JVB vs Scott Kaiser

[Jim DiEugenio]

Why would anyone use Dave Reitzes as a source to 1.) Defend Clay Shaw and 2.) Prop up Judy Baker?

I mean, further, why would anyone use Reitzes as a source on anything dealing with Jim Garrison and the JFK case?

But if one is going to do so, to be consistent, then one should also link to Dave's demolition job on Baker:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

I would not use Reitzes myself. And when Baker and Fetzer were being shredded daily at Spartacus, I frowned on Lifton using Reitzes as a source.

The only thing I can see at work here is the old adage, the enemy of mine enemy if my friend. That is, if Reitzes somehow backs Baker, then that is cool.

The problem is, its not. And its not kosher either. Why? Because both persons have an agenda a mile wide. Reitzes' is to destroy Garrison and exonerate Clay Shaw. Baker's team--Schackleford, Platzman, Baker etc. is to find any possible opening to insert her into the Oswald story. Their trick on this incident was the older car with the bassinet story, which as I said, Garrison ended up discarding. He originally thought that the car belonged to Kerry Thornley, and the bassinet may have been June Hack's, his girlfriend at the time. But this was very early in the inquiry. Before all the strong evidence came in about the black Cadillac and Clay Shaw himself. How strong was it? How about Henry B. Clark's identification of a tall man, well dressed, , way above six feet. Clark later ID's Clay Shaw as this man. Then there was Sheriff Manchester, who asked for ID and the ID said the man's name was Clay Shaw. When he asked him where he worked, he said the ITM. It does not get any better than that does it? (Davy, pgs 104-06)

So what would Shaw be doing in an old rundown jalopy? Which everyone else ID's as a black Cadillac, like the one his friend Jeff Biddison owned? Because he wasn't driving such a vehicle.

When we get away from the Reitzes agenda, and to a much more balanced analysis, like in Bill Davy's fine book, "Let Justice be Done" we understand the whole bassinet story as a diversion and a mistake. See, McGehee never got a clear look at the car. Either when it pulled up or when it left. This is important. But he did hear a car leave and get a very, very short glimpse of it. Like Garrison, the barber came to believe that the bassinet car was completely irrelevant to the case and was associated with the laundromat down the street. He said this himself to author Bill Davy. He did hear a car leave, but it was in the other direction.

As per Van Morgan, he was the kid playing outside in the front lawn when the car drove up. He would clearly have the best look at it. The driver was a man with a shock of white hair. When the car left, Van asked his father if the governor had been there. Reeves Morgan asked why he would ask that? Van said because only the governor would come to their house in a black Cadillac. (Davy, p. 117)

So contrary to Reitzes, the raw data does not support Shaw's absence. And it does not support Baker's tall tales.

I credit Scott for doing what he did.

This will be my last post in this thread. I feel about this as Mark Lane did about the Warren Report, to debate Judy Baker demeans the people who support her as much as it does the people who disown her. Or as Carol Hewett said to me, "Jim, Judy Baker is not worth this conversation."

Good Bye.