Final_Judgment

695 Final Word? [597]
Clay Shaw from Garrison's allegations that the New Orleans
trade executive was involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy.
There are those who have called Reitzes a mouthpiece for the CIA—
among other choice things—but whether he is or not, the fact is that Reitzes,
more so than anyone else (in my estimation) has been a thoughtful and
careful critic of Garrison. I've commented myself that Garrison's
investigation was flawed in many ways and I will be the first to admit it. So
I felt from my first encounter with Reitzes on an Internet news group that if
anybody could raise questions in my own mind about my own thesis it
would be Reitzes. In the end, though, I was wrong.
I sent Reitzes a copy of Final Judgment and eagerly (if not a bit
nervously) awaited his public review of the book. Dave had previously
defended me (and I appreciated that) from allegations of anti-Semitism
(based, at least, on what he had seen of my writings as posted on the
Internet news group) and reserved a "final judgment" until he had actually
read the book. I appreciated that.
However, once Reitzes reviewed the book, I breathed a sigh of relief
that the one person I thought might be able to give me reason to reconsider
my conclusions in Final Judgment had failed to do so.
Calling the book "a morass of irrelevance," Reitzes surprised me when
he took issue with my contention that what I called "the controlled media"
had played a major part in covering up the truth about the JFK assassination
conspiracy. He said that was "sheer fantasy" —evidently dismissing the
very thought that the media had played a part in promoting the "lone
assassin" theory and defending the Warren Commission Report.
Dave's review was quite extended and I could never do it justice in just
this brief overview but basically what it boiled down to was Dave's
particular pet peeve: his defense of Clay Shaw coupled with his thesis that
Shaw's association with Permindex was not only entirely innocent but also that
there is no evidence of any kind that Permindex had any connections to either
the Mossad or the CIA or to any intelligence intrigue of any kind.
He cited Clay Shaw's own interview with Penthouse in which Shaw
said, "I have never had any connection with the CIA." The fact that Reitzes
would even repeat Shaw's claim that he "never had any connection with the
CIA" is remarkable, if only because of the fact that it is thoroughly
documented in de-classified CIA files that Shaw did indeed—at the very least—
provide some thirty reports to the CIA over at least an eight year period,
supposedly ending in approximately 1956. So Shaw did have a "connection"
with the CIA. But Shaw was obviously lying to Penthouse, although, of course,
the facts about Shaw's CIA connection didn't come out until some years after
Shaw's death.
In any case, Reitzes clearly has taken the position that anything Shaw
said has to be believed—the evidence notwithstanding. Shaw told
Penthouse that he knew nothing about Permindex's activities and Reitzes
believes him, but as I sarcastically told Reitzes, "Sure. Clay Shaw would
admit that Permindex was involved in all sorts of intrigue."