(PART 687)


Here's a snippet of Garrison's nonsense from '67 (anyone who would put one ounce of faith in this crackpot should seek medical treatment immediately):

"There were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967


That really is an unfair and unjust comment to make regarding Jim Garrison. .... Don't belittle the man, David.


Don't ask me to go easy on King Kook Garrison, because that's not going to happen. While Garrison might have been a good District Attorney and courtroom prosecutor in other cases he handled, that doesn't excuse his behavior in the Clay Shaw case (which was a case that should have never gotten beyond the Grand Jury phase--if that).

Garrison knew damn well he was prosecuting a man he had absolutely no evidence against.

How do we know this?

Because, as Vince Bugliosi points out in his book (and I'll admit, I didn't know this fact prior to Bugliosi's book coming out in May 2007), Garrison mentioned Clay Shaw's name just ONE SINGLE TIME in his closing arguments to the jury. ONE time! And that one time was merely to tell the jury something they obviously already knew--that they were there to decide whether or not Shaw was guilty or not guilty. (Duh!)

But not once did Garrison lay out any EVIDENCE against the man whom he was prosecuting. Not once did he say to the jury something along the following lines (as any prosecutor undoubtedly would have done--dozens of times!--if the prosecution had some evidence against the defendant)---

[Vince Bugliosi Mode On:]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this piece of evidence and this piece of evidence prove Clay Shaw's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. And then there's this piece of evidence that Mr. [so-and-so] told you jurors about from the witness stand last week, which also proves Mr. Shaw's guilt.

So, as we can easily see, ladies and gentlemen, Clay Shaw's guilt has not only been proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt at this trial....his guilt has been proven beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT at this trial! Mr. Shaw is as guilty as SIN....and there's nothing that Mr. Shaw's defense team can do about it!

[/Bugliosi Mode Off.]

Nothing like that escaped the mouth of Jim Garrison in February 1969 at the Shaw trial.

And the reason it didn't is because Garrison didn't have a speck of evidence against the man who was on trial in that New Orleans courtroom.

David Von Pein
September 2, 2009