Clay Shaw...

Shaw is the guy Jim Garrison attempted to convict as a conspirator in the JFK assassination. Gee, I wonder if his affliation with the Knights of Malta had any influence.Link to past and present members.

source


mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 4-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I think Clay Shaw, an import warehouse manager as I recall, had personal baggage like being a homosexual person in a time when that was not “proper.” Jim Garrision OTOH was a typical back slapping hard drinking loud mouth womanizing red neck type lawyer too lazy to work and who wormed and wiggled his way onto the public teat. Jim Garrisoin was a public embarrassment to the better folk of Louisiana.

Clay Shaw was innocent of all charges - I think he was acquitted. If you can locate and read the indictment, you will sense that.

[[[[NOTE: An earlier remark including a reference to elementally school was not intended to be personal bur rather to imply that almost anyone could see the indictment was not based on investigation or on any crimes committed in Louisiana. I'm sorry if anyone thought I meant any poster here was limited in his or her educational attainment. Don White]]]]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Jim Garrisoin was a public embarrassment to the better folk of Louisiana.

I would say that is more of an opinion that a political fact.

Clay Shaw was innocent of all charges - I think he was acquitted. If you can locate the indictment, you will sense that if you progressed past the 5th grade.

If you believe Clay Shaw did not get his hands dirty in any form in regards to the JFK conspiracy, I would say its alittle naive.

Its like the US Government on 9/11, we can't prove they are guilty but we sure do know their hands are alittle dirty.

donnyboy!, the thread which i meant to place as a post to a JFK assisnation thread was about Clay Shaw not Garrison. And the rather insulting statement regarding my education was unwaranted , but won't be forgotten !

Originally posted by YIAWETA
donnyboy!, the thread which I meant to place as a post to a JFK assignation thread was about Clay Shaw not Garrison. And the rather insulting statement regarding my education was unwarranted, but won't be forgotten!

I have edited out the offending remark. It was meant to illustrate how I regarded it, the indictment, but not judgemental how others would. That is was my mistake. I was ambiguous. Sorry.





[edit on 5/4/2006 by donwhite]

I don't think the shot was meant to be direct, but lets move on guys and keep this thread alive.

I really didn't see the case as airtight as you view it donwhite.

Now I really don't want to get into a bickering match here, rather provide factual information. Alot of people can sit here and say well I watched JFK with that Costner guy and well I know Tommy Lee.. I mean Shaw was guilty. But Oliver Stone did put a slant on things.

Guilty, Innocent whatever, the case was not as airtight as you see it I would believe.

posted by chissler: “A lot of people can sit here and say well I watched JFK with that Costner guy and well I know Tommy Lee. I mean Shaw was guilty. But Oliver Stone did put a slant on things. Guilty, Innocent whatever, the case was not as airtight as you see it I would believe. [Edited by Don W]

I believe most JFK conspiracy theories come down to the “magic bullet.” How can a pristine bullet come to rest on a Gurney after passing through part of two men, without deformation or loss of much material weight. Finding it was serendipity; sort of reminds us of the bloody sock in OJ’s bedroom. We sure were lucky to find it. They missed it the first time through!

And there is also a strong argument for a 4th shot which if you concede that, ipso facto, you have a conspiracy. I’m not too highly impressed with the pictures of the grassy knoll and even less of the RR overpass. I have no idea who holds the negative, but I’d like to see some modern computer technology at work on it.

And sure, anyone who knows the sleazy world of dingy bars with broken down hookers taking off their clothes for the next meal, you can see Jack Ruby rubbing shoulders with off-duty cops and any of the gangsters passing through town. But he is too improbable for any responsible gang overlord to hire to do a job. So I rule that out which leaves me with what I thought was Ruby’s first story, that he was offended by what Oswald did to his hero, JFK. I can buy that.

Although Fidel Castro had the best motive to kill JFK - IMO - I’m of the opinion the USSR would have counseled against that, lest Castro be about 40 years ahead of Saddam in a regime change. So I have to rule out Cuba. I’m stuck with the pristine bullet and maybe a 4th shot.

L.H. Oswald was a USMC type who was honorably discharged as a corporal - E3 - normal progression in the USMC. He obviously had some psychological instabilities as he went to the USSR then “defected” to become a Soviet citizen. Back then the US tended to ignore young and non-persons who did that. True to form, a couple years later he shows up at the US Embassy wanting an advance to buy his ticket home and one for his new and beautiful wife.

Did the KGB interview Oswald when he first arrived? Yes. Did Oswald know anything of interest to the KGB? Yes. Oswald was a long range ground radar operator whose last duty station was in Northern Japan. That station would have monitored the frequent - and illegal - overflights of Kamchatka Peninsula and other areas in Far East Siberia. But Oswald would not have known what it was he was watching. He could confirm what the Russian’s already knew, that the US was overlying their territory.

Would the CIA and FBI interview Oswald when he returned to the US? Of course. I imagine the CIA immediately discounted him as a source of any useful information. Fini with the CIA. The FBI OTOH had a different mission than the CIA. Because we were not all that far removed from the 1950s Joe McCarthyism, the FBI was watching all pro Commies.

I believe the FBI put LHO on “stinger” status, to report to the local FBI office once a month and “inform” on what he had seen. I believe the FBI would have paid him $100 a month. That would have been the cheapest way to keep track of an otherwise uninteresting person-of-interest. For all the wrong reasons, the FBI did not want it known they were paying LHO. The CIA had no interest in him.

OK, that’s my take on November 22, 1963.

I was returning from Friday's lunch at MadDill AFB, in a school for the Litton Industries Inertial Navigation System installed on the AF’s new F4C, when JFK was shot. I was in downtown Tampa on Sunday morning, to buy out of town newspapers, when Jack Ruby murdered Oswald.



[edit on 5/4/2006 by donwhite]

This whole day came down to the moment the shots rang out, and frankly Oswald was not capable of making the shots he did. If your going to hit the mark, it will be on your first shot where all the emphasis lies. Not on the second or third when your in a desperate panic.

The whole story falls apart on this simple detail, not to mention every other smoking gun included.

I am going to contact you via u2u, and I will try to post more here when I return next week.

Hey Don White, do you live in New Orleans? I don't think that Garrison was an embarassment to all the better folk here... maybe the rest of the state like you said, but then again, New Orleans "better folk" are not the same as the rest of the state.

I actually had the fortune of working for a man that was personal friends with these guys, as his lover was a big figure in New Orleans at the time. I've actually thought about it before, but I think now I will; I'd like to interview him and get all of the stories written down that he has told me before. If anything it would make for an interesting read. My old boss swears that what we were tricked into believing these dudes "shaw and garrison" were nutters. He said there was much more behind it. I know this all sounds vague and conspiracy-ish. That's not my intention. Just like to have the chance to make a contribution.

Ever get the feeling that you typed 1000 characters and said absolutely nothing worthwhile???

*sorry messed up the bold tags, should be fixed*

[edit on 5/5/06 by niteboy82]

Were cool Don thanks,
Actually, one may have a better chance of finding Sasquach than a clean politician from Louisiana.Governor Edwin Edwards paid back his Vegas gambling tab with state funds and when that wasn't enough paved the way for riverboat gambling for Harrah's. I even recall a politician from Monroe named 'Shady Wall'. It's been that way since it's inception.

posted by YIAWETA: “We’re cool Don thanks, one may have a better chance of finding Sasquach than a clean politician from Louisiana. Governor Edwards paid back his Vegas gambling tab with state funds and when that wasn't enough paved the way for riverboat gambling for Harrah's. I even recall a politician from Monroe named 'Shady Wall'. It's been that way since it's inception. [Edited by Don W]

Inception? Do you mean since 1803? Well, one poster just up from here asked if I had lived in NO. The answer is No. And he has a good point. Whatever I know or think I know about NO is no better than 2nd hand. But also like you, Y, I’ve lived too long in the South to be tricked into thinking any NO pol in the 1960s was not on “several” payrolls. Besides the official one. A DA’s job would be worth $50-$100 K a year in cash, booze, women and gambling chits back then. By deftly playing the race card, good Dems were regularly re-elected by tunnel-visioned red necks.

Why Do I Accept The Warren Commission Report?

1) Earl Warren was the Republican governor of California Eisenhower had appointed Chief Justice. No good friend to LBJ, he was nevertheless chosen to chair the commission. (For that very reason.)
2) Sen. John Sherman Cooper, a member of the Commission was known as an honest KY politician. A rarity I admit. A mountain lawyer. Maybe it will help show you my confidence in him if I admit I voted for him 2 times. He is the only Republican I ever voted for.
3) Sen. Richard Russell of GA was on the Commission. He was called the Dean of the Senate.
4) Rep. Hale Boggs of LA was on the Commission.
5) Rep. Gerald Ford of MI was on the Commission and the Congress thought enough of him to make him America’s only unelected president.
6) Allen W. Dulles was on the Commission. There is hardly a man I hold in lower esteem but there he was. He and his brother John Foster helped America ‘slide’ into the Vietnam War.
7) John J. McCloy, US High Commissioner to Occupied Germany, American Zone. A wealthy corporate magnate. As choices go, he was considered ‘outstanding.’

John Rankin, later to be Solicitor General of the US., the #3 job in the Justice Department, was the Commission’s General Counsel.

Somewhere on the internet is a list of the assistant or deputy counsels. I believe the list contains 22 youngish Americans. 18 of them are either Phi Beta Kappa or Order of the Coif, the law school equal to Phi Beta Kappa. Some are both. Not exactly your group of dum-dums. Arlen Specter is one of those Assistant Counsels. He enjoys a great reputation despite being a Republican. But, he is an Eastern Establishment Republican.

There is a second list of about 20 investigators. Less well known and less well qualified, academically speaking, but still, for the most part, from America’s Ivy League schools. Not that they are necessarily better than the rest of us, but they are more advantaged and have rubbed elbows with the R&Fs all their lives. The movers and shakers. Which may make them more likely to be independent or to be lap dogs, as you see life.

I must accept the Report because the 7 commissioners did. Unanimously. If I think those men would sell out our country, then I have no country. I should move to Belarus or Nepal.


[edit on 5/5/2006 by donwhite]

While I dog my day at work here, I'll sneak in some posts.

First of all:

I must accept the Report because the 7 commissioners did. Unanimously. If I think those men would sell out our country, then I have no country. I should move to Belarus or Nepal.

You have a mind of your own, an intelligent one it seems as well. We can not simply believe something if we are told too, our democracy would quickly turn to a dictatorship.

Your section of listing members of the commission, well I believe all of that is void due to the fact all of them were in a position to prosper. Regardless of prior connection to LBJ, sweeping this mess under the rug will surely benefit you in the long run. Do I believe LBJ was involved in the assassination? No! Government, Yes! Hoover, Yes! Oswald, Patsy!

It is not enough to simply ignore all of the evidence that has been mounted. Countless eye witness accounts of gunshots coming from the grassy knoll, the "magic bullet", the simple fact Oswald was not capable of making the shots. I maybe wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Oswald was not even trained in armed combat or firing a weapon. I do know for sure that they attempted to recreate the shots Oswald was supposed to of made, and men with alot of experience could not make the shot.

What about the route being changed at the last minute? How is this to be accounted for? Top off of the car? Car was slowed to an almost halt, which was not the case when the President had the top off of the car.

With views from the depository where Oswald supposed to of shot JFK, he had a direct shot head on before they made the initial turn. Why not fire then? Why wait until he was out in the open like that? So they had him trapped, they could fire from all directions.

We were all given a mind and free will for a reason, to believe something simply because someone tells you to is not enough.




[edit on 5-5-2006 by chissler]

OK, Mr C, I wish it wasn't so. There are many questions that hindsight cries out to be answered, issues that were not so readily visible using foresight. Clay Shaw was a central figure but Jim Garrison blew the one opportunity to expose a conspiracy. Sort of like the recent hoopla over the mentally challenged Moussaoui guy in Alexandra.



[edit on 5/5/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
OK, Mr C, I wish it wasn't so. There are many questions that hindsight cries out to be answered, issues that were not so readily visible using foresight. Clay Shaw was a central figure but Jim Garrison blew the one opportunity to expose a conspiracy. Sort of like the recent hoopla over the mentally challenged guy in Alexandra.

Because he couldn't prove it, does not make him wrong.

Alot of mysterious deaths added to his loss, kind of tough to deny that point.

Back to my original point however, Garrison could not without a doubt prove that Shaw was involved, I can agree to that. Was he guilty, according to the law- No. Was he Not guilty, according to the law.. Yes. But was he Innocent? No.

Things could have been done differently, would we of had a different turn out, I doubt it. It is the same as 9/11, people do not want to believe the government could be involved or behind such a tragic event. It is easier to find the scapegoat and point fingers, and the public is happy to do this.

Garrison is alot of things, an embarrassment? I would say thats an overstatement, as alot of people simply did not agree with what he was doing. So we all agree that opinions are not facts. Many people would think Garrison is a hero for standing up for his country and trying to exploit the government for what they really are. Again, another opinion.

Both sides of this coin have valid arguments, this is why ATS can be so enjoyable. In the end of this all we not going to be any farther or have a definitive answer. I may understand your side of the coin alittle better, while you may see mine. In the end I'll be heads, you'll be tails and we'll all have a good night sleep.

Im glad to see this thread staying away from the, My opinion is an absolute fact.