Reclaiming History (304 page)

With Garrison and the rest of the aforementioned motley crew,
*
Stone obviously was in good hands, and
J
FK
’s audience had every reason to take everything in the movie as the equivalent of inspired scripture.

Because, to my knowledge, the well-earned vilification of Stone by the establishment media has never been supported by an in-depth analysis of his film,
†
such analysis for the most part being limited to newspaper columns and short magazine articles with only a few examples here and there of the lies in the film, and because of the film’s enormous adverse effect on millions of unknowledgeable Americans who innocently drank Stone’s moonshine and, inebriated, passed it on to countless others in their circle, as indicated, I decided to give the film a fairly thorough treatment in this book. My first step was to rent the video of the long movie and spend nine hours and twenty-four painful minutes watching it (three times) to enable me to set forth a goodly number of Stone’s lies and fabrications. Inasmuch as the movie is virtually a continuous lie, to set forth all the lies would take a book in itself.
‡
But what follows, in numbered form, is an adequate list (a few other major lies in Stone’s film appear in other sections of this book):

1.
*
In the movie, Garrison is depicted as a scrupulously honest DA of unimpeachable probity and morality who is only interested in the truth and unwilling to cut any corners to get it. We know, of course, that this was not the real Garrison, who, as it was said about a later, well-known prosecutor, Ken Starr, “violated every prosecutorial rule in the book” in relentless pursuit of his quarry. Even Stone has allowed, in interviews, how there was a dark side to the garrulous Garrison, but he never even hinted at it in the movie, instead rationalizing that the movie was about the assassination, not Garrison, and he didn’t want to divert the audience’s attention by getting into a “biography” of Garrison.
†
However, Garrison and the assassination are inseparable in the movie since Stone is presenting Garrison’s view of it. If Garrison is shown to be corrupt in his conduct during his investigation, this would inevitably compromise, in any audience’s mind, the arguments he makes and the conclusions he reaches. I mean, for most people it’s rather difficult to separate the credibility of a charge someone is making from the credibility of the person making it. Stone lied about Garrison in his movie because he had a message to give his viewers and he wouldn’t give them any truth, anywhere in the movie, that might militate against that message. So right from the start, Stone deliberately misled his audience about who the hero of his movie really was.

Garrison’s conduct was so egregiously bad that several important members of his staff resigned in disgust when they saw that Garrison was pursuing an innocent man by having his staff bribe, intimidate, and even hypnotize witnesses. One of them, William Gurvich, ran and owned with his two brothers the Gurvich Brothers Detective Agency in New Orleans, a very prominent and reputable firm. Garrison had asked him to lead the investigation of Clay Shaw, which Gurvich did, for “$1 a year”; his real compensation was heading up a potentially historic investigation. Though one of Garrison’s strongest supporters at the start of the investigation, Gurvich became disillusioned when he saw there was no real evidence against Shaw. So troubled was he that on June 8, 1967, he flew to Washington, D.C., to meet privately with Robert Kennedy and told Kennedy that the Garrison inquiry in New Orleans had “no basis in fact” and that “we can’t shed any light on the death of your brother so you should not hope for such.” Gurvich said that after hearing this, RFK “appeared to be rather disgusted to think that someone was exploiting his brother’s death.”
⁵⁶
The private meeting with RFK leaked when a Kennedy spokesman said Kennedy was “extremely grateful” that Gurvich had come to see him. When a
Newsday
reporter asked Gurvich to comment, Gurvich allowed that “I think Mr. Garrison believes in what he is doing. He is sincere.”
⁵⁷
Gurvich’s disenchantment with Garrison’s probe went downhill even further from there as he became more and more aware of the unscrupulous methods Garrison and his staff were employing to develop a nonexistent case.

At a press conference in New Orleans on June 26, 1967, Gurvich announced his resignation from Garrison’s staff and said there was “no truth” to Mr. Garrison’s contention that he had found a conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy, and that there was “no case” against Mr. Shaw. He also urged the Orleans Parish grand jury to start an immediate investigation into the way Garrison was conducting his inquiry, and sent a telegram to the grand jury stating he was prepared “to give evidence of travesties of justice on the part of the District Attorney in the case of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw.”
⁵⁸
The following evening on CBS, he said, “I was very dissatisfied with the way the investigation was being conducted…and decided that if the job of an investigator is to find the truth, then I was to find it. I found it. And this led to my resignation.”

“Well, what then is the truth?” CBS news reporter Edward Rabel asked.

“The truth, as I see it, is that Mr. Shaw should never have been arrested.”
⁵⁹

Garrison, stung by Gurvich’s public attacks, struck back by saying Gurvich, the long-time New Orleans resident, was linked with the “Eastern Establishment,” which was trying to destroy his case. Further, he claimed that Gurvich had asked to help in the investigation, and foolishly asserted that Gurvich owned a “night-watchman service” and only played a very minor role in the investigation, mostly as a photographic expert and chauffeur. But much evidence rebuts Garrison’s assertion. For instance, the
New Orleans States-Item
, whose February 17, 1967, article first brought worldwide attention to what Garrison was doing in New Orleans, could be expected to know just who was who on Garrison’s staff, and it referred to Gurvich as Garrison’s “chief investigator.”
⁶⁰
Indeed, it was Gurvich who had announced to the world at a packed press conference on March 1, 1967, that Clay Shaw had been arrested for Kennedy’s murder.
⁶¹

Gurvich went in front of the Orleans Parish grand jury on June 28, urging it not to indict Shaw (which it ultimately did), and spoke of Garrison’s unconscionable investigation, which included putting pressure on a well-known New Orleans burglar to break into Shaw’s home and place something there.
⁶²
The burglar, John Cancler (“John the Baptist”), told a national NBC audience on June 19 that while incarcerated in the Parish prison, a DA investigator asked him to “do a job for us.” The investigator drove him to a home in the 1300 block of Dauphine Street. “What am I supposed to take out of the house?” he asked. “Nothing,” he was told. He was supposed to put something
in
the house. “What was it all about?” he asked. When he was told it had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy, he became frightened and declined.
⁶³

In addition to the above (as well as hypnotizing and intimidating Perry Russo, his main witness against Shaw, into testifying that he was present when Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald conspired to murder Kennedy—see later text and endnote), the following is one more of the many examples of the highly improper practices that Garrison and his staff engaged in to get Shaw. Al Beauboeuf was a homosexual lover of David Ferrie’s. Garrison wanted him to testify to anything he knew about Ferrie’s alleged involvement with Shaw and Oswald in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. At a meeting on March 1, 1967, between Hugh Exnicios (Beauboeuf’s lawyer) and Lynn Loisel, a New Orleans police officer on loan to Garrison, that took place in Exnicios’s office, Exnicios secretly tape-recorded what Garrison was willing to give for Beauboeuf’s testimony. Loisel is careful enough to say, “The only thing we want is the truth.” But then, remarkably, he also says, “
We can change the story around
, you know…to positively beyond a shadow of a doubt eliminate him [Beauboeuf] from any type of conspiracy.” In return for his testimony, Loisel says, “I’m, you know, fairly certain we could put $3,000 on him (sound of snapping of fingers) just like that, you know. I’m sure we’d help him financially and I’m sure we’d…get him a job.”

Exnicios: “Is this something you have thought up yourself or that Garrison—he knows about the situation?”

Loisel: “That’s right.”

Exnicios: “And he’s [Garrison] agreed that if we could in someway assist you, that you would be able to give…these things?”

Loisel: “That’s correct.”
⁶⁴

Exnicios was convinced the tape was clear evidence that Loisel, acting on Garrison’s authority, had offered Beauboeuf a bribe to testify falsely. He proceeded to try to get the DA of nearby Jefferson Parish, where his office was located, to file criminal charges against Loisel and Garrison, but the DA (Frank Langridge) declined and told Garrison about the tape. Conspiracy theorists love to point out that on April 12, 1967, Beauboeuf signed an affidavit at Garrison’s office in which he said that Loisel had not offered him a bribe to testify falsely, that all Loisel wanted was the truth. But, of course, the tape (“We can change the story around, you know”) speaks for itself. And the conspiracy theorists, predictably, don’t mention that Beauboeuf told many people thereafter that he was threatened by Loisel into signing the affidavit, claiming that Loisel and fellow DA investigator Lou Ivon came to his home the previous evening, April 11, and Loisel said they would circulate obscene photos of him seized from Ferrie’s apartment if he didn’t cooperate and sign the statement they wanted from him. Worse, he claims one of them held him while the other put a gun in his face. While the record isn’t clear which one did what, Beauboeuf is very clear that it was Loisel who said to him, “I don’t want to get into any s…, and before I do I’ll put a hot load of lead up your ass.”
⁶⁵

The staff at NBC in New York, which was doing an exposé on Garrison, asked Beaubouef if he’d be willing to take a polygraph test on the truthfulness of his charges. He agreed and took the test on May 9, 1967, from a polygrapher at the offices of Mutual Protective Association in New Orleans. In response to questions, he said he did not know Clay Shaw or Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ferrie never told him anything about being involved in the Kennedy assassination. Also, Loisel did attempt to bribe him (which we already know) and Loisel threatened to circulate compromising pictures of him and also threatened “to put a load of hot lead” up his ass if he accused Loisel of attempting to bribe him. The polygrapher reported to NBC that Beauboeuf had answered all questions truthfully.
⁶⁶

Remarkably, the New Orleans Police Department, after an investigation of the matter, concluded that Loisel and Ivon (both of whom denied threatening Beauboeuf) had “not violated any rules of the code of conduct of the New Orleans Police Department.”
⁶⁷

Equally remarkably, perhaps unprecedented in the annals of the prosecutorial profession in America, within just four months after Garrison filed charges against Shaw for Kennedy’s murder, Aaron Kohn, director of the New Orleans Metropolitan Commission, said that citizens and witnesses had made an incredible “22 criminal allegations…against Mr. Garrison and his staff in the course of [Garrison’s] investigation of the Kennedy assassination.” The charges included “attempts to intimidate and bribe witnesses, inciting such felonies as perjury [and] conspiracy to commit battery…and public bribery.” He asked the state attorney general, Jack Gremillion, to look into the allegations.
⁶⁸

On May 27, 1968, Shaw brought a civil action against Garrison, petitioning the United States District Court in New Orleans to enjoin Garrison from proceeding with his prosecution. The forty-seven-page complaint alleged that Garrison had conducted a “reign of terror by the misuse and abuse of the powers” of his office, resulting in a denial to Shaw of his constitutional right to a fair trial, that Shaw was “not only innocent, but has no knowledge whatsoever of the alleged crime,” and Garrison’s prosecution of him was merely to obtain a judicial forum “to discredit the Warren Report and its findings, and not to objectively determine the involvement of plaintiff.”
⁶⁹
On May 28, U.S. District Judge Frederick Heebe issued a temporary restraining order against Garrison, pending a hearing on the matter, prohibiting him from commencing the trial against Shaw, then scheduled for June 11, and said, “There is a very real likelihood that the plaintiff [Shaw] may prevail on the merits.”
⁷⁰
In Shaw’s amended complaint of June 13, he said that Garrison and his deputies knew they had “no valid or legal evidence to support the charges” against him, and pointed out that the grand jury indictment against him “was based solely and only on…the hypnotically induced testimony [of Perry Russo].” On August 13, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Shaw’s request for an injunction, holding that if his constitutional rights were violated, he could obtain relief by appealing any conviction against him. The court did, however, order Garrison to postpone the trial of Shaw, now scheduled for September 10, until the U.S. Supreme Court could rule on Shaw’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling.
⁷¹

Since Garrison had always alleged that the Warren Commission had suppressed the truth from the American people and that the federal government was now doing everything to sabotage the trial (e.g., not releasing records he needed from the National Archives, allegedly putting pressure on state governments not to extradite important witnesses—see endnote for discussion on the lack of merit of this charge), the stage was set for Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s ruling and enjoin Garrison from proceeding against Shaw. At least I would expect Warren to try to convince his brethren on the Court to do this since Warren’s reputation could be destroyed if Garrison proved that others, not Oswald, were responsible for Kennedy’s death and Warren had orchestrated the cover-up. But on December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court, thereby allowing Garrison to bring Shaw to trial. The Court’s judgment included the statement that “the Chief Justice [Warren] took no part in the consideration or decision of this case,” having recused himself.
⁷²