TO: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623 FROM: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 DATE: 08/06/95, 1:26 am CDT Re: Sunday's News Sat. (8/5) Gary: Jim Garrison was one of the biggest frauds that ever came down the pike. He prosecuted innocent people, did an enormous disservice to the movement, and when the jury acquitted Shaw, it was "good riddance." His resurrection by Oliver Stone's JFK has the quality of Nightmare on Elm Street. And the only good that has come out of that is the JFK Records Act. (Well, sometimes good things happen because of bad people). I had personal dealings with Garrison back in 1967-68---to the tune of multi-hour private meetings. I personally experienced him as a paranoid, illogical person who loved to hear himself talk, had little knowledge of the record, and could easily lie or mistate the record with a perfectly straight face. And, far more serious, whose paranoia and illogic drove him to rosecute innocent individuals on the basis of flimsy, if not hoked up, "evidence". I think there is nothing more ugly than the power of the state pursuing an innocent individual, and that's what he did with Clay Shaw, with Kerry hornley (whose case I knew in great detail), and with Edgar Eugene Bradly (to whom, years later, he personally apologized). Back in 1968, I published two long articles in the underground press here in L.A. about this scumbag and his so called "investigation" (which more esembled a "witness recruitment program"). It distresses me to see you take a position that is in any way supportive of him---and certainly one based on the "reasoning" that since Posner has points to make against Garrison, why that probably validates Garrison. When this case plays out, the "moment of silence" at gatherings of researchers should be for Clay Shaw, over whose dead body and ruined life the JFK Records Act was passed, not for Jim Garrison, the Joe McCarthy of New Orleans. From what you have told me, your past includes affiliation with the rather extremist Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Well, I guess there's no zealot like a convert. So here we are: 1995, and Dr. Gary Aguilar, head of surgery at a major hospital and "expert" in all JFK areas, now supporting one of the biggest demagogues of all time. It distresses me greatly to watch you affiliate yourself with such a truly despicable cause. If COPA fails, and it probably will, it will be in no small part due to the pervasive presence of true-believers---who are trying to resurrect the mythology surrounding this fraud and demagogue. For a man of your supposed intelligence and positon to affiliate yourself with such crap is truly shocking. Sorry if this is not music to your ears. I'm just telling it to you straight; and believe me, I'm no friend of Posner. David Lifton TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702 FROM: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com DATE: 08/06/95, 11:52 am CDT Re: Re: Sunday's News Sat. (8/5) On 6 Aug 1995, David S. Lifton wrote: > Gary: > > Jim Garrison was one of the biggest frauds that ever came down the pike. He > prosecuted innocent people, did an enormous disservice to the movement, and > when the jury acquitted Shaw, it was "good riddance." It seems Lifton has a hate for Garrison based on Garrison's having accused his good friend Kerry Thornley of involvement as an Oswald double. But what is hilarious is that in Thornley's book, THE IDLE WARRIOR, to which Lifton wrote his obligatory Garrison bashing intro, Thornley has a more generous perspective: "As for Lifton's perspective on Jim Garrison as expressed in the foregoing introduction, mine is different...As much as I agree with Lifton about Garrison's slipshod dishonesty, I think his case against me nevertheless brought up some distrubing questions *worthy of respect*. [emphasis added] Why was I introduced to Clay Shaw a week or two before the assassination? Why - at about the time but on a separate occasion - did my friend Clint Bolton take me into the International Trade Mart, of which Shaw was director? Why was my landlord at the time of the assassination also one of Clay Shaw's best friends? Why, shortly after my 1961 arrival in New Orleans, was I introduced to Guy Banister? And why was Banister so interested in the book I was writing? "On top of that, I have figured out since testifying to the contrary before Garrison's grand jury that I also once met David Ferrie, besides meeting David Chandler as well. Both were high on Garrison's suspect list. "More recently, I find reason to believe that Gordon Novel - another of Garrison's suspects - may have been one of my pledge brothers, known to me as Goardy, in Delta Sigma Phi at the University of Southern California.... "Such nagging considerations finally helped me discover the horrifying truth about my own involvement in the assassination conspiracy, which I began unraveling in 1975 because of the Watergate revelations.... "Contrary to Garrison's theories, I was not one of those who took part in *directly* framing Oswald. [emphasis added] But Lifton's assumption that I was not involved at all is wider of the mark." In another book which I do not have on me, Thornley wrote what amounted to an apology to Garrison, and told how he had tried to approach Garrison at one point expressing this, but Garrison rebuked him. Here is a man calling Garrison dishonest, yet admitting that the people Garrison was interested in were involved in an "assassination conspiracy", admitting he knew many of the people involved, and admitting he committed perjury before the grand jury. Too bad Lifton can't follow Thornley's example and someday come clean on Garrison's case. Lifton was there for a couple of weeks. Garrison lived it. Newly released documents continue to bolster everything Garrison suspected. We now know Clay Shaw had covert security clearance for project QKENCHANT, as did a few other interesting acquaintances of his. We know that Shaw was definitely up in Clinton/Jackson with Oswald trying to get him a job at a mental hospital (which would surely have been much exploited after the assassination.) We know that all the lies about Russo having been "hypnotized" and "led" to say the name Clay Bertrand are outright falsities as evidenced by the FIRST Sciambra memorandum - not the most touted SECOND one, and by the transcripts of the TWO hypnosis sessions - the section most frequently quoted being from the second half of the second one,because in the first, Russo injects Clay Bertrand/Shaw into the scne all by himself, without any prompting whatsoever. > His resurrection by Oliver Stone's JFK has the quality of Nightmare on Elm > Street. And the only good that has come out of that is the JFK Records Act. > (Well, sometimes good things happen because of bad people). Interesting that Lifton has hate for Stone as well. I guess Stone's actions ruined Lifton's book - which wasn't going to deal with any new documents, but Stone came along and flooded the community with stuff that would have made Lifton look silly and uninformed had he published at that point, so he's had to step way back and reevaluate. I imagine Newman's book spoiled it for him too. Now there's no going back that the CIA was directly involved with Oswald on an operational level. > I had personal dealings with Garrison back in 1967-68---to the tune of > multi-hour private meetings. (over a course of a mere two weeks) > I personally experienced him as a paranoid, > illogical person who loved to hear himself talk, had little knowledge of the > record, and could easily lie or mistate the record with a perfectly straight > face. And, far more serious, whose paranoia and illogic drove him to > prosecute innocent individuals on the basis of flimsy, if not hoked up, > "evidence". This, from the man who once suggested the trees in Dealey Plaza were faked, brought in by cranes overnight and taken away after the assassination. You just can't deal with Garrison because you can't accept his case. Even the wildest claim of Garrison's - that high level CIA people were involved - is coming true in spades through the increasing presence of, for example, David Atlee Phillips in Oswald's activities. You also have to wonder why Helms allowed Angleton to be the point person to communicate with the Warren Commission unless you realize that Angleton had the whole "Harvey" story. Ray Rocca was also involved in feeding the investigations stories intended to implicate the Soviets to distract from any investigation of a home-grown conspiracy. > I think there is nothing more ugly than the power of the state pursuing an > innocent individual, and that's what he did with Clay Shaw, with Kerry > Thornley(whose case I knew in great detail), and with Edgar Eugene Bradly > (to whom, years later, he personally apologized). Source for that personal apology? And Thornley later though Garrison was on the right track. But Lifton can't accept that. Maybe it didn't fit with Lifton's body-alteration scheme. Maybe Lifton has thought it was a Burkley operation therefore Garrison had to be wrong! ;) Who knows? As for the power of the state - one of Garrison's most famous wins was in the Supreme Court in 1964, where he won a landmark decision allowing citizen's to criticize public officials, calling that the "essence of self government." While I applaud Lifton for exercising his Garrison-won right to criticize Garrison, I wish he would do it with more substance than a few interviews with a busy man who knew far more about the case than he could express in a few hours to anyone, and a friendship with a man who long ago conceded Garrison DID, in fact, "have something." > Back in 1968, I published two long articles in the underground press here in > L.A. about this scumbag and his so called "investigation" (which more > resembled a "witness recruitment program"). In 1968 the evidence wasn't even all in yet. In fact, by the end of Garrison's trial he was unable to prove what he had every right to prove, had the data NOW available been available then. > It distresses me to see you take a position that is in any way supportive of > him---and certainly one based on the "reasoning" that since Posner has > points to make against Garrison, why that probably validates Garrison. Very few people in history have been subject to as long and persistent a disinformation campaign against Garrison. Three times the federal government brought him to suit in phony charges. Three times he won, but the impressions in the public had sunk deep. When one examines the people who have criticized Garrison over the years, they turn out to be FBI informants or CIA operatives (and sometimes both.) Instead of wasting his time criticizing one of the few people to ever attempt to DO something with all this evidence of conspiracy, instead of just WRITE about it, why doesn't Lifton, for example, press the CIA to release what they are holding back on David Chandler and James Phelan? Or is Lifton not interested in DOING anything to further the case? > When this case plays out, the "moment of silence" at gatherings of > researchers should be for Clay Shaw, over whose dead body and ruined life > the JFK Records Act was passed, not for Jim Garrison, the Joe McCarthy of > New Orleans. Geezuz Christ. You would have sympathy for a man who got off by perjuring himself up one side and down the other, whose close association with David Ferrie was well known in New Orleans, whose other close association, Alton Ochsner, gets more interesting daily (see MARY FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS, by Ed Haslam, now available through PROBE for some interesting stuff on Shaw's business associate and Trade Mart denizen Ochsner). Please weep on the grave of David Atlee Phillips too, and curse the dead Allende. You choose strange friends, Lifton. > >From what you have told me, your past includes affiliation with the rather > extremist Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Well, I guess there's no zealot > like a convert. That explains more about Lifton than Aguilar. Lifton, once converted to an anti-Garrisonite by his friend Thornley (a friendship that in itself bears further scrutiny considering Thornley's connections), cannot now back down and admit he was wrong, any more than he can back down on the thesis of his book which few in the community take seriously, that of the body altering. > So here we are: 1995, and Dr. Gary Aguilar, head of surgery at a major > hospital and "expert" in all JFK areas, now supporting one of the biggest > demagogues of all time. Supporting one of the few people with the foresight to see where the case really led, although he was unable to get this data at the time. Helms didn't tell Garrison Shaw was CIA. That info came out much later. I have here a 20 page document from the CIa detailing the involvement of many of the people that made up Garrison's case, and their direct or indirect involvement with the CIA. Fascinating.It's available through FOIA, for anyone interested in primary data, instead of Lifton's ramblings. > It distresses me greatly to watch you affiliate yourself with such a truly > despicable cause. It distresses me greatly that you would side with Posner, Phelan, Chandler and a host of other CIA liars attacking Garrison. It doesn't distress me to see the ignorance, however, with which you do it. :) > If COPA fails, and it probably will, it will be in no small part due to the > pervasive presence of true-believers---who are trying to resurrect the > mythology surrounding this fraud and demagogue. If COPA fails because an anti-Garrison movement is launched, then it deserves to fail. We owe the very existence of COPA in large part to Garrison and Stone, who made further research possible, instead of sealed until 2038. > For a man of your supposed intelligence and positon to affiliate yourself > with such crap is truly shocking. I would say the same of Lifton, except that I haven't seen as much evidence of intelligence in your work as I've seen in Gary's. :) > Sorry if this is not music to your ears. I'm just telling it to you > straight; and believe me, I'm no friend of Posner. But you are a friend of Thornley's. That's interesting enough. TO: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com FROM: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 DATE: 08/06/95, 3:58 CDT Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story To Lisa Pease: Your statement (in your e-mail to Gary Aguilar) that I have a "hatred" for Garrison because of the false charges he filed (and then withdrew, a year or two, and many thousands of dollars of legal bills, later) against Thornley is just as illogical as if I were to maintain that your "love" of Garrison is based on your personal relationship with DiEugenio. Garrison's false prosecution of Clay Shaw was, and always has been, the basis of my contempt for the man. The Edgar Eugene Bradley affair was an ancillary farce (not the only one, by the way) and the Thornley case was important becauase it just happened to enable me to see the process up close. It was (and will always remain to me) disgusting. As I said before, I think its ugly when the power of the state is arrayed against an innocent man---and the witchhunt that took place in New Orleans ack in 1967-69 will always remain exactly that: an ugly incident in the annals of jurisprudence, which happened to have a bizzarre outcome: that 20 years after an innocent man was prosecuted, and because of a highly innaccurate film made about that case, Congress passed a law which released many important documents. As I said in my previous communication, sometimes good things happen because of bad people. This morning's New York Times story, with its glimpse of what remains in Garrison's files (which, by the way, somehow got culled from 5 filing cabinets down to 1---this from a man who believes in the truth? And freedom of information?)---also gives us a glimpse of the farce that is called the "Clinton Witnesses", the remaining fig leaf of those die-hard defenders of demagogue (to you, Demi-God) Garrison. Those two paragraphs about the Clinton witnesses are worth quoting in full: "The most telling abuse shown by the files probably concerns four witnesses from Clinton, La., who were used to bolster a sighting of Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw.The witnesses gave almost uniform trial testimony, saying that during Congress of Racial Equality voter-registration drive in the late summer of 1963, a black Cadillac, driven by Shaw, stopped in town. Ferrie and Oswald were passengers. This testimony seemed strong. Yet the files confirm suspicions that the witnesses initially gave dramatically conflicting statements to investigators. Some had failed to identify Oswald, Shaw or Ferrie. Others had descruibed the Cadillac as an "old and beat-up Nash or a Kaiser," or instead of three men in the car, they originally said four, or two, or a woman with a baby. Some swore the Oswald look-alike was in a voter-registration line, while a few thought he appled for a job at a mental institution, and another claimed to have cut his hair. Several placed the sightings in October, when Oswald was in Dallas, and two thought Jack Ruby drove the car." "Moreover, the files reveal new information that Garrison's investigators had tried in vain to find support for the alleged sighting. They had combed the Clinton area; more than 100 local residents failed to recall a dark car or strangers in the small town. At a seprate meeting of 60 CORE volunteers, investigators explained the story and projected pictures of Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie. No one remembered the incident." If D.A. Wade had tried such nonsense to prove a "conspiracy" in Dallas, I'm sure he'd be the subject of much well deserved criticism. But the Clinton Witnesses have become the last figleaf of respectability to the diehard Garrison promoters: "Well, at least Garrison had something". Sorry, Lisa, that figleaf too shall soon drop away. But returning to the subject of Thornley: In 1991, when Thornley was flown to L.A. for an interview with Oliver Stone (whose meeting with him focused on plumbing for information that perhaps Oswald was gay, or whether Thornley had ever seen him walk "swishy" etc.), I spent about a half day with Thornley, and we did an in depth tape recorded interview. The place for that interview---chosen because it was convenient---was the home of a psychologist, who sat in on some of it. During that interview, Kerry was sharp and seemingly sane when it came to the parts of his recollections with dealt with his Marine Corp days with Oswald; but then, without skipping a beat, he would go on and on about how electrodes had been planted in his brain, and how he was the product of a Japanese breeding experiment. After the interview and after Kerry had gone, the psychologist said to me: "I hope you do realize you are dealing with a schizophrenic." I am not here to judge Thornley or when he changed from the seemingly sane person I knew in 1965---apparently normal, and with a very black sense of humor---to the person he became: practically a street person, who is obviously making irrational statements. I can only report that this change occurred. It is sad. It is shocking. And I personally believe it has to do with the trauma of being false charged by Garrison. But what is surprising is that you who should know better are either totally unaware of these happenings; or you care not a whit and will seriously cite his latest version of reality in the forward to his 1993 book as "evidence" of anything. Unfortunately for defenders of Garrison, the entire Lifton-Thornley relationship---with Thornley truly caught in a Kafque-esque situation because of a prosecutor run amok---is preserved on tape; and no amount of wiggling, straining, or falsifying the record can change what occurred. But of course, your specialty seems to be picking and choosing among the conflicting statements to find the one that suits your case. In the case of Thornley, it involves choosing some 1993 statement, rather than what occurred in real time, back in 1968-71. In the case of Shaw, I watched your debate on Compuserve, in which you were trumped, hands down, by Jean Davison, yet you continued to maintain the indefensible position that Russo did not change his story. What baloney. I have watched you go after James Phelan with a series of false charges, until he finally had to call you up and tell you that if you didn't cut it out, he was going to file a lawsuit. And in that phone call, when he offered to meet with you personally and show you documents proving you were in error, you demurred, and refused to even give him your address. Whatsamatter Lisa: you can't deal with facts? Do you even know what they are? What they look like? Back in 1967-1969, true believers like yourself could say; "But wait. Wait for the trial! Jim must have something." And people like myself watched as Jim Garrison elevated expectations, seduced a movement, and sent it crashing down in flames. Sorry, Lisa. The trial is over. The records are now available. Garrison was a fraud. And I'm not going to sit by and watch you and Jim DiEugenio engineer cheap 1990's rerun of that farce. I think it is incumbent upon anyone who stands for the truth and for justice to apply the same standards to Garrison's hoked up "evidence" and tortured "reasoning" as is applicable to the single bullet theory. The only thing I regret---and I regret it deeply---about this morning's New York Times story is that it had to be written by Gerald Posner. But there's nothing in there that is truly surprising, based on the Garrison case as I have seen it unfold. And I'm not going to sit idly by and watch an arrogant female bubblehead who doesn't know what she is talking about misrepresent the past, or try to dress up Garrison as some kind of hero. Instead of putting eloquent passages from George Orwell on your e-mail, why not try this one, which was revealed in this morning's NY Times article. It is from a March 24, 1967 memo from Lynn Loisel, one of the prosecution investigators, to Garrison, reporting about a potential witness who "was adamant that Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand." As the story points out, "That doument was hidden not just from defnese lawyers but from the rest of the investigative staff." Across the top is written: "Do Not DISTRIBUTE! Not clear. Re-interview needed when facts are straightened out." How about that for a letterhead, Lisa? Why not let that adorn your e-mail? I think such a statement would be far more appropriate to your revisionist methodology than eloquent quotes from Orwell about the consequences that result from a mind-bending police state. If there is anyone who does not have the right to quote Orwell, or tell us about the dangers of revisionist history, Lisa Pease, it is you. David Lifton ----- Forwarded Message ----- TO: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com CC: [Long list abbreviated for the sake of space; same as other emails] FROM: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 DATE: 08/07/95, 1:27 am CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story Oh Lisa. There is no end to the drivel you propound. "So we return to this article. Now that Connick has made the records seem rather important, due to his efforts to recover and suppress them, it became necessary to revive the old disinformation campaign against Garrison and his investigation, just as had been done at the height of the trial in the late 60's. This statement is typical of the nonsense put out by you and DiEugenio. The Clay Shaw trial failed because the evidence wasn't there to convict. May I remind you, maam, of witneses like the nut-case Spiesel, who fingerprinted his daughter to make sure the CIA wasn't sending in a ringer? Is that memory somehow lost in one of the air-bubbles in your cranium? Do you have a revisionist explanation for that little episode?? You write: "Gerald Posner attempts to create a portrait of a deranged individual, bent on solving the mystery of the President's assassination at whatever cost, including defaming innocent people." I met Garrison and that is exactly the way I would describe him. I sat with him for hours in the Century Plaza hotel, and as persons passed, he would whisper to me: "He's with the government. They're following me; see that man over there? He's FBI!" and such drivel. I also watched his "reasoning" in the case of Kerry Thornley, and yes, I would say he was bent, "at whatever cost", in defaming innocent people. I watched him do it with Thornley, basing his conclusion that Thornley "was CIA" because Thornley worked as a doorman at a hotel in Arlington, Virginia, and the CIA headquarters was nearby. The past will not go away, Lisa Pease. It only gets worse as more information accumulates as to what a fruitcake this man really was. Re the homosexual charge: Garrison said the JFK assassination was a homosexual thrill killing to more than Phelan. Are you unaware of that? That was common knowledge at the outset of Garrison's investigation. At the time---and this was when you were a mere child, Lisa, and were still in your playpen---I recall concerned L.A. researchers talking about this, people who wanted to call Garrison's office, contact this wonderful man, and try to in effect upgrade him conceptually; to persuade him to be "more political." "Posner doesn't tell you what records have shown, that Martin was also working with the CIA." Oh Lisa: I am breathless with anticipation. Please do tell us all lthe details of Martin "working with the CIA." And then, please connect that proposition to his involvement with the assassination conspiracy you are so certain got to the bottom of. Re Dean Andrews: No, Lisa. You've got it inverted, as usual. When Andrews denied the Clay Bertran story, he was telling the truth, and when he emerged from the courtroom, he told Shaw's lawyers that he had testified to the truth, and if it cost him a (false) conviction on perjury, then so be it. He was willing to pay that price. In fact, he had made up a story, it came back to bite him, but he then stood by principle. If Dean Andrews had not made up the Clay Bertrand story, there would have been no "homosexual with the right first name" for Garrison to fixate upon. It is as bad as that. I think any CIA data on Clay Shaw should be made public. But it is a lyric leap to go from the notion that---given his position in New Orleans---he was debriefed by the Domestic Contacts Service, or that the CIA assigned him a crytonym, to the notion that therefore that means Shaw was involved in the JFK assassination, or that any of that justifies the nonsense that Garrison called "evidence" during that trial. Finally, attacking Posner on issues concerning the autopsy and attempting to rescue your own credibility that way is an echo of what Garrison tried to do in 1969, by showing the Zapruder film to prove a Dealey Plaza conspiracy, and somehow thinking that would then wash off on Shaw, and his hoked up case against him. As I said before, its a pity that Garrison has to be held up to the light of day by Posner. As for your intimations that I'm a spook, I can think of no finer evidence that you are just a jerk. Twenty five years have passed, Lisa Pease. Some of know the difference between apples and oranges---even if you and DiEugenio don't get it, even in 1995. The fact that Posner may be biased and dishonest in other areas of this case does not excuse or condone what Garrison did back in 1966-69. And your pitiful attempts to resurrect this fraud are very revealing about your own standards of what constitutes evidence. The conspiracy to take JFK's life, and the nonsense that Garrison propounded are worlds apart. Apples and oranges, Lisa. Learn the difference. Before you can graduate to basic arithmetic. Or to the more complex matter of determing who is or is not a spook. David Lifton Sender: lpease@netcom.com Received: from netcom13.netcom.com by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA18623; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 09:20:06 -0400 Received: by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id GAA00578; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 06:18:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 06:18:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa Pease Subject: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story To: "David S. Lifton" <72303.2702@compuserve.com> cc: [Long list again] Look, David. I was always told never to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. Please, I asked you to spare me this drivel. I do not want to have to write to compuserve to get you to stop wasting my time and yours. Lisa Pease ---------- "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, "1984" [Below which was the full contents of Lifton's message above.] TO: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 FROM: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623 DATE: 08/07/95, 9:54 CDT Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story David, You write: >>This morning's New York Times story, with its glimpse of what remains in Garrison's files (which, by the way, somehow got culled from 5 filing cabinets down to 1---this from a man who believes in the truth? And freedom of information?)---also gives us a glimpse of the farce that is called the "Clinton Witnesses", the remaining fig leaf of those die-hard defenders of demagogue (to you, Demi-God) Garrison.<< I do not know much about the Shaw trial, I must admit, but I know something of Posner's reliability. Borrowing from Scott's "negative template" concept, if Posner is pitching a story this hard, perhaps DiEugenio, and the LaFontaines*, are onto something. For Posner previously falsely pitched that: 1) Oswald was believed dangerous by his Russian psychiatrists, 2) No witness corroborated Rose Cheramie's story, 3) Boswell admitted to the HSCA, and to him, JFK's skull wound was high, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. So, if Posner is now fast-pitching a story based on documents that he somehow got to see, after DiEugenio's access was specifically denied by Connick, I must just wonder if the Posner 'spin' is on. I twist Scott's negative template concept. For me, if Posner makes a strong positive assertion on a matter of fact, I assume it possible, if not probable, the truth is important and he's misstated it. By implication, you suggest it was Garrison who destroyed 4 of the 5 file cabinets. Given Connick's statements he himself intended to destroy documents, are you sure it was Garrison? Gary *If you are of the opinion it was not Oswald in Clinton, you will be disappointed in the La Fontaines' new book. Mary's statement to me was that Oswald's undeniable presence in Clinton will be proven beyond all refutation, a proof that owes thanks to Posner, of all people, who put the kernel of truth on the Clinton episode in Case Closed, but who was apparently unaware of the implications. Perhaps you believe Shaw, who the judge beleived lied continuously during the trial, was not in Clinton, but lent his car to Banister to squire the lone nut 230 miles away on this peculiar odyssey because, 1) they didn't know one another, and/or 2)because Shaw had no interest in Oswald. Was it Banister or Shaw in Clinton with Oswald, David, or neither? PS By the way, it was very considerate of you to communicate so colleagially with me. Do you now consider me an apostate heretic deserving of burning at the stake for my politically (or religiously) incorrect musings? Sorry if my job makes my idle musings so threatening to you. I, apparently mistakenly, believed we were exchanging various theses in good faith, and not exchanging infallible religious canons. Thanks for straitenting me out so diplomatically. In the future I'll know better, and I'll know to read your new book with great caution - separating dogma from thesis requires caution. Did I misunderstand you to claim you had a background in, nay a Master's degree in, science? TO: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com FROM: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 DATE: 08/07/95, 11:57 CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story DiEugenio: Re the witness Spiesel, you write: "It is true, that by the time of the Shaw trial Garrison's case was fleeced, but for Lifton to imply that the case at that time is all Garrison had is a statement of pure disinformation or pure ignorance." Please do explain what you mean that, that by the time of the Shaw trial, "Garrison's case was fleeced." Do you mean he wasn't in charge? Didn't know who Spiesel was? What he would say? Could not judge his credibility? That his office was flooded with saboteurs---and so the truth was lost? Have you heard the expression: to accept responsibility? Please do explain how this happened. Explain how a screwball ended up being a major prosecution witness. And do elaborate on "fleeced". Is this your attempt to foist upon us a "conspiracy theory" to explain why the Garrison case was based on non credible information? (Is this why Shaw was acquitted? Why Garrison later apologized to Edgar Eugene Bradley? Why the charges against Thornley were dropped?) Will you now be the post-facto arbiter, the person who is going to tell us, by studying this wonderful archive, who was "really" guilty? What a wonderful exercise in scholarship. Perhaps you should get a PhD in the field: ex-post facto justice. Also, what do you mean: "There is no transcript of Spiesel's testimony available"? What happened to it? He was a major witness whose account was reported in all the world's media. And he gave all that screwy testimony about being hypnotized; and on cross examination, the revelation that he fingerprinted his daughter to make sure she was not a ringer.Has all that somehow disappeared from the files? No litany of real, imaginary, or attempted penetrations of Garrison's office can explain this sort of craziness. And if you are going to be a reasonable person, and expect to be taken seriously by those in the field of journalism, you cannot ignore this sort of thing---which, I believe, is a touchstone to the reality of who Jim Garrison was and what he was all about. Unfortunately: a fruitcake and demagogue who had glommed onto a genuinely unsolved crime. I don't doubt for a minute that the Federal government and all sorts of hangers on and wanna be's---from journalists to agents---desired to get "inside" the Garrison investigation. That does not address the question of what he did in court, and what he did to the movement. Contrary to your 1995 "documents": Kerry Thornley did not see, meet with, or have any knowledge that Oswald---about whom Thornley had written a manuscript---was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Had he had such knowledge, he would have loved to have spoken to him, and checked out his own theory of LHO's defection (as set forth in Idle Warriors) with whatever Oswald would have told him. (Of course, I'm sure that had such a meeting ever taken place, Pease/DiEugenio would then claim we were witnessing a "CIA debriefing). But anyway---he had no such knowledge, and after his mother sent him a news clip that LHO was back in Texas, he was seriously considering going to Texas to speak with him. This is probably discussed in his testimony; in any event, it is common knowledge to anyone who knew Kerry or the history of his manuscript---completed, by the way, by Feb. 1962. Garrison, who apparently can't sort out coincidence from conspiracy, couldn't get it out of his head that Thornley must have been involved in some sort of plot. So his reasoning to me was that Thornley was CIA because he worked as a doorman in Arlington Va. One of his witnesses that Thornley saw Oswald was Barbara Reid, a New Orleans practioner of witchcraft. (Why don't you tell us that, Jim DiEugenio---that Barbara Reid was a witch? Does this somehow not seem relevant?? Is that the normal practice of DA's offices---to use practitioner's of witchcraft as informants? As witnesses?) And, be sure not to leave this out Lisa and Jim, Garrison's office also sent a letter to an L.A. artist (Fred Newcomb) transmitting pictures of Thornley, and requesting that they be photographically touched up to resemble Oswald. This, supposedly to show to witnesses who would then say, "Yes, that is Oswald", to which Garrison could then respond: "Aha!! You have identified Thornley, posing as the 'second Oswald'" What a mess. What a screwed up methodology. How can you defend this sort of nonsense? (And you are a history teacher??) I have no idea what is in the endless pile of junk you call the "archive". But I'm not holding my breath. And by the the way: you keep bringing up the Clinton witnesses, which are apparently headed to impeachment land, with the latest documents. For your information, I saw Nigel Turner's filmed interviews with them. Not very credible--which is perhaps why they were not included in the original broadcast. When people look at the camera and say with a straight face that why they called the FBI the very next morning about seeing Oswald in Clinton, but the FBI just never bothered to call them back---that, I'm sorry to say, is just not credible. As to most of the rest of your statements: I do not have whatever is in these files. Please do enlighten us. I'm curious to learn more about the investigative mess that led to the farce that was tried in 1969. And which you seem to take so seriously today. If this was back in 1968, even though the handwriting was on the wall to anyone willing to see, I could understand the cries "Wait till the trial! Wait till the trial! Jim must have something!" Unfortunately, its 1995, and to attempt to rewrite the sorry episode as something it was not is preposterous. TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702 FROM: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com DATE: 08/08/95, 8:57 am CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story One wonders just how much Lifton really does know about Lifton, if he claims a man could be in charge of a case as large as the Kennedy assassination when he was close to being bedridden during much of the time before and during the trial from severe back injuries. I have no intention, btw - of taking DiEugenio's time to ask him to respond to you anymore, Lifton. You are stuck in a disinformation campaign left over from the 60's, and despite all the new material since released, you fall back on old canards to make your smear attempt on Garrison. Do you know how many infiltrators were in Garrison's office? Would that change your mind about him? Do you know that he didn't want Spiesel on the stand, but equally didn't want to undermine the authority of those to whom he had entrusted that part of the case? Do you know anything about how a case is parcelled out to several people? Do you plan to smear each and every Garrison assistant? Or is it only Garrison you can't stand? He had a large and loyal staff who did the interviews, the groundword, the investigation, the preparation for the trial and the trial itself. Garrison was caught in the media s___storm and saw his time eaten away battling the same nonsense you are trying to restir. I do not intend to allow my time, and I certainly would not want to waste DiEugenio's time, passing along charges from yesteryear that tell us nothing new and allow us to forget all we've learned since. If you want to talk to DiEugenio, you will have to do it by snail mail. Lisa Pease ---------- "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, "1984" TO: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com CC: Nancy Wertz #20, 73734,2763 Alan Rogers #232, 73040,2063 Dave Perry #24, 71051,2073 Gary Aguilar, 73653,2623 Steve Bochan, 74273,3457 ROBERT A CHAPMAN, 72623,3203 Mary Ferrell, 76450,706 Sean Fetter, INTERNET:sean.c.fetter@x400gw.ameritech.com Barbara LaMonica, 74041,1372 M. Duke Lane, 76004,2356 John Newman, 75032,435 Deanie Richards, INTERNET:x1wbr@vm1.cc.uakron.edu David Scheim, 73750,3305 Garrett Timmermans, 73201,3425 Alan Trimble, 75530,3456 Gordon Winslow, 72724,564 FROM: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 DATE: 08/08/95, 10:57 am CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story Lisa Pease: You cannot wish away (or wash away) the past. And that includes all the incidents whose totality amounts to the judgement that Garrison was, at best, a buffoon. Kerry Thornley once said to me, he was a much better writer than a lawyer. Anyway, as a lawyer, and as District Attorney of New Orleans, he had the power of the state behind him; and that is how he will be judged---not as Kevin Costner played him, but as he really was. You have chosen to avoid dealing with the whole situation of Barbara Reid (the witness-witch against Thornley) and the business of Garrison putting out a totally false press release about Thornley, and of his sending out Thornley's picture to an artist for deliberate alteration, to buttress his foolish case that Thornley was posing as a "second Oswald." (I have that letter, by the way.) At the risk of overloading your critical faculties, let me give you another incident. (Now this is to the best of my recollection, and I defer to my contemporaneous memos and articles I published in the underground press at the time). At my meeting with Garrison at the Century Plaza hotel here in L.A., circa 1967/68, he apparently was trying to impress me, and told me in a very knowing fashion of his latest "find": that Oswald and Ruby both had called the same phone number; that it was in their personal records, a number that was on Ruby's phone bill, and appeared in Oswald's address book. Now I didn't know that, and initially, I was impressed. The number: PE 8 1951. Remember that one, Lisa: PE 8 1951. Cited by Garrison as proof of an illicit relationship between these two men. So I go home and check and sure enough, Garrison was right. PE 8 1951 was in Oswld's address book; and it was on a Ruby phone bill. Wow! Wasn't Garrison great? To have such wonderful knowledge of the record! Well, what number was it, anyway? I think I called the number, or checked some directory; anyway, I soon found it was Dallas/Fort Worth TV station---channel 11, as I recall. So the next day (when he met alone again), I said: "But Jim, that's just a TV station? How is that evidence of conspiracy?" Garrison's irritated response: "Stop arguing the defense." (Now try to imagine Kevin Costner playing this scene, Dear Lisa. It gets better). BUT, I asked incredulously, can you show that there was someone at the station who knew both Oswald and Ruby? What is the truth of the matter? At that, his ears perked up. I had uttered the magic words: the truth. With a wave of the hand, Garrison dismissed my concerns: "After the fact," he intoned, "there is no truth. There is only what the jury decides." That, dear Lisa, should be the motto of every cheap legal opportunist who tries to bend reality and sell junk to a jury. To try to understand the disparity between your foolish image of Garrison and reality, try picturing Kevin Costner, justifying some hokey evidence, delivering that line: "After the fact, there is no truth; there is only what the jury decides." But to give it proper dissemination, Lisa: I think you should also put it on your internet letterhead. You know, instead of those eloquent Orwell quotes you adorn your e-mail station with---how about a little reality? Let's use your hero's own words. "After the fact, there is no truth. There is only what the jury decides." As he made this remark, Lisa, I didn't see any infiltrators in the room. No one was lurking in the corner. No one was controlling his mind. You want to know what I think? I think Garrison was just a shmuck. Now you may think otherwise. You may erect your flimsy conspiracy theories; and DiEugenio (who you have protectively distanced from me by telling me I can only now reach him by snail mail) can talk about Garrison being "fleeced", but the only person I saw in that room as I recall, was room service. So please do add that to the list of anomalies to be explained. (And by the way: since when does Jim DiEugenio need you to insulate him from the outside? On that issue, I was concerned: is he allowed out of the room? Does he get enough fresh air? Can he walk the dog? Is he allowed enough time at his own computer terminal? Well, you see my concerns. But back to the more important issues.) On a related matter: it doesn't seem to me that you can on the one hand champion the Great Garrison, and then, on the other, tell us that he really wasn't in charge; that he wasn't really running the show. If he wasn't running the show, he's not the hero you attempt to portray; and if he was running this farce, then oftentimes he was a horse's ass. Let me ask you another question, dear Lisa, and this is one that I think should be considered in classes on philosophy and ethics. How many innocent people do you think we should try (i.e. prosecute in a court of law), in order that a local D.A. can get a fact finding process going before a grand Jury? In other words, we have here a situation in which there is an unsolved crime at the federal level. Now along comes Garrison, a local district attorney, and he has a theory about that crime and---in the name of justice---as long as he charges someone with a crime, he can call such sexy (and historically important) witnesses as Col. Finck, Mary Moorman, Ruth Paine, etc. But all this happens---as it turns out---because he has this assinine theory that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand, and that Clay Bertrand somehow was a mastermind in the Kennedy assassination. Is that justified? In the case of Thornley, he had a witness who was a witch. In the caase of Edgard Eugene Bradely, he actually apologized (years later) for falsely accusing him in nationally disseminated statements of being part of the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. (Nice guy, huh?) Now my question, Dear Lisa, is this: how many innocent people do we sacrifice to have the privilege of calling Dr. Finck? Is New Orleans perhaps the sister city of Mayan City state, where every year they sacrificed an innocent person to insure a good harvest? Let's change the subject. To something that may be revealing about how the combined efforts of Pease/DiEugenio evaluate evidence. You attempt your Joe McCarthy routine of smearing me by association. I last spoke to Liebeler (and for about 20 minutes) in November 1980. Before that, I hadn't seen him since 1976 (when I ran into him--not literally, Lisa---on a ski slope). I speak to Phelan occassionally---say, about once every few months. 29 years ago, I once spent an afternoon with Epstein, and of course I did send him my memo on Garrison (which I distributed to many critics) but except for one conversation with him in 1993, have had no other contact. Now, lets see what you make of this, because here is another small manageable issue where we can judge the DiEugenio/Pease powers of analysis. The charge is that I "socialize, work with, cooperate, and defend, the likes of Phelan, Epstein, Thornley and Liebeler." Any reader of Best Evidence knows that your charge, as it applies to Liebeler and Epstein is, well, just a crock. I am so sorry about this, Jim and Lisa. In the future, I will submit to you an itemized list of all potential friends and associates, so that you may properly vet them and assure me of their ideological purity. Returning to my personal experiences with Garrison: What I have described is not a canard, but simple facts. About the time you were in a crib, Lisa, I was having lengthy personal discussions with the man you now worship. What he said and did are facts, and for you to attempt to dismiss and avoid the implications by falsely labeling my personal experiences as a "canard" and "disinformation" from the 60s suggests to me that you are either an artful evader (actually, not that artful) or are not in full contact with reality. I think you and DiEugenio could greatly benefit by taking some time off from your Internet rantings, going to a law library, and studying some good books on evidence. Particularly, I would pay close attention to the concept of impeachment because of prior inconsistent statements---of which you both appear not to have the foggiest notion. Then, if you really want a sense of the 60s and what is wrong with you and your fellow Garrison Groupies, I strongly recommend Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. David Lifton TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702 CC: Nancy Wertz #20, 73734,2763 Alan Rogers #232, 73040,2063 Dave Perry #24, 71051,2073 Gary Aguilar, 73653,2623 Steve Bochan, 74273,3457 ROBERT A CHAPMAN, 72623,3203 Mary Ferrell, 76450,706 Sean Fetter, INTERNET:SEAN.C.FETTER@X400GW.AMERITECH.COM Barbara LaMonica, 74041,1372 "M. Duke Lane", 76004,2356 John Newman, 75032,435 Deanie Richards, INTERNET:X1WBR@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU David Scheim, 73750,3305 Garrett Timmermans, 73201,3425 Alan Trimble, 75530,3456 Gordon Winslow, 72724,564 FROM: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com DATE: 08/08/95, 12:14 CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story I have specifically asked you not to waste my time. On the next message, I will refer the request to the postmaster at Compuserve. If you want to rant, do it in public so all can see the fool you make of yourself. Don't waste my mailbox space, please. I've heard what you have to say. I don't find it convincing. When we talked on the phone, I said we'd have to agree to disagree. If you are unable to do that, please at least spare me your tired accusations. Again, if you persist, I will ask Compuserve to restrain further contact. That is the rule of the net. Lisa Pease ---------- "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, "1984" --------------------------------------------------- Note that above, Lisa has specifically told David she doesn't want any more messages from him. Then *later* she takes up the debate again, by sending the following message to him. ------------------------------------------------------ TO: "David S. Lifton", 72303,2702 CC: Nancy Wertz #20, 73734,2763 Alan Rogers #232, 73040,2063 Dave Perry #24, 71051,2073 Gary Aguilar, 73653,2623 Steve Bochan, 74273,3457 ROBERT A CHAPMAN, 72623,3203 Mary Ferrell, 76450,706 Sean Fetter, INTERNET:SEAN.C.FETTER@X400GW.AMERITECH.COM Barbara LaMonica, 74041,1372 "M. Duke Lane", 76004,2356 John Newman, 75032,435 Deanie Richards, INTERNET:X1WBR@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU David Scheim, 73750,3305 Garrett Timmermans, 73201,3425 Alan Trimble, 75530,3456 Gordon Winslow, 72724,564 FROM: Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com DATE: 08/08/95, 1:37 CDT Re: Re: Garrison & 8/6/95 NYT Story > With a wave of the hand, Garrison dismissed my concerns: "After the fact," he > intoned, "there is no truth. There is only what the jury decides." But that's a valid statement! Would you say every jury verdict is a representation of the truth? Even the briefest glance at history tells you we live under verdicts, not the truth. Courts of law are filled with winners and losers, not necessarily justice. I'm amazed you take issue with this statement! TO: David S. Lifton, 72303,2702 CC: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623 STEVE N. BOCHAN, 74273,3457 Robert Chapman, 72623,3203 Mary Ferrell, 76450,706 Sean Fetter, INTERNET:sean.c.fetter@x400gw.ameritech.com Barbara K. Junkkarinen, 74754,2302 John C. Klotz, 73562,2604 Duke Lane, 76004,2356 Lisa Pease, INTERNET:lpease@netcom.com Lisa Pease, 70540,113 David Scheim, 73750,3305 Garrett Timmermans, 73201,3425 Alan Trimble, 75530,3456 Gordon Winslow, 72724,564 FROM: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623 DATE: 08/08/95, 8:26 CDT Re: Logic David, You made another nasty personal comment to me about a book I have in my library, which I may have mentioned I was interested, someday, in looking at. But I have not read John Mack's book on alien abductions, though I will not deny I have a copy of it, I've been too busy and it is not a subject that interests me much. Your implication that such is my bedtime reading, mentioning no other subject, suggests you've departed from the kind of mutual respect I believed we had for one another, and are rather mean-spirited toward me. I'm sorry that I've not signed on as one of your body alteration acolytes, I remain agnostic, but I believe your nasty tone to me traces to that. I have read about psychosis at bedtime (Laing's "Divided Self", and other titles), I've read about murderers, I've read about comics, and small particle physicists who believe there are 10, or even 24, dimensions, etc, yet I believe I have no pathological attachment to any of these subjects. By your implication, one should avoid even owning a copy of such books. The lesson I think I really learned is to not invite you into my library or my home. Perhaps we should not continue to communicate. If my owning a copy of Harvard professor, John Mack's, book on alien abduction is reasonalbe basis to question my judgment, should I not flee in alarm from the likes of you, of whom it has been written, according to an anonymous source who sent me this: ******************************** Smiling Through the Apocalypse (1969 McCall) - Sixty Versions of the Kennedy Assassination by Edward Jay Epstein 53. False Knoll Theory Proponent: David Lifton, a U.C.L.A. engineering graduate student and co-author of the three-assassins article in Ramparts which introduced Riddle's analysis (See No. 45) Thesis: On the day of the assassination, three types of camouflage were employed by conspirators positioned beneath, on, and above the grassy knoll. Lifton reached this hypothesis after minute study of photographs of the area during and after the assassination. It answers the questions why, despite the fact that eyewitness reports and the Head Movement Theory indicate shots came from the grassy knoll, nothing at all was found there immediately afterward. Underground camouflage: Lifton suggests that prior to the assassination, the grassy knoll was excavated from beneath and a system of tunnels and bunkers was built into it. Peepholes covered by grass-mesh camouflage were placed on the sloping surface of the knoll. Lifton claims to detect such meshing in greatly-enlarged photos of the knoll. Subterranean nooks would explain the statement of witness Garland Slack: "I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot has come from within a cave. . . ." Lifton goes further to suggest that the puff of smoke seen by some people on the grassy knoll may have been the exhaust from a gas engine incorporated within the camouflage mechanization. Surface camouflage: Lifton finds alterations ("bulges") in the wall and the hedgerow on the grassy knoll, netting in the bushes and faint images of heads. Borrowing support from Deputy Constable Weitzman who ran toward the wall and who said, "I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steam pipes. I burned them," Lifton points out that there are no steam pipes atop the wall. This might, he says, be an indication that things might have been altered for that day. Weitzman also says a witness told him that he saw somebody throw something through a bush. Elevated camouflage: Because a comparison of certain photographs taken during the assassination with others taken afterward indicates that some tree structures had been altered on the knoll, and because he sees images up in the trees in assassination photos, Lifton believes there was some camouflage in the trees. Eyewitness S. M. Holland, Austin Miller and Frank Reilly all state that shots seemed to have come out of the trees. Drawback: As even Lifton admits, the photoenlargements are of extremely grainy quality (they could not be reproduced properly here) and interpretations of them are questionable at best. ************************************** ? Should I not fear having had you as a guest in my home more than my having a copy of Mack's book, in view of the above, David? Will you now look at the La Fontaines' bookcase to deride them if titles appear there on occult or 'odd' subjects, because they, far more forcefully than I and on the basis of what Mary told me is 'irrefutable' evidence, believe it was Oswald in Clinton? Will Walt Brown, DiEugenio ( who told me that right in Oswald's notebook, which has been under our eyes for 30+ years, is the proof he was in Jackson), or others persuaded of Garrison's thesis on Clinton/Jackson be taken to task publicly by you in such a nasty way? Do we need to start book burnings now to purify our bookcases to avoid your wrath for our heresy of accepting the Clinton incident as probable? Please don't bother me about this any more, David. Gary