“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

George Orwell

The QUICK article clearly demonstrates that Jim Garrison, in late February and early March 1967, put homosexuality at the heart of his investigation into the JFK assassination. It's consistent with what Garrison told journalists like Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Jack Anderson, Merriman Smith, and Art Kevin.

Garrison repeated the same nonsense to the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1967

The interest in homosexuality went beyond what Garrison told a few journalists. The journals of Richard Billings and the diary of Tom Bethell are rife with references to homosexuals and homosexuality. As we have shown on this blog, Garrison even sent Assistant D. A. John Volz to talk to Dr. Robert E. Heath at Tulane University about Clay Shaw:

What's interesting is that Volz went to Heath with Garrison's suggestion about Shaw's motive.

Conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio not only do not discuss the issue of homosexuality in the case, they deny it was ever a factor. Here's James DiEugenio from a review of my book, On The Trail of Delusion:

For the record, there is not one memo I have read that shows Garrison ever outlined such a homosexual-oriented plot. At the beginning of the inquiry, there is evidence that Garrison was suspecting a militant rightwing plot. And as Garrison developed cases against Shaw and Ferrie, he was checking out leads that would connect them in the gay underworld. But nothing that either Peter Vea or Malcolm Blunt ever uncovered shows what Litwin is trying to impute to Garrison. Those two men are the two best pure archival researchers ever on the JFK case. And Vea specialized in the Garrison files.

Here is his reaction to the QUICK articles:

Litwin has gone off the rails. He needs an intervention. No one but him could take this seriously. There is no evidence for what Litwin is talking about, and to actually rely on Aynesworth and Phelan, two FBI stoolies, in order to start your argument shows how desperate the man is. That article is a piece of sensationalism, bordering on pulp. Compare it to any of the interviews Garrison did around that time and you will see the difference. But Litwin does not do that does he? Because that is textual analysis. Relational analysis is comparing what is in an article or essay with the database it comes from.

Ridiculous. Fred, ever hear of textual and relational analysis? The first is where you compare what has been written around that time to the object of inquiry. In that regard, the idea that Garrison ever said anything about this or wrote anything like it amounts to zero. Relational analysis is when you compare the database with the article. Again, zero. Marina drove Oswald to be a homosexual? Clay Shaw was the brains behind the plot? Oswald was in love with Ferrie? Ferrie ordered Ruby to kill LHO? Please Fred.

BTW, anyone who is familiar with Garrisons' files knows what Garrison suspected early on. He thought it was a rightwing, Minuteman kind of a plot. There is evidence of this in the files which Litwin does not want to tell you about. Because it defeats his cheap smear, and politically he does not like it. Which tells you all you need to know. That article is a piece of pulp which is so different than anything Garrison ever wrote or spoke about that only Litwin could think differently. For example, compare it to the Playboy interview of 1967. That Fred could maintain that idea in the face of all this says much more about him than it does about Garrison.

And, of course, he is right that there is no such memo from Jim Garrison about a homosexual plot. But, as seen above, Garrison did discuss such a plot with many people. And the concept of homosexuality animated his investigators who probed people's sexuality and fed Garrison a steady stream of gossip, innuendo and rumors about gay people in New Orleans.

And DiEugenio cannot hide from the fact that Clay Shaw was targeted because he was a homosexual. Here is an excerpt from a paper written by Richard Billings, "The Power of Public Disclosure," complete with an annotation from Jim Garrison.

Here we see Garrison's favorite investigative technique, propinquity, at play. The notation refers to a paragraph on what "convinced Garrison that Shaw and Ferrie were acquainted."

"This plus Marochini plus mutual homosexuality plus C.A.P. + I.T.M. correlations."

Marochini refers to Dante Marochini who had the misfortune of knowing Ferrie and working for Reily Coffee, when Oswald was there greasing the machines. Garrison subpoenaed Marochini for questioning, but he knew nothing.

All throughout Garrison's investigation, homosexuality kept popping up. Here are several examples:

Garrison's investigators knew what he was interested in, and made sure to emphasize any homosexual angle. I've previously posted a memo written by Roger Craig telling Garrison that Marina Oswald's doctor was a homosexual.

Here's a memo with important information on Gordon Novel:

Here's a letter from Garrison to William Turner that borders on the ridiculous:

And they knew where to get leads:

The Mattachine Society was started in 1950 to bring together isolated homosexuals and to assist gay people in need.

Here's a good example of how Garrison focused on homosexuality. Richard Giesbrecht supposedly saw David Ferrie at the airport in Winnipeg, Canada. Here is a memo from William Turner; look at Garrison's interest:

Garrison's notation reads: "Tom: Let me look at the Giesbrecht interview, + see if this adds meaning."

After Clay Shaw's acquittal, Garrison's attention turned to trying to find new evidence regarding his purported perjury. And that meant a new look at many gay leads. The fag ball from 1962 was reexamined.

And here's an important memo:

Even as late as 1977, Garrison was still interested in homosexuality - he gave a list of suggested questions that the HSCA should ask of Thomas Beckham. Here's one about Fred Crisman:

I don't know if James DiEugenio has seen these documents (and many more like them) in the various files. I suspect he has but has ignored them because they don't fit in with his image of Jim Garrison as the brave, swashbuckling District Attorney who battles the powers-that-be.

Jim Garrison ran a sham investigation that was marred by homophobia. There's nothing to be proud of at all.

By the way, the $64 challenge still stands:

What serious evidence did Garrison have, at the time Shaw was arrested, that he had conspired with anybody to kill JFK?

Winner will receive $64, and a signed copy of On The Trail of Delusion.

A Hearty Thank You

Paul Hoch has helped shape this series on QUICK and I am grateful for his incredible research, his terrific copy-editing, and his brilliant insights.

The QUICK Blog Posts

Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK?

Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part One)

Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Two)

Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Three)

Garrison Disavows the QUICK article

Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Ruby and Oswald Were Homosexuals

Jim Garrison Feigns Indication at the Mention of Clay Shaw's Homosexuality

Did Lawrence Schiller Write the QUICK article?

Did Nerin Gun Write the QUICK article?