E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
------------------------
Hello Dave,
What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]?????????
Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny?
For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked?
Gary
===============================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a certifiable kook when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great.
These people are just plain nuts. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud".
Regards,
DVP
===============================
GARY MACK SAID:
Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time.
Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.)
So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that.
By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way.
Gary
===============================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't get it either.
I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film.
But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.'
Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene.
Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film.
But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~
And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended!
How's that for deliberate time-warping deception?
Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie.
DVP
===============================
GARY MACK SAID:
Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her.
Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times.
I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default.
Gary
===============================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Gary,
Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)?
Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970.
DVP
===============================
GARY MACK SAID:
Sorry, I don’t. She [Beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper.
And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count? :)
Gary
===============================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends.
But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968.
I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too. ;)
DVP
[My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]
