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

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Lambert, a JFK conspiracy buff and writer, believes that the assassination has yet to be solved. In this engrossing report, she argues that New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison's 1969 prosecution of local businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy to murder KennedyAthe source for Oliver Stone's interpretation in his filmAwas reckless, fraudulent and nothing more than a red herring. A jury agreed, acquitting Shaw in 54 minutes. Lambert also makes a case that Stone used the trial to launch his attack on the Warren Report rather than to find the truth. Lambert contends that a key witness, Perry Russo, who was left out of the movie altogether, made his allegations under hypnosis and while drugged with a notoriously unreliable "truth serum," and that Garrison, through an assistant, tried to bribe at least one witness to supply false testimony. But the main points of divergence between Lambert and Stone come in their assessments of the characters: Stone portrays Garrison (who died in 1992) as a caring family man, a heroic truth-seeker battling sinister forces. Lambert, by contrast, presents the former DA as a mentally unhinged, fame-seeking demagogue who, she alleges, was also a wife-abuser and a pedophile. Stone's Shaw is, according to Lambert, "an arrogant, elitist sybarite, a butch homosexual with a taste for... conspiracy," while Lambert's Shaw is a restorer of French Quarter buildings, a lifelong registered Democrat and a civic leader. While emotions clearly play a role in which version (if any) readers will believe, Lambert must be commended for having done an impressive job of tracking evidence and putting together a compelling narrative of events. Photos.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

The national trauma that was the Kennedy assassination spawned a continuing legacy of government mistrust. Lambert presents an exciting, well-documented account of an early example of this bleak inheritanceADistrict Attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a well-respected, secretly gay member of the New Orleans business community, for allegedly heading a CIA plot to murder the President. After four years of Garrison's legal machinations, Shaw was found innocent, and Garrison was condemned by the New York Times for perpetrating "one of the most disgraceful chapters...of American jurisprudence." Remarkably, the trial became the primary source of information for the 1979 House Committee on the Kennedy Assassination Report, and Garrison's self-promoting memoir inspired Oliver Stone's conspiracy-happy film JFK. Lambert does not attempt to discredit any assassination theory, but she succeeds admirably in her stated goal of chronicling Shaw's innocence. Recommended for all public libraries.AKarl Helicher, Upper Merion Twp. Lib., King of Prussia, PA
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 400 pages
• Publisher: M. Evans and Company, Inc.; illustrated edition edition (February 25, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0871318792
• ISBN-13: 978-0871318794
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.4 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (39 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,308,045 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars False Witness, March 27, 2002

By	Tom Michaels (Northern California) - See all my reviews

This book is easy to read. It's convincing and believable . It flows nicely, and seems to be researched well. The suspense was so real I felt like cheering when we got to Judge Christenberry and his rulings. It was like the truth wins out and the bad guys get their just deserts. And then to know it was true life stuff was just added fuel for the fire. It also reflects much about our whole social structure. This is a very good book. But truly it is more. It should be required reading for everyone. It's like reading current events from the past. The many varied and colorful characters that are presented make it interesting to read. Those characters alone are what make the JFK film work well. It's a shame his film presented them in such a false manner. But, at least this book sets the record straight.

We need more books from this Lambert girl.

Sincerely - T. Michaels

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Weakly sourced and terribly biased view of Garrison investigation, May 11, 2009

By	IBR "Iowa Book Reviewer" (Iowa) - See all my reviews

This review is from: False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK (Paperback)

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.

57 of 86 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars INFLAMITORY AND SOMEWHAT MISGUIDED, May 27, 2000

By	Reticuli (Las Vegas) - See all my reviews

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.