Stephen Roy

Is it possible that Lovelady misrecalled or misstated the details of the shirt he wore? YES or NO Is it possible that the interviewing agent or memo writer misunderstood or misstated what Lovelady said? YES or NO

Some months back I corrected your misunderstanding of aspect ratio, that it can vary from camera to camera, from print to print. Now it's color. Every camera reproduces color a bit differently; every film (or digital imager) reproduces color a bit differently; every display (print or electronic) reproduces color a bit differently. It is the exception rather than the rule when colors match consistently. Every day, in the TV field, I deal with color inconsistency.

Karl If you would really prefer to have a re-hash of Ferrie info long on the public record, some accurate, some not, glommed together with what a person imagines Ferrie would have been like, rather than a bunch of all-new unpublished stuff with an eye toward accuracy, be my guest.

Yes, and I understand there is a bio of David Ferrie in the works, do you know anything about that Steve? BK Gee, no. This is the first I've heard of it. I hope it's by a credible and responsible researcher.

There is a biography of Clay Shaw in the works by Don Carpenter. Sounds interesting: http://donaldhcarpenter.com/index.htm I also hear rumors of another Shaw bio being written.

Sure. Mistakes creep into many works, and they get repeated. It's often a good idea to try to get a good second source, or to ask someone who specializes in a certain area.

At the time, the building was owned by Sam Newman.

Lou Ivon had been an NOPD officer when Garrison chose him and several others to be investigators for the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office. He was a low profile and cautious investigator, and was loyal to Garrison in many ways. He was portrayed in Stone's "JFK". He died of congestive heart failure. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/louis_ivon_former_legislator_a.html

Michael beat me to it! That 544 Camp Street stamp is one of the enduring central mysteries of the case. I don't have a definitive answer. I presume Oswald stamped it. One train of thought, which Jim D. explores, involves the people who said Oswald was associated with the office (Banister's office).

The Baker tale is a waste of research time. I am certain she never knew David Ferrie. If the Ferrie parts of her story are untrue, so too, in all likelihood, are the other parts.

My Lancer email indicates that our own Jim D will be there, too. Can we expect any pointed discussion??

Oswald asked the FPCC 50 copies of that pamphlet; the FPCC indicated that it sent him 50 copies; and Oswald thanked them for sending him pamphlets. That is pretty solid evidence. Why assume that the ONLY the CIA, not the FPCC itself, had first printings of the Lamont pamphlet? Why assume that the CIA would openly purchase 45 copies of the first printing for its reading room in 1961, hang onto them for two years, then use them in a covert operation in 1963? (Especially considering the FBI, who had a source in the FPCC, could probably have gotten whatever the CIA wanted). I did go back and re-read Destiny Betrayed. I guess we disagree. I don't see how the evidence trail in the V.T. Lee letters is superseded by the speculation about the successive printings or the 1961 CIA order.

Jim: One thing caught my eye in the O'Reilly review. You note that Oswald had copies of the Lamont "Crime Aganist Cuba" pamphlets from the first printing even though he received them in 1963. You also note that CIA ordered 45 of these pamphlets in 1961, and you suggest that Oswald's pamphlets might have come from the CIA batch. The Lamont pamphlet includes the words "Basic Pamphlets" on its cover. In an undated letter to the FPCC, Oswald asked for 40 or 50 of the fine, basic pamphlets. Someone at the FPCC circled 50 and made a notation that they were sent on 4/19/63, and Oswald thanked them for it in a later letter. That's a fairly good paper trail on the Lamont pamphlets.

I'm trying to establish the date from the available evidence, rather than trying to put it into chronological context. But looking at context, Greg is right. There were official and unofficial actions between the BoP and Mongoose. Recall what Arcacha wrote to Eastern Air Lines in July: After the Bay of Pigs, the anti-Castro movement (and specifically Arcacha's FRD) was demoralized and disorganized, and along came Ferrie to prod it. As for the destination of the arms, Quiroga, in his HSCA depo, said that he drove them to the MDC in Miami.

Although the timing of Houma is not critical, the bulk of the evidence points to the September date, the primary difference being whether it was before or after the BoP. Novel said different things at different times. In their first NODA interview, he and Ehlinger placed it in September; When he contacted the FBI on 2/21/67, he again said September; By his 1969 Playboy depo, he said somewhere around February, but added that his activities extended to late 1961 (p81) and that he didn't really recall exact dates (p62). (He also goofed on other dates in that depo: He said he had meetings in Banister's office in the Balter Building (Room 434) in 1961, but Banister had vacated the Balter for his new office in the Newman Building on Lafayette Street back in June 1960, presumably before he met Novel.) Some 40+ years after the event, I had him relate the Houma affair to other events in his life and he settled on September 1961. In contrast, as I noted before, Ehlinger, Mancuso, Martens and Blackmon all dated it in September. Others who handled or saw the arms during their brief time at Banister's office (Quiroga and Gerdes) said September or October. Indeed, Martens cannot have been involved in the operation prior to the BoP as he wasn't yet associated with the group; and Quiroga didn't become associated with the group until September. Quiroga, incidentally, said that the arms went to the MDC in Miami several months after the BoP. On balance, the bulk of the evidence points to September, and Novel's depo testimony being wrong. And there are other little hints as well. BTW, I agree, from speaking with him, that Novel was not the umbrella man.

At different times, Novel, Ehlinger, Mancuso, Martens and Blackmon all placed it in September. Novel specifically told me this. Martens placed it after his Aug 31 arrest and close to the beginning of the semester; in any case, it had to be after Martens joined the FRD, which was just after the BoP. Some of the arms were stored at Banister's office for a short time, and Vernon Gerdes saw the Schlumberger boxes there in late September 1961. Carlos Quiroga came into the operation only after September 11, and a few days later he drove the arms to Miami with a U-Haul. Some of the Schlumberger aramaments are said to have been stored in Ferrie's home, but that home was searched several times by police, sheriff's office and others around the time of Ferrie's August 22 morals arrest, and no such arms were found, suggesting that the arms came to the home after those searches. John Harris told the FBI that Ferrie had a cache of arms, but this was around Sept-Oct 1961. It seems that most of the evidence of the timing of the Houma affair points to mid-September 1961. I was wondering what convinces you that it was earlier.

There is a substantial body of evidence placing the Houma episode in mid-September 1961, likely September 17. What convinces you of the earlier date?

Fascinating info. Thanks Larry, Michael and John.

Since posting above, a Google search shows that Tilton has been discussed online, including in this very forum. Sorry! John, was he in Bolivia in 1963? Is that the "area where [FPCC] has some support"?

I recall reading in one of the Church Committee volumes about the CIA telling the FBI that it was considering countering the activities of the FPCC, right around the time of the Oswald affair, and it raised my eyebrows. I recently stumbled upon the actual document on the Ferrell site, unredacted with a name included. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=135052&relPageId=2 Has anyone ever heard of this John Tilton?

Just a quick note about searching the Weisberg Archive: I seem to get better results when I do a Google search, but on the advance options page, I limit it to the domain jfk.hood.edu It depends on optical character recognition, but it turns up some interesting stuff.

Weisberg's writings are so sprawled across his poorly-organized (but valuable) website, and his letters seemed to meander everywhere, that it's hard to tell. He often repeats that he was not paid for a late 1968 trip, that Garrison never really warmed to him or took his advice at times, that he had problems with the Perrin matter, as you note, that he disagreed with having LHO innocent but also part of the conspiracy case, etc. Although some of his exchanges with Garrison in the 70s seem cordial, he seemed to re-ignite his anger when On The Trail came out, and he got very angry when he learned about the Stone film. A very significant guy and an influence on me, but quirky.

Don: I'm not closed-minded about it. It is possible that Andrews received a call in 1963, perhaps even likely, given the quickness of his contacts with Regis Kennedy. I'm just trying to place it in the logical context of conspiracy. Further, Andrews could be a bit flaky at times, and I'm trying to reason-out which of his accounts "ring truer." I must also confess to having been influenced by Harold Weisberg. In the 80s and 90s, he counseled me to be a bit skeptical of the New Orleans investigation, and his writings at the Hood Archive tend to reinforce that. But a caveat: Harold could be very "firm of opinion," and he had some issues with the New Orleans investigation which caused him to be too-uncompromising at times. I am open to being convinced, and I respect Jim DiEugenio and I look forward to the update of Destiny Betrayed. Jim, somewhere you gave your take on why Weisberg had problems with the NO investigation, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you point me to it, or re-state it? Thanks!

You sound very certain about it. I've covered much the same ground, and I am not so certain about it. That Andrews told people of a call from Washington is not a very specific intimidation. He continued to talk about the call though 1967, including under oath, so he can't have been very intimidated by it. And Andrews' accuracy in relating such events is a central issue, as Weisberg said. Andrews did tell a few others about a call in 1963, but even one of them said something like he's "sure Andrews believes that he got such a call." Again, it rests on Andrews's accuracy in relating such events. His 1963 Bertrand was a young guy with a blond crew-cut. Which story was the accurate one? If people think the Andrews story falls together, I must be missing something.

Who intimidated him?