DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
HERE'S a 1998 interview with Anna K. Nelson of the Assassination Records Review Board.
Excerpt:
"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson; October 10, 1998
AARON HIRSHBERG SAID:
Garrison did not come close to solving the case, but he did enter into the public record eyewitness accounts that refuted the WC version of events.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bullshit. He did no such thing. Not even close.
AARON HIRSHBERG SAID:
In regards to LHO being a lone nut, the wounds to JFK, and the description of what was seen in the Z film by people who saw it. And the WC thesis that Ruby spontaneously shot LHO was refuted, too.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bull.
You somehow think GARRISON proved that Ruby's murder of Oswald was not spontaneous?
And you somehow think GARRISON proved that the wounds on JFK's body indicated a multi-gun conspiracy?
And your comment about the Z-Film can only be greeted with shrugging shoulders of bewilderment--plus an obligatory "WTF?"
You must be cracked.
AARON HIRSHBERG SAID:
And if LHO knew Bannister [sic], how could he have been a lone nut?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There's no proof Oswald ever "knew" Guy Banister. And even if Oswald DID know Banister--so what? You think that would give you Garrisonites a free pass to tie BANISTER into the murder of President Kennedy?
You're cracked.
AARON HIRSHBERG SAID:
LHO was sheep-dipped to perfection to infiltrate left wing organizations and be a government informant.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Boy, you ARE a Garrisonite, aren't you? (The "sheep-dipped" phrase proves that.)
AARON HIRSHBERG SAID:
So he could not have been a lone nut. Garrison confirmed this and entered this evidence into the public record. Garrison did his part to refute the WC Report.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Which is why the jury at Shaw's trial voted "Not Guilty" after deliberating for less than one hour, right?
Earth to Aaron: The "evidence" entered into the public record by Jim Garrison and his co-prosecutors was not even close to being good enough to convict the defendant (Mr. Shaw).
And yet, somehow, you think that a "NOT GUILTY" verdict at the Shaw trial means that the Warren Commission Report has been "refuted"?
You must have had lunch with Jim DiEugenio yesterday. And he must have been feeding you his pro-Garrison crap for dessert.
Jim Garrison did no more to "refute the WC Report" than my grandmother or my cat.
Garrison utilized Clay Shaw as his personal "patsy", with Garrison using Shaw as a reason for going after the Warren Commission in a court of law. Garrison was despicable.
It's remarkable to see so many people still wanting to treat Garrison like a savior and a person who somehow proved ANYTHING conspiratorial with respect to the JFK assassination....when, in fact, Jim Garrison did NOTHING to discredit the Warren Commission or the Warren Report.
In fact, if anything, Jim Garrison made the Warren Report's conclusions even stronger and more definitive.
How so?
By proving to the world that the only way to take someone to trial on a charge of conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy is to severely distort and misrepresent the evidence in the case and to place on trial an innocent man named Clay Laverne Shaw.
I mean, come on, Jim Garrison was actually silly enough to utter the following totally false and downright goofy remarks on national television in 1968:
"They [the Warren Commission] concluded that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin....and the evidence is clear that Oswald never fired a shot....never fired a shot." -- J. Garrison; January 31, 1968
"There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did NOT." -- J. Garrison; 1/31/68
"There was never an investigation. .... I'm not at all impressed with the fact that they [the Warren Commission] could find no evidence of a conspiracy. After going through their inquiry, I doubt if they could find a streetcar if they had a transfer in their hands and it was pointed out to them." -- J. Garrison; 1/31/68
And one year later, on February 28, 1969, at the end of Clay Shaw's court trial in New Orleans, Garrison tried to convince a jury that Mr. Shaw was guilty of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States, even though Garrison only mentioned Shaw's name ONE TIME during his final summation, when he told the jury: "You are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw."
But, of course, the jury already knew that. (Duh.)
But in his CLOSING ARGUMENTS to the jury (i.e., his FINAL SALVO, his LAST CHANCE to speak to those jurors), he didn't ONCE say to the jury something like this:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this defendant, Clay L. Shaw, has been proven guilty here in this New Orleans courtroom! There can be no doubt about Mr. Shaw's guilt in this case! From that witness stand, you heard witness after witness testifying to the fact that this defendant, Clay Shaw, willingly participated in a plot to murder President Kennedy in 1963! There can be no question, ladies and gentlemen, that Clay Shaw is GUILTY OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH HE IS ON TRIAL TODAY--conspiracy to commit murder!
Doesn't it even bother people like Jim DiEugenio and Aaron Hirshberg that Jim Garrison didn't say anything remotely close to the kind of remarks I just simulated above?
And the type of argument I simulated above is, of course, just exactly the kind of remarks that ANY prosecutor would have made to a jury in his closing arguments to that jury if that prosecutor had a strong case to support the guilt of the defendant.
Don't people like James DiEugenio and Aaron Hirshberg and Joan Mellen (et al) wonder why Mr. Garrison never ONCE told the jury in New Orleans on February 28, 1969, that the man who was on trial in that courtroom had been PROVEN GUILTY during the trial?
If such a thing doesn't make the Garrison fans of the Earth squirm a little bit in their own seats, then I'd have to ask: Why the hell not?
David Von Pein
January 26-27, 2010
