This story is part of our series revisiting the JFK assassination. To understand why we’re doing this, read our introduction.
–OPINION–
Glenn Kessler, the chief writer of The Washington Post Fact Checker and presenter of the Pinocchio Awards, relies on the public for his column. As he explains:
It’s a big world out there, and so we will rely on readers to ask questions and point out statements that need to be checked. The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on the involvement of you — the reader. We will rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims.
But what happens if a reader sends in a letter to the editor pointing out erroneous claims published in the Post itself?
On December 27, a reader did send in such a letter. And it wasn’t just any reader. It was Peter Janney — son of a high-level CIA officer — who happens to have expert knowledge of the subject in question: the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
To date, the Post has not published that letter. Since we have worked with Janney in the past — we published excerpts from his book, mentioned below — he shared the letter with us.
We thought you should see it for yourself, and the document that accompanied it. They are self-explanatory.
WhoWhatWhy Introduction by Milicent Cranor
Dear Editor(s):
As the author of a book that deals in part with the JFK assassination (Mary’s Mosaic. Skyhorse Press, Third Edition, 2016.) and a close follower of director Oliver Stone’s work, I was taken aback by film critic Ann Hornaday’s erroneous, unqualified dismissal of Stone’s thesis regarding the role of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw in the assassination of JFK and of attorney Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw (“JFK at 30: Oliver Stone and the lasting impact of America’s most dangerous movie.” The Washington Post, December 26, 2021).
Hornaday cites “compelling evidence … that Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw was abetted and manipulated by intelligence agents in Moscow” and then she characterizes Oliver Stone’s filmic depiction of Shaw’s trial as “one of the most stunning successes of Soviet disinformation of the late 20th century.”
This is a breathtaking example of “counterfactualism” — and poor investigative journalism to say the least — a term Hornaday uses in other contexts in her wide-ranging critique of Stone’s film.
The relevant fact here is that the CIA itself acknowledged the strength of Garrison’s case against Shaw in a September 20, 1967,...
