Jim Garrison and the Three Judges

 

 

Garrison advocates often prefer to dodge the issue of the credibility of Jim Garrison's "case" against Clay Shaw by insisting that if Garrison's evidence were not credible, Shaw would not have been bound over for trial by the three-judge panel that presided over Shaw's preliminary hearing. But is even this lame plea to authority valid? First of all, we hear from Richard Billings that the preliminary hearing was "requested by Garrison in [a] move to beat [the] defense, so [as] to be able to pick [the] judge." The judge picked was Bernard Bagert, who also presided over the Grand Jury responsible for Clay Shaw's indictment. Judge Bagert chose to appoint two more judges, Judge Malcolm O' Hara and Judge Matthew Braniff (another "cooperative judge," according to Jim Garrison),(1) to preside over the hearing.

Garrison's star witness, Perry Russo, would later confirm thar "the decision [for the judges to bind Shaw over for trial was] cut and dried before the hearing [began] unless he [Russo] fell absolutely to pieces on the witness stand." Russo added his opinion that "he thought that O'Hara was the only one who acted half-way honest on the three-judge panel."(2)

Did the judges rule in favor of the prosecution because they were impressed by the State's evidence (presented in its entirety at this link), or was their decision based on other factors?

Judge Bagert said flat-out that he had no choice; if they had let Shaw go, "the nation and the world would have charged a fix."(3)

Judge Braniff explained his decision to bind Shaw over this way: "Gee, I don't know; perhaps because of the seriousness of the situation. It's a public affair. The President of the United States is involved."(4)

Judge O'Hara spoke to Life representative Sam Angeloff, continuously referring to the preliminary hearing as "that shit last week." O'Hara told Patricia Lambert in 1993 that Garrison's evidence was "water thin" and his case was "a joke."(5)

Now that the entire preliminary hearing transcript is online, anyone can verify for themselves precisely how strong a case Jim Garrison had against Clay Shaw.

 

Back to the top

Back to Reitzes newsgroup menu

Back to Jim Garrison menu

 

NOTES

1. "Pick judge": Richard Billings, investigative notes, March 3, 1967; "cooperative judge": Billings notes, February 23, 1967.

2. Interview with Perry Russo, Memorandum by Edward Wegmann, January 27, 1971.

3. New York World Journal Tribune, March 29, 1967; Milton Brener, The Garrison Case (New York: Potter, 1970), p. 131; Patricia Lambert, False Witness (New York: M. Evans & Co., 1998), p. 103.

4. Brener, p. 131.

5. Lambert, 103, 103 fn.

 

Back to the top

Back to Reitzes newsgroup menu

 

Back to Jim Garrison menu

Back to JFK menu

 

Search this site
 
    powered by FreeFind
 

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page  

 

Dave Reitzes home page