Customer Reviews

False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film, JFK

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

When one attempts to unravel the truth of the Jim Garrison investigation through the written record, the first thing you notice is that there seems to be no middle ground surrounding it. Either Garrison walked on water or he was the devil himself. What would be wonderful is a truly independent biography that would use the work of Davy and DiEugenio and Mellan and also the work of Lambert and Kirkwood et al(and the FBI)and write an unbiased work that would chronicle the investigation both good and bad because while I think Garrison and his investigation did an immense amount of good his investigation was at times abusive and ridiculous(as evidenced by the participants in the investigations reluctance to refute abusive Big Jim stories that have been around for years, though they have had ample opportunitoes to do so and to cleanse themselves in the process).

Secondly, I have read Patricia Lambert's book and found it to be extremely one sided. Lambert's book rests on the shoulders of James Phelan, James Kirkwood, the FBI and unnamed sources. While she conducts some interviews she buries numerous instances in footnotes and elsewhere when the subject vehemently disagrees with the rumor the author puts forth, such as Garrison's lawyers putting a gun in the mouth a witness, Perry Russo's suicide attempt and rumors of very weird sexual practices etc. The basis for these salacious stories is usually Mr. "unnamed source" or high level Bureau (or CIA maybe) sources which permeate Lambert's footnotes and text like stinking dead fish. When you conclude a paragraph by stating that someone with knowledge told you there were "other" ominous reasons Garrison was let go from the FBI and you credit this statement and let the rumor hang out unsourced you devalue your entire project. Ms. Lambert does this throughout the book and it does not take long to know what you are reading is a one sided hatchet job.

I agree her book should be read to give a picture of the the worst that was accused of the Garrison investigation but this book doesn't lead anyone much closer to determining the truth.

First: Oliver Stone's "JFK" was only partially inspired by Jim Garrison's memoirs. It was based mostly on the Jim Marrs book and often used the Clay Shaw trial only as backdrop for Marrs' and Stone's theories.

Second: Jim Garrison did not find evidence of direct assassination participation of current employees of the intelligence, military, law enforcement, and judicial community. Rather he found evidence that these groups seemed to have been mostly negligent and desirous of covering up their negligence. The main groups thought involved were Cuban-exiles, right-wing militia members, and agent level former intelligence recruitees (i.e. former non-operative level puppets). Mafia and wealthy bankers were thought to have possibly provided some support. The assassination was supposedly caused by blow-back as a result of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion JFK had publicly taken responsibility for. Modern records actually prove the CIA had disobeyed his orders in the planning of the operation to include air-support.

Third: As Garrison's case proceeded, the Clay Shaw ties became murky in light of the actual player's and event's increasingly apparent complexity. In the end, the prosecution seemed a little obsessed with Clay Shaw. Even Stone's flawed film alluded to this.

Fourth: If you want to talk about lawyer control of the police, let's discuss New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick (father of Harry Connick Jr., musician), rival and successor of Jim Garrison. He ordered a police officer to destroy notes and papers from the Shaw trial. The officer disobeyed and stored these articles of historical importance in his attic. When the Assassination Records Review Board, started by Bush and funded by Clinton, made its way to New Orleans, the officer attempted to give them the notes and papers. Connick promptly threw the man in jail and attempted to do the same with the only reporter in New Orleans who'd listen to the story. The Board eventually received the historical documents and the wrongfully imprisoned were released. As far as I know, the only news station which aired this story was the reporter's own local one. I am not aware of any national coverage of this except in one piece of obscure journalists' rights literature. In reality, many of the accusers of Jim Garrison had ties with the same media companies which refused to stay objective on the trial and later apologized for their conduct; NBC and company come to mind.

Fifth: False Witness seems to polarize and filter information on the subject, choosing some questionable sources to quote. It also tends to rely more on inflamitory alleged accounts than actual physical evidence - worse than the somewhat deficient Shaw trial. There is also sparse discussion on the strange disappearance and destruction of evidence shortly after the assassination.

Final Words: I cannot wholly recommend this emotionally charged book. I have a difficult time coming to any final conclusion on the JFK assassination. It's important to keep gathering evidence and accounts, paying particular attention to views and theories held by past and present parties. We will be able to have a more complete dialog on the subject when pertinent material is released from the National Archives on the specified date. Even then, one need remember that the CIA admitted during the Congressional MK-Ultra hearings to having destroyed a very large portion of its most sensitive and classified documents. Yet, out of the small portion of relatively benign documentation which remained came evidence of serious ethical violations, and suggestions of illegal acts. It makes me wonder what information was contained in the documents they were actually compelled to destroy.

Let me state that I've read a large amount of books on this subject. In part, I've read `On the Trail of the Assassins', `Crossfire', and this book. The problem with these types of books is that they are so biased toward their own point of view. As some reviewers pointed out already, Garrison is either portrayed as a superhero or a corrupt politician. This book takes the latter point of view.

I've read `On the Trail of the Assassins' several times and just couldn't believe how Garrison made himself out to be a crusading angel. Each time I read the book I felt more and more like I was only getting a very limited view. When I saw the movie `JFK', I immediately recognized Jim Marr's influence in the plot and watched it from the standpoint that it was fiction.

This book is very critical of the job that Garrison did, but I felt that it was closer to the truth than Garrison's account. Where most pro conspiracy books fall short is that they take simple human mistakes, poor decisions, and inept people and give it all a sinister spin. This book is like that only it directs all its focus on one person, Garrison.

This book talks a lot about how Garrison misused his official office, but it can't be as bad as this author suggests or Garrison couldn't have moved forward as he did. There is quite a bit of discussion about Garrison threatening people with jail time to keep them quiet, but almost no talk about the judges that must have been approving those warrants. Wouldn't those judges be misusing their offices just as bad as Garrison was?

The author suggests that Garrison misused his office by prosecuting Clay Shaw on the flimsiest of evidence. This makes me wonder if she's ever seen CourtTV or any of the hundreds of TV shows out there about innocent people convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on extremely flimsy evidence.

Where I think this book is strong is that it makes it clear how accidental misinformation, deliberate lies, and unchecked ambition, goes a long way to making a mountain out of a mole-hill. This happens every day and will probably continue to happen. Clay Shaw was found innocent of the charge, he was one of the lucky ones. Many people who are wrongly prosecuted ARE convicted and are sitting in prison right now.

I think this book is way too critical of the Garrison investigation. It borders on personal attacks of Garrison. I think the Garrison book is way to supportive of the investigation. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

When I ordered this book I felt that I would learn something new or interesting about the Garrison Circus in New Orleans.

However, what I found was a mish-mash of stories and innuendo from Ms.Lambert and in fact nothing new whatsoever that I had not already read about. Anyone who has read Posner's "Case Closed" will have a distinct feeling of deja vu although Posner writes only for one chapter about Garrison citing various informatinon about the weather in Clinton, Louisiana and such whilst Ms.Lambert using a whole book takes it upon herself to try and shatter Garrison's case into pieces which frankly she just does not do.

It is too implausible to believe that Garrison exerted so much power over the Police, the Louisiana Judicial System and many dozens of witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana who claimed to have seen Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie in their town.

Although it is well written and reads easy (I read it in a day) it's just too much to swallow.

Even with the above all said and done I would still buy the book because it gave me a few hours of amusement whilst I read it.

Anyone looking to punch holes in Jim Garrison, look elsewhere!

While I am not a huge fan of Jim Garrison or his case, he is to be commended for the focus he gave to Ferrie, Banister, Oswald, New Orleans, the Z film, and, ultimately, the "JFK" movie/ his own books/ the JFK Act/ the ARRB. In fact, James DiEugenio, William Davy, and Joan Mellen have written quality books defending his side of things.
Back in the mid-1970's, Patricia Lambert, then known as Patricia BILLINGS (ANY RELATION TO RICHARD BILLINGS OF HSCA FAME???), she was an assisitant to David Lifton on "Best Evidence" *and* wrote two (technically, three) heavy-hitting articles on the Secret Service's failures in Dallas (which I duly acknowledge in my work on the Secret Service). Shades of Dan Moldea and a few others, she has know changed her stripes.
What else can I say? AVOID.
vince palamara

After book after book and a movie about how Clay Shaw just sliped through Jim Garrison's fingers, this book was a revelation. Lambert sheds light on the facts that Garrison supporters ignored or glossed over. One of finest non-fiction works I have ever read.

It's unfortunate that many people's only education regarding the JFK assasination is from Oliver Stone's film, JFK. This book should be required reading for anyone who has seen that film or who followed Garrison's investigation. False Witness tells the true story, which is basically that Garrison was an evil megalomaniac who persecuted innocent people for his own agrandizement.... It's a shame that a film hasn't been made to tell the real story as it is an interesting one. There is an excellent documentary based on this book that will never be seen by the number of people that would see a regular feature film. As a point of interest, Stone cast John Candy in the role of Dean Andrews, which was perfect casting, but John Candy, at Stone's direction, misplayed the affable, jolly Andrews as a dark, sinister character.

The only complaint I had about this book is that the author chose to make a shallow, flimsy attack on Gerald Posner, the JFK conspiracy debunker, which left a feeling that Ms. Lambert had a personal axe to grind regarding Posner.

It is almost unthinkable, but after more than 30 years New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison still has a small but loyal following that believes he was on the right track in his investigation of the Kennedy assassination and prosecution of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw.

Garrison charged Shaw with conspiring to kill the 35th President along with Lee Harvey Oswald (who, by the way, did have something to do with the crime) and David Ferrie, a pilot and self-appointed cancer researcher. After a trial that captured world-wide coverage and nearly bankrupted Shaw, he was found not guilty in less than an hour. The folly of Garrison's investigation has been well-documented through books such as American Grotesque by James Kirkwood and The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power by Milton Brener. Most conspiracy-oriented researchers who initially embraced Garrison dropped him like a hot potato, some even before the case came to trial.

However, with the 1991 release of Oliver Stone's film JFK (which fictionalized the New Orleans investigation), Garrison has made a comeback that would have made Richard Nixon proud. Stone portrays Garrison as an American hero battling the military-industrial complex (and Lyndon Johnson and the CIA and the Mafia and God knows who else) in an effort to learn the truth about the assassination. His own account of the investigation, On the Trail of the Assassins (one of two books Stone used as the basis for his film), was on the New York Times Paperback Best Sellers list for 13 weeks following the film's debut.

Considering the apparent level of credibility given to Stone's film by the majority of the movie-going public (seeing is believing), the need for an ongoing evaluation of Garrison's (and now Stone's) abuses is clear. Enter Patricia Lambert and her 1998 book False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK (M. Evans and Company Inc., New York-ISBN 0-87131-879-2). Her book provides that evaluation while offering new evidence concerning both Garrison's methods and his own dubious background. It also provides a sharp look at Stone's personal reasons for wanting to make JFK and his choice of Garrison as his protagonist.

Lambert devotes a full chapter to Stone's film and makes some solid observations. The complete list of falsehoods and distortions in JFK is beyond the scope of this review and could be a book in itself, but some discussed by Lambert are:

1. The beating of Jack Martin by Guy Banister. Stone exaggerated the severity of the beating and changed the reason for it from an argument over phone calls to Martin's comment that he could "write a book" about the comings and goings of characters at Banister's office.

2. The cause of David Ferrie's death is suggested by Stone to be murder while in truth he died of natural causes.

3. Stone uses dialogue and flashbacks to suggest that Dean Andrews really did know a "Clay Bertrand" (and he and Shaw were the same person) while in reality Andrews denied that Bertrand was Shaw and refused to testify to that fact.

4. Stone excludes Perry Russo (except for Garrison mentioning his name to Shaw during the "Easter interview"), who was really Garrison's entire case, from the film completely and substitutes "Willie O'Keefe", a fascist homosexual prostitute, who also happens to be fictional.

5. Stone portrays Shaw as a arrogant, overtly homosexual individual. In reality, Shaw was "in the closet" and a respected community figure.

6. Lambert punches many holes in the "X" character portrayed by Donald Sutherland. Among these are the "DC phone system shutdown" myth and the "New Zealand papers had information too quickly" canard. She also shows that Fletcher Prouty, who was the basis for "X", has credibility problems.

7. Stone's portrayal of the Shaw trial is severely flawed. He mostly eliminated the defense portion and distorted Garrison's closing argument.

Patricia Lambert has done a tremendous service with the publication of False Witness. This book should be required reading for anyone seeing JFK; in fact, they should sell it at Blockbuster Video. I believe that the opinion of Stone and his film among the general public would be much different if it were. Stone knew, however, that the average movie-goer (especially generation "X" types) would not be knowledgeable about the subject, and he would be free to rewrite history.

Stone's motive in all this? Money, of course, but also he sought in this film (as he had in Nixon and Born on the Fourth of July, among others) to inject meaning into his own Vietnam experience. Garrison's motive in prosecuting Shaw in the first place? Most likely, he sought publicity that he hoped would help him attain higher office.

In addition to the material discussed in this review, Lambert adds a full chapter on the Christenberry decision in which Garrison was prevented from further prosecution of Shaw. Also included is an appendix, which lists the many lies and distortions of Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins.

In False Witness, Lambert shows without a doubt that Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was completely without merit. She also demonstrates that any film based on this miscarriage of justice would be congenitally flawed This is a landmark work and should be required reading for anyone studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy, particularly Garrison's investigation.

I had already read and enjoyed this book before I read other people's reviews. I find it amusing, but not suprising, that the pro-conspiracy lunatic fringe would come out in force to slam Lambert's book with one-star ratings, as they do any book that does not fit their particular view of this tragedy. I continue to find it amazing how many of the hard-core buffs will defend the most untenable theories. An objective person would seemingly place the Garrison / Stone view among the lowest of the waste heap of discarded theories, especially when one knows of the real Garrison who ran wild in New Orleans for many years. Even David Lifton (author of Best Evidence), who espoused some pretty crazy theories, saw through Garrison.

The actual trial is part of the public record. Reading the transcript and the contemporaneous accounts of it reveals the liberties Stone took with what occurred. There is a reason why Perry Russo, Charles Spiesel, and Vernon Bundy do not appear in the movie JFK. Stone would look as foolish as Garrison did when these "witnesses" testified in court.

My advice to people new to the JFK buffs: the more shrill, one-star denunciations of a book, the more a reasonable person may want to read the book and decide for themself. I give Lambert a B for writing, and an A+ for having the guts to incur the wrath of the cult of "buffs." And no, I don't work for the CIA.

This story was brand new to me (I am too young to remember Garrison). I found what happened schocking and fascinating at the same time. I especially liked the description of what happened in the various court rooms, especially the last one in Federal Court. This is a tragic story but one with inspiring heroes. I think everyone interested in our country's history will enjoy this book.