Deep Politics Forum

If its not Baldwin, then I do not know who it was. Where is the rest of the memo?

Did you notice the bombshell Garrison wrote on that memo?

Burke, the former CIA station chief in New Orelans, was a friend of Andy Anderson? Anderson is the guy who Newman thought debriefed Oswald on his return from USSR. How the hell did Garrison know that of Anderson back then? (I assume its the same Anderson.) Newman did not stumble up on that until 1993!

Also, Baldwin worked for NANA, PJM's employer.

And BTW that is a really interesting thread concerning the Kloepfers, Ruth Paine, and the FPCC and Werner Kloepfer living in a house owned by Shaw?

I will comment on the thread once you have your material up. I really don't like dealing with McAdams anymore but I will do it.

Thanks, Jim. I'm sending you a PM.....here...now.

Jim,
The source you were given, (in a recent Ed Forum reply to you) re: list of unreleased NARA documents is apathetic, despite admitting that his list is incomplete.:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/w...ent-856790

Back to the thread topic, Clay Shaw....

Donald H Carpenter supported all of this in his book, without comment, but I came by it the hard way, independently and starting from scratch.
I think it changes things.....

The back story in its simplest form is that David Baldwin's wife, Mildred Lyons emerges as the stepdaughter of Monte Lemann, the stepsister of Stephen B. Lemann and his brother Thomas, (who is the father of Nicholas B. Lemann), the sister-in-law of Edward M. Baldwin,
and the daughter-in-law of Adele Ziegler Baldwin Raworth, who was the sister of Harold J. Ziegler, father-in-law of Jim Garrison. David Gilmore Baldwin, III and his brother, attorney Edward M. Baldwin, were first cousins of Jim Garrison's wife, Leah Elizabeth Ziegler Garrison.

Edward M. Baldwin's former law partner, Judge Malcolm V. O'Hara testified to Orlean's Parish grand jury,

Yes, there is no way in the world Nick Lemann should have written that hatchet job without disclosing who he was. GQ should not have run it without a full disclosure.

And Russo was ill served in his lawsuit by not fishing around more and finding at least some of this stuff out.

When you post this, you should draw up a little tree to diagram all the relationships and titles between the players, and who they worked for and with, like the CIA station in New Orleans and WDSU.

Also, that nice memo from Quaid to Helms. And also the fact that Clay Shaw's boss was on that CIA cleared panel too.

Let me know when you post it.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Yes, there is no way in the world Nick Lemann should have written that hatchet job without disclosing who he was. GQ should not have run it without a full disclosure.

And Russo was ill served in his lawsuit by not fishing around more and finding at least some of this stuff out.

When you post this, you should draw up a little tree to diagram all the relationships and titles between the players, and who they worked for and with, like the CIA station in New Orleans and WDSU.

Also, that nice memo from Quaid to Helms. And also the fact that Clay Shaw's boss was on that CIA cleared panel too.

Let me know when you post it.

Jim,
What I find troubling is that no one disclosed anything related to this, and I find it hard to believe author Carpenter just did not understand what he was presenting. He deserves recognition for putting it
out there, at all. No one wants to know this. It does not make sense, unless we are looking at what amounts to a stage play in which everyone was reciting their parts. This is the day after Shaw's
arrest, so he was the first batter up who did not take a swing at this ball. Why was William R Martin silent for the rest of his life? Oser knew some of it, his memo to Garrison was dated May 5, although in Weisberg's archive,
the portion with the description of the Lemanns is undated, unsourced, and in the Reissman file.:
[URL="http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-852016"]http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-852016

[/URL]Peter Vea's index also includes the CIA background details on David Baldwin.

Jules Raburn Monroe was the son of Monte Lemann's law partner, Jules Blanc Monroe. Monte Lemann died in Sept., 1959, and when Jules Raburn Monroe died in April, 1961, he is described as senior partner at Monroe Lemann.
Jules Raburn was Princeton '29, and so was Edwin "Squirrel" Maurice Ashcraft III, chief of domestic contacts from the inception of CIA until 1966.

Carpenter writes that David Baldwin's March 2, 1967 letter to Shaw, in the donated Clay Shaw Papers at NARA, says that Baldwin's godchild and first cousin is married to Garrison.:
I posted crops of screen shots from Amazon.com, you can find the pages available there, click on the "look inside" icon above the book jacket image.: Link
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review...ent-856847

The closest Garrison ever wrote about this that I can find, is his description of Stephen B Lemann, without naming him, in the last page of his June 18, 1967 complaint letter to the FCC.:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/commen...ent-851707



...and here is Nicholas's (writer of the Jan. 1992 GQ magazine "hit piece" against Garrison) father.:

Jim,
I gather you've lost interest in this presentation, or you're too busy attending to the further discrediting of the irrelevant, elderly Fetzer.

I commented on this same subject matter in a recent thread about Joan Mellen's research and authorship.:

Quote:https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post107118

........
From Donald H Carpenter's 2013 book, March 2, 1967 letter, David Baldwin to Clay Shaw.:

Quote: Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin....
(Link to supporting footnote)

Quote:….Garrison included in his six page complaint letter to the FCC chairman, published in
the June 18 Times-Picayune;
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?...d=176&tab=page
2of2 Garrison 06/67 letter to FCC comm. Rosel H. Hyde
(Top of right side column)
…It should be added that the last described endeavor has been accomplished not by members of the station (WDSU) itself, but by an attorney closely connected with the station who has previously been known to disperse funds in the New Orleans area in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency….

I do not know what to make of you, lately. I looked to you initially, in this thread, to assist in analyzing the new information I was finding that conflict with the existing and long held consensus.

BTW, I am the sole unique source of the research that influenced John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove to submit this "revision" to you, or to your webmaster, and as you can see, it is published on your site, attributed to the "work" of John Armstrong.:
http://www.ctka.net/2016/ArmstrongMailOr...rders.html



Kindly take it down, the portion of the page in the screenshot above consists entirely of two images I selected and presented, and my exact, unique
research details in the text directly above and below the two images. First I was ignored, then attempts were made to discredit both me and my research details, and then my unique research was appropriated and credited to the individual I proved was presenting inaccurate conclusions.

Left positioned image displayed in screenshot above - see left positioned thumbnail image at bottom of my November 11, 2015 post at this link.:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post104479

Right positioned image displayed in screenshot above - see first image in my article dated November 10, 2015, revised November 19, 2015:
http://jfk.education/node/11

You are a researcher and an author, Jim. Display some empathy, please, regardless of your personal opinion.

Tom:

You told me you were going to post this at JFK Facts. I told you I would comment on it there once it was posted. But you would have to alert me.

Because I only browse there irregularly. I consider it something of a food fight pen, what with McAdams (the cyber terrorist), Paul May, who lies under the name photon, and Jean Davison, who wrote one of the very worst books ever on Oswald. Understandably, not a favorite place of mine.

You never got back to me.

I told you I thought the stuff about the Lemann family was good. The other angle I think you are trying to insinuate about--the Baldwin/ Elizabeth Garrison stuff--I don't see the point of.

So as soon as you post it, and alert me, I will go ahead and grit my teeth and enter the mud wrestling arena.

BTW, the insinuation that I am idling my time away in retirement is wrong.

Right now I am working on two new essays.

One for Bob Parry's wonderful site Consortium News, on Jane Mayer's new book Dark Money.

The other is for CTKA, a review of Jeff Caufield's book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy. This thing is almost 800 pages of text. I have been going down to my favorite breakast place each day and reading it five hours a day. Which is not easy since, to put it mildly, its not a very good book.

But Tom, once you give me notice I will over there at JFK Facts to post my comment.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Tom:

You told me you were going to post this at JFK Facts. I told you I would comment on it there once it was posted. But you would have to alert me.

Because I only browse there irregularly. I consider it something of a food fight pen, what with McAdams (the cyber terrorist), Paul May, who lies under the name photon, and Jean Davison, who wrote one of the very worst books ever on Oswald. Understandably, not a favorite place of mine.

You never got back to me.

I told you I thought the stuff about the Lemann family was good. The other angle I think you are trying to insinuate about--the Baldwin/ Elizabeth Garrison stuff--I don't see the point of.

So as soon as you post it, and alert me, I will go ahead and grit my teeth and enter the mud wrestling arena.

Tom Scully Wrote:Jim,

.........I notice you briefly had it out with McAdams in 2014, partially about this, but while the Comment of the week I chose for last week is still on the front page, and Jeff Morley's court ruling announcement of last Thursday is fresh and certainly not unrelated to what we are discussing here, I'm hoping you can comment on the thread ( http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/co...f-the-week-13/ ) and then after I see (and quickly approve) your comment, follow the thread and read what I intend to present there, and your reaction to it...

Quote:....I don't see the point of.

The point is obvious, nothing is as it seems. Garrison was either gagged, or complicit in an impressively elaborate charade, or ???????????

Nicholas Lemann was a zealot, from quite a young age. What emboldened him, who directed him?

Quote:http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2...ll-of-big/ The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.

Politics

By Nicholas Lemann, February 6, 1974


ONE OF THE OLDEST saws about Southern politics runs something like this: If only a politician in the South could run with the united support of blacks and blue-collar whites, he would be unbeatable. And since he wouldn't be tied to the rich whites who control the South, he could really change things. Only a very few Southern politicians have been able to put together this mythical coalition, but Jim Garrison, the six-and-a-half foot tall New Orleans district attorney who lost his third reelection campaign in December, remained politically powerful in New Orleans for years with a loyal black and blue-collar white constituency.
But because his career has been so bizarre, it's not likely that anyone will ever herald Garrison as a champion of New South politics. Garrison became the district attorney in New Orleans in 1962, winning a surprise victory over an entrenched, conservative incumbent. He spent his first term cleaning up prostitution and gambling in the French Quarter and getting in fights with criminal court judges, and he was reelected to a second term in 1965 by a wide margin.
Some time in the first year of his second term--no one is sure exactly when--Garrison became convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had not assassinated President Kennedy on his own. Garrison decided that Oswald was just the pawn of an elaborate conspiracy run by the Pentagon and the CIA, based largely in New Orleans.
In the middle of 1967 the New Orleans newspapers figured out that Garrison was spending almost all his time investigating the assassination, and he became a national figure overnight, the golden boy of the conspiracy buffs. A few months later, Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, a quiet, wealthy New Orleans businessman, in connection with the conspiracy, and once that happened his troubles began.
It was clear from the beginning that Shaw was innocent. Garrison's star witnesses were a heroin addict who claimed he saw Shaw and Oswald together once when he was shooting up at the lakefront; a businessman who remembered the details of conversations with Shaw after Garrison's staff hypnotized him; and an accountant who fingerprinted his children every morning to make sure the CIA hadn't stolen them during the night and substituted lookalikes to spy on him. The national and local press gave the trial heavy coverage. Garrison lost and came out looking like a fool.
A few months later, Garrison ran for reelection again and won by a landslide, beating a bland liberal named Harry Connick. The two New Orleans dailies had blasted Garrison almost daily on their editorial pages, and few major political groups had endorsed him. Garrison hardly campaigned at all; he spent almost all his money on three enormously effective 15-minute T.V. spots the night before the election. He was an awesome figure on T.V. He wore a black suit and sat in a black chair in a room with black walls, so that his face seemed to hover in mid-screen, and delivered his pitch in a deep, smoke-cured voice. At the end of each spot he would bring on his family and then dismiss his wife and daughters and fondly drape an arm around each of his two sons.
"Boys," Garrison would say, "do you want to grow up to be president?"
The boys would fudge a while and Garrison would say, see, American kids can't dream of being president any more because they're afraid they'll be assassinated. The point was that Garrison was working toward an America where kids wouldn't have that fear.
IN HIS THIRD term, Garrison did little work on the conspiracy investigation and was in fact out of the limelight for a couple of years--until last summer, when he went on trial for bribery. The federal attorneys seemed to have an open-and-shut case against Garrison, because they had tape recordings of him accepting bribes. But they had underestimated their quarry. Midway through the trial, Garrison--who would sit in court all day reading The Best and the Brightest and underlining his favorite passages--fired his lawyers and took over his own defense. He completely bowled over the jury, and was acquitted.
Meanwhile, Harry Connick had been biding his time, waiting for another shot at Garrison. He ran again against Garrison last fall, and won by about 2000 votes with a big law-and-order campaign. Garrison spent most of December and January challenging the election results in court, but finally gave up the ghost three weeks ago, his career in New Orleans politics apparently over.
Garrison didn't get many affectionate postmortems. By the time he lost the Shaw case, he was a genuine pariah, the only major political figure in New Orleans that the establishment press felt safe attacking. Garrison eventually became something of a safety valve for other politicians--the media would spill all their venom on him and by and large leave other politicians alone. In the same way, nobody really questioned Harry Connick's fervid law-and-order stance, reasoning that as long as he was against Garrison he deserved unified support.
This is not to say that Garrison is a good man. For at least his last six years in office, he was a negligent district attorney, and his indictment of Clay Shaw was totally unjustified. But his unique bi-racial constituency, though helpful in winning elections, lost Garrison the backing of the daily press and major financial institutions. Because of this he ended up absorbing some of the criticism other politicians should have gotten. The main drawback, in fact, of the black-blue-collar-white dream coalition is that it will always face a hostile establishment. The only other politician in New Orleans whose constituency roughly approaches Garrison's, a councilman named Eddie Sapir, is another favorite target of the daily New Orleans press.
Garrison never stated very clearly the conspiracy theory he spent so much time investigating. After he lost the Shaw case, he wrote a book, A Heritage of Stone, about the Warren Report and the CIA's involvement in the assassination, but a cohesive theory never emerges--probably because Garrison wanted to avoid libel suits and couldn't get access to the secret files he needed to prove his case. The book ends up saying that the CIA and the Pentagon wanted Kennedy out because he was trying to bring peace to Southeast Asia. They formed a conspiracy--Garrison hinted that Lyndon Johnson was part of it--to kill Kennedy so they could go on escalating the war and building up a military state.
A Heritage of Stone is full of statements that sound very attractive right now; "Why was the government lying to the people?"; "No one wants to recognize that somewhere along the line America has ceased to be the home of the brave and the land of the free."; "When a powerful government takes a stand against the truth, other elements of the power structure may join in the defense against the common enemy." The real theme that emerges among all the conspiracy theories is a deep mistrust of strong, centralized federal government.
In that sense Garrison is the descendent of a long line of Southern political feeling. Despite his sober black suits, his erudition and his conspiracy mania, he is appealing, like generations of Southern politicians before him, to Southerners's fear of being controlled by a hostile, unsympathetic, and still foreign Northern nation.

Quote:The source you were given, (in a recent Ed Forum reply to you) re: list of unreleased NARA documents is apathetic, despite admitting that his list is incomplete.:

I'm speechless... ::face.palm::