Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 21 Dec 1992 14:12:46 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison : Doubt ..
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec20.223826.12874@news2.cis.umn.edu>, balaji@milli.cs.umn.edu
(Balaji Srinivasan) says:
>
>  Hi folks , I have a few doubts after reading part of the book
>     "On the trail of the assassins" by JG.
>
>  1. Apparantly the nitrate test showed that Oswald had not used a rifle
>     in 24 hrs or something like that. This should have been a very strong
>     point in favor of Oswald. What was the official explanation given to this
>     however farfetched it might have been ?
I might not be the best person to answer your qestions but I'm moved to do
so, especially when I find that my reply time is so slow that I can't
reply to my own threads before others jump in and say about the same thing
that I would have.  (Don't think that I am discouraging anyone out there.
In fact, I feel good that this newsgroup will not die from lack of
enthusiasm.  Because of many other pressures, I can't always get back a
reply in a timely manner.)
I believe that the official explanation for this was that the test is
not always foolproof and will not always detect what it aims to.  I have
also heard unofficial explanations positing that the rifle may not have
sprayed backwards enough to mark LHO.
It would be more interesting if there were actual testing to back up all
this contention.  Without it, one can surmise that this may be another
instance of where when the evidence did fit the lone nut theory it was
embraced, when it didn't it was ignored or explained away.  One could
ask, if the test was so faulty, why was it used so frequently?
>
>  2. Jim Garrison talks about one Dean Andrews who was apparantly asked to
>     to legally represent Oswald. Later, upon bullying by the FBI , Dean
>     denied it. It seems the request was made by one Clay Shaw , a prominent
>     figure-head of the CIA. I do not understand the motive behind why
>     Clay Shaw should want to request anybody to legally represent Oswald.
>
To be truthful, I don't quite understand why you are asking this if you are
reading Garrison.  First, Dean didn't say it was Clay Shaw, he said it was
a voice on the phone that he had come to know as Clay Bertram, who Garrison's
investigation equivicated with Shaw.  Garrison's case revolved around
this identification.  Was it true?  His witnesses said so but Russo has
not always been seen in the best of light.
The possible reason given for Shaw/Bertram requesting Dean to do this is
that Shaw was behind the planning of the assassination; the point that has
me confused about your question, since this is the pivotal accusation of
Garrison.  If you are questioning why Shaw should reveal himself by tipping
his hand in contacting Dean, I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Though I have always been interested in the New Orleans portion of this
case, I have not always been persuaded that Garrison found a credible
case against Shaw.  It may be that Shaw and Dean felt that a Shaw/Bertram
connection would never be found but the way in which we learn how Garrison's
people learn about this link makes me feel that anyone poking into this
area would have found it.  It begins to look to me like a red herring put
there on purpose to throw off anyone seriously investigating the case.
Most writers push the fact that later testimony makes Shaw a definite CIA
contact or tool but this is over stressed IMO.  You can find plenty of
international business people who do little or big things for our
intelligence agencies.  This is not a confirming item.  In fact, I would
think that such damning connections would have been erased if in fact
they would lead to finding the core conspiracy.
ALAN ROGERS
>     I am new to this subject. Any patient explanations will be appreciated.
>
>     Thanx a lot .
>
>     - Balaji
>
>--
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
>  regarded as a criminal offense.
>                -- E. W. Dijkstra
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk