09-12-2018, 12:09 AM
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/776
And that is not all. Carpenter ignores the cover up within the CIA about Shaw's contract agent status. That cover up was ongoing into the nineties. In fact, the ARRB discovered that it was so deep that the CIA destroyed Shaw's 201 file. (ARRB memo from Legaspi to Gunn, 11/14/96) This was all begun by design in the summer of 1964, and I have this through a letter that Gordon Novel wrote after the Garrison investigation, namely that the CIA Office of Security ordered a cover up about Shaw's true Agency status a that time. Why? And why did it never end?
Why did Shaw lie about knowing Ferrie, Oswald, or being in Clinton/Jackson, and using the Bertrand alias? To quote the late attorney Allard Lowenstein, "In my experience, people with noting to hide don't hide things."
In my view, there are not a lot of people who you can make a better case against today for complicity in the JFK case than you can with Clay Shaw.
The other point you once brought up, which I assume you also got from Carpenter, since I never heard you express it before, is just as ersatz. That somehow Garrison's inquiry did not cost him anything. Again, please.
In 1966, Jim Garrison was ascending very fast to becoming one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the state. He had made headlines--some national-- with his crusade against B girl drinking in New Orleans. He had gotten Governor John McKeithen elected, even though he was a second tier candidate. He confided to a pal at this time that the only other job he really aspired to besides being DA was senator. It was his JFK inquiry that cost him both of those jobs. When someone blows his career ambitions over a case, then how can anyone say that he did not lose anything?
But it was worse than that. When Connick put together a huge campaign war chest to defeat Garrison in 1973, Garrison had just been through two criminal trials on corruption charges. I can tell you right now that neither of those cases would have ever been brought if not for Garrison's investigation of JFK. So in addition to losing two careers, he almost went to jail. But there is actually more. Once Connick defeated him, and because the power elite in New Orleans had now disdained him, Garrison did not get any job offers, as he had been able to do before the JFK case. People who talked to him at this time said he was renting a small office from a larger law firm. They said he was personally kind of bitter about the whole thing. Does Carpenter say this was all an act? Including the two trials?
But there is still more. See, Connick, who worked for the Justice Department to defend Shaw, ended up being an absolutely terrible DA. One of the worst in the nation. He was so bad that he was actually singled out from the Supreme Court twice for malpractice. When i asked John Volz, who worked for both men, to compare the two he said there was none. Connick was a disaster as DA. So it was not just a cost to JG but also the city of New Orleans and also the people who Connick used every unethical track with in order to get a conviction. Look it all up if you don't believe me.
So just what in Hades is Carpenter talking about? As I said, a friend of mine told me that he knew what Carpenter's agenda was from meeting him just once. We don't need any of that anymore in this case. That kind of cover up crap has wielded a lot of damage.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/776
And that is not all. Carpenter ignores the cover up within the CIA about Shaw's contract agent status. That cover up was ongoing into the nineties. In fact, the ARRB discovered that it was so deep that the CIA destroyed Shaw's 201 file. (ARRB memo from Legaspi to Gunn, 11/14/96) This was all begun by design in the summer of 1964, and I have this through a letter that Gordon Novel wrote after the Garrison investigation, namely that the CIA Office of Security ordered a cover up about Shaw's true Agency status a that time. Why? And why did it never end?
Why did Shaw lie about knowing Ferrie, Oswald, or being in Clinton/Jackson, and using the Bertrand alias? To quote the late attorney Allard Lowenstein, "In my experience, people with noting to hide don't hide things."
In my view, there are not a lot of people who you can make a better case against today for complicity in the JFK case than you can with Clay Shaw.
The other point you once brought up, which I assume you also got from Carpenter, since I never heard you express it before, is just as ersatz. That somehow Garrison's inquiry did not cost him anything. Again, please.
In 1966, Jim Garrison was ascending very fast to becoming one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the state. He had made headlines--some national-- with his crusade against B girl drinking in New Orleans. He had gotten Governor John McKeithen elected, even though he was a second tier candidate. He confided to a pal at this time that the only other job he really aspired to besides being DA was senator. It was his JFK inquiry that cost him both of those jobs. When someone blows his career ambitions over a case, then how can anyone say that he did not lose anything?
But it was worse than that. When Connick put together a huge campaign war chest to defeat Garrison in 1973, Garrison had just been through two criminal trials on corruption charges. I can tell you right now that neither of those cases would have ever been brought if not for Garrison's investigation of JFK. So in addition to losing two careers, he almost went to jail. But there is actually more. Once Connick defeated him, and because the power elite in New Orleans had now disdained him, Garrison did not get any job offers, as he had been able to do before the JFK case. People who talked to him at this time said he was renting a small office from a larger law firm. They said he was personally kind of bitter about the whole thing. Does Carpenter say this was all an act? Including the two trials?
But there is still more. See, Connick, who worked for the Justice Department to defend Shaw, ended up being an absolutely terrible DA. One of the worst in the nation. He was so bad that he was actually singled out from the Supreme Court twice for malpractice. When i asked John Volz, who worked for both men, to compare the two he said there was none. Connick was a disaster as DA. So it was not just a cost to JG but also the city of New Orleans and also the people who Connick used every unethical track with in order to get a conviction. Look it all up if you don't believe me.
So just what in Hades is Carpenter talking about? As I said, a friend of mine told me that he knew what Carpenter's agenda was from meeting him just once. We don't need any of that anymore in this case. That kind of cover up crap has wielded a lot of damage.