Stephen Roy

I guess I fired off the post without wording it more carefully. I should have said that I have enough reservations about the story that I can't accept it as genuine, based on my study of the book and a few conversations with Lewis in 1993. He was very short on detail and seemed unwilling to discuss anything I might use to verify any aspect of his story. Sorry for overstating it. I can't explain why Marina said she recalled him. I could only guess that he might have talked her into believing that he was the person from some fuzzy memory. He did say that he felt very timid about going into the encounter with her.

Bill, you have your Lewis-es confused. David Franklin Lewis Jr. was an associate of Martin and Banister. He never claimed to have double-dated with Oswald (and his widow only made the claim after Baker contacted her.) Ronald LeVore Lewis (no relation) claimed to have been Oswald's best friend in New Orleans, and he wrote about it in a book called Flashback. His story is untrue.

There is no credible evidence that Baker knew Ferrie. For that matter, there is no credible evidence that Sherman worked with Ferrie.

Are you serious? Can anybody follow what he just said?

In the first place, Mr. Phelps, I have no desire to "distract" from your writings on Permindex or anything else. Frankly, I have trouble understanding what you're on about, and I suspect others likewise find your writings hard to follow. All I did was note that you seem to be obsessed with writing your theories about Jews. I find it offensive, and in some countries like Canada, it would be actionable as hate speech.

===== Depends on the facet of Jewish Belief. You read the Babylon Talmud, the Jewish Law, and tell us that you agree with all the bad hate comments on Gentiles, the Non-Jewish. Because, if you want to agree with those hate filled comments toward non Jewish oriented people, then you likely didn't need to ask a silly distraction question. In your writings, it is hard to miss your unusually high level of interest in and focus on Jewish people. The phrasing of your response to my question tells me all I need to know.

While you're not patting yourself on the back for page views... Do you have a problem with Jewish folks?

I was just saying that, in most of the online JFK discussion groups, there are a lot of people with uncompromising positions for or against Garrison, which makes it hard to opine that Garrison was a smart and sincere guy who deeply believed in his case and who peeked under rocks not yet examined, but that he made a few mistakes.

Nice find! In her WC testimony, Marguerite Oswald was less clear about it, blurring the distinction between the Civil Air Patrol guy and the "Marine recruiting officer." This clarifies that "a civilian, who she believes was associated with the Civil Air Patrol, induced Lee Oswald to join the United States Marines." And because this is from 1964, before the publicity concerning Ferrie, it carries added weight. One more point to consider: Oswald joined the CAP at Moisant Airport on July 27, 1955, during the "three summer months" that Ferrie was associated with the unit (and confirmed by the Chuck Francis picture, often referred to as the Ciravolo picture). In his October 3, 1956 letter to the Socialist Party of America, Oswald stated that he had "been studying socialist principles for well over fifteen months," which one might reasonably interpret as more than 15 months but less than 16 months. Counting backward, that would place the start of his studies at about July-August 1955, just about the time he encountered Ferrie in the CAP. Interesting timing. You never know what you're going to find at the Ferrell site. I do wish, however, that they had an archive of Garrison files online there. I'd contribute copies of the ones I have. There are few on the Weisberg site, but only a small percentage.

Is the "secret CIA report" the 1967 Inspector General's report? Anybody know?

First off, beyond the phone records in question, I have not encountered any trace of Belcher Oil in any other connection in Ferrie's background. Next, a caveat about the phone records. (I might get beat-up for saying this. I'm gonna hate myself in the morning...): These calls are not from Ferrie's home phone (VE5-4535); they are from the office of his employer (March 1962-November 1963), the law firm of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill. The main number was 524-0147 and the unpublished line was 288-4648. Both lines were available to all the people in the office, which included Ferrie, Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill, and several interns, secretaries and investigators. These records show only toll calls, not local calls. Three years after the assassination, on January 4, 1967, secretary Alice Guidroz went through the monthly bills and drew a line through any call she could identify as Gill's, and turned them over to Jim Garrison's office. In this light, it is fair to say that any of the remaining calls MIGHT have been made by Ferrie, but given the open access to the phones and passage of time, there is no certainty which calls Ferrie made. However, they are still worthy of inquiry. The number in question, EM8-6993, was called on 9/5/62 (from 524-0147) and on 9/5, 10/1, 10/5, 10/18, 10/22, 10/30 and 11/29/62 (from 288-4648). The 1961 Dallas phone book listed that number as: Mae Belcher & A. Mack Belcher, 6042 Averill Way. The 1962 and 1963 phone books listed it as: A.M. Belcher Oil Co, 6042 Averill Way. See Tom's info on this couple, above.

Thanks for the tipoff on the Armstrong files. I thought I had all the Ferrie stuff, but I found a few there that I didn't even know existed. Question: Is there a simple way to print them? I don't see a print button, and even right-click offers very few options. Is this one of those situations where the only option is to Print Screen? Thanks! Addenda: Oops! Cancel that: I opened the site on another computer, and now I see a print button!

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with your assessment of the treatment of anyone who in Judyth's eyes is less than a devoted sycophant. A few times since January I have wondered how those who survived Jonestown felt, then just put that thought down to raw nerves. One last quick observation on Baker's behavior, something I have felt for some time now: I have never encountered a witness who behaves as Baker behaves. To quote Dr. Henry Lee: "Something wrong."

Not to belabor the point, but below is the excerpt of Vernon's post. I have italicized the key part. The way I read it, he is excluding them from being profiteers. Wow! Time for me to up the prescription on my glasses. I completely misread that, and I'm embarassed. Three times, I misread it.

Thanks for your comments. Actually, I think Vernon's characterization of Shackelford and Platzman is in agreement with yours. Take a look at it again and tell me if that's so, please. Barb Junkkarinen has does some excellent research on particle accelerators (and much, much more) in these threads. The fact that Haslam claims his high school physics teacher told the class about the existence of a particle accelerator at a medical facility in New Orleans was a serious gaffe on Haslam's part. It's a perfect example of how Dr. Mary's Monkey begins to fall apart when read carefully. I've read virtually all of your EF comments on the subjects of Baker and Haslam and agree with almost all of them. I appreciate your almost understated approach to what is known and what is not. Like you, part of me wants to forget about Baker and Haslam. Their stories have garnered far more attention than warranted, in my opinion. It was Jim Fetzer that latched on to Haslam's book few a weeks after he started the JVB Exile thread and his strident attacks on those that didn't agree with all of his assessments re Haslam's book that has kept me interested in this subject. Fetzer called Dr. Mary's Monkey one of the most scholarly and well-researched books for the general public that he has read. He needs to read more books. Stephen, I've appreciated your contributions to the Education Forum, and if and when your book on Ferrie gets published, I look forward to buying and reading it. Thanks for the kind words. The Vernon thing about Martin/Howard was that they "are basically profiteers." I disagree with him on that.

My apologies for wooly writing. I did NOT intend to imply that you believe that you have found the crucial witness. I simply meant, despite you having an orientation Vernon might disagree with, that I am convinced that you are sincere in your belief. Word processors: I wrote the Shack/Platz sentence, then got up to do work for an hour, and came back and added the reference to you. It came across wrong and I apologize. We OK now? You do have my empathy for what's going on with you and Baker, despite my not knowing the details. Baker can be touchy and insist on complete loyalty, and lash out when she doesn't get it. I think I now understand why she does this.

Bob Vernon is an interesting character. He and I have had a few go-arounds on various things, but nevertheless, I concur with some of what he wrote here. I had only a few brief conversations with Layton Martens. I asked him about the first Haslam book and Sherman and his comments were similar to those below: No lab or mice at 3330 (but he did have some mice earlier), no trace of Sherman by name or description. He said Ferrie was a confirmed misogynist who would be unlikely to work with a woman doctor. By the time I was looking for his comments on the Baker story, he was dead. Vernon's account of Ferrie hating Oschner and using drugstore chemicals is interesting. As I've noted before, others who knew Ferrie have, likewise, been unable to recall mice/lab at 3330, Sherman or Baker (by name, description or pictures). Baker is now taking the line that Ferrie deliberately hid the lab/Sherman/Baker/Oswald from his friends (how convenient), but I find it hard to believe that people who hung-out there on a regular basis could have missed any trace of them. Some lived there, partied there, visited at odd times, and some even had unsupervised access to Ferrie's apartment. In my opinion, if there is a fatal flaw to Baker's story, this is it. I've heard the story of Ferrie wanting to marry Martens' mother. As I posted years ago, Ferrie did have certain relationships with women, including a young girl named Wanda, so it is not out of the question. (OTOH, Mrs. Martens also had some personal problems.) It's also interesting that the Marcello people and the Oschners said they had no memory of her. I do disagree with Vernon's characterization of Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman; I think they honestly believed that they found the crucial witness to Oswald's time in New Orleans. I came to disagree with them. (I think Pamela is sincere but wrong, also.) On the Sherman front: There is a bundle of new information coming, including new info about the crime scene and the police investigation; and info from two excellent sources (with a third in process) indicating that there was no linear particle accelerator at the hospital Haslam mentions. I feel so conflicted about this. Part of me just wants to let Haslam and Baker do their thing, but part of me gets agitated when this unconfirmed stuff seeps out into the record of confirmed stuff, and when Haslam and Baker decline to discuss/debate in a true give and take. Thanks for the post, Michael.

Not everything, but here's a few significant dates from my files: January 22, 1923: Sergio Vicente Arcacha Smith born in Havana April 1945: Comes to US to attend college in Texas 1951: returns to Cuba, joins diplomatic service. First assignment to Bombay, India. Marries Sheila Duarte, a native of Pakistan. 1954: Assistant Manager of Lago Hotel in Caracas, Venezuela 1957-1960: lives in New York City, Miami, Havana. August 23, 1960: Leaves Cuba for good. Travels to New York City, New Orleans October 1960: Arrives in Miami November 1960: Sent by Manuel Antonio de Varona y Loredo, as New Orleans Delegate of Frente Revolucionario Democratico. Secures office in room 207, Balter Building December 5, 1960: Arcacha and Manuel Eleuterio Quesada Castillo check-in with New Orleans FBI office. December 22, 1960: NO States Item report that Arcacha is new FRD delegate in New Orleans December 23, 1960: Arcacha contacts Rafael Goyeneche of International Export Packers about obtaining bazookas and small boat for FRD February 2, 1961: Arcacha interviewed by FBI SAs Regis L. Kennedy and Ernest C. Wall Jr. about FRD. Arcacha tells them Guy Banister is running name checks on prospective members, and on Cubans at LSU April 1961: FBI report that Carlos Marcello has offered Arcacha money, in return for gambling concessions in post-invasion Cuba Late April 1961: Arcacha, who had been lukewarm to FRD volunteer David Ferrie since November, becomes very close to Ferrie, who helps reinvigorate New Orleans FRD. May 12, 1961: FBI Baton Rouge contacted by VFW about desirability of Arcacha addressing convention on 6/24/61 May 13, 1961: Arcacha flown to Miami in Ferrie's plane by Hugh Ward, to meet Bay of Pigs survivors. Meets Julian Buznedo Castellanos, Carlos Lopez and Endrik Ceijas, invites them to New Orleans May 15, 1961: Buznedo, Lopez, Ceijas arrive in NO, move in with Arcacha at his home at 112 Egret Street. Ferrie and Buznedo hit it off, Ferrie gives flying time to Buznedo. June 1961: Ferrie friend Alexander H. Landry Jr. joins Ferrie, Arcacha and others at Arcacha's home to view films of Bay of Pigs invasion June 14, 1961: Ferrie brings Arcacha to meet Herb WagnerJr. about a loan. They mention "Operation Mosquito" June 27, 1961: Ferrie speech to Exchange Club at Sheraton Charles Hotel. Arcacha introduces Ferrie to Jack S. Martin Sr. in coffee shop July 18, 1961: Arcacha letter to Eastern Air Lines general manager Captain Edward Vernon Rickenbacker, asking leave of absence for Ferrie to help FRD August 17-18, 1961: Arcacha intervenes on Ferrie's behalf in police matter involving Ferrie and runaway boy, Al Landry. Ferrie arrested, Arcacha begins severing relationship. Early September 1961: Arcacha apparently involved in pickup of armaments at bunker in Houma, LA September 18, 1961: Arcacha reports to FBI about being approached by 2 Americans to obtain arms. Possible reference to Houma September 1961: Arcacha introduces Ferrie to Carlos Crusto Quiroga. Quiroga has heard of morals arrests and dislikes Ferrie. October 1961: Arcacha introduces Ferrie to Dr. Carlos Jose Bringuier, who has also heard of morals arrests and dislikes Ferrie. October 9, 1961: Arcacha contacts FBI, tells them FRD has been bsorbed into Cuban Revolutionary Council. He has vacated Balter Building, moving group temporarily to his home. October 12, 1961: Arcacha put in touch with Sam Mike Newman by Jack Martin, rents Suite 6 at 544 Camp Street for CRC at $50. monthly (but does not pay his rent). October 30, 1961: Arcacha gives certificate of appreciation to Martin Late November 1961: Arcacha moves to Parkchester Apartments November 26, 1961: Arcacha approaches PR man Ronny Caire about funraising for CRC. December 1961: Arcacha hosts organizational meeting of Crusade to Free Cuba at Hotel Monteleone. One idea is to sell Bay of Pigs commemorative coins January 20, 1962: Arcacha fired by CRC due to mismanagement, in coin scam and failure to disassociate from Ferrie. Luis Ravel becomes new CRC delegate February 9, 1962: Ravel moves CRC out of 544 Camp Street, to his home, owing 5 months rent ($250.) February 12, 1962: Arcacha hired by Ronnie Caire as PR man. April 2, 1962: Arcacha applies for political asylum in US, granted April 11 July-August 1962: Arcacha travels to Mexico. Uses false name, irritating Ronny Caire September 18, 1962: Caire fires Arcacha September 28, 1962: Arcacha borrows car from Joseph L. Milla, fails to return it October 20, 1962: Arcacha moves to Miami December 20, 1962: Arcacha settles in Tampa January 1, 1963: Arcacha's wife loses baby shortly after birth January 14, 1963: Arcacha moves to Houston. Calls Milla, tells him car is in Miami March 1, 1963: Arcacha begins employment at Calvin Clausel marketing company in Houston, selling air conditioners May 1963: Because Clausel will not meet salary, Arcacha becomes Assistant Manager of America Hotel in Houston August 1963: Clausel lures Arcacha back with salary. Late 1963: Arcacha begins talks with Climatic Air of Dallas. June 10, 1964: Arcacha moves to Dallas to take job with Climatic Air

Wow, bear with me while I recover from my tirade in my post above... Yes, there were uniforms. Most CAP cadets wore them, but some did not (in the New Orleans and Moisant Squadrons. I'm not sure how it was in other states, but I think most wore uniforms.

Is there a conflict between Ferrie and Oswald being seen in a photograph eight years before the assassination and Ferrie saying he didn't remember him? Attacking me through others: On Fetzer's blog, which will not accept my responses. For God's sake, PLEASE stop saying things like I have no curiosity at all about a Ferrie-Sherman connection. OF COURSE I had curiosity about it. That's why I have spent time looking though documents and hunting down people to try to find traces of it, looking at the Haslam and Baker materials to see if I could find anything to confirm or deny them. It is insulting for you to make such an untrue statement. And what research have you been doing on the Ferrie-Sherman relationship, or original research to copnfirm or deny the Haslam and Baker stories? You've been commenting on this matter for years. What research have you done to advance our knowledge? Perhaps what is missing is intellectual curiosity. If you are perfectly comfortable with Ferrie appearing in a photo with Lee Oswald and then claiming he doesn't remember him, that might be the case. It probably hasn't occurred to you that Ferrie could have been making a pragmatic statement to distance himself from Lee Oswald when he did know him. I find it puzzling that you claim to have thoroughly researched a possible connection between Ferrie and Dr. Sherman and yet have found not one shred of possible connection to at least weigh and evaluate. Why are you insulted by constructive criticism? The WC had no curiosity either in anything that might point to conspiracy. I am not saying I think you are suppressing anything, just that you don't seem to care. I hope I am mistaken. OF COURSE I've considered that Ferrie might have been lying. Sherman: I've pored through thousands of pages of documents and found no trace of her or anyone like her in the Ferrie story. I have asked all of the surviving people I could find who knew Ferrie (some friends, some not) if Sherman or anyone like her shows up in the Ferrie story, and none does. Do you see how insulting you are being?? You suggest that I'm "missing...intellectual curiosity," that I'm "perfectly comfortable" with things, that obvious things probably haven't occurred to me, that you "find it puzzling" that I CLAIM to have researched something, suggesting that it is a false claim. This is constructive criticism? Then you have the nerve to compare me to the Warren Commission and say I "just don't seem to care." How rude and insulting. Have you done any primary research on this matter? I'm saying I HAVE done primary research, and I've been unable to establish any kind of relationship between them. YET. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I, one person, have not found anything to establish the relationship. I am not making any claims that something did happen; I'm just saying that I can't find evidence that it did happen. No, I am not convinced by the Haslam and Baker books. But I'm just one person. What does it matter what I think?? Why do you find it necessary to try to pre-emptively attack my integrity? Is Baker behind this? If I am missing any evidence that Ferrie worked with Sherman or Baker, tell me what you have found. It might change my OPINION.

Is there a conflict between Ferrie and Oswald being seen in a photograph eight years before the assassination and Ferrie saying he didn't remember him? Attacking me through others: On Fetzer's blog, which will not accept my responses. For God's sake, PLEASE stop saying things like I have no curiosity at all about a Ferrie-Sherman connection. OF COURSE I had curiosity about it. That's why I have spent time looking though documents and hunting down people to try to find traces of it, looking at the Haslam and Baker materials to see if I could find anything to confirm or deny them. It is insulting for you to make such an untrue statement. And what research have you been doing on the Ferrie-Sherman relationship, or original research to copnfirm or deny the Haslam and Baker stories? You've been commenting on this matter for years. What research have you done to advance our knowledge?

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman? No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff. The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was. Not so. I know nothing about any 'book'. I correctly characterize posts you have made here on aaj where you have repeatedly said Ferrie had no connection to Lee Oswald, much less Dr. Sherman. When Oswald and Ferrie appear in a photo together the question becomes not whether they knew each other, but how well. But you don't seem to have grasped that concept yet. I have noted that Ferrie denied remembering Oswald. Am I supposed to suppress that? As for Sherman, there is just no evidence that he knew her. As for the photo, I have noted that it was taken in 1955, when Oswald was 15. Am I supposed to suppress that? Is there something wrong with objectively relating both sides? I am one researcher who has looked very carefully at (and behind) the Haslam and Baker books, and expressed an opinion about them. The opinion of one person should be of no consequence to either writer; so I don't understand why Baker finds it necessary to start attacking me, largely through others, where my opportunities to respond are limited. I'm not trying to limit book sales by doing reviews on Amazon; I'm just expressing an opinion with my colleagues in the research field. Baker shouldn't feel so threatened by my opinions.

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman? No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff. The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was.

Yes, I checked that link to our own Forum. His reluctance to discuss in that thread reminded me that (as he himself acknowledges somewhere) I politely tried to raise a few points earlier, by phone and by email, but to no avail. Then, in the gargantuan Fetzer thread on Baker, I again raised a few points, but Ed answered back through Fetzer with put-downs: "The little of his commentary that I read over the years indicates to me that he mis-read or mis-interpreted what I had to say. Frankly, I don't know if he is capable of learning anything new, and I don't care what he says (or said) about DR. MARY'S MONKEY. He is basically a self-appointed fringe pundit, and I am not interested in doing a point-by-point debate with him to raise his stature. I consider him part of the Layton Martens dis-information crowd. Whether he is intentionally dis-informing, or whether he is simply mis-guided, matters not to me. I prefer to ignore him, and ask that you help me to that end. If ignored, I think he will fade into the background, where he belongs." How can one hold a reasoned discussion in the face of such obstinacy? Quick edit to add: Yes, I am, as yet "unpublished" on this topic, as far as a book goes. But it is in progress, I've discussed it here and elsewhere, I've appeared at conferences and I've assisted other writers and TV producers. The same argument could be made regarding Ed himself, before his book was published. Has he forgotten so soon? Are we lesser beings by not having a small piece of real estate at Barnes and Noble?

Michael: I found the Sutton article while searching for reviews of Dr. Mary's Monkey and, while I felt qualms about his tone, I decided to link it without comment due to some telling observations about that book. A criminologist would generally hold to a higher standard than I see in that book. That having been said, Sutton's preset orientation points to one of the difficulties in our field, a rational consensus on which research is significant and, more important, a self-criticism of over-reaching research - the kind of research which causes us all to be painted by the same brush in certain academic circles. We've all seen examples of the kind of writings which make us cringe, and this feeds into this preset orientation. One of the problems - on "both" sides - is what I call the threshold effect: Becoming so profoundly convinced of one view or another that critical analysis and objectivity take a back seat to the piling-on of (sometimes cherry-picked) evidence. And as I said, this affects both CTs and LNs. Sutton certainly seems to suffer it. On our side, it is becoming so enamored of a theory that we dismiss contrary evidence and criticism as somehow advancing a nefarious agenda. On the other side, it is dismissing contrary evidence and criticism as nut-case stuff. That's one reason I think we need to try harder, to strive for a higher level of research, documentation and plausibility. That's my main issue with Haslam's work (which, incidentally, pre-dates the Baker story): Despite what some over-the-threshold people see as copious documentation, as vindication of their own suspicions about Ferrie, etc., the documentation is virtually non-existent for the book's fundamental claims: that Ferrie knew Sherman; that they operated an underground medical lab in Ferrie's apartment; that it was a secret government project; and that Baker was a part of it. (Nearly as troubling is the circular corroboration: Baker supports Haslam, Haslam supports Baker!) So I take some of Sutton's observations as useful, but I, too, could do without his smarmy over-the-threshold putdowns of serious research.