Clay Shaw

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter - thank you for posting this article.

Clay ""Le/La Vergne" Shaw's literary offerings are fascinating, revealing, and provocative.

Like his dramatic alter ego Shaw, Clay Shaw was sacrificed, this time by the CIA, who felt that Americans were no longer buying the "lone-nut assassin" narrative. Shaw was to be a "limited hang out," a sacrificial lamb to attract attention away from CIA complicity. They knew that Garrison would not be able to prove Shaw's CIA involvement with the evidence to which he had access. In light of this sacrifice of Shaw, it is fascinating that when Shaw was asked before and during the trial, "how do you feel," Shaw repeatedly, to the point where Kirkwood says he could reply for Shaw, smiles and declares, "I feel like a spring lamb," (100, 101). Kirkwood, though a great storyteller, (see his novels P.S. Your Cat is Dead and There Must Be A Pony!) did not possess a particularly analytic mind, and never comprehended the significance of this repeated remark, which Shaw wanted to be recorded in the press and in Kirkwood's book. Here Shaw reveals his gift for symbolism and allusion. A "spring lamb" is a young suckling lamb, and while the expression "to feel like a spring lamb" connotes feeling energetic, with Shaw's literary mind and facility with symbolism, other layers reveal themselves. First, it also suggests that he is as innocent as a white, pure lamb. But "Spring lamb" also connotes "sacrificial lamb," a scapegoat. A sacrificial lamb is killed for the good of the rest of the social unit, who remain pure or are purified by the blood sacrifice. Clay Shaw knows he is being made a sacrifice by the CIA, and what's more, on some level, like his character "Shaw" in Submerged, something deep within him welcomes it, is excited by it. Shaw's repeated remark amounts to communicating to insiders that he is being sacrificed.

The silence of the sacrificed lamb....

Meanwhile, although the article is generally very good, the psycho-sexual, S&M interpretation below of Garrison feels strained.

So both Shaw and Garrison were on one level hoping for the guilty verdict, with Shaw subconsciously desiring to be that sacrificial "Spring lamb," a masochistic martyr like his character Shaw. On the other hand Garrison was consciously hoping for a guilty ruling to further debunk the Warren Report's conclusion that Oswald was a "lone-nut" assassin. But on another level they both wanted the "not guilty" ruling that was handed downShaw, consciously, for obvious reasons and Garrison, perhaps only subconsciously, due to his lack of unequivocal evidence that would clarify the extent of Shaw's involvement in the conspiracy. With the unavailability of slam-dunk evidence in Garrison's case and doubts about Perry Russo's and oddball Charles Spiesel's testimony, Garrison probably knew that it was unlikely that Shaw would be found guilty, yet he needed to expose the Warren Report and screen, for the first time, the Zapruder film in a public forum. Certainly a guilty verdict would strengthen the public's belief in conspiracy. Both Garrison and Shaw realized that a guilty verdict, though unlikely, was possible, adding to the high-stakes S/M thrill of the case, that could actually lead to the M's eventual death if things got out of hand. Shaw was found not guilty, but according to Shaw his finances were depleted by legal costs and he had to go back to work (restoring and selling houses in the French Quarter) rather than pursue his desire to renew his writing.

What do the experts think?

I cannot speak for Garrison but no DA takes a case to trial either consciously or subconsciously wanting a not guilty verdict. Garrison got screwed by the people who would not honor his extradition orders, the CIA spies in his office and the FBI tapping his phones. Witnesses suddenly dying. The judge not allowing the testimony to show that Shaw had used the alias Bertrand, thereby impeaching Shaw who lied about this. In short Garrison got screwed all around but the jury still found for conspiracy while aquitting Shaw. He is still after forty seven long years the only DA with the balls to at least try to obtain justice for JFK and the country.

I was fortunate enough to meet him in the mid 70's. He will be forever my hero. He looked evil in the eye and did not flinch. So much more has come out about Shaw in the years since. I think had Ferrie not been murdered Garrison would have gotton a conviction.
Dawn

Dawn, I agree. Garrison didn't get his conviction because his office was half spies feeding his case to the CIA and other side, as well as doing a good job of leading him down blind alleys and other dirty tricks. Of course they killed Ferrie and a few others to degrade his chances. My own feeling is that Shaw/Bertand was not central to the assassination, although he knew who was. He was central in setting Lee up at one point and was in with one of the hydra heads that formed the assassination cabal by the end. Knowing who he knew and why the CIA had such an interest in Garrison getting nowhere fast would have could have led to several of the other hydra heads, IMO. Yes, Garrison deserves much more respect than he gets, even from the JFK Assassination research community.