RE-RE-CONSIDERED – DISPENSING WITH LITWIN
Until recently I didn't realize there is a whole regiment of dedicated Lone Nutters, or as I call them, the Lone DeRangers, who flood the internet defending and promoting the Warren Commission's conclusion that one man alone was responsible for the murder of the president. Most of them were former silly conspiracy buffs, like Fred Litwin.
After
the reception given by fellow Warren Commission apologists and Lone Nutters to
his second book, “I Was A Teen Age Conspiracy Freak,” Canadian gay activist
Fred Litwin was inspire to start yet another crusade to try to defame former New Orleans
District Attorney Jim Garrison and his prosecution of Clay Shaw for complicity
in the murder of President Kennedy with the publication of his third book, “On
the Trail of Delusion – Jim Garrison: the Great Accuser.”
Litwin’s
first book, “Conservative Confidential” – about his coming out of the gay
closet, pales in comparison to his ramblings and writings on once being a
conspiracy freak and his rabid attacks on Garrison, apparently because of the
success of Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK,” that portrays Garrison in a radically
different light than Litwin.
Like
most Lone Nut advocates, Litwin is proud of the fact that he was once a silly
conspiracy theorist, but now sees the light, and realizes that the Warren
Commission was right after all, and the murder of the President was the result
of one man alone – Lee Harvey Oswald.
As far as
I’m concerned all of the silly conspiracy theorists and deranged lone nutters
are all in the same, stinking, sinking boat, up shits creek, without a paddle
and sinking fast, as they all are cock sure they know for certain who killed JFK,
regardless of whether it is Oswald, LBJ, CIA, Castro or the Mafia.
After
over 50 years at this I still don’t know who killed the President, but I
believe I am on the right track in figuring out how it was accomplished, and how they got away with it, and am resigned to the fact that justice will never be
served, though one day we will know the full truth, and that, they say, will
set us free.
While I have read and reviewed Litwin’s “Conspiracy Freak,” [ JFKcountercoup: Bill Kelly's Review of Freaky Fred's "I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak" ], I have ordered his new book on Garrison and Shaw, I have kept up with his many internet ramblings, and read the excerpts from his book published in a Canadian newspaper and at Max Holland’s blog Washington Decoded.
[ https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2020/11/litwin.html
/ https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/litwin-jfk-conspiracy-nonsense-snared-a-canadian
]
The
first thing you decode about Max Holland and it goes for Litwin too, is their
own inherent bias, like a race horse wearing blinders, blindly sticking to the
completely discredited Warren Commission conclusion that one man alone was
reasonable for the murder of the President, as if we haven’t learned anything
since 1964.
While Litwin has said that he learned how to evaluate evidence from seasoned researcher Paul Hoch, he didn't learn very much, as the very first document released in the 2018 batch was a report written by Hoch on CIA Activities and the Warren Commission, that is an eye opener - [ 104-10196-100270001.pdf ] that deals with subjects Litwin doesn't even want to consider.
Before reading Litwin's take on Garrison you have to do is read Garrison's own books, especially "Heritage of Stone" and "On the Trail of the Assassins," both of which give you keen insight into his background, intentions and motives.
From
Litwin’s internet ramblings and postings I have discerned a number of basic
points he is pushing, that are wrong and must be corrected, and will get around to reviewing his book when I get a chance.
1) Litwin has assembled, from diligent research, many letters and articles by Warren Commission critics that are critical of Garrison, especially Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg, yet he fails to mention that all of the first generation Commission critics were unanimous in their beliefs that the Commission’s conclusion was wrong and that one man alone was not responsible for the assassination.
2) Litwin, from his own homophobic feelings, claims that Garrison prosecuted Shaw because he was gay, and says Garrison cracked down on the gay bars in the French Quarter when he assumed office. As Jim DiEugenio points out in his critique of Litwin at Kennedys and King - Garrison prosecuted the B-girl bars that had women entice men to buy them watered down drinks – hardly a crackdown on gay bars.
I asked Washington D.C. gay activist and diligent JFK researcher Paul Kuntsler if he thought Garrison prosecuted Shaw because he was gay and he said emphatically "No." And I asked Paul to read and write a review of Litwin's book.
Garrison prosecuted Shaw and suspected Guy Banister and David Ferrie, not because of their sexual proclivities, but because of their association in the summer of 1963 with the man Litwin claims was the presidential assassin – Lee Harvey Oswald.
3) Litwin claims that Garrison was inspired by an Italian news article that was actually Soviet disinformation, when in fact the article in question only appeared AFTER Shaw was indicted by a New Orleans grand jury. When I asked Garrison's friend and associate the late, great Bill Turner if Garrison was inspired by the Soviet disinformation, he said emphatically "No."
Disinformation is defined as intentionally false information promoted by a government intelligence agency to promote their interests and policies. But the article was all true, PERMINDEX was involved in various nefarious activities, and Shaw and Ernest Bloomfield were on the Board of Directors. Litwin says that neither man actually attended a meeting, and while that exonerates them in Litwin’s mind, it makes me even more suspicious. Bloomfield’s papers have not all been released, he did work closely with the OSS during World War II, and espionage activities have not been closely examined. And I believe Ian Fleming characterized Bloomfield in a caricature as Ernst Stavro Blofied – the chairman of the board of SPECTRE – Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism and Revenge, ha ha.
4 Both Holland and Litwin say that the story of the Italian newspaper report on PERMINDEX was Soviet disinformation stems from Vasilli Mitrokhin, a former KGB archivist who kept copious notes and fed them to British intelligence after the CIA turned him down. Mitrokhin said that the KGB financially supported Mark Lane and Joachim Joesten, two early Warren Commission critics, and produced the “Dear Mr. Hunt” note that ostensibly was meant to link Oswald and the CIA’s E. Howard Hunt. But the chief assistant to Dallas oil man H. L. Hunt says that the note was originally found in the oil man’s files, and the HSCA signature experts said it was written by Oswald and was not a forgery.
[ https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2017/05/russian-disinformation-and-kennedy.html ]
5) The clincher with this line of reasoning is the fact that in order to establish his bonafides Mitrokhin gave up a former US National Security Agency (NSA) file clerk who had passed on documents to the Soviets. This guy was arrested by the FBI and admitted his role at his first and only court hearing in which he said that one of the NSA documents he read gave the name of JFK’s real assassin, which quickly put an end to the hearing. As he was being taken out of the court room, a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter asked him the name of JFK’s real assassin, and he replied – Luis Angel Castillo. Of course neither Holland nor Litwin want to go there, and both professors Peter Dale Scott and Richard Popkin warn researchers not to bother because L. A. Castillo is a back hole, I went there anyway and obtained the full FBI report on him.
[ https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/luis-angel-castillo.html https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2020/05/luis-angel-castillo-revisited.html ]
As for the idea that Garrison didn't have a case to begin with, I submit to you report Jack Anderson gave to the FBI after interviewing Garrison and having dinner with him. Anderson, said to be the best American investigative journalist of his time, says he started out skeptical, but was swayed by Garrison, and unlike the silly conspiracy theorists who become dedicated lone nutters, he went the opposite way.
[ http://jfkcountercoup2.blobspot.com/2016/04/jack-anderson-on-jim-garrison.html ]
Another little known but good book on the New Orleans shenanigans is Joe Bile's "In History's Shadow: Lee Harvey Oswald, Kerry Thornley & the Garrison Investigation." Joe is not your typical conspiracy theorist, but a conservative, Republican military man.
The one thing that I do agree with Litwin is the fact that the Shaw-Banister-Ferrie crew were not responsible for killing President Kennedy. After reading the New Orleans Grand Jury transcripts, that Harry Connick ordered destroyed, but were salvaged by the Assassinations Records Review Board, it is clear that these Big Easy Bozos who pulled off the Houma Bunker raid, as depicted in Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” could not have been responsible for the well planned, clean and successfully executed Dealey Plaza operation.
It wasn’t a plot, as depicted in “JFK” and “Executive Action” movies, but a plan, an off-the-shelf-plan that was originally designed to kill Fidel Castro, for snipers to shoot him in the head as he rode by in an open jeep, and redirected to JFK at Dealey Plaza.
And it was a plan approved by “higher authority,” as they were allowed to get away with it, and it was as Dr. Cyril Wecht says, a coup d'etat – the violent takeover of the government, as the government records released under the JFK act indicate, and I have demonstrated at JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com – as the key elements of a coup are all there.
[ https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/ / https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/coup-detat-were-basic-principles.html
]
No comments:
Post a Comment