05-01-2014, 04:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2014, 09:02 AM by Marc Ellis.)
Good points everybody - especially the OP - about Andrews.
Clinton has never made any sense to me in the context of the assassination. I think it was a Banister sideline project. That makes sense. It's exactly the sort of thing Banister would be doing - fabricating a link between Cuba, Russia and CORE via Oswald. I think I agree with Tracy on that. Registering to vote and getting a job at the hospital would have been a good ruse to get involved with the CORE people, only to be deliberately exposed later as a Soviet/Cuban agent by Banister in his La. Intel. Report or in some other publication.
Shaw? I think he was probably a French Quarter dilettante who dabbled in the right-wing, anti-Castro movements - perhaps partly to pick up young men. He was quite likely a CIA source because of his ITM dealings and frequent travels abroad. But I don't think he loomed large in the assassination plot. It wasn't his nature. He had very little to offer the assassins.
I think Oliver Stone's movie has Shaw about right. In the film, Garrison admitted he didn't have much of a case against Shaw to 'X'. But he was told had to go through with it. He was after bigger game than Clay Shaw and Dean Andrews. For one thing, Garrison might have been one of those who died an early death if he didn't put Shaw on trial.
The OP has made me reconsider Dean Andrews' importance though.
Clinton has never made any sense to me in the context of the assassination. I think it was a Banister sideline project. That makes sense. It's exactly the sort of thing Banister would be doing - fabricating a link between Cuba, Russia and CORE via Oswald. I think I agree with Tracy on that. Registering to vote and getting a job at the hospital would have been a good ruse to get involved with the CORE people, only to be deliberately exposed later as a Soviet/Cuban agent by Banister in his La. Intel. Report or in some other publication.
Shaw? I think he was probably a French Quarter dilettante who dabbled in the right-wing, anti-Castro movements - perhaps partly to pick up young men. He was quite likely a CIA source because of his ITM dealings and frequent travels abroad. But I don't think he loomed large in the assassination plot. It wasn't his nature. He had very little to offer the assassins.
I think Oliver Stone's movie has Shaw about right. In the film, Garrison admitted he didn't have much of a case against Shaw to 'X'. But he was told had to go through with it. He was after bigger game than Clay Shaw and Dean Andrews. For one thing, Garrison might have been one of those who died an early death if he didn't put Shaw on trial.
The OP has made me reconsider Dean Andrews' importance though.