Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 9:23 am

1. "I have been invited to the Roxie Theater in San Francisco...and explain what Oliver Stone got right and wrong in his monumental film, "JFK". Most of the film is right..." (James Fetzer)

Incorrect, most of the film is speculation, because it is a film. It is not a primary source and it gets more wrong than right, contrary to Fetzer's opinions. This is not a problem because as a dramatization it is fictional, not a documentary. Yet those trying to legitimize its contentions ignore the many unproven claims in the film.While official agencies did harass and attempt to influence Jim Garrison's case, his evidence was not sufficient to convict Clay Shaw. The Shaw case fell apart; the New Orleans Oswald connections went unverified. These claims do not substantiate the possibility of assassination conspiracy. However, other evidence is far more compelling. Some primary official evidence in my view is also required to confirm Fetzer's claims.

2. "But Oliver Stone had three rather important points wrong, which were that he believed...there were only three teams of shooters, when there were actually six, surrounding the "kill zone" and...." (James Fetzer)

To call this impossible is not strong enough. No group of witnesses in official documents and most independent studies would or could support this claim. Of those witnesses the Commission actually questioned, none substantiated shots from the Daltex building or any but two locations. Repeated evidence affirms gunshots heard near the Texas Schoolbook Depository and the Grassy Knoll. A few of the hundreds of witnesses present would likely have observed six armed groups. Just attempting a two team assassination and escape would be complex and difficult enough. To orchestrate 1 to 4 additional teams is nearly impossible, and has no large amount of evidence supporting it. These unsubstantiated claims cloud the waters for those seeking unbiased evidence. Some on both sides of the debate merely seek to speculate and then demand you regard such theories as the truth.

3. "He (Stone) did not know that the alleged assassin was "out with Bill Shelley in front", as Lee explained to Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation, which means there is direct proof of his innocence beyond the circumstantial. (James Fetzer)

This again is a speculation based on a single witness; it precludes Oswald from being motivated to move his location in the building. Neither Fetzer's photographic contentions, nor assessment of a few witnesses and the suspect, prove anything conclusively. That Oswald is guilty of firing the killing shots at President Kennedy remains contended. Yet Oswald's complete innocence does not reflect the evidence. He is connected; his links to meeting the FBI and CIA are on the public record. It cannot be both ways; if he was connected, he is not utterly innocent.

Whether Oswald was a dupe or assassin is the enduring debate. As dupe he is innocent of the President's murder, as Assassin he deserved his eventual fate. However, in my view reasonable doubt exists for him. I support that it was not just Oswald based on evidence, for instance his lack of regular practice cited in the President's (Warren) Commission:

"During one of his leaves from the Marines, Oswald hunted with his brother Robert, using a .22 caliber bolt-action rifle belonging either to Robert or Robert's in-laws." "After he left the Marines and before departing for Russia, Oswald, his brother, and a third companion went hunting for squirrels and rabbits. On that occasion Oswald again used a bolt-action .22 caliber rifle; and according to Robert, Lee Oswald exhibited an average amount of proficiency with that weapon." "While in Russia, Oswald obtained a hunting license, joined a hunting club and went hunting about six times, as discussed more fully in chapter VI." "Soon after Oswald returned from the Soviet Union he again went hunting with his brother, Robert, and used a borrowed .22 caliber bolt-action rifle. After Oswald purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, he told his wife that he practiced with it." "Marina Oswald testified that on one occasion she saw him take the rifle, concealed in a raincoat, from the house on Neely Street. Oswald told her he was going to practice with it." "According to George De Mohrenschildt, Oswald said that he went target shooting with that rifle" "Marina Oswald testified that in New Orleans in May of 1963, she observed Oswald sitting with the rifle on their screened porch at night, sighting with the telescopic lens and operating the bolt." "Examination of the cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Depository" i

The Presidents (Warren) Commission also stated: "For 10 days prior to the eve of the assassination Oswald had not been present at Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Tex., where the rifle was kept. Moreover, the Commission found no reliable evidence that Oswald used the rifle at any time between September 23, when it was transported from New Orleans, and November 22, the day of the assassination. The fact that on the morning of the assassination Oswald was wearing the shirt from which these relatively fresh fibers most probably originated, provides some evidence that they were placed on the rifle that day since there was limited, if any, opportunity for Oswald to handle the weapon during the 2 months prior to November 22." ii
He officially practiced 9 times outside the military. Evidence supports that Oswald practiced a single time in the months before the assassination. The minimum requirement to hit a target successfully at a distance requires at least regular practice. So two months of no substantiated practice based on the official report. Yet this unpracticed official assassin still was able to fire with precision according to officials.

4. "But even serious students of the assassination still balk at the suggestion that Lee Oswald was out in front of the Book Depository with Bill Shelly and others, straining to catch a glimpse of JFK and Jackie--just like almost everyone else who worked there. We know from testimony by co-workers that he was in and around the lunchroom on the 2nd floor at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25, where the assassination took place at 12:30. He was then confronted by a motorcycle patrolman named "Marrion Baker" within 90 seconds of the shooting, where Baker held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor, came over to assure him that the man was an employee who belonged there. This should by now be well-known to every serious student of the death of JFK. " (James Fetzer)

Yes, anyone who seriously regards the matter should balk at such claims if unsupported by additional evidence. A more important item of actual evidence contends Fetzer's assertion: "The time actually required by Baker and Truly to reach the second floor on November 22 was probably longer than in the test runs..."." No allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of the assassination, possible delayed reaction...to the shot, jostling with the crowd of people". Officer Baker said "We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me longer."iii Oswald may have slightly more time. Verifiable evidence is required to prove a conspiracy, photographic verification by neutral experts is necessary. If evidence does not support it, the idea remains speculation. Could it be Oswald? I do not claim to be a photographic expert so I shall let the experts review the technical claims. I attempt to state only what I have evidence to support, and we all can be in error.

5. "Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting, because Bill Shelly had left immediately with Billy Lovelady and walked down to the railroad tracks to look around." (James Fetzer)

This again is speculation. Not all roads lead to the assumptions made and interpreting the words allows for misinterpretation. Instead of what they should have said or could have meant, it is always more credible to state the exact words. Commentary alone is not evidence.

6. "So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving... What could make more sense than that, when his co-workers were outside watching the motorcade of the two most famous people in the world, that Lee would not have joined them? It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz, moreover, not to have asked Lee Oswald" where he was at the time of the shooting--that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask." (James Fetzer)

This claim additionally disregards Oswald's connection to the death of President Kennedy in any manner. This is in my view remains unproven. Oswald is connected; he may have even fired a weapon or been a spotter for a practiced assassin. To claim he was not even in the building is unsupported by verified evidence. I agree with Fetzer that official mistakes and conflict of interest was rampant. Yet we cannot just mold the evidence to our preconceived notions, we must have a basis of primary evidence and build upon it. Much evidence comes from the original investigations and later declassified documentation. Using merely photographs with terms like the Door Man and expanding the thriving legends is not helpful. Doing so damages the credibility of those who attempt to use evidence and not speculate upon it.

7. "That led me (Jim Fetzer) to revisit the Doorman question, even though it had long been written off, not only by "lone-nutters" but by most conspiracy theorists." (James Fetzer)

I would also include myself among those who do not support Fetzer's contentions. However, I do not call those critical of me lone nutters. Nor do I appreciate being called a kook or conspiracy theorist. All those insults merely detract from the reasonable debate that can occur. Some in both groups seek self-affirmation more than actual solutions. No single piece of evidence is conclusive and everything requires supporting primary evidence.

8. "And that led to discussions with Dr. Ralph Cinque about the remarkable match in the clothing of Oswald and Doorman. The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never been seriously addressed before. When you compare the clothing of Lee Oswald and Doorman in detail, however, you realize it has to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man. The chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald that particular day, after all, is preposterous and has to have a probability of approximately zero." (James Fetzer)

People can dress in a similar and even identical manner without it proving a conspiracy. It does not have to be Oswald in the photo. This conclusive determination before repeated experts not aligned with Fetzer verify the item is not evidence. Further verification and testing is required before such a grand claim can be accurate. Which returns us to the article's title "...Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" Based on the offered ideas without substantiation, the article fails to prove its claims.

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

i. Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 4 the Assassin, Oswald's rifle Practice Outside the Marines, p.192

ii. Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 4 the Assassin, Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon p.125

iii Report of the President's Commission, Chapter 4, part 3, p.152

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 10:40 am

"Whether Oswald was a dupe or assassin is the enduring debate. As dupe he is innocent of the President's murder, as Assassin he deserved his eventual fate."

Really? Gunned down by a supposed vigilante? without a trial of any kind?

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 11:56 am

"Marina Oswald testified that in New Orleans in May of 1963, she observed Oswald sitting with the rifle on their screened porch at night, sighting with the telescopic lens and operating the bolt."

Carmine, whilst the above may be true... it is also true that Marina repeatedly contradicted her earlier statements on a range of matters and told at least one story that was virtually impossible for anyone to believe (holding Lee in the bathroom so he could not go and shoot Nixon).

It is also a fact that all of Lee's New Orleans neighbors were questioned by the FBI. It is clear from those reports that Oswald was very closely watched by his neighbors (the exact opposite of Dallas). To a person, they said they often saw him sitting on his verandah... reading, or pottering around the yard in a bathing suit, or spraying insect spray around the place.... not one said they they ever saw him with a weapon. On the basis of Marina's unreliability as a witness, and the statements of neighbors, I think it may be premature to concede this particular point.

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 12:25 pm

DWDunn,

I understand that might be an insensitive statement, yet I stand by my words. No matter who the assassin is, they derailed the United States from its normal historic path. They did not just merely kill one man, but destroyed generations. JFK's death allowed Johnson to expand the Vietnam War, it allowed men like McNamara to profit from American lives in my view. Consider the over 58,000 men and boys lost, then consider the mentally destroyed men who returned. Now think of their families. While I believe the possible conspirators are ultimately to blame, the assassin deserves nothing less than what he did to President Kennedy. I would have preferred a trial to avoid many unanswered questions, and always hope the law will be followed. However, in this instance I have no sympathy, nor will I pretend to. As I support the law, your correct a trial should have occurred. However, I see the far reaching affects of the assassin's actions. Thus, in my heart I must disagree.

Greg,
I agree. Marina is not a wholly credible witness. I would not state this is conclusive. I am just offering ideas based on the evidence I have reviewed. I am always willing to discuss and adjust my perspective based on new evidence and discussion.

Thanks to you both for the interest.

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 12:37 pm

greg parker wrote:

"Marina Oswald testified that in New Orleans in May of 1963, she observed Oswald sitting with the rifle on their screened porch at night, sighting with the telescopic lens and operating the bolt."

Carmine, whilst the above may be true... it is also true that Marina repeatedly contradicted her earlier statements on a range of matters and told at least one story that was virtually impossible for anyone to believe (holding Lee in the bathroom so he could not go and shoot Nixon).

It is also a fact that all of Lee's New Orleans neighbors were questioned by the FBI. It is clear from those reports that Oswald was very closely watched by his neighbors (the exact opposite of Dallas). To a person, they said they often saw him sitting on his verandah... reading, or pottering around the yard in a bathing suit, or spraying insect spray around the place.... not one said they they ever saw him with a weapon. On the basis of Marina's unreliability as a witness, and the statements of neighbors, I think it may be premature to concede this particular point.

I've always wondered how dry firing a rifle could be considered good practice for improving one's shooting abilities. This is like saying regular masturbation will improve one's skills as a lover. Smile

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 1:24 pm

I agree with the practice part at least. Very Happy

No amount of dry firing makes up for Oswald's lack of practice. I just could not ignore Fetzer stating it cannot be Oswald based on his claims. There are many good reasons why I would contend in a court of law Oswald had reasonable doubt. However, I would use evidence to support my claims not just speculate. Fetzer actually speculated that 6 shooter teams existed. This in my view is not supported by evidence. Two are possible based on evidence, any more creates a complexity that would compromise the entire plot. It is possible there were more than two, however it is highly improbable.

Sat 04 Jan 2014, 1:58 pm

Well, Carmine, I'm not concerned about the statement being "insensitive" but about its implications. Some years ago an armed man took a busload of mentally disabled kids hostage; fortunately the authorities were able to talk him into surrendering with no harm coming to anyone, but when I first heard about it I thought I'd gladly take a rifle and put him out of his (and our) misery. Not the same thing as Ruby gunning down Oswald, of course, but I understand your feeling with regards to any assassin, or this one(s) in particular.

I also recognize this was only a brief comment by you, expressing your personal feelings, and so I apologize for jumping on it. But having just read some stuff about how "people in the south" (of the United States) were so concerned about the Kennedy Administration's support for the Civil Rights movement and it "moving too fast," blah blah blah -- and so the typical rationalizations one finds in bigoted minds and the societies which produced them, it just struck me as very problematic to support vigilante justice, whether tacitly or explicitly. Because one of the fundamental issues we keep having to confront in these endeavors is the idea that some people did take the law into their own hands -- whether motivated by racism, or their sense of "what's right" in terms of patriotism, National Security, etc, etc, or any combinations thereof. And they all would have thought they were right in doing so, and had the right to do so.

And that's the problem. It's not just that killing Oswald vigilante-style was probably done to shut him up, or even that it served to deprive everyone of any kind of honest opportunity to know what was really going on, but that it's only more of the same: a man shoots a public figure because he thinks he's got "a right" to do so; and another man shoots that man, using a similar excuse or belief that "justice is being done, and I serve as The Hand Of God" blah blah blah ........ just so much horseshit, and undermines the centuries-long progression of battles for civil liberties, rule of law, impartiality of justice, etc, etc etc.

We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do, obviously including murder.

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 1:32 am

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do.

Quote of the year.

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 1:42 am

Stan Dane wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do.

Quote of the year.

That is quite a quote. DWD is one smart cookie.

But then he's been a hero of mine since he promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet. lol!

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 1:59 am

Martin Hay wrote:But then he's been a hero of mine since he promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet.

LOL! I would love to see that happen.

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 2:36 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:1. "I have been invited to the Roxie Theater in San Francisco...and explain what Oliver Stone got right and wrong in his monumental film, "JFK". Most of the film is right..." (James Fetzer)

Incorrect, most of the film is speculation, because it is a film. It is not a primary source and it gets more wrong than right, contrary to Fetzer's opinions. This is not a problem because as a dramatization it is fictional, not a documentary. Yet those trying to legitimize its contentions ignore the many unproven claims in the film.While official agencies did harass and attempt to influence Jim Garrison's case, his evidence was not sufficient to convict Clay Shaw. The Shaw case fell apart; the New Orleans Oswald connections went unverified. These claims do not substantiate the possibility of assassination conspiracy. However, other evidence is far more compelling. Some primary official evidence in my view is also required to confirm Fetzer's claims.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that the film "gets more wrong than right". In fact, I'm still surprised by how solid much of JFK is. Perhaps you could expand on your claim a little bit?

I also hope that you don't believe Oswald's New Orleans connections remain "unverified"? There are so many witnesses placing him at Camp Street or in the company of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie that it's utterly ridiculous to deny these associations.

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 8:41 am

The film is a dramatic work. At best it is a tertiary source with secondary sources. However as a work of fiction I do not have high requirements for this. It does not serve as a foundation for inquiry, while it may inspire it does not reflect the evidence.

Among the film's Garrison mistakes is suggesting a secret route change had occurred, a claim still offered by some. The newspaper Garrison referenced was the Dallas Morning News.[i] However, the Dallas Morning Herald included a full map, it has the turn Garrison stated was added.[ii] This can be attributed to a mistake, yet it was a claim that subsequently created misinformation. His claim of Clay Shaw being important rather than of minor use to he CIA was not proven.iii Yet Shaw's minor connections was inspired Garrison to base his case upon him and the film to portray his as the manipulative villain. While I respect Garrison's intent and the intimidation he faced, he did not have a solid case. This is not his totally Garrison's or Stone's fault, hindsight and declassification of documents has offered much more than either was able to review.

The Mr. X character is a combination various advisers including Fletcher Prouty. Prouty is a qualified military witness, yet many of his speculations do not have primary evidence to support him. Without corroboration and because he never testified to any government committee in public, his words are not proven. Yet these stories are often repeated and offered as factual. I can appreciate Prouty's desire to see the case solved, but only by using official documentation can we do so in my view.

The allusions to Johnson's involvement, the Secret Service, the DPD, and most official organizations being obviously guilty by inference are not useful for inquiry. It requires evidence to accurately state. While the DPD and Secret Service mistakes were repeated and monumental, without proper evidence we cannot assign them a conspiratorial aspect. The backyard photo is offered as a clear setup, but that evidence is still contended. The film also shows a supportive Marina, which is also contended based on her repeated testimony.

The Three Tramps is another area of speculation, the main sequences witness testimony are used all support conspiracy. Unfortunately the most important information offered is second hand, and thus inconclusive. The Garrison sequences utilize him as a sympathetic antihero and much of the film does not focus on case work or even a majority of the witness testimony. More attention is paid to the Three Tramps than actual important aspects. While I believe the film was integral to the formation of the ARRB, and reinvigorating the public interest, it is not evidence. Its a masterpiece of dramatic work that has unfortunately been accepted as evidence by some.

i. Dallas Morning News staff, “Yarborough Seating Pondered”, Dallas Morning News, November 19, 1963, pg. 1.
ii. Jim Lehrer, “Yarborough Gets JFK Table Spot”, Dallas Times Herald, November 21, 1963, p. 1, 13.
iii. Max Holland "The Lie that inked the CIA with the JFK Assassination", Center for the Study of Intelligence, cia.gov

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 9:31 am

Martin Hay wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do.

Quote of the year.

That is quite a quote. DWD is one smart cookie.

But then he's been a hero of mine since he promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet.

Hmmm.

"beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do."

"promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet."

Hmmm.

"He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction, taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home..." Kris Kristofferson

But THAT'S what I like about Dan. He walks his own path, bows to no man, and doesn't give a shit (unless apparently your name is Len Colby, then you get one fresh delivered!)

Dan is one of those rarities - his own man, and I too am a fan.

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 7:43 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:The film is a dramatic work. At best it is a tertiary source with secondary sources. However as a work of fiction I do not have high requirements for this. It does not serve as a foundation for inquiry, while it may inspire it does not reflect the evidence.

Among the film's Garrison mistakes is suggesting a secret route change had occurred, a claim still offered by some. The newspaper Garrison referenced was the Dallas Morning News.[i] However, the Dallas Morning Herald included a full map, it has the turn Garrison stated was added.[ii] This can be attributed to a mistake, yet it was a claim that subsequently created misinformation. His claim of Clay Shaw being important rather than of minor use to he CIA was not proven.iii Yet Shaw's minor connections was inspired Garrison to base his case upon him and the film to portray his as the manipulative villain. While I respect Garrison's intent and the intimidation he faced, he did not have a solid case. This is not his totally Garrison's or Stone's fault, hindsight and declassification of documents has offered much more than either was able to review.

The film tells Garrison's story and Garrison believed that the motorcade route was changed. So having the Garrison character saying what the real Garrison said is not something the film "got wrong". With regard to Shaw, the Garrison character admits to not knowing what Shaw's actual role was and viewing him as a "toehold". The movie also has Garrison admitting that "I don't have much of a case". So these are things you've gotten wrong, not things the film got wrong.

The Mr. X character is a combination various advisers including Fletcher Prouty. Prouty is a qualified military witness, yet many of his speculations do not have primary evidence to support him. Without corroboration and because he never testified to any government committee in public, his words are not proven. Yet these stories are often repeated and offered as factual. I can appreciate Prouty's desire to see the case solved, but only by using official documentation can we do so in my view.

The film presents the "X" character as seemingly credible but doesn't suggest that there is any corroboration for his theories. In fact, the X character cautions, "don't believe me, do your own research".

The allusions to Johnson's involvement, the Secret Service, the DPD, and most official organizations being obviously guilty by inference are not useful for inquiry. It requires evidence to accurately state. While the DPD and Secret Service mistakes were repeated and monumental, without proper evidence we cannot assign them a conspiratorial aspect. The backyard photo is offered as a clear setup, but that evidence is still contended. The film also shows a supportive Marina, which is also contended based on her repeated testimony.

The film accurately portrays Garrison's beliefs about the SS and DPD in the cover-up and Garrison did raise the question of LBJ's involvement. It also accurately portrays the shocked reaction Garrison's beliefs received. Is the backyard photo "offered as a clear setup"? Since it appears whilst Garrison is speculating with his staff, I would contend your description. I don't understand your point about Marina. The film points out that Marina first said Oswald didn't shoot anybody, then has her reversing herself for the Commission. This is exactly what happened.

The Three Tramps is another area of speculation, the main sequences witness testimony are used all support conspiracy. Unfortunately the most important information offered is second hand, and thus inconclusive.

You're going to have to get more specific here because I have no idea which witnesses and what testimony you referring to or what "important" information is delivered "second hand".

The Garrison sequences utilize him as a sympathetic antihero and much of the film does not focus on case work or even a majority of the witness testimony. More attention is paid to the Three Tramps than actual important aspects. While I believe the film was integral to the formation of the ARRB, and reinvigorating the public interest, it is not evidence. Its a masterpiece of dramatic work that has unfortunately been accepted as evidence by some.

JFK features many dramatizations of eyewitness accounts and there are many important aspects of the case, such as Oswald's New Orleans connections, that are given far more time than the three tramps. That the film itself is not evidence is hardly open to question.

i. Dallas Morning News staff, “Yarborough Seating Pondered”, Dallas Morning News, November 19, 1963, pg. 1.
ii. Jim Lehrer, “Yarborough Gets JFK Table Spot”, Dallas Times Herald, November 21, 1963, p. 1, 13.
iii. Max Holland "The Lie that inked the CIA with the JFK Assassination", Center for the Study of Intelligence, cia.gov

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 8:45 pm

Martin Hay wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:The film is a dramatic work. At best it is a tertiary source with secondary sources. However as a work of fiction I do not have high requirements for this. It does not serve as a foundation for inquiry, while it may inspire it does not reflect the evidence.

Among the film's Garrison mistakes is suggesting a secret route change had occurred, a claim still offered by some. The newspaper Garrison referenced was the Dallas Morning News.[i] However, the Dallas Morning Herald included a full map, it has the turn Garrison stated was added.[ii] This can be attributed to a mistake, yet it was a claim that subsequently created misinformation. His claim of Clay Shaw being important rather than of minor use to he CIA was not proven.iii Yet Shaw's minor connections was inspired Garrison to base his case upon him and the film to portray his as the manipulative villain. While I respect Garrison's intent and the intimidation he faced, he did not have a solid case. This is not his totally Garrison's or Stone's fault, hindsight and declassification of documents has offered much more than either was able to review.

The film tells Garrison's story and Garrison believed that the motorcade route was changed. So having the Garrison character saying what the real Garrison said is not something the film "got wrong". With regard to Shaw, the Garrison character admits to not knowing what Shaw's actual role was and viewing him as a "toehold". The movie also has Garrison admitting that "I don't have much of a case". So these are things you've gotten wrong, not things the film got wrong.

The Mr. X character is a combination various advisers including Fletcher Prouty. Prouty is a qualified military witness, yet many of his speculations do not have primary evidence to support him. Without corroboration and because he never testified to any government committee in public, his words are not proven. Yet these stories are often repeated and offered as factual. I can appreciate Prouty's desire to see the case solved, but only by using official documentation can we do so in my view.

The film presents the "X" character as seemingly credible but doesn't suggest that there is any corroboration for his theories. In fact, the X character cautions, "don't believe me, do your own research".

The allusions to Johnson's involvement, the Secret Service, the DPD, and most official organizations being obviously guilty by inference are not useful for inquiry. It requires evidence to accurately state. While the DPD and Secret Service mistakes were repeated and monumental, without proper evidence we cannot assign them a conspiratorial aspect. The backyard photo is offered as a clear setup, but that evidence is still contended. The film also shows a supportive Marina, which is also contended based on her repeated testimony.

The film accurately portrays Garrison's beliefs about the SS and DPD in the cover-up and Garrison did raise the question of LBJ's involvement. It also accurately portrays the shocked reaction Garrison's beliefs received. Is the backyard photo "offered as a clear setup"? Since it appears whilst Garrison is speculating with his staff, I would contend your description. I don't understand your point about Marina. The film points out that Marina first said Oswald didn't shoot anybody, then has her reversing herself for the Commission. This is exactly what happened.

The Three Tramps is another area of speculation, the main sequences witness testimony are used all support conspiracy. Unfortunately the most important information offered is second hand, and thus inconclusive.

You're going to have to get more specific here because I have no idea which witnesses and what testimony you referring to or what "important" information is delivered "second hand".

The Garrison sequences utilize him as a sympathetic antihero and much of the film does not focus on case work or even a majority of the witness testimony. More attention is paid to the Three Tramps than actual important aspects. While I believe the film was integral to the formation of the ARRB, and reinvigorating the public interest, it is not evidence. Its a masterpiece of dramatic work that has unfortunately been accepted as evidence by some.

JFK features many dramatizations of eyewitness accounts and there are many important aspects of the case, such as Oswald's New Orleans connections, that are given far more time than the three tramps. That the film itself is not evidence is hardly open to question.

i. Dallas Morning News staff, “Yarborough Seating Pondered”, Dallas Morning News, November 19, 1963, pg. 1.
ii. Jim Lehrer, “Yarborough Gets JFK Table Spot”, Dallas Times Herald, November 21, 1963, p. 1, 13.
iii. Max Holland "The Lie that inked the CIA with the JFK Assassination", Center for the Study of Intelligence, cia.gov

Maybe the debate should be about Garrison's credibility rather than the accuracy of the film?

Sun 05 Jan 2014, 11:30 pm

greg parker wrote:Maybe the debate should be about Garrison's credibility rather than the accuracy of the film?

Possibly.

The point I was trying to make is that, IMHO, the movie doesn't pass judgement on all of Garrison's beliefs in the way that its detractors claim. It admits that he had a weak case against Shaw and it shows how people reacted to many of his charges.

It also labels speculation as speculation e.g. the courtroom reconstruction.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 2:21 am

I doubt that anyone who has read James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed would question Jim Garrison's credibility.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 4:31 am

Well, all analysis aside, I really enjoyed the movie and thought Kevin Costner played the part very well. As is typical of movies, it is difficult to get into in depth technical explanations without putting the audience to sleep so, unfortunately, there is only so much information that can be conveyed.

But, let us all remember that this movie brought the assassination out of the doldrums where it had languished since the whitewash done by the HSCA. I wonder sometimes, too, whether or not the ARRB would have come about, if not for this movie.

Just my two cents on a Sunday morning. Smile

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 4:53 am

Sounds reasonable to me Greg. I would prefer to debate things less subjective than a film. The only way to do it is to watch it again. Jim Garrison as I stated was exceptional in his desire to see the truth exposed. Yet he like most involved made mistakes. I do not fault him as much as some because I realize he did not have the access to evidence we currently possess. The film was correct in the stating that Garrison's case was the first strike in a long battle, yet decades of battle in the public eye have followed.

I agree Traveller, it is an important film. I also concede sometimes the public needs a dramatic film to regard important history. It is the unfortunate fact at times. See: Lincoln, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Elizabeth, and Braveheart.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 5:00 am

Whatever mistakes Garrison made (and he made several, many because he trusted some of his associates more than he should have and allowed his office to be infiltrated -- declassification reveals there had been at least 9 CIA moles by the time Shaw came to trial), these do not compare to the way his investigation was crushed by a concerted effort on the part of the media, intelligence (CIA/FBI) and the Justice department. This same campaign was replicated, on a smaller scale, with Sprague and Tanenbaum's initial investigations for the HSCA.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 5:15 am

Indeed. Garrison did face intimidation, official harassment and the suppression of some evidence. As I said I admire his conviction and perseverance despite the odds. Yet he as we all do, made several mistakes. One man just following the act itself with possible Conspirators in power had no chance. He was an unfortunate victim of history and official deception. Recall too this was the Intelligence age of such programs as Operation Mockingbird [i], so compromised news sources were possibly all after him as well. While I find his intent credible, his case and some witnesses were not supported by enough evidence in my view.

[i] Everette Howard Hunt, Greg Aunapu, “American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate, and Beyond”, John Wiley & Sons, February 26, 2007, p. 148, 149.

Mon 06 Jan 2014, 5:35 am

And, as Jim Garrison so aptly put, "How could I contradict the official story? All my witnesses kept dying on me."

Fri 10 Jan 2014, 6:30 pm

greg parker wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do.

Quote of the year.

That is quite a quote. DWD is one smart cookie.

But then he's been a hero of mine since he promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet.

Hmmm.

"beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do."

"promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet."

Hmmm.

"He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction, taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home..." Kris Kristofferson

But THAT'S what I like about Dan. He walks his own path, bows to no man, and doesn't give a shit (unless apparently your name is Len Colby, then you get one fresh delivered!)

Dan is one of those rarities - his own man, and I too am a fan.

Hmmmm, it seems there was a bit of drinking while I was briefly out of internet service. Thank all of you for the compliments. But I suppose I should clarify some things:

The promise to Colby was made in a very specific context and circumstances, a reaction to defend someone else's honor/reputation & my sheer contempt for Colby's tactics. Since he likes to play games I wanted to make it very clear that I wasn't playing a game.

And for the record, Greg, I never said I'd be justified in doing so; only that I intended to do it (justified or not).

Fri 10 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:We need to beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do.

Quote of the year.

That is quite a quote. DWD is one smart cookie.

But then he's been a hero of mine since he promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet.

Hmmm.

"beware of believing in our own righteousness to the extent that we think it will justify anything we do."

"promised to shit on Len Colby's face should they ever meet."

Hmmm.

"He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction, taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home..." Kris Kristofferson

But THAT'S what I like about Dan. He walks his own path, bows to no man, and doesn't give a shit (unless apparently your name is Len Colby, then you get one fresh delivered!)

Dan is one of those rarities - his own man, and I too am a fan.

Hmmmm, it seems there was a bit of drinking while I was briefly out of internet service. Thank all of you for the compliments. But I suppose I should clarify some things:

The promise to Colby was made in a very specific context and circumstances, a reaction to defend someone else's honor/reputation & my sheer contempt for Colby's tactics. Since he likes to play games I wanted to make it very clear that I wasn't playing a game.

And for the record, Greg, I never said I'd be justified in doing so; only that I intended to do it (justified or not).

Dan, no matter. It gave me the opportunity to use that KK quote. He said this about the song the quote was taken from:

“I started writing this song about Chris Gantry, ended up writing about Dennis Hopper and Johnny Cash… Norman Norbert, Funky Donnie Fritts, Billy Swan, Bobby Neuwirth, Jerry Jeff Walker, Paul Siebel… Ramblin’ Jack Elliot had a lot to do with it.”

He meant it as a tribute to those who march to the beat of their own drum... and that's why I thought it was a good fit for you...

Sat 11 Jan 2014, 3:08 am

Understood, Greg, and thanks for the compliment. I'd also like to revise my statement about Oswald being killed to shut him up; I much more agree with what you mentioned to Frankie elsewhere, that the point of killing him was to avoid a trial of any kind.

Isn't it bizarre that we've progressed to the point of making such distinctions whereas it was like living in another universe hearing the media's accounts around the 50th -- the hollow repetition of "Oswald killed President Kennedy, firing 3 shots blah blah blah blah."

Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence

Re: Reserve complete judgment and use all the evidence