[Ben Holmes]

From the Washington Post, Nov 17, 2016:

Joyce Carol Oates Wrote:The most notorious of the conspiracy theorists was the publicity-seeking New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, who misused his office to prosecute a fellow New Orleans citizen as a conspirator on virtually no evidence (the man was acquitted).

Other than the opening remarks to the jury, Garrison almost never appeared in this case against Clay Shaw.

But the point that refutes this lie is the fact that the CIA and the Justice Department went to great efforts to derail the prosecution of Clay Shaw. Until believers can explain that fact in a non-conspiratorial and credible manner, the facts tend to support the prosecution.

Believers just HATE Jim Garrison - who went far in releasing a great deal of evidence tending to show a conspiracy. This can be seen in Joyce Carol Oates assertion...

[Patrick C]

I have no issue with Jim Garrison.

He was a nut case. Shaw was innocent.

And there was no "great deal of evidence tending to show a conspiracy."

[Ben Holmes]

(11-19-2016, 12:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have no issue with Jim Garrison.

He was a nut case. Shaw was innocent.

And there was no "great deal of evidence tending to show a conspiracy."

You have "no issue" with Jim Garrison - yet you absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge the efforts by the CIA and the Justice Dept. to interfere with his case.

Which means that you well understand just how weak your beliefs are...

And, of course, merely re-enforces your cowardice I've so often pointed out...