Beckham deposition Orleans parish

[Scott Kaiser]

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/ga...eckham.pdf

[Albert Doyle]

Good stuff in there about Banister, Ferrie, and Jack Martin all being networked. Beckham took the fifth when he was asked if Banister discussed CIA business with him.

[Lauren Johnson]

And he was one of several Wandering Bishops, that Jack Martin had arranged.

His PhD was an "award." What an ignorant man.

[Scott Kaiser]

I just love the line of questioning, if at first you don't succeed try, try again. You told us that you were in Dallas in '68, you did not tell Crisman that you told us you were in Dallas in '63, did you?

Did you go there or get it in the mail? No, not in the mail. I got it through a minister of the church which is Dr. Crisman. Dr. Crisman obtained it for you? Yes sir. Is he in that same church? Yes, he is Bishop for the State of Washington. For the Universal Life Church? Right. Have you ever been to the Post Office Building at Lafayette Square? Here? Yes. Yes. Have you ever been there in 1962 or 1963? I think those years I had a post office box there. Did you ever have occasion to go in the office of Guy Banister on Lafayette St, across the street? Yes, a lot of times. Would you tell us why you went there a lot of times? Tagged along with Jack Martin.Did you ever go there without Jack Martin?

I wonder, now, how many bad guys tried becoming priests or head of church, didn't Sturgis also try and become a priest once, could it be so they could claim all their stolen items as "gifts", and "tax free". Things that make you go Hmmmm?

Oh yes. On what occasions did you go there without Jack Martin? Going in to talk to Guy, friendly visit, dropping in, using it as a hangout. You know that Guy was the former head of the Chicago office of the FBI? Are you aware of that? I don't know - he was a former FBI . . . . Are you aware of the fact that in -1962 or 63 he was doing work for the Central Intelligence Agency for the U. S. Government?

No, I don't. What did you talk to him about? I just went in and talked to the man on different occasions. About what? What did you talk about? Can I say something and not make you mad now? Do I have to bring up everything I had to say to him? I mean for the whole conversation? Just answer my question, what did you talk to him about? Different things. Friendly visits, talking about Mr. Martin . . . Did you ever talk to him about anything connected with the Central Intelligence Agency? I rather stand on the Fifth Amendment on that one.

Is it your position that if you answer that question it will incriminate you? I think so, yes sir. (That's a pretty easy question with a very direct answer wouldn't you say?)

Now did you understand the last question addressed to you by Mr. Garrison? No. MR. GARRISON: (to stenographer) Will you read the last question to him again. Did you talk to Mr. Banister about anything connected with the Central Intelligence Agency? Not that I personally know of. In that event, why did you take the Fifth Amendment a few minutes ago? Because I did not understand the question. Bullshit! Sorry folks I sneezed. I suppose, I would have liked to seen Mr. Garrison press him on "why" he didn't understand the question, or what part of the question he didn't understand. I'm sure he would have had an interesting answer.

Boy, and this piece offering crap is hard to believe, I really wish the CIA would get their stories straight!

He should have just come out and said, yeah Guy paid me! Rather than this piece offering bullshit I mean, was he a (sub-contractor) or something, sounds like it.

Why else would anyone pay you for piece work?

[Scott Kaiser]

A few changes, typos and errors that needed to be corrected, still a little to early in the morning for me. Sorry folks.

[Lauren Johnson]

Boy, and this piece offering crap is hard to believe, I really wish the CIA would get their stories straight!

Later on, piece offering is call piece mill which is really piecemeal which is payment in kind for a rendered service. But no it's just a piece offering.

The wandering bishops have turned up here at DPF several times, and are given lots of time in Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces (vol.1), which is highly regarded by many here at DPF.

[Scott Kaiser]

Boy, and this piece offering crap is hard to believe, I really wish the CIA would get their stories straight!

Later on, piece offering is call piece mill which is really piecemeal which is payment in kind for a rendered service. But no it's just a piece offering.

The wandering bishops have turned up here at DPF several times, and are given lots of time in Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces (vol.1), which is highly regarded by many here at DPF.

Very interesting indeed, thanks for the follow up. I heard that Frank Sturgis also wanted to be a priest at one time, really not sure if he was ever "ordain" as one, but could you imagine what his sermons would have been like?

Please stand as we pray, Father, thank you for the Ak-47's, M-1's and grenades you've supplied for us, may we get away with assassinating Castro as we did with JFK amen.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post17471

[Magda Hassan]

Beckham is a most intriguing character. Joan Mellen has covered him a bit in 'A Farewell to Justice'.

[Albert Doyle]

I think from his testimony Beckham is well aware of the game that is being played and his expected role.

[Drew Phipps]

I think if Beckham was the high water mark of Garrison's case, he should have been laughed out of the courtroom. The guy is a fruit loop. And I don't mean any sort of sexual connotation by that remark. He's just plain nuts. Been treated in a mental institution (prior to being involved with Garrison), can't answer a simple question, and ordained minister by mail, a paraphychologist PHD, a Doctor of Divinity by mail in some fly by night religion... Sure answers questions and tells narratives like a schizophrenic or bipolar with the pressured speech.

I wouldn't read anything into this guy's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, except he was trying some psycho maneuver to 'outplay" the questioner. He answered the same questions later and said nothing of any value.

If this guy was the dude that Garrison counted on proving that Clay Shaw was "Clay Bertram" then Garrison was deluded. Even if someone nefarious was dropping disinformation and phony affidavits to this guy he should have been ignored by anyone serious about answers.