Talk:Clay Shaw/Archive 1

message: In 1979, Richard Helms (former director of the CIA) gave sworn testimony in a civil deposition which confirmed Shaw's contact with the CIA prior to the Shaw trial. In addition, it has been discovered, through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests that Clay Shaw had access to and clearance from the CIA to a CIA program called QKENCHANT. To date, there is no unclassified information concerning what the QKENCHANT program was about. However, whether in fact this CIA connection tied Shaw to the Kennedy assassination is an unresolved and contested issue even to date. The controversy surrounding Clay Shaw's now apparent CIA activities will not be conclusively resolved until the scope and purpose of the QKENCHANT program are fully revealed. RPJ 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any of this go in? 

message: Is it me or isn't this all misleading?  The subheading talks about an "alleged CIA connection" but then the body of the subheading contains this sentence: "In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of false allegations that Shaw was connected with the CIA and involved in the Kennedy assassination."
Why doesn't the editor just put in the nature of Shaw's contact with the CIA, and stop resorting to this cryptic innuendo?  Just put this in the article and move on:  "From 1948 to 1956, Shaw, along with many other businessmen, was a one of the CIA Domestic Service Contacts.  This position was not a paid CIA position, and did not carry any covert responsibility, or CIA affiliation with it."
Ramsquire 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged CIA connection 

message: Shaw claimed:  "I have never had any connection with the CIA."
 
Editor Ramsquire believes Clay Shaw. Therefore, editor Ramsquire urges the following information be deleted and permenantly kept out of the Clay Shaw  article: 
::Don't misrepresent my position.  My position is clear from what I put above.  I clearly state, "as far as we know, Shaw was right and has no link to the CIA."  I stand by that.  Does calling 911 give you a connection to the local police?  Shaw's contact with the CIA, based on what we know, does not rise to the level of him being connected, which implies a paid or official position, with the CIA.
:: Also, I never call for anything to be deleted and permanently kept out of the Clay Shaw article.  To say that is an out and out lie.  Again, everything I said is clear to the readers of the talk page.  I only asked that you cite the article properly, and give the context of the information you are presenting.  Why are you refusing to understand this?
::Ramsquire 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaw's CIA connections

message: The readers and editors should keep in mind an evidentiary rule that seems to apply to the Shaw/CIA matter. Both Shaw and the CIA gave false statements about their relationship  for many years during which the CIA  "struggled to keep [it]secret," and Clay Shaw lied about to the national news media, then lied about it on the witness stand. 
Then, in 1979, a CIA official had to testify under oath about it and admitted the connection between the CIA and Shaw.
Now, some of the editors believe the relationship between Shaw and the CIA stopped in 1956. In other words, before Kennedy was murdered.  On what is this belief based? It turns out that the CIA tells us this, but, then claims, that the documents that would prove such a statement have not yet been declassified by the CIA. 
Here is how the law handles such deceit as conducted by Shaw and the CIA.   A jury may reject testimony of a witness, if the witness testified falsely about any important fact, or intentionally exagerated or concealed an important fact  in order to mislead or deceive the jury. It is necessary at some level, for editors not to believe too fervantly in their cause, and allow their beliefs to affect their judgments as editors
RPJ 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that there was any further connection between Shaw and the CIA?  Until you come up with something, we won't be replacing the statements of Shaw and the CIA with conspiracy speculation.  Gamaliel 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  To imply that Shaw or the CIA was lying would be pure speculation as to the exact nature of the contacts.  As far as we know, what Shaw was doing is akin to someone voluntarily relaying information to the local police.  It would be silly to say that that person is connected with the police simply on that act alone. Ramsquire 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not true.  Would you call all eyewitnesses to crimes informers?  See below.  Ramsquire 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw and the CIA: false witnesses 

message: Good grief... What is this all about?
"Andrews also said (to the Orleans Parish Grand Jury and on an NBC news report) that Bertrand was not Shaw, but was a client of his named Eugene Davis. Eugene Davis then denied being Clay Bertrand, but Andrews never claimed Davis used "Clay Bertrand" as an alias, and said that only that he had given Davis´ name without Davis' knowledge."
I took my father´s name, but I took it without his knowledge (laugh...) andreasegde 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dean Andrews

message: I changed the article to connect the charges in Garrison's book to Shaw's denials and his later found out contacts.  Garrison's charge in Assassins is the only thing that makes Shaw contacts with the CIA relevant.  Based on the available evidence, it appears that these contacts were akin to a civilian voluntarily contacting their police department.  However, since Garrison accused Shaw of being a spook these contacts should be in the article under the same heading of the book that levelled the charge.
Also, we should probably strive to put cites at the end of the sentence, not the middle to make it easier for readers to follow along.
Finally, Oliver Stone's movie was based on Garrison's book and another book by Jim Marrs almost equally so the language stating Garrison book was the "main" source was inaccurate.
Ramsquire 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last thing on Clay Shaw and CIA 

message: It seems this article is miscategorized - there's nothing in the article to back up the claim that Shaw was gay or bisexual.  Should he be in the cat?  Should he be part of WP:LGBT? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT?