Clay Shaw

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

Dawn - I agree.

The interpretations of the author of the original article which I've highlighted in bold in the extract above, strike me as a massive leap and unwarranted.

Apart from this, as all have commented, the piece is welcome.

I totally agree. And I do not think Garrison ever called his investigation "a thrill kill", sexually or otherwise. Like all legal cases you take your witness as you find them. Clay Shaw lead a double life and used his alter ego name to separate the gay S/M aspect of his life from the "respected businessman" (flase) image. Garrison did not choose these people. I think it is fair to examine the New Orleans evidence in a manner that delves into the deep dark antics that defines the gay S/M subculture. But do we learn anything from going there? Anything to further the goal of exposing the killers, or the why the assassination ? Very little.

As an aside I found the sex talk and agenda in Joan Mellen's book on Garrison in total bad taste and gretly detracted from what was to be the definitive book on Garrison and his investigation. Both examples are without merit and unwarranted.

The only person I can imagine who would disagree is sex-obsessed Robert Morrow.

Dawn