The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview

Posted on | November 29, 2013 | 84 Comments

Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an August 1963 pro-Castro protest

Why did Jim Garrison indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy? It was as ridiculous as it was simple: In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald consulted a New Orleans attorney, Dean Andrews, to see if he could do something about his undesirable discharge from the Marine Reserves.

“Andrews . . .claimed that Oswald was referred to him by a young blond homosexual named Clay Bertrand.
“Although the FBI was never able to find a trace of this person, Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney, erroneously identified him as Clay Shaw, who was neither young nor blond, and indicted him on conspiracy charges. Shaw was subsequently found not guilty.”

Edward Jay Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978)

That’s it, period. From this simple misidentification, Jim Garrison spun an implausible conspiracy theory that became the crux of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. Who was “Clay Bertrand”? We do not know. The FBI couldn’t find him and we don’t even know that such a person actually existed. It may be that Dean Andrews was confused. What we do know is that in 1967, Jim Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, a businessman who had served as a major in the U.S. Army and founded the New Orleans International Trade Mart, charging him with conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Beyond the fact that Clay Shaw was not the (possibly non-existent) “Clay Bertrand,” there was no reason on earth to suspect him of wanting to assassinate JFK, nor was there any evidence that he had anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. The American Spectator‘s Tom Bethell spent months working as a researcher for Garrison’s investigation:

Over the next year Shaw’s trial was repeatedly postponed. Garrison’s assistants were in no hurry to try the case because they didn’t have a case. . . .
Garrison was reckless, utterly irresponsible, willing to charge a man with the crime of the century regardless of the truth. Above all, he loved to shock people. Occasionally he claimed that Oswald was innocent. Small problem: Shaw’s guilt depended on Oswald’s guilt. When this was pointed out, Garrison waved the objection away. “You can argue it differently in court,” he said. One day he filed charges against Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. No one in the office would sign the papers, so Garrison had to do it himself. . . .
As for Clay Shaw? I agree with the jury that he was totally innocent. There was no credible evidence that he knew either Oswald or [David] Ferrie, let alone planned to shoot JFK. Shaw was homosexual and everyone knew that, but it never came out in the newspapers. Garrison’s people didn’t mention it, but the deal was that Shaw couldn’t produce character witnesses at his own trial.

In other words, Shaw’s homosexuality made him uniquely vulnerable to Garrison’s “reckless” prosecution, because if his defense had introduced character witnesses, those witnesses would have been subjected to cross-examination in which they might have been asked, under oath, about Shaw’s homosexuality — a scandalous fact that Shaw did not wish to make a matter of public record.

Such was the calculation of the “reckless” Jim Garrison, but perhaps you missed this crucial sentence about Garrison’s investigation:

“One day he filed charges against Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.”

That’s really the crux of the whole thing: The CIA loomed large in the minds of Jim Garrison and others who wanted to believe that somehow the Agency, as the result of a policy disagreement with the Kennedy administration, had decided to have the President of the United States assassinated. And because Clay Shaw apparently had some contacts with the CIA, making him “Clay Bertrand” and connecting Shaw to Lee Harvey Oswald would thereby serve Garrison’s purpose of blaming JFK’s assassination on the CIA.

All of this comes to mind because today I watched C-SPAN coverage of a conference of JFK conspiracy theorists held in October at Duquesne University. One of the “experts” was Temple University Professor Joan Mellen. Her presentation was entitled, “Clay Shaw Unmasked: The Garrison Case Corroborated.” You can read that (don’t miss Page 2) and if you think that Professor Mellen has “unmasked” Clay Shaw or “corroborated” Jim Garrison’s case, you should seek professional psychiatric help immediately.

It is a loopy, disorganized mess.

To the extent that Mellen makes any point, it’s this: At his trial, Clay Shaw denied under oath that he worked for the CIA, but CIA records seem to indicate otherwise, and therefore . . .

Therefore, what?

Damned if I can figure it out. Joan Mellen has evidently never heard of Occam’s Razor, nor of any other principle of logic, and exactly how she thinks she has proven anything is a mystery. Let us stipulate that during the Cold War, the CIA utilized a lot of “assets” who weren’t at liberty to disclose their relationship with the Agency, and that if Clay Shaw was such an asset (as records do seem to indicate) he sure as hell wasn’t going to say so in public — not even when testifying under oath — because that’s just not how the CIA rolls.

It is, however, an implausible leap from (a) Clay Shaw did some work for the CIA to (b) Clay Shaw conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate the President of the United States, when there is no credible evidence that Shaw ever even met Oswald.

But that’s how it goes, see? If you attribute sinister magical powers to the CIA — if the Agency exists in your mind as a sort of omnipotent bogeyman — anything is possible. And if anything is possible, then all that is necessary is to allege that something happened (e.g., a secret meeting between Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald) and, unless someone can prove it didn’t happen, then you have the basis of a conspiracy theory. Also, since the CIA is allegedly all-powerful, they can make evidence disappear, so if you don’t have any proof of your theory, you can just blame the CIA for that, too.

Laugh if you want to, but there are a surprising number of people who think that way. There is a non-profit organization, the Mary Ferrell Foundation, devoted entirely to promoting the kind of “critical thinking” (their term) behind this kind of paranoid nonsense.

 

 


Comments

84 Responses to “The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview”

  1. MrEvilMatt
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/72nE2g1cwA

  2. CHideout
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/m7gpx1vgQw

  3. Lockestep1776
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/9O6AaqgRzD

  4. Resista38176897
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/rENdQRVHGW

  5. Citzcom
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/aJZnvNumla

  6. jwbrown1969
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview: Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an Au… http://t.co/uBMaXrAfha

  7. rsmccain
    November 29th, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  8. BobBelvedere
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

    RT @rsmccain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  9. AmericanGlob
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

    RT @rsmccain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  10. smitty_one_each
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

    RT @rsmccain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  11. Bob Belvedere
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:12 pm

    -Damn well put, Stacy.

    -The Left engages in conspiracies all the time so, in their warped way of thinking, they assume everyone else does. It’s that old truth: Whatever the Left accuses the Right of doing is what they, themselves, are doing.

    -It is one of the most successful of The Big Lies that the Right is paranoid and the Left is not. Leftist Richard Hofstadter’s book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics has been, perhaps, their most effective weapon in this effort.

  12. BobBelvedere
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

    “-Damn well put, Stacy….” — Bob Belvedere http://t.co/zD2EVwnoTx

  13. Stogie Chomper
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

    In his book “Case Closed,” Gerald Posner quoted from Jim Garrison’s discharge from the army, essentially stating that Garrison was mentally Ill and not suitable for military service. Garrison was nuts. Read about it here:
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%20Mental%20Illness/Item%2001.pdf

    Garrison should never have been allowed to prosecute anybody.

  14. ECHackett
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

    He was eaten by a tiger. Buncha loonies. “The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview” http://t.co/wnKsOFRznD

  15. thatMrGguy
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:34 pm

    RT @ECHackett: He was eaten by a tiger. Buncha loonies. “The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview” http://t.co…

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:51 pm

    I am 100% sure LHO killed JFK.

    I am far less sure if LHO was manipulated. The Jack Ruby thing makes you think the Chicago Mob (who had good reason to despise the Kennedys after being double crossed) prompted Oswald to do what he did. But talk about risk.

  17. joethefatman1
    November 29th, 2013 @ 8:53 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/AS9nmXPR0n

  18. smitty
    November 29th, 2013 @ 9:01 pm

    Stacey, this is a business model. Let something stupid go down, and set yourself up as a SME. So what if you have to scuttle your dignity?

  19. Matthew W
    November 29th, 2013 @ 9:17 pm

    Those wacky leftists and their wacky conspiracies.

  20. DaveO
    November 29th, 2013 @ 9:23 pm

    The Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was associated with the CIA. Mao Zedong received assistance from the OSS (okay, not the CIA, but its forerunner). Fidel Castro recieved CIA assistance. The CIA lately sold anti-aircraft shoulder-launched missiles to AQ/Taliban/Hezbollah/Hamas.
    I guess what makes the “CIA Gone Rogue” theory so popular is how it behaved under Bush-43, when the CIA provided a number of leaks and self-serving activities to undermine Bush’s attempts to reform the organization.
    While everyone imagines themselves a Talleyrand, the CIA practices Realpolitik with a meatcleaver. The CIA may not have assasinated JFK, but with its organizational culture and distinctive, serial-killer-morality, it will always be in the top 3 suspects of any sudden death of an influential person.

  21. Matthew W
    November 29th, 2013 @ 9:33 pm

    “Three Days of the Condor”

  22. tlk244182
    November 29th, 2013 @ 9:55 pm

    While anyone may project his own neurosis, guilt, aggression, whatever, onto another, I have gradually come to the same conclusion as you have, namely that it is a distinct mark of the leftist. Whatever the accusation: racism, lack of compassion, intellectual dishonesty or mediocrity, even greed; inevitably it turns out to be the projection of his own shortcomings onto his enemy.

  23. tlk244182
    November 29th, 2013 @ 10:04 pm

    One of my favorites. Especially the part where Redford notices the postman’s sneakers.

  24. G Joubert
    November 29th, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

    The socialist mindset thrives on paranoia.

  25. ConserAnimal
    November 29th, 2013 @ 10:14 pm

    RT @rsmccain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  26. PubliusNV
    November 29th, 2013 @ 10:31 pm

    RT @BobBelvedere: “-Damn well put, Stacy….” — Bob Belvedere http://t.co/zD2EVwnoTx

  27. PubliusNV
    November 29th, 2013 @ 10:31 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/LAtc7mWuQt

  28. BeccaJLower
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

    ICYMI: The CIA, #JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/tz6e73h55S via @rsmccain #tcot #teaparty #lnyhbt

  29. Drunk_by_Noon
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:15 pm

    The best evidence that I have found that Oswald did it, and acted alone is, that they guy was broke, couldn’t keep a job or friends, and used a $13 dollar rifle that would have been the last thing any conspiracy would have used.
    No real plan of escape and was apprehended little more than an hour later after killing a cop and trying to kill another while in the theatre.
    That does not sound like the mark of an innocent dupe to me.
    We are supposed to believe that Oswald is this super secret agent that lives in a closet at a rooming house, but is perpetually broke, and doesn’t even know how to drive?
    Right!

  30. DaveO
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

    “The Bourne Identity”

  31. DaveO
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:25 pm

    How many of our own soldiers and marines made the same shot (elevated, moving target) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most reports have Oswald having to be a super sniper like Carlos Hathcock in order to make the shot. How many hunters have made that shot from a tree-stand?

  32. Drunk_by_Noon
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:33 pm

    It wasn’t even a difficult shot for anyone that had any amount of experience with a rifle. The distance was less than two hundred yards.

  33. indybellusa
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:40 pm

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Y70nNhxd4P

  34. robcrawford2
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:51 pm

    The mob wouldn’t have sent a low-rate nobody who had never killed before to “cover their tracks” by shooting the manipulated gunman in front of dozens of cops and cameras.

    Occam’s Razor — Ruby was just as off his rocker, but in a different way.

  35. robcrawford2
    November 29th, 2013 @ 11:53 pm

    Both works of fiction.

    You realize fiction isn’t real, right?

  36. Bob Belvedere
    November 30th, 2013 @ 12:37 am

    And he was a former Marine.

  37. Stogie Chomper
    November 30th, 2013 @ 12:56 am

    Actually, the distance of the fatal headshot was only 265 feet, not yards. In 1967 a number of police and sheriff volunteers did it, in a test put on by CBS. 77% were able to hit the moving target 2 out of 3 tries, using Carcano rifles, with only limited time to practice working the bolt action. Oswald had months to practice at shooting ranges, and did so.

  38. JoyKeller1
    November 30th, 2013 @ 1:01 am

    The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/rqqAk0vKYD

  39. Stogie Chomper
    November 30th, 2013 @ 1:04 am

    Hope Stacey doesn’t mind me pointing this out, but I have several anti-conspiracy posts at my blog. The post that lists assassination resources includes a live web cam from the sniper’s lair, with a mark on the pavement where the fatal headshot occurred. There are also photos of how it looked in 1963, and one post giving three scientific proofs that the two bullets hitting Kennedy were fired at him from behind, thus refuting the conspiracy theorists’ claims of the grassy knoll.

    Finally, in a post about pissing on Oswald’s grave, I have a debate with a conspiracy fan. Check it out if interested, at saberpoint.blogspot.com. Just scroll down, all the posts are fairly close together.

  40. NeoWayland
    November 30th, 2013 @ 1:26 am

    When I talk to people who say that global climate change has to be controlled, they tell me that The Science Is Settled.

    The only thing I can say for sure about the JFK shooting is that the answer is muddled. When I look at the Zapruder film, it looks to me like the shot came from the front. When I look for other films, I find reports that some men flashing badges confiscated film and cameras literally as the motorcade rushed to the hospital.

    That makes me question the official story.

    As far as the various conspiracies, well, neither the CIA or the Mafia was known for being honest with the American people. Hoover was running the FBI at the time, and he had a few agendas of his own.

    Oswald may have been the perfect lone nut assassin. He may have been the perfect patsy. We don’t know. Too many people over the years have stirred the pot.

  41. RKae
    November 30th, 2013 @ 2:06 am

    I’ve really loved my visits here to The Other McCain. I guess it had to happen sometime: I finally have utter contempt for an article and the comments under it. Questioning the BS that flies out of the media and the government is not “paranoia.” Media and government should be thought of as guilty until proven innocent.
    And all the comments about the Left and “conspiracy theories”? PUH-LEEEZ!
    Obama’s birth certificate with its Photoshop layers?
    Benghazi?
    Obamacare as a mechanism of deliberate economic chaos?
    The gay activists doling out little morsels of what they want when we know they have an endgame FAR down the line?
    I’m on the Right and I believe in a very long list of conspiracy theories. In fact, I don’t think anyone with money and influence (political or corporate) ever tells the truth when a pleasant cover story will suffice.
    Any time we say that the news media and/or the White House is lying, THAT’S a conspiracy theory.
    As for JFK? Good God. If you believe the ridiculous story that Ruby was just beside himself with grief and that’s why he shot Oswald, then we’re just never going to agree.

  42. AmPowerBlog
    November 30th, 2013 @ 2:11 am

    .@RSMcCain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/xRxUOmQC5Y

  43. Stogie Chomper
    November 30th, 2013 @ 2:21 am

    Read something serious, not a conspiracy book. The conspiracy crowd lie like dogs. The simply make things up. No one confiscated any cameras after the shooting – that’s balderdash.

    I have seen the Zapruder film many times, and it has always appeared obvious to me that the head shot came from the rear, not the front. Kennedy’s head explodes outward from the front temple, an effect that could only be produced by an exit wound from the temple. There is no way an entry wound from the front could create that effect.

  44. Stogie Chomper
    November 30th, 2013 @ 2:30 am

    Try reading something factual and responsible. The JFK conspiracy theories are bunk. The book I recommend is “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, a tome that gives all the facts you won’t read in any of the conspiracy books. Another good one is Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed.” Finally, look through John McAdam’s site, the JFK/Kennedy Assassination Home Page. It refutes, convincingly, every conspiracy argument you can name.

    I get the impression that your devotion to the conspiracy theories is based more on emotion than knowledge. Free yourself from delusion and error. Truth is always better than fiction and myth.

  45. screwtape1a12
    November 30th, 2013 @ 3:27 am

    RT @rsmccain: The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview http://t.co/Vs6Zmnor1U

  46. NeoWayland
    November 30th, 2013 @ 7:08 am

    “Behold, The Science Is Settled!”

    It’s amazing that you know what I have read and what I have not read just because I disagree with you.

    We know that some people said their cameras were taken. Did it actually happen? We don’t know. I do find it odd that there is so little existing footage, but that doesn’t mean the cameras were taken. It doesn’t mean the cameras weren’t taken either.

    I’ve read explanations of how the bullets had to come from the rear. I’ve also read how the bullets had to come from the front. And I think there was one guy who insisted that the driver pulled his gun and blew JFK away.

    At this point it’s too muddled to tell what happened.

  47. The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
    November 30th, 2013 @ 7:38 am

    […] Read the rest … […]

  48. Popehat
    November 30th, 2013 @ 9:28 am

    On the insanity of Jim Garrison, who taught Mike Nifong how to be a prosecutor: http://t.co/gWG4uNLqOg

  49. gnewburn
    November 30th, 2013 @ 9:34 am

    RT @Popehat: On the insanity of Jim Garrison, who taught Mike Nifong how to be a prosecutor: http://t.co/gWG4uNLqOg

  50. APribetic
    November 30th, 2013 @ 9:38 am

    RT @Popehat: On the insanity of Jim Garrison, who taught Mike Nifong how to be a prosecutor: http://t.co/gWG4uNLqOg