The Jim Garrison trial 1976??

Having watched the JFK film several times I can't help wondering what if the trial against Shaw had taken place in 1976 insteed of 1968??

Would Shaw had been convicted? Since its post Watergate?
 
Last edited:
Jim Garrison was a terrible -and from reports both malicious, cruel, and often violating due process- DA. The case against Shaw was for the most part made up. There is no connection between Shaw and the Kennedy assassination beyond a witness who turned out to be a known con and who failed the lie detector and admitted he was lying, and Garrison's own imagination. The worst part is even after Garrison's witness admitted he lied, Garrison went on with the trial anyway.

The reason the court decision let Shaw off the hook was because Garrison bs'd everything. Garrison was a liar and a blowhard, and thanks to Oliver Stone (whose movie "JFK" is based on the book of a man who thinks Communism was a conspiracy created by wealthy businessmen and who threw in every crazed conspiracy into that book) Shaw, who was a man who contributed greatly to his community, has his name besmirched which frankly pisses me off greatly that Oliver Stone did that.

Sane people like me have been trying to debunk Oliver Stone's populist make-believe for quite a long time now whenever someone brings it up.

If you would like an ample debunking, here it is:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfkmovie.html
 
So In your view the case against Shaw was more do to that Garrison didn't like Shaw's lifestyle?
It's not my view; it's the facts. Garrison used the fact that Shaw was a homosexual as evidence that he must have helped kill Kennedy for God's sake. But it was not just Shaw's lifestyle, or even the lifestyle as the prime reason. Garrison needed a scape goat for his "investigation" to target and through the liar who was his "witness" and his own politicking he targeted Shaw.

There is and was no more evidence that Shaw was connected to the assassination (Shaw was actually a Kennedy supporter, btw) than there is that you kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

"JFK" portrays Shaw as this great crusader who was cut short by a government covering up the facts. In reality, Shaw was a half-witted blowhard who was cruel and malicious, and who would make outrageous statements without evidence to back them up. His case dragged on, and was inevitably mocked by the media, laughed at by the jury and quickly ended in his defeat. And it was all forgotten and rightly so...until "JFK". With a camera, Oliver Stone portrayed honest and good men targeted by Garrison for his own malicious nature as diabolical villains or people who just won't listen to the truth, and portrayed liar's and cruel men like Garrison as heroic American's. And this is now the popular view. Not to mention it ignored the facts and often blatantly to the knowledge of the director.
 
Last edited:
Even people who question the Warren Report (even RFK, according to David Talbot's Brothers, a work by a former critic of the conspiracy theory who has come to believe JFK was the victim of more than one assassin) thought Garrison was a fool, a charlatan, a bully.

But a Shaw trial after Watergate could push forward the popular acceptance of the conspiracy theory that came after OT's Stone movie.

It would certainly focus more attention on the '78 House assassinations subcomittee report.
 
Top