Stephen Roy

Haslam's sources: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/135153.pdf

A Recent Review of Haslam's Dr. Mary's Monkey, by an academic criminologist: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Book_Review_Sutton_Dr_Mary's_Monkey.pdf Excerpts: "Academic journals do not ordinarily review non-academic books. In reviewing what is essentially the shaky foundations for a number of conspiracy theories, I have found it necessary to draw not only upon my own personal critique of Dr Mary’s Monkey but also the conclusions of other writers who seek to view its contents from a rational and objective viewpoint... But Haslam’s is not a scholarly academic book. So why, you might ask, should the IJC review it at all? On 11 December 2010, Edward Haslam wrote and asked me whether or not the IJC would be interested in reviewing his book. Having read the title I was intrigued to know why the author of such a book would want his work examined by critical criminologists. Furthermore, I wondered whether there were lessons to be had for both the academic community and the wider public in undertaking such an unusual exercise. I decided to review it because, at the very least, I think that those who teach criminology need to point their undergraduate students in the direction of published scholarly work that shows them exactly how to identify pseudo scholarship, which they might otherwise believe to be true... Haslam’s claims in Dr Mary’s Monkey hinge on there ever having been an association of any kind between Ferrie and Dr Mary Sherman... I think that Dr Mary’s Monkey provides a valuable bad data source for scholars of pseudo-scholarship. The book reveals how a lone author stringing together intangible and often highly personal anecdotal information, often of unverified accuracy, constructs the foundations for a dubious conspiracy theory. Dr Mary’s Monkey is essential reading for anyone interested in how intelligent and seemingly respectable authors embrace evidence that supports their aims, while paying far less attention to that which does not... Dr Mary’s Monkey does contribute to valuable knowledge by way of its author’s own unique place in the huge market for spurious unanswered questions, conspiracy, counterknowledge, and voodoo history. There is important criminological knowledge to be gained by studying how Haslam weaves a compelling account for the credulous consumer of spurious information, which can be used to construct their own conspiracy theory. Such knowledge about the marketing of, and market for, pseudo scholarship is essential if we are to learn more and teach others how to know the difference between good scholarship and pseudo scholarship. Criminology should provide its students and the wider public with effective and practicable ways to identify the difference between real and pseudo scholarship and between real conspiracies such as Watergate and, what is in my opinion, the sort of time-stealing, selective bias, monkey business that comprises the bulk of Dr Mary’s Monkey..."

Jim, in your initial comment you qualified it by saying if you recall correctly, he did try to find her. You didn't mention that it was something he told you privately. I've read Haslam's book repeatedly and I have listened to virtually every interview that's available on the internet and I've never once seen or heard him mention it. Not only could he have sought his ex-girlfriend, he could have looked for her classmates that attended the party. Haslam brags about his ability to recall names; it couldn't have been that hard to do his due diligence. The fact that she would not talk to him about it would seem important enough to include in his book. In a recent interview, Jim Fetzer asked Haslam if he ever made an attempt to find some of those people (Paraphrased - I have the exact transcript of that somewhere, but I don't feel like finding it right now). Haslam's response was one sentence and comical. Just as dismissive and brief as the answer he gave an interviewer who asked him why he believed Judyth Baker. (Posted in this thread by Stephen Roy) Jim Fetzer called Dr. Mary's Monkey one of the most scholarly (or words to that effect) books written for the general public. As far as Chetta being credible and on record, do you find it likely that Robert Kennedy personally called the house the day Ferrrie's death was announced to discuss the cause of death with his father? If Chetta is on record, why didn't Haslam interview him for DMM, or show in the footnotes where Chetta is on record? He didn't bother and leaves the reader wondering why. My criticisms of Haslam's research have less to do with what happened with Garrison and more to do with the omissions in Haslam's approach. Your expertise about New Orleans far exceeds mine, although I have read Destiny Betrayed and virtually all the other books, websites, etc. that deal with Garrison and Oswald in New Orleans. Ed Haslam is a member of the EF and has consistently declined to answer questions about his work. He has given different reasons from time to time but the last time he allowed as that he would wait until Baker's revised story was published. He, of course, has a right not to answer a single question from anyone but that strategy gives me less respect for his work, not more. So Jim, since Haslam told you of his attempts to contact his ex-girlfriend, are you at liberty to discuss why he never mentioned doing so in his book or elsewhere? And if Chetta is on record, why didn't Haslam make that clear in his book? He could have put it in the footnotes. Or better yet, he could have interviewed Chetta. And again, it it would have been simple to find a classmate that was there to corroborate Chetta's account. Haslam could have interviewed one or more of them and stuck it in his footnotes. Chetta may be on record and credible, as you say, but the reader of DMM has no way of knowing that. I know I'm being repetitive here, but I am interested in your take. It just seems odd that Robert Kennedy would leave himself open to a teenager discussing Kennedy's call about such a sensitive issue in front of his high school class. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I think your review and critique of Reclaiming History was a brilliant masterpiece, but I believe your review of Dr. Mary's Monkey (Outside of your comments about Haslam's faith in Baker) gives him too many passes. I respect your insider's knowledge of people and events in New Orleans, but I personally can't say the same for Ed Haslam's. Great post, Michael. I share a number of your concerns.

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident. Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder. Jack How else do you explain a burned and mutilated body lying on a perfectly normal bed? The mattress was on fire in a smoke-filled room when firefighters arrived and dragged it and pitched it to the parking lot. There were old-fashioned bed springs scattered on the floor. There was a pile of extremely charred clothing on the victim's abdomen, apparently used as kindling to start the fire. The body was not mutilated in the narrow sense, although she was certainly brutally attacked: 8 stab wounds, including defensive wounds to the arms and fingers and a fatal stab wound to the heart. The wound to the labia appears to be more from an errant stab motion rather than a deliberate attempt at mutilation. Her death was officially classified as a homicide from the beginning. There were a lot of detectives following a lot of leads. So where does Haslam get that she was killed by an "accelerator" and her body moved, etc. etc? This would seem to rival some of Baker's fantasies. Jack Haslam breathlessly notes that the victim's right arm was largely burned away, bone and all, and that some of the clothing piled on the abdomen was badly burned, while some was not burned. Noting a criminologist's statement that some of the clothing would have to reach 500 degrees before igniting, the author surmises that, because some of the clothing was unburned, the temperature never reached 500 degrees. He asks a cremator: What temperature would bone have to reach to be largely burned away? The cremator indicates a temperature of 1600-2000 degrees. Haslam surmises that the crime (2000d) does not match the crime scene (500d). He then states as facts that the damage to the body did not occur at the crime scene, and that she was burned earlier, somewhere else, and moved to the scene. What could have caused such burns? A linear particle accelerator, he theorizes. In my view, this is filled with holes. The degree figures given are professional estimates. The temperature at fire scenes can vary widely, even within feet or inches. There is also the longevity factor, the smoldering factor. Considering this and other factors, I don't think one can leap to the conclusion that the injuries were not inflicted at the crime scene. And the leap to the linear particle accelerator is preposterous, based on NO evidence at all.

Sorry, that was Baker's statement, her caps. I didn't notice that when I chose to reply in caps.

I realize that people are tired of this - I sure am, but this deserves a more detailed response. My comments in caps for clarity. DAVID FERRIE: WHY HE IS IMPORTANT IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION -- AND EFFORTS BEING MADE TO HIDE IT Judyth Vary Baker David made a joke about me and Mary Sherman and himself when we three met for the first time. “Dr. Mary, Dr. Ferrie, and Dr. Vary!” he laughed. He repeated “Mary, Ferrie and Vary” a few more times that summer. It was an example of Dave’s wit and affability. I GUESS A REAL DOCTOR LIKE SHERMAN HAD NO PROBLEM BEING COMPARED TO TWO NON-DOCTORS. WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE THAT THIS JOKE (OR THIS ENCOUNTER) EVER TOOK PLACE? Today, efforts are being made to erase all traces of David Ferrie as an active anti-Castro CIA asset in 1963 who knew many details about who killed John F. Kennedy, and why. Almost desperate means are being used on the Internet, in rigged computer re-enactments, and in media statements of “fact” to train the public to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president and that our government had nothing to do with it. Most of those who fight the truth emerged after the film "JFK" revived America’s attention concerning Lee Oswald’s innocence or guilt. Hundreds of thousands of documents have been forced from government files since then. I have always said “Time is on my side” since I spoke out in 1999 that Lee tried to save Kennedy’s life. Today, we have Abraham Bolden and James Douglass and Douglas Horne and Edward T. Haslam and any number of other intrepid writers/witnesses who stand with me on that fact and others, that were initially mocked or discarded when I first asserted them. The role of David Ferrie was important in the Kennedy assassination. Efforts to recreate David Ferrie into a dumbed-down version – one who never knew Lee Oswald or me – have been strenuous and persistent and ongoing to this day. I KNEW DAVID WILLIAM FERRIE Lee and I both thought it interesting that “David” was our favorite male name, while “William” was my father’s middle name and “Ferrie” rhymed with “Vary” (my maiden name). We saw it as a kind of confluence of coincidences – a confluence that extended broadly into our daily lives in other directions, as well. Certainly, David Ferrie was not someone who could easily be mistaken for anybody else. WHAT IS THIS FIXATION WITH ALLEGED SIMILARITIES? David W. Ferrie is probably best known today through his portrayal by Joe Pesci in Oliver Stone’s film "JFK". Ferrie was taller and had a deeper voice, ABOUT WHICH BAKER SAID NOTHING UNTIL I POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET. but Pesci did a good job of showing Ferrie’s level of high energy, his intelligence, and his feelings. I know, because I knew David Ferrie. WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, FALL BACK ON "THE EVIDENCE THAT IT'S TRUE IS THAT I KNOW IT FROM MY OWN KNOWLEDGE." I DON'T BELIEVE BAKER EVER KNEW FERRIE. There are some people in New Orleans who knew him, too. One “Ferrie expert” claims that, since these men (most of whom were homosexuals) THAT'S NOT TRUE. BUT IT'S INTERESTING HOW YOU USE THE WORD. did not see me with Ferrie, therefore I am to be dismissed as a witness. As I pointed out long ago, when this was not a generally known fact, Ferrie was bisexual, AGAIN, I WAS THE FIRST TO POST THIS ON THE INTERNET. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY I AM SOMETIME RELUCTANT TO POST ANY NEW INFO ABOUT FERRIE - IT IS THEN RECYCLED. though his proclivity to seduce teen-age boys is what’s best known about him – except for his sometimes alarming looks, due to how he tried to handle his alopecia problem. Alopecia is a hair loss condition that can be recurrent or permanent. The hair loss can extend to all parts of the body, including even eyelashes. ANYTHING CAN BE LOOKED UP ON THE INTERNET, CAN'T IT? Dave didn’t lose all of his hair, but for all practical purposes, he was bald enough to need to wear a wig. I saw an old wig that was much smaller than the one he usually wore in 1963. I concluded from our talks that Dave had not one, but several bouts with alopecia, where some hair grew back again before he finally lost most of it. AGAIN, I FIRST POSTED THIS ON THE NEWSGROUPS IN THE LATE 1990s. None of his wigs looked natural. As for his eyebrows, they did not exist: his “made up” eyebrows were thickly penciled in. On many occasions, bits of fuzz were carefully stuck on these drawn-on eyebrows in an attempt to look more natural. It was a futile attempt. But appearances meant little to me compared to being in his presence and soaking up what he had to say. He was a true “Renaissance man” with considerable knowledge in a wide range of fields. His success for a considerable time in the role of leading and teaching teen-aged boys in the Civil Air Patrol deserves to be emphasized, since efforts have been made to downplay Dave’s charismatic qualities. NOT BY ME. HE IS REMEMBERED BY THOSE WHO REALLY KNEW HIM AS BRILLIANT, BUT SOMETIMES NOT PUT TO GOOD USE. A now-famous photo shows Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same camp-out. AGAIN, A SARCAP EXERCISE, TAKEN IN AUGUST 1955, 8 YEARS BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, WHEN OSWALD WAS 15. I wish to say without equivocation that Dave Ferrie would not have forgotten that Lee was in this small group, FERRIE SAID THAT, OF HUNDREDS OF CADETS AND SCHOOL STUDENTS, HE DID NOT RECALL OSWALD'S FEW WEEKS IN THE CAP. even if an incident had not occurred between them that at first soured, but eventually secured, their mutual respect and friendship. AN INCIDENT THAT ONLY BAKER CLAIMS HAPPENED, AND HAS BEEN CHALLENGED FOR ITS TIME ACCURACY. Much has been said by anti-Oswald “Ferrie experts” that Ferrie was involved in CAP with over a thousand teen-aged boys and had not known him personally; David, of course, denied ever knowing Lee when questioned by authorities after the assassination. ANTI-OSWALD? ALL I HAVE SAID IS THAT I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT OSWALD WAS TOTALLY INNOCENT. AS FOR WHAT FERRIE FIRST TOLD THE AUTHORITIES: "FERRIE CLAIMED THAT ONE PHOTO [OF OSWALD] LOOKED LIKE SOMEONE HE MAY HAVE KNOWN. FERRIE STATED THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE BELONGED TO THE CIVIL AIR PATROL WHILE HE WAS CONNECTED WITH THAT ORGANIZATION BUT HE HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THIS." THIS IS A BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT BAKER SAID, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PHOTO SHE CITES AS PROOF THAT HE LIED. Moreover, Ferrie’s friends, in general, gave untrustworthy testimonies (and those who are alive probably still do) rather than have the whisper of suspicion that they might have been associated with somebody who could have been involved in a plot to kill the President. It is highly unlikely that any of Ferrie’s friends would ever change their stories and thus prove they had committed perjury or lied to government officials. They will stick to their original stories. FIRST, SOME OF THE PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN WITH WERE FERRIE'S FRIENDS, BUT OTHERS WERE ENEMIES, CASUAL ACQUAINTANCES, BUSINESS ACQUAINTANCES, ETC. SOME TESTIFIED OR GAVE STATEMENTS IN THE PAST, BUT MOST DID NOT. FOR WHAT REASON WOULD THEY ALL BE TELLING COORDINATED LIES, MORE THAN 40 YEARS LATER? SO, WE SHOULD DISREGARD PEOPLE WITH PROVEN RELATIONSHIPS WITH FERRIE, TO BUTTRESS THE UNPROVEN CLAIMS OF BAKER? ARE YOU SERIOUS? In my case, however, I am pledged to telling exactly what the situation was. I don’t care how many “Ferrie experts” come out of the woodwork declaring that Ferrie’s friends never saw any mice (which were used as subjects in our bio-weapon research), or never knew about the technical scientific research that Dave was conducting in 1963. I even remember quite clearly asking Dave, at the only party I attended at his apartment, “Where are the mice?” “I don’t want anybody messing with my mice,” he replied. He had moved them – probably a block down the street – where hundreds (perhaps thousands) of mice were being inoculated with a cancer-causing monkey virus that had been roasted with deadly radiation. I saw a “crusty old rat” that Dave had in his apartment the first few times I visited there. Later, I saw cages, too, housing about 50 mice. These mice were all white, with red eyes – lab mice – and they were quite young. They were actually being killed and replaced constantly but, since they all looked alike, nobody would have guessed. BALONEY. I HAVE NEVER FOUND ANY PERSON WHO SAW MICE IN THAT APARTMENT AT THAT TIME. SOME OF HIS FRIENDS LIVED THERE FOR PERIODS OF TIME. FERRIE'S APARTMENT WAS A HANGOUT FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE. HOW DID HE HIDE 50 OR MORE MICE, SHERMAN, OSWALD AND BAKER FROM THEM, CONSISTENTLY, ALL SUMMER? Mr. Stephen Roy (who calls himself "David Blackburst" in the John McAdams’ newsgroup, where all kinds of anti-Oswald mischief is carried on) has presented himself as a person who has been deeply interested for decades in David Ferrie. One might ask why, since Mr. Roy has absolutely nothing in common with Ferrie – except the ability to play music. I BECAME INTERESTED IN FERRIE MANY YEARS AGO, OBSERVING THAT HE PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN ASSASSINATION LITERATURE, BUT THAT VERY LITTLE RELIABLE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION HAD YET EMERGED. I ACQUIRED A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS AND DID INTERVIEWS, AND REALIZED THAT I HAD ENOUGH FOR BOOK (ON WHICH I CAN ONLY SPEND A FEW HOURS A WEEK). BUT YES, I DO HAVE SOME MUSICAL SKILL. Mr. Roy has recently declared that Lee Oswald had probably killed Kennedy, I FIND IT HARD TO DISMISS ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AS PHONEY, BUT I'M NOT CLOSED-MINDED. following in the footsteps of several others in McAdams’ newsgroup, who remind me of Gary Mack (someone who wants all my readers to know that he does NOT make a six-figure salary as the Curator of The Six Floor Museum). SURE, SET UP MACK AS THE DEMON, THEN ASSOCIATE ME WITH HIM. Mr. Roy has been busy compiling statements from Dave’s former friends and accumulating data, purportedly for a long-awaited biography of him. PURPORTEDLY? NOW SHE'S ACCUSING ME OF HAVING A SECRET AGENDA. SHE SHOULD TALK WITH STEVE TYLER, WHO HAS READ MOST OF MY MANUSCRIPT. For years now, he has not wavered in his efforts to create the impression of a David Ferrie who was very different from the man I knew, a man whom Mr. Roy never met. THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT I'VE RESEARCHED DOCUMENTS AND DONE INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNEW HIM, NOT WITH SOMEONE WHO NEVER MET FERRIE. Mr. Roy’s David Ferrie is described as a broken man in 1963 who had lost his dream job with Eastern Air Lines, and whose life and prospects had deteriorated to a point of no return. His considerable past activities in the anti-Castro movements had all but ceased, according to Mr.Roy. All he was interested in was getting his job back and piloting flights for the godfather, Carlos Marcello. He had moved into a crummy little apartment and was going nowhere with his life. His life had come to a screeching halt, to hear Mr. Roy tell it. SEE MY EARLIER POST. FERRIE'S MORALS ARRESTS CAUSE HIM TO LOSE HIS JOB, HIS STANDING WITH THE ANTI-CASTRO MOVEMENT, HIS HOME AND HIS FALCON SQUADRON. AND IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY, HIS MOTHER. To consider Ferrie as intelligent enough to do cancer research or to be involved in plots to kill Castro or Kennedy or, for that matter, to have any interest whatsoever in his former pursuits, is, according to Mr. Roy, not remotely plausible, since Ferrie’s former – and, by the way, always un-named – friends all deny. Mr. Roy concedes that Ferrie once ‘did’ have lots of mice, though he doubts that they were used for research: apparently the same man who had a human skeleton set up with its own electrified circulatory system (a teaching tool for young cadets) would keep hundreds of mice merely as pets! AGAIN, SOMETHING I POSTED HERE 6 YEARS AGO. When I spoke out as a witness in 1999, I immediately identified David Ferrie – just as Jim Garrison had done so some 30 years earlier – as a primary figure in the case. Efforts to discredit me have often rested on disagreeing with what I’ve said about David Ferrie concerning his considerable medical expertise. I have spoken out that David Ferrie was actively involved in cancer research activities in the summer of 1963. Mr. Roy has stated that Ferrie’s friends have claimed they saw “nothing” that remotely seemed like cancer research going on and that they never saw me. AND THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE STANDS: A BIG PILE OF TRUE EVIDENCE VS. BAKER'S CLAIMS. Forget the fact that Dave worked daily for Marcello’s attorney downtown and that I was regularly in his apartment several afternoons a week A FACT? SHE'S CITING HER UNSUPPORTED CLAIM AS A FACT? – and knew how to “clean up and put away.“ I have described the kind of work that was being done at his apartment and how much of the equipment would not have seemed special to untrained eyes, such as a Waring blender and what looked like a pressure cooker – an autoclave that they would never have identified as such, because of their lack of technical knowledge. SURE. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED AND PARTIED THERE SAW NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. INCLUDING MEDICAL STUDENTS MO BROWNLEE AND TOMMY COMPTON. AND I POSTED PICTURES HERE OF FERRIE'S KITCHEN IN 1967. Microscopes and science paraphernalia were also present, which “Ferrie’s friends” supposedly saw. At the very least, however, we have a description of Ferrie’s activities that summer as filtered through Dr. Isadore Yager and reported by Australian researcher Greg Parker, who wrote – in July 2003 – about David Ferrie and his activities with regard to the medical arts in 1963: “Dr. Isadore Yager was the representative of the local medical association. In 1961, David Ferrie came to his attention due to reports of Ferrie practicing medicine without a license, in particular, members of his "Falcon Squad", which I believe was a quasi-CAP group he had formed. "Dr Yager, in recalling his discussion with Ferrie before the Grievance hearing held by Eastern Airlines in Miami during July, 1963, stated: "He told me he had several Ph.D.s and that he was on the faculty at the Tulane Medical School and he was doing some research in the department of physiology of a very highly secretive nature, that if this works out well, it would really help us in all sorts of fields of medicine, and this went on for something like 30 minutes." AGAIN, THIS HAPPENED IN AUGUST 1961. AND IN HIS 1963 TESTIMONY, YAGER WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE HAD CONNECTIONS AT TULANE AND CHECKED, AND FERRIE WAS LYING. AND THAT FERRIE WAS UNQUALIFIED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE. Thirty minutes in 1963 – or even today – would be a considerable time to discuss something that, according to Mr. Roy, David Ferrie wasn't doing in 1963, which he claims to know because “Ferrie’s friends" said so. Indeed, about 15 years later, the HSCA would report, contrary to Mr. Roy's insinuations, that, "Ferrie spent considerable time studying medicine and psychology,(28) especially the techniques of hypnosis which he frequently practiced on his young associates.(29) BOTH TRUE. Ferrie had even set up a laboratory over his garage, ON ATHERTON DRIVE, SOME TIME EARLIER, WHEN HE WAS TEACHING CAP CADETS. (30) where he claimed he lost his hair, alternately attributing it to a radiation experiment, chemical explosion, and cancer research experiments.(31) THAT WAS GOSSIP. FERRIE KNEW HE HAD ALOPECIA SINCE JANUARY 1944. He listed his name in the telephone book as "Dr." David Ferrie;(32) HE SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF HIS DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY. many friends did erroneously believe he was a medical doctor and a psychologist. (33) AND THAT'S WHY YAGER CALLED HIM IN. This veneer of respectability and achievement could be the reason Ferrie referred to his Ph.D. degree as his 'most prized possession.'(34)". HE SAID THIS AT AN EASTERN AIR LINES HEARING, WHEN THE COMPANY WAS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ITALIAN CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL DEGREE. The committee based these findings on statements by John Johnson, Robert Morrell, Karl Koster, John Irion, Al Landry, Landry's father, Larry Adams, and Dr Yager, whom its members regarded as reliable sources. SEVERAL OF WHOM I'VE SPOKEN TO AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM! An Overheard Conversation Researcher Robert Harris, who has some unusual theories himself, has had some wise words to say about Mr. Roy, too, which bear repeating, since they involve a sighting of David Ferrie in Canada. I was present when Dave Ferrie, a Latino, a man called “Lambert” [whom I knew to have been Clay Shaw] and Lee flew early one evening at sunset to Toronto, so there is no doubt in my mind that David Ferrie might have been seen in Winnipeg, Canada, at some later date. BALONEY. SORRY, BALONEY. (LONG SEQUENCE WITH BOB HARRIS SNIPPED FOR BREVITY, BUT IT CAN BE READ IN ITS ENTIRELY IN MY POST #31 ABOVE. BOB AND I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE ABOUT THIS, BUT THE DISCUSSION TOO QUICKLY DESCENDS INTO ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY. IN 1964, LONG BEFORE HE EVER SAW A PICTURE OF FERRIE, GIESBRECHT DESCRIBED THE MAN AS WHITE MALE, ABOUT 48 YEARS OLD, ABOUT 175 LBS AND SLIGHTLY ON THE STOUT SIDE, WITH DARK HAIR, BUSHY EYEBROWS AND HEAVY RIMMED GLASSES. HE THOUGHT THE MAN MIGHT BE FROM THE EASTERN UNITED STATES. I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT 3 PAGES ON THIS MATTER IN MY MANUSCRIPT.) Mr. Roy describes his book as a biography and not as an “assassination evidence book” – and I have to agree that Mr. Roy is likely to exclude anything that might even remotely connect David Ferrie with the Kennedy assassination. What would that mean? Those who would read the biography he is writing would surely wonder why David Ferrie was ever considered to have been involved in the assassination. If they don’t find ‘evidence’ in the biography, they may falsely believe that it doesn’t exist, since so much other data will be there. WRONG. I INCLUDE EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM, WITH VERY LITTLE JUDGMENT. WHY WAS FERRIE INVOLVED? I DO A DETAILED (ALMOST HOURLY) PRESENTATION OF HOW THE INVESTIGATION OF HIM UNFOLDED IN THE DAYS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION. But if potentially “false data” is collected – such as if a former “Ferrie friend” refuses to allow his name to be made public but asserts that he drove David to Cleveland – if this is in the biography without any mention of his having been sighted in Winnipeg – that witnesses had observed a person who looked like Ferrie who had talked about involvement in the assassination – then the possibility that Ferrie was in Winnipeg has been removed by stealth, which is not an honest practice for someone posing as a biographer of Ferrie’s life. Unless he addresses the data he wants to discount, the author would have to be suspect as a shill for the official account of the death of JFK. The problem is that Mr. Roy has decided whom to choose as “Ferrie’s friends.” He has chosen some who are not in the record, as he himself admits, since he refuses to disclose their names. But he has also refused to include me as a witness. Despite his stating that I “refused to meet" with him, a claim he later changed to indicate that I would if I had a car available (which is also untrue), everyone who knows me knows that I have been willing to travel great distances to see Gerry Hemming, for example, among others. Mr. Blackburst (as I knew him at the time) simply didn’t have time for me. I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK OVER THIS AGAIN. I WANTED TO MEET HER. DUE TO MONEY (HOTEL) AND TIME ISSUES (RECOVERING FROM OPERATION), I WANTED TO FLY INTO NO INTERNATIONAL, SPEND A FEW HOURS WITH HER, THEN FLY HOME. WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND A DATE THAT WORKED FOR BOTH OF US. When I offered to send Mr. Blackburst copies of notes I made in May 1963 – of two lectures given to me and Lee by David Ferrie – he ignored the offer. BECAUSE THEIR AUTHENTICITY COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. He has also done other things that he should not have with regard to me. He has written that, to “test” me as having been in Dave’s apartment, I ought be able to describe an object hanging between the dining room and the living room on the door jamb. Try as I might, I could remember nothing hanging there, and told him so. Mr. Roy then announced to a newsgroup that I 'failed his test’ – since a toy monkey had been hanging there and that I should have remembered such an object. He claimed a photo existed showing the monkey hanging there. I have a photographic memory. I can remember where everything was in Dave’s living-room and dining room. There was no monkey. Then the photo was published on the Internet: The “monkey photo” shows a toy monkey The “monkey photo” was made the day David Ferrie died – on February 22, 1967. Mr. Roy knew that. He also knew that the last time I had been inside David Ferrie’s apartment was at the end of August 1963 – three-and-a-half years before! This is the kind of contrived – better, rigged! – “test"’ that Mr. Roy used on me and then announced to the newsgroup that I had failed. He dishonestly did not mention the date that the photo had been taken. THE REAL TEST, WHICH I WAS INVITED TO GIVE, WAS THE GARGOYLE RING TEST. BUT I DON'T SUPPOSE SHE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE. Mr. Roy has also claimed that nobody noticed any mice in Dave’s apartment when he had his birthday party there in 1963. IT WASN'T HIS BIRTHDAY. IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE'S. Dave’s birthday was March 28, 1918. He was born the same year as my father, so the date is easy for me to remember. But the part of the project involving the ring of secret labs – which also included Dave’s house and a house nearby – did not start until April 1963, as I explained in my book, ME & LEE. Mr. Roy asserts that only Garrison’s aide, Gurvich, who was later discovered to be corrupt, had reported mice – in 1957 – with which Dave had been working. Mr. Roy reiterates often that no mice were seen anywhere in 1963. But that has meant that he also has to claim that Jim Garrison was lying – or, at the very least, had a seriously distorted memory – when Garrison wrote this in his book, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS: YES, I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT OTHERS SAID VS. WHAT GARRISON SAID. HOW CAN ONE SMELL MICE, SEVERAL YEARS LATER AND BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE SMELL OF FERRIE'S DOG? Garrison states that he was at Ferrie’s apartment the same day Ferrie was found dead, but that the body was gone. When Mr. Roy had asked me, back in 1999, "What was the first thing noticed on entering Dave’s apartment?", I had told him at once: the smell! The smell of animals – mice – in Dave’s apartment! Mr. Roy alleged that Ferrie’s friends reported no such smell. But Jim Garrison had also noticed it. Years later, in 2011, Mr. Roy posted this: “Having spoken with many people who knew Ferrie (and some who spent a great deal of time at the Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment), I have not been able to find anyone who recalls seeing mice THERE in 1963 or any other time. Some say there were never any at that apartment, to their knowledge. The police and coroner's reports and pictures from the time of Ferrie's death, as well as interviews with some of the officers, show no indication that there were mice there on February 22, 1967.” So if what Mr. Roy is asserting is true, then Garrison is a xxxx. And if what Garrison is saying is true THIRD OPTION: I THINK HE WAS MISTAKEN. – which I know on the basis of having been there BALONEY. – then the one perpetrating the deception is Mr. Roy, who appears to be employing the method of selection and elimination: selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest! OR: IGNORE ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO BAKER'S CLAIMS. The “established local doctor” whom Jim Garrison mentions, by the way, was Dr. Mary Sherman. Mr. Roy claims no witness has ever stated that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other. That is false, since I have made that assertion; BUT SHE IS NOT A WITNESS!!!! but Mr. Roy accepts only certain witnesses. Jim Garrison has as well, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain people’s statements. Author John Davis has, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain authors. Davis mentions that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other in MAFIA KINGFISH on page 372. (Davis’ book is also loaded with important information about how the Mafia was being used by the CIA.) Ferrie’s Car Mr. Roy has inspired the members of two newsgroups to conclude that I had lied when I had said that David Ferrie "owned" a car during the time I knew him (late April-early September 1963). It’s another instructive example of how my simple and honest statements have been distorted and then described as “lies.” THAT WAS NOT MY PHRASE. Mr. Roy, in contrast, has told everyone that Dave Ferrie had NO car during the period I knew him: "She vividly describes she and Oswald being driven all over the New Orleans area during the summer months in Ferrie's car. Not a rental or a loaner, but Ferrie's owned car, which she describes in colorful terms. But primary research shows that Ferrie did not have a car that summer. He had a car repossessed (sic) in March 1963 and he did not have another until he purchased one in November." (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=2230&tab=posts) The truth is that I never thought to ask David if he owned the car or not. The car was there and he and Lee used it. Mr. Roy initially stated that Dave Ferrie “had no car that summer” and the reader is left to think that he had no access to one at all. That made me look bad. But later, Mr. Roy acknowledged that a “neighbor” had lent Ferrie a car. Why should I have been expected to have ASKED Dave Ferrie if the car belonged to him when he was using it? People don’t do that. The fact is, Mr. Roy falsely implied that Dave Ferrie had NO ACCESS TO A CAR at the time I said he was using a car, which was his basis for implying that I had lied. I never said any such thing. I said – in the unauthorized book published by Harrison Livingstone – that David had complained that he “deserved better” than the car he was using. At my young age, I had no idea if the car belonged to him or not. I simply knew he had a car. At no time did I say that he owned a car. I describe the car’s mechanical problems in ME & LEE and David’s prayer to get the engine started, for example; but again, I did not know if the car belonged to him. I simply assumed it, as anybody might. Mr. Roy says that he told me in early 2000 that David's car had been repossessed. But he did no such thing. This was a man that told me very little. I was offering him information, while he was tight-lipped. At any rate, Mr. Roy has finally acknowledged that David had had access to a neighbor’s car. I was surprised to see the comment sent to me under a heading of “Judyth's Lie About Ferrie's Car”, when I should have been commended instead as a witness for remembering that Dave had access to a car as proof I had been there that summer, rather than condemned, as later Blackburst-Roy would acknowledge that Dave had had access to a neighbor’s old car. I described Dave driving an old car four times, as I recall, and Lee driving it once. FERRIE'S CAR WAS REPOSSESSED IN MARCH 1963, AND HE BOUGHT ANOTHER IN NOVEMBER 1963. AT THAT TIME, NEIGHBORS SAID HE HAD NO CAR, AND USED A MOTORCYCLE THAT SUMMER. The Final Word Jim DiEugenio is a good researcher who does not believe my testimony (but he has never met me personally). I hold no grudges against a researcher simply because of that. I feel that if he met me, he’d be persuaded otherwise. DiEugenio, who published DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE in 1992, has rather important things to say about Blackburst-Roy’s methodology, especially concerning composing a biography about Ferrie that takes Ferrie’s friends’ words at face value. Here is what he has to say: Garrison mentions the mice in both his Playboy interview and the cages in his book. Its pretty clear that Garrison had decided to reinvestigate the Sherman murder when he discovered the things Ferrie was doing, plus the treatise he had in his posession. The treatise is kind of fascinating since Ferrie could not have written it. It was much too sophisticated. So to say that somehow Garrison screwed up a document pertaining to 1957, with 1967, is a real stretch. And what Stephen actually means by this is elusive: I mean did Gurvich know Ferrie in 1957? Or is the source for the year 1957, Ferrie himself. Further, to say that Gurvich is controversial is an understatement. There is little doubt in most objective minds that Gurvich was an infiltrator in Garrison's camp, as so many others were. And from private sources I developed, there is little doubt at all he was CIA. Garrison came to look askance at everything he did afterwards, when he defected to Sheridan and Shaw's lawyers with munificent copies of Garrison's files. So if this is Ferrie filtered through Gurvich, the info is, to put it mildly, suspect. I also find it odd that Stephen would believe Ferrie's buddies. They have all been faithful to Ferrie and were all too eager to attack Garrison, especiailly when Sheridan and Aynseworth came in and swooped up people like Layton Martens and Al Beabouf. I mean all you have to do is look at what they told Gus Russo for his pathetic book. Speaking of which, Russo covered up one of Ed's most powerful discoveries which showed why these guys could not be trusted: When the secret war against the Contras began in the eighties, Martens and Butler joined up forces for local rightwing talk radio in support of it. Ed did some PR for them and discovered that Butler had boxes of Guy Banister's files in his office. Interesting to speculate how he got them and if he shipped them to California when he learned Garrison was on his and Ochsner's trail in 1968. Finally Chetta's son is also on record here. I find Chetta much more credible than the police department who, as Garrison said, he did not have a brotherly relationship with due to his crackdown on their kickbacks in the French Quarter B girl scandals. In fact, you can see this in how Garrison went over them and he requested State Trooper help from McKeithen, and also how the city police helped Shaw's lawyers during Shaw's trial. Stephen's reliance on these kinds of sources worries me. If you go all the way with these people then why not go into Shaw's lawyer's records and offices? There you will learn things like Garrison never tried a case when he was an assistant DA and the CIA never helped Shaw's defense. These are both provable lies. But this is what his lawyers told me. You will also hear the same from Ferrie's buddies, and Russo printed it. This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: 31 March 2011 - 02:44 AM SEE POST #31. I DISAGREE WITH JIM ON THE SHERMAN ISSUE. Although Jim Fetzer, who has edited three books on the death of JFK, has had differences with Jim DiEugenio across a spectrum of issues, he received DiEugeio's commentary in this matter very warmly and responded to it with the following remarks: SNIPPED. HE WOULDN'T ALLOW MY COMMENTS ON HIS BLOG. I DISAGREE PROFOUNDLY WITH FETZER ON THIS. I greatly appreciate their observations about Mr. Roy and his methods, which includes attempts to distort the available evidence about David Ferrie up to and including not only my own position but even that of Jim Garrison. Robert Harris and the HSCA witnesses have highlighted a crucial aspect of the divide that separates us, which seems to me to cast light upon Roy's dupicitous methodology, where I would like to believe that those who read and understand the issues dealt with here will gain a deeper appreciation of the convolutions of JFK research and of the necessity to exercise one's critical faculties in appraising sources who may not be what they seem. OK. BAKER CLAIMS THAT I AM DISTORTING THINGS TO EXCLUDE HER, OR FOR SOME OTHER NEFARIOUS PURPOSE. I COUNTER THAT SHE IS MAKING THESE CLAIMS IN AN EFFORT TO PRE-EMPTIVELY DISCREDIT MY DISBELIEF OF THE FERRIE PORTIONS OF HER STORY. SO BE IT, LET THE READER BEWARE. I GUESS THE GLOVES ARE OFF.

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident. Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder. Jack How else do you explain a burned and mutilated body lying on a perfectly normal bed? The mattress was on fire in a smoke-filled room when firefighters arrived and dragged it and pitched it to the parking lot. There were old-fashioned bed springs scattered on the floor. There was a pile of extremely charred clothing on the victim's abdomen, apparently used as kindling to start the fire. The body was not mutilated in the narrow sense, although she was certainly brutally attacked: 8 stab wounds, including defensive wounds to the arms and fingers and a fatal stab wound to the heart. The wound to the labia appears to be more from an errant stab motion rather than a deliberate attempt at mutilation. Her death was officially classified as a homicide from the beginning. There were a lot of detectives following a lot of leads.

Baker has a new post up on Fetzer's blog, where she takes me to task. My reply was not accepted, so here is, first, her post, and next, my reply: DAVID FERRIE: WHY HE IS IMPORTANT IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION -- AND EFFORTS BEING MADE TO HIDE IT Judyth Vary Baker David made a joke about me and Mary Sherman and himself when we three met for the first time. “Dr. Mary, Dr. Ferrie, and Dr. Vary!” he laughed. He repeated “Mary, Ferrie and Vary” a few more times that summer. It was an example of Dave’s wit and affability. Today, efforts are being made to erase all traces of David Ferrie as an active anti-Castro CIA asset in 1963 who knew many details about who killed John F. Kennedy, and why. Almost desperate means are being used on the Internet, in rigged computer re-enactments, and in media statements of “fact” to train the public to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president and that our government had nothing to do with it. Most of those who fight the truth emerged after the film "JFK" revived America’s attention concerning Lee Oswald’s innocence or guilt. Hundreds of thousands of documents have been forced from government files since then. I have always said “Time is on my side” since I spoke out in 1999 that Lee tried to save Kennedy’s life. Today, we have Abraham Bolden and James Douglass and Douglas Horne and Edward T. Haslam and any number of other intrepid writers/witnesses who stand with me on that fact and others, that were initially mocked or discarded when I first asserted them. The role of David Ferrie was important in the Kennedy assassination. Efforts to recreate David Ferrie into a dumbed-down version – one who never knew Lee Oswald or me – have been strenuous and persistent and ongoing to this day. I KNEW DAVID WILLIAM FERRIE Lee and I both thought it interesting that “David” was our favorite male name, while “William” was my father’s middle name and “Ferrie” rhymed with “Vary” (my maiden name). We saw it as a kind of confluence of coincidences – a confluence that extended broadly into our daily lives in other directions, as well. Certainly, David Ferrie was not someone who could easily be mistaken for anybody else. David W. Ferrie is probably best known today through his portrayal by Joe Pesci in Oliver Stone’s film "JFK". Ferrie was taller and had a deeper voice, but Pesci did a good job of showing Ferrie’s level of high energy, his intelligence, and his feelings. I know, because I knew David Ferrie. There are some people in New Orleans who knew him, too. One “Ferrie expert” claims that, since these men (most of whom were homosexuals) did not see me with Ferrie, therefore I am to be dismissed as a witness. As I pointed out long ago, when this was not a generally known fact, Ferrie was bisexual, though his proclivity to seduce teen-age boys is what’s best known about him – except for his sometimes alarming looks, due to how he tried to handle his alopecia problem. Alopecia is a hair loss condition that can be recurrent or permanent. The hair loss can extend to all parts of the body, including even eyelashes. Dave didn’t lose all of his hair, but for all practical purposes, he was bald enough to need to wear a wig. I saw an old wig that was much smaller than the one he usually wore in 1963. I concluded from our talks that Dave had not one, but several bouts with alopecia, where some hair grew back again before he finally lost most of it. None of his wigs looked natural. As for his eyebrows, they did not exist: his “made up” eyebrows were thickly penciled in. On many occasions, bits of fuzz were carefully stuck on these drawn-on eyebrows in an attempt to look more natural. It was a futile attempt. But appearances meant little to me compared to being in his presence and soaking up what he had to say. He was a true “Renaissance man” with considerable knowledge in a wide range of fields. His success for a considerable time in the role of leading and teaching teen-aged boys in the Civil Air Patrol deserves to be emphasized, since efforts have been made to downplay Dave’s charismatic qualities. A now-famous photo shows Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same camp-out. I wish to say without equivocation that Dave Ferrie would not have forgotten that Lee was in this small group, even if an incident had not occurred between them that at first soured, but eventually secured, their mutual respect and friendship. Much has been said by anti-Oswald “Ferrie experts” that Ferrie was involved in CAP with over a thousand teen-aged boys and had not known him personally; David, of course, denied ever knowing Lee when questioned by authorities after the assassination. Moreover, Ferrie’s friends, in general, gave untrustworthy testimonies (and those who are alive probably still do) rather than have the whisper of suspicion that they might have been associated with somebody who could have been involved in a plot to kill the President. It is highly unlikely that any of Ferrie’s friends would ever change their stories and thus prove they had committed perjury or lied to government officials. They will stick to their original stories. In my case, however, I am pledged to telling exactly what the situation was. I don’t care how many “Ferrie experts” come out of the woodwork declaring that Ferrie’s friends never saw any mice (which were used as subjects in our bio-weapon research), or never knew about the technical scientific research that Dave was conducting in 1963. I even remember quite clearly asking Dave, at the only party I attended at his apartment, “Where are the mice?” “I don’t want anybody messing with my mice,” he replied. He had moved them – probably a block down the street – where hundreds (perhaps thousands) of mice were being inoculated with a cancer-causing monkey virus that had been roasted with deadly radiation. I saw a “crusty old rat” that Dave had in his apartment the first few times I visited there. Later, I saw cages, too, housing about 50 mice. These mice were all white, with red eyes – lab mice – and they were quite young. They were actually being killed and replaced constantly but, since they all looked alike, nobody would have guessed. Mr. Stephen Roy (who calls himself "David Blackburst" in the John McAdams’ newsgroup, where all kinds of anti-Oswald mischief is carried on) has presented himself as a person who has been deeply interested for decades in David Ferrie. One might ask why, since Mr. Roy has absolutely nothing in common with Ferrie – except the ability to play music. Mr. Roy has recently declared that Lee Oswald had probably killed Kennedy, following in the footsteps of several others in McAdams’ newsgroup, who remind me of Gary Mack (someone who wants all my readers to know that he does NOT make a six-figure salary as the Curator of The Six Floor Museum). Mr. Roy has been busy compiling statements from Dave’s former friends and accumulating data, purportedly for a long-awaited biography of him. For years now, he has not wavered in his efforts to create the impression of a David Ferrie who was very different from the man I knew, a man whom Mr. Roy never met. Mr. Roy’s David Ferrie is described as a broken man in 1963 who had lost his dream job with Eastern Air Lines, and whose life and prospects had deteriorated to a point of no return. His considerable past activities in the anti-Castro movements had all but ceased, according to Mr.Roy. All he was interested in was getting his job back and piloting flights for the godfather, Carlos Marcello. He had moved into a crummy little apartment and was going nowhere with his life. His life had come to a screeching halt, to hear Mr. Roy tell it. To consider Ferrie as intelligent enough to do cancer research or to be involved in plots to kill Castro or Kennedy or, for that matter, to have any interest whatsoever in his former pursuits, is, according to Mr. Roy, not remotely plausible, since Ferrie’s former – and, by the way, always un-named – friends all deny. Mr. Roy concedes that Ferrie once ‘did’ have lots of mice, though he doubts that they were used for research: apparently the same man who had a human skeleton set up with its own electrified circulatory system (a teaching tool for young cadets) would keep hundreds of mice merely as pets! When I spoke out as a witness in 1999, I immediately identified David Ferrie – just as Jim Garrison had done so some 30 years earlier – as a primary figure in the case. Efforts to discredit me have often rested on disagreeing with what I’ve said about David Ferrie concerning his considerable medical expertise. I have spoken out that David Ferrie was actively involved in cancer research activities in the summer of 1963. Mr. Roy has stated that Ferrie’s friends have claimed they saw “nothing” that remotely seemed like cancer research going on and that they never saw me. Forget the fact that Dave worked daily for Marcello’s attorney downtown and that I was regularly in his apartment several afternoons a week – and knew how to “clean up and put away.“ I have described the kind of work that was being done at his apartment and how much of the equipment would not have seemed special to untrained eyes, such as a Waring blender and what looked like a pressure cooker – an autoclave that they would never have identified as such, because of their lack of technical knowledge. Microscopes and science paraphernalia were also present, which “Ferrie’s friends” supposedly saw. At the very least, however, we have a description of Ferrie’s activities that summer as filtered through Dr. Isadore Yager and reported by Australian researcher Greg Parker, who wrote – in July 2003 – about David Ferrie and his activities with regard to the medical arts in 1963: “Dr. Isadore Yager was the representative of the local medical association. In 1961, David Ferrie came to his attention due to reports of Ferrie practicing medicine without a license, in particular, members of his "Falcon Squad", which I believe was a quasi-CAP group he had formed. "Dr Yager, in recalling his discussion with Ferrie before the Grievance hearing held by Eastern Airlines in Miami during July, 1963, stated: "He told me he had several Ph.D.s and that he was on the faculty at the Tulane Medical School and he was doing some research in the department of physiology of a very highly secretive nature, that if this works out well, it would really help us in all sorts of fields of medicine, and this went on for something like 30 minutes." Thirty minutes in 1963 – or even today – would be a considerable time to discuss something that, according to Mr. Roy, David Ferrie wasn't doing in 1963, which he claims to know because “Ferrie’s friends" said so. Indeed, about 15 years later, the HSCA would report, contrary to Mr. Roy's insinuations, that, "Ferrie spent considerable time studying medicine and psychology,(28) especially the techniques of hypnosis which he frequently practiced on his young associates.(29) Ferrie had even set up a laboratory over his garage, (30) where he claimed he lost his hair, alternately attributing it to a radiation experiment, chemical explosion, and cancer research experiments.(31) He listed his name in the telephone book as "Dr." David Ferrie;(32) many friends did erroneously believe he was a medical doctor and a psychologist. (33) This veneer of respectability and achievement could be the reason Ferrie referred to his Ph.D. degree as his 'most prized possession.'(34)". The committee based these findings on statements by John Johnson, Robert Morrell, Karl Koster, John Irion, Al Landry, Landry's father, Larry Adams, and Dr Yager, whom its members regarded as reliable sources. An Overheard Conversation Researcher Robert Harris, who has some unusual theories himself, has had some wise words to say about Mr. Roy, too, which bear repeating, since they involve a sighting of David Ferrie in Canada. I was present when Dave Ferrie, a Latino, a man called “Lambert” [whom I knew to have been Clay Shaw] and Lee flew early one evening at sunset to Toronto, so there is no doubt in my mind that David Ferrie might have been seen in Winnipeg, Canada, at some later date. In regard to how Mr. Roy handled the idea of Ferrie being involved in the assassination (which, according to Mr. Roy, he was not), Harris has written: April 27, 2010 11:49 pm By far, the most powerful indictment of David Ferrie was his identification by a fellow named, Giesbrecht, in Winnipeg, Ontario. For years, David [blackburst-Roy] told people that Ferrie was at his uncle's funeral on the day that he was allegedly spotted at the Winnipeg airport, but during our discussion on that, I made a phone call to the Cleveland Plaindealer and confirmed that the funeral was not Feb. 13th, but on the 14th, which means that Ferrie was at the airport at precisely the right time to catch a plane to Cleveland to be at the funeral the next day, and even attend the open casket showing that evening. Mr. Roy subsequently conceded this point and replied, "I stand corrected. I was working from rough notes and memory, and got the date wrong." Mr. Roy has also claimed that he has spoken to one of Ferrie's associates who had told him that he drove Ferrie to Cleveland that day, but he refuses to divulge the man's name or even his story. He even states that he made no effort to take notes or record his conversation with this guy, which is a strange way to research a book. But he did say that he would contact the man for permission and then report back. That was about 7 months ago and he hasn't said another word about it. For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, Giesbrecht, who was an extremely credible witness, as even Mr. Roy has acknowledged, overheard a conversation among several men at the airport in Winnipeg, in which a man with the "oddest eyebrows" – he also called them "streaky" – he had even seen was going on and on about his fears that, if Oswald told his wife about the conspiracy, then she might tell the Warren Commission about it. He also stated that he believed that at least two of the men, including the one he would later identify as Ferrie, were homosexuals. Giesbrecht had no idea who the men were, until two years later, when he saw a photo of Ferrie in the newspapers and immediately recognized him. So, not only did Mr. Roy's "alibi" for Ferrie fall apart, but the man Giesbrecht identified as Ferrie was in exactly the place he needed to be in order to catch a flight to Cleveland in time to attend the viewing of his uncle's body that night as well as his funeral the next day. Interestingly, he also heard Ferrie say that he "wondered why he got involved with someone so 'psycho' as Oswald." That's exactly how Marcello had described Oswald when he told an FBI informant that Ferrie introduced him to the alleged assassin during a meeting at his brother's restaurant. The Giesbrecht incident is probably the most underrated issue in the JFK case. Because of Ferrie's unique physical appearance, it amounts to solid proof of conspiracy. And even if someone were so deeply in denial that he could convince himself that Giesbrecht overheard someone other than Ferrie, we would still have proof that persons other than Oswald had been involved. Yet Mr. Roy insists on hiding both the identity of a source who might have information about this as well as his significant story. Like too many others, Mr. Roy demonstrates the irresponsible consequences of taking a position of blind advocacy rather than simply searching for the truth. Robert Harris Mr. Roy also replied (in part): "Are you asserting that Ferrie WAS in Winnipeg?" To Harris’ statement, “Because of Ferrie's unique physical appearance, it amounts to rock solid proof of conspiracy”, Mr. Roy replied, “I disagree.” He added, “I found the info about the funeral, and passed it along to Peter Whitmey, among others, which places Ferrie, at least, 'up north', and not at home running his gas station. A guy, a community leader who doesn't want to be associated with 'the homosexual stuff' went with him, and doesn't remember him being absent for any period of time (some 30 years earlier). This was for a biography, not an assassination evidence book. I have been upfront with all comers, and graciously accepted his pinpointing of the exact day of the funeral. Robert is spinning this all into 'coo-coo land'." Mr. Harris came back with a solid list of problems with Mr. Roy’s position: “And he had the strangest hair and eyebrows he had ever seen.” Why did an objective guy like you, just happen to forget that? "David, there is no room for denial here. Alleging that *someone else* with srange, 'streaky' eyebrows who was a homosexual, and was paranoically shrieking about his fears that Marina would blow the conspiracy is just crazy. "And if you actually believe that, then you have someone other than Ferrie, confirming conspiracy in the JFK case. "Somewhere along the line, you have to do what you guys always wind up having to do - call the witness a xxxx or delusional. "If you don't, then how could you remain the LN advocate that you are? Yes, and that 'one day' just happened to be the difference between a perfect alibi and a perfect match with Ferrie being at the airport, just in time to make it to Cleveland to attend both the viewing of the corpse and the funeral the next day." Mr. Roy replied: “It didn't seem to make sense to me that Ferrie would somehow travel from New Orleans to Winnipeg, be seen at the airport, fly 1882 miles to Cleveland for the wake and funeral, and not have his absence noticed by his traveling companion.” Harris: “Of course it does. He flew to Winnipeg and called in while he was there to check on his uncle's condition. When he was told the man died, he caught a plane, right on schedule to be there when he had to. I cannot in my wildest imagination, understand how that wouldn't make sense to you: > David also claims that he has spoken to one of Ferrie's associates who > told him that he drove Ferrie to Cleveland that day, but he refuses to > divulge the man's name or even his story.” Mr. Roy replied: “He doesn't want to be identified by name at this time, because of the position he holds.” Harris: “Uh huh. But when you told him you were writing a book, he was eager to give you a detailed story. > He even states that he made no effort to take notes or record his > conversation with this guy, which is a strange way to research a book. Mr. Roy: “The guy put me up in a room in his home for several days on a research trip for a BIOGRAPHY of Ferrie. I didn't carry a tape recorder or note pad 24/7.” Harris: “Damn! If only the guy had some paper in his house! And I guess you can't remember his story either, right? > But he did say that he would contact the man for permission and then > report back. That was about 7 months ago and he hasn't said a word. > For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, Giesbrecht, who was an > extremely credible witness, which even David has admitted…” Blackburst-Roy: “He may have heard such a conversation. I am not convinced it was Ferrie. “ Harris: “Of course you aren't convinced, David. A DNA test and a confession by Ferrie, signed in blood, wouldn't be convincing to you." - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Roy describes his book as a biography and not as an “assassination evidence book” – and I have to agree that Mr. Roy is likely to exclude anything that might even remotely connect David Ferrie with the Kennedy assassination. What would that mean? Those who would read the biography he is writing would surely wonder why David Ferrie was ever considered to have been involved in the assassination. If they don’t find ‘evidence’ in the biography, they may falsely believe that it doesn’t exist, since so much other data will be there. But if potentially “false data” is collected – such as if a former “Ferrie friend” refuses to allow his name to be made public but asserts that he drove David to Cleveland – if this is in the biography without any mention of his having been sighted in Winnipeg – that witnesses had observed a person who looked like Ferrie who had talked about involvement in the assassination – then the possibility that Ferrie was in Winnipeg has been removed by stealth, which is not an honest practice for someone posing as a biographer of Ferrie’s life. Unless he addresses the data he wants to discount, the author would have to be suspect as a shill for the official account of the death of JFK. The problem is that Mr. Roy has decided whom to choose as “Ferrie’s friends.” He has chosen some who are not in the record, as he himself admits, since he refuses to disclose their names. But he has also refused to include me as a witness. Despite his stating that I “refused to meet" with him, a claim he later changed to indicate that I would if I had a car available (which is also untrue), everyone who knows me knows that I have been willing to travel great distances to see Gerry Hemming, for example, among others. Mr. Blackburst (as I knew him at the time) simply didn’t have time for me. When I offered to send Mr. Blackburst copies of notes I made in May 1963 – of two lectures given to me and Lee by David Ferrie – he ignored the offer. He has also done other things that he should not have with regard to me. He has written that, to “test” me as having been in Dave’s apartment, I ought be able to describe an object hanging between the dining room and the living room on the door jamb. Try as I might, I could remember nothing hanging there, and told him so. Mr. Roy then announced to a newsgroup that I 'failed his test’ – since a toy monkey had been hanging there and that I should have remembered such an object. He claimed a photo existed showing the monkey hanging there. I have a photographic memory. I can remember where everything was in Dave’s living-room and dining room. There was no monkey. Then the photo was published on the Internet: The “monkey photo” shows a toy monkey The “monkey photo” was made the day David Ferrie died – on February 22, 1967. Mr. Roy knew that. He also knew that the last time I had been inside David Ferrie’s apartment was at the end of August 1963 – three-and-a-half years before! This is the kind of contrived – better, rigged! – “test"’ that Mr. Roy used on me and then announced to the newsgroup that I had failed. He dishonestly did not mention the date that the photo had been taken. Mr. Roy has also claimed that nobody noticed any mice in Dave’s apartment when he had his birthday party there in 1963. Dave’s birthday was March 28, 1918. He was born the same year as my father, so the date is easy for me to remember. But the part of the project involving the ring of secret labs – which also included Dave’s house and a house nearby – did not start until April 1963, as I explained in my book, ME & LEE. Mr. Roy asserts that only Garrison’s aide, Gurvich, who was later discovered to be corrupt, had reported mice – in 1957 – with which Dave had been working. Mr. Roy reiterates often that no mice were seen anywhere in 1963. But that has meant that he also has to claim that Jim Garrison was lying – or, at the very least, had a seriously distorted memory – when Garrison wrote this in his book, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS: Garrison states that he was at Ferrie’s apartment the same day Ferrie was found dead, but that the body was gone. When Mr. Roy had asked me, back in 1999, "What was the first thing noticed on entering Dave’s apartment?", I had told him at once: the smell! The smell of animals – mice – in Dave’s apartment! Mr. Roy alleged that Ferrie’s friends reported no such smell. But Jim Garrison had also noticed it. Years later, in 2011, Mr. Roy posted this: “Having spoken with many people who knew Ferrie (and some who spent a great deal of time at the Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment), I have not been able to find anyone who recalls seeing mice THERE in 1963 or any other time. Some say there were never any at that apartment, to their knowledge. The police and coroner's reports and pictures from the time of Ferrie's death, as well as interviews with some of the officers, show no indication that there were mice there on February 22, 1967.” So if what Mr. Roy is asserting is true, then Garrison is a xxxx. And if what Garrison is saying is true – which I know on the basis of having been there – then the one perpetrating the deception is Mr. Roy, who appears to be employing the method of selection and elimination: selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest! The “established local doctor” whom Jim Garrison mentions, by the way, was Dr. Mary Sherman. Mr. Roy claims no witness has ever stated that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other. That is false, since I have made that assertion; but Mr. Roy accepts only certain witnesses. Jim Garrison has as well, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain people’s statements. Author John Davis has, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain authors. Davis mentions that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other in MAFIA KINGFISH on page 372. (Davis’ book is also loaded with important information about how the Mafia was being used by the CIA.) Ferrie’s Car Mr. Roy has inspired the members of two newsgroups to conclude that I had lied when I had said that David Ferrie "owned" a car during the time I knew him (late April-early September 1963). It’s another instructive example of how my simple and honest statements have been distorted and then described as “lies.” Mr. Roy, in contrast, has told everyone that Dave Ferrie had NO car during the period I knew him: "She vividly describes she and Oswald being driven all over the New Orleans area during the summer months in Ferrie's car. Not a rental or a loaner, but Ferrie's owned car, which she describes in colorful terms. But primary research shows that Ferrie did not have a car that summer. He had a car repossessed (sic) in March 1963 and he did not have another until he purchased one in November." (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=2230&tab=posts) The truth is that I never thought to ask David if he owned the car or not. The car was there and he and Lee used it. Mr. Roy initially stated that Dave Ferrie “had no car that summer” and the reader is left to think that he had no access to one at all. That made me look bad. But later, Mr. Roy acknowledged that a “neighbor” had lent Ferrie a car. Why should I have been expected to have ASKED Dave Ferrie if the car belonged to him when he was using it? People don’t do that. The fact is, Mr. Roy falsely implied that Dave Ferrie had NO ACCESS TO A CAR at the time I said he was using a car, which was his basis for implying that I had lied. I never said any such thing. I said – in the unauthorized book published by Harrison Livingstone – that David had complained that he “deserved better” than the car he was using. At my young age, I had no idea if the car belonged to him or not. I simply knew he had a car. At no time did I say that he owned a car. I describe the car’s mechanical problems in ME & LEE and David’s prayer to get the engine started, for example; but again, I did not know if the car belonged to him. I simply assumed it, as anybody might. Mr. Roy says that he told me in early 2000 that David's car had been repossessed. But he did no such thing. This was a man that told me very little. I was offering him information, while he was tight-lipped. At any rate, Mr. Roy has finally acknowledged that David had had access to a neighbor’s car. I was surprised to see the comment sent to me under a heading of “Judyth's Lie About Ferrie's Car”, when I should have been commended instead as a witness for remembering that Dave had access to a car as proof I had been there that summer, rather than condemned, as later Blackburst-Roy would acknowledge that Dave had had access to a neighbor’s old car. I described Dave driving an old car four times, as I recall, and Lee driving it once. The Final Word Jim DiEugenio is a good researcher who does not believe my testimony (but he has never met me personally). I hold no grudges against a researcher simply because of that. I feel that if he met me, he’d be persuaded otherwise. DiEugenio, who published DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE in 1992, has rather important things to say about Blackburst-Roy’s methodology, especially concerning composing a biography about Ferrie that takes Ferrie’s friends’ words at face value. Here is what he has to say: Garrison mentions the mice in both his Playboy interview and the cages in his book. Its pretty clear that Garrison had decided to reinvestigate the Sherman murder when he discovered the things Ferrie was doing, plus the treatise he had in his posession. The treatise is kind of fascinating since Ferrie could not have written it. It was much too sophisticated. So to say that somehow Garrison screwed up a document pertaining to 1957, with 1967, is a real stretch. And what Stephen actually means by this is elusive: I mean did Gurvich know Ferrie in 1957? Or is the source for the year 1957, Ferrie himself. Further, to say that Gurvich is controversial is an understatement. There is little doubt in most objective minds that Gurvich was an infiltrator in Garrison's camp, as so many others were. And from private sources I developed, there is little doubt at all he was CIA. Garrison came to look askance at everything he did afterwards, when he defected to Sheridan and Shaw's lawyers with munificent copies of Garrison's files. So if this is Ferrie filtered through Gurvich, the info is, to put it mildly, suspect. I also find it odd that Stephen would believe Ferrie's buddies. They have all been faithful to Ferrie and were all too eager to attack Garrison, especiailly when Sheridan and Aynseworth came in and swooped up people like Layton Martens and Al Beabouf. I mean all you have to do is look at what they told Gus Russo for his pathetic book. Speaking of which, Russo covered up one of Ed's most powerful discoveries which showed why these guys could not be trusted: When the secret war against the Contras began in the eighties, Martens and Butler joined up forces for local rightwing talk radio in support of it. Ed did some PR for them and discovered that Butler had boxes of Guy Banister's files in his office. Interesting to speculate how he got them and if he shipped them to California when he learned Garrison was on his and Ochsner's trail in 1968. Finally Chetta's son is also on record here. I find Chetta much more credible than the police department who, as Garrison said, he did not have a brotherly relationship with due to his crackdown on their kickbacks in the French Quarter B girl scandals. In fact, you can see this in how Garrison went over them and he requested State Trooper help from McKeithen, and also how the city police helped Shaw's lawyers during Shaw's trial. Stephen's reliance on these kinds of sources worries me. If you go all the way with these people then why not go into Shaw's lawyer's records and offices? There you will learn things like Garrison never tried a case when he was an assistant DA and the CIA never helped Shaw's defense. These are both provable lies. But this is what his lawyers told me. You will also hear the same from Ferrie's buddies, and Russo printed it. This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: 31 March 2011 - 02:44 AM Although Jim Fetzer, who has edited three books on the death of JFK, has had differences with Jim DiEugenio across a spectrum of issues, he received DiEugeio's commentary in this matter very warmly and responded to it with the following remarks: Jim, In my opinion, this is an excellent post – you at your finest! I have long been troubled by Stephen Roy's practice of making sweeping claims while offering very little or even no evidence to substantiate them. He claims you cannot prove a negative, but you can prove there is no elephant in your living room by going there now and observing no elephant present and you can prove that not all ducks are white by observing a non-white duck. I think you are taking the right approach by looking for contemporaneous indications about Ferrie and Garrison's investigation. I also agree that Roy is too disposed to believe whatever he is told that offers even tenuous support for his claims. So I commend you for this. And, in relation to Michael Hogan, DR. MARY'S MONKEY is jam packed with documents, records, and photographs, just as is the case for ME & LEE. Both of them are exceptional in that regard as books intended for the general reader. Why he wants to deny something that obvious is beyond me. Jim I greatly appreciate their observations about Mr. Roy and his methods, which includes attempts to distort the available evidence about David Ferrie up to and including not only my own position but even that of Jim Garrison. Robert Harris and the HSCA witnesses have highlighted a crucial aspect of the divide that separates us, which seems to me to cast light upon Roy's dupicitous methodology, where I would like to believe that those who read and understand the issues dealt with here will gain a deeper appreciation of the convolutions of JFK research and of the necessity to exercise one's critical faculties in appraising sources who may not be what they seem. MY RESPONSE: To begin, I don’t believe that you ever knew David Ferrie. Because you don’t appear in any Ferrie files, and because a number of people with PROVEN relationships with Ferrie do not recall you ever associating with him, you find it necessary to try to discredit proven witnesses in favor of your unproven claims. You show the picture of Ferrie and Oswald, among others, at a Civil Air Patrol SARCAP exercise (not a “camp out”), but you don’t inform readers that it was taken in August 1955, 8 years before the assassination, when Oswald was 15 years old. From the day of his arrest, Ferrie always conceded that Oswald may have served in the same CAP squadron. You claim there were white mice and a medical lab in Ferrie’s apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway in 1963, with you and Dr. Mary Sherman in attendance, but people who were there in 1963 don’t remember seeing the mice, the lab, you or Sherman. You try to raise sinister sounding overtones to my feelings about Oswald’s role in the assassination. What I have actually said is that I find it hard to believe that Oswald was completely uninvolved in the assassination. The fact is that I know much more about David Ferrie than you claim to. It is a fact that he was riding high in 1961: He had a nice home, a good job as an airline pilot, an influential role in an anti-Castro group and a self-created CAP-style group called the Falcons. But when he was arrested in August 1961 for improper relations with underage boys (and subsequent intimidation of witnesses), he lost his home, his job, his influence with the Cubans and the Falcons. This is Ferrie’s own description. Yes, Ferrie was interested in medicine (self-taught), and he did teach CAP cadets about rudimentary medicine. He did have a skeleton with pumps, tubes and lights in the late 1950s, nicknamed Jonathan. I posted this, for the first time ever, on the Education Forum on January 25, 2005. As for the conversation with Dr. Isadore Yager, you have the dates all mixed up. Yager was the head of the local medical association and received a complaint that Ferrie was practicing medicine without education or a license on CAP cadets (cold medications, VD medications, setting broken bones, etc.) and he called Ferrie in to warn him to cease and desist such activity. This was in 1961, not 1963 (specifically on August 8, 1961 at 1:30pm). I have the full records and other info on this incident. Dr. Yager testified about this at a 1963 hearing. Yager made clear that Ferrie was completely unqualified to practice medicine in any way. It is true that I told researcher Robert Harris about Ferrie’s trip north for a funeral in February 1964, when Harris thinks he was meeting in Winnipeg with a man named Giesbrecht. I originally found this information {about the funeral, not the whole Giesbrecht incident}, and I passed it along to others for their continued research. Bob Harris, who can be of strong opinion, thinks I should have pursued it in greater detail. At the time, I didn’t think it was necessary, as I spoke with the man who accompanied Ferrie, and who didn’t notice him being absent long enough for a 3764 mile round trip between Cleveland and Winnipeg. For these and other reasons, I’m not very confident about the Giesbrecht account, but I do give it 3 closely-spaced pages in my manuscript. I did decline to receive from you (Baker) the alleged notes of an alleged Ferrie lecture. As they are in your handwriting, they prove nothing, and COULD be fabricated. You note that Jim Garrison claimed to smell mice in Ferrie’s apartment after the latter’s death. How could the smell linger for 3 ½ years? How could it be distinguished as mice, and not the dog Ferrie kept? You quote John Davis as claiming a Ferrie-Sherman relationship. Does he present evidence of it, or was he repeating what he read from Garrison and/or Haslam? For that matter, can you cite ANY evidence, beyond your claims, of a Ferrie-Sherman relationship? A man I know is working on a Sherman project: He, too, says that there is no trace of Ferrie (or you) among the documents he has collected or the interviews he has done. As for Ferrie’s car, I didn’t do the “Judyth’s Lie…” title. I posted that you said you rode in Ferrie’s car; I posted that he didn’t own one at that time. Of course, anybody can rent or borrow a car, but his neighbors said (in 1963) that he didn’t have a car and used a motorcycle all summer. I understand that Jim DiEugenio (who doesn’t believe your story) is leery of believing Ferrie’s friends, as far as evidence goes. I interviewed them for a biography, and I told DiEugenio that I am savvy enough to be able to filter self-serving stuff from useful information. He also indicated that he finds the Ferrie-Sherman story plausible, but I alerted him that new information may raise further doubts about it. (Somebody else’s project, not mine.) I also understand that Jim Fetzer congratulated DiEugenio on his post, but Fetzer is also strong of belief, and he clearly praises those who agree with his ideas and attacks those who disagree. He’s just wrong about this. I had a feeling that this would eventually come. I’ve tried to keep my reservations about your story to a relatively small circle of researchers, not to post on Amazon and affect book sales. But you now feel that, since I can’t support your account and even challenge it, I must be discredited. I’m sorry you feel that way. The only objective is truth.

With all due respect, in your view did Ferrie know anyone connected to the assassination? It depends on who you define as "connected to the assassination." He had met Oswald, but some argue whether or not Oswald was connected to the assassination. He certainly knew people like Banister and Arcacha, Bringuier and Quiroga, but beyond them being involved in the opposition to Castro, it's harder to define a specific connection to the assassination for most of them. Let me be blunt: This supposed Sherman connection started with one short reference in a Playboy interview. While no such evidence of an actual Ferrie-Sherman association has emerged from Garrison's files, or his former ADAs and investigators, or from any other verifiable source, Ed Haslam has presented it as fact, with no evidence to back it up. No evidence of such a relationship emerges in a Ferrie background investigation, or in a Sherman background investigation. I profoundly disagree with those who think such a relationship is supported by the evidence.

Jim (and other interested parties): This is probably a good time and place to float an idea I've had for some time. There are Garrison files (and files related to the New Orleans investigation) scattered all over the place: NARA, AARC, History Matters/Mary Ferrell Collection, Billings/Georgetown, Weisberg/Hood, the agencies themselves, private researchers, and probably other places. Some documents seem to be in some collections but not in others. Some are online, some are not. Some of the online ones are easily searchable but some are not. I wonder if it would be possible to gather all of the available Garrison/New Orleans resources together, to make as complete an archive as possible; and, if feasible, make them available online. I would like to see them all available at one place. Further, today's technology should make it possible to organize the contents into a database, so that a researcher could bring up an index of anything (examples: All documents on Thornley, Chronological list of NODA memos, All FBI documents on Bringuier - you get the idea) and allow the user to click to see and print each document. As well, there are other materials which do not fit the definitions of Garrison files or related files: pictures, news clippings, a/v materials, testimonies, interviews conducted by non-government entities (like researchers) and many other ancillary materials. (While I find current online sources useful, they can be problematic: NARA has little actually online; AARC/History Matters stuff is limited; the Ferrell collection is extensive, but hard to search and not capable of printing multi-pagers (as far as I know); the Weisberg collection has a bunch of Garrison stuff, but it is scattered in the most unlikely places; and so on.) Perhaps a system like the one I propose could use existing online resources, simply "by pointing at their URLs," with the addition of many materials not now online. Once I publish my Ferrie research, I'd be willing to donate my materials (where they are not merely duplicates) to such an archive. It seems to me that this could be a great resource for people interested in the Garrison/New Orleans investigation. It almost seems inevitable, that someday somebody will do this. What do you think?

it's a shame JFK was murdered, dies in a very public way, sitting next to his wife... yet you say its a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized? Little righteous indignation goes a long way here, me thinks. Creating intellectual POV's concerning investigation of this case is, to me not only futile, but a complete waste of time... and certainly does NOT do justice to history... this is murder, plain and simple... plain old detective work, that's the ticket! You seem to miss the point. A person can sometimes be good at some things and not so good at others. Indignation doesn't give a license to ignore that.

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

Jim Fetzer, with whom I battled some months back, is entitled to believe what he wants. I still don't think Haslam provides evidence for the most basic claims of his book: That Ferrie knew Sherman, worked on a project with her, that it took place (in part, at least) in his apartment, and that it was a government project. None of the "documents, records and photographs" go to these claims.

On the Sherman investigation: A 3 page report was submitted the day after the murder; A 4 page report was submitted the next day; for the next week, 1-3 page daily reports were submitted; and a supplementary report was submitted in October. How can there be a final report on an unsolved murder?

Jim DiEugenio: Sometimes people of roughly equivalent experience in a field can agree on many things, but disagree on a few others. I agree with much you have to say, but respectfully disagree on a few points. In the broadest sense, I strongly disagree with you on the Haslam thesis. He raises questions in his books but fails to provide any verifiable evidence that Ferrie knew Sherman, that they were engaged in a project together, that some of it took place in his apartment, and that it was a government project. If I am missing such evidence in his books, I would stand corrected. On the research mice (in the Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment), I simply cannot find any person who ever saw them or any other evidence to support it. Faced with the conflict between what people who knew Ferrie said and what Garrison said, I can only speculate. The Gurvich memo to Garrison is what it is. He said that he investigated a theft involving a friend of Ferrie (Mike Wakeling) in 1957 (at a different Ferrie home), he saw mice in cages, and Ferrie said he was looking for a cure for cancer. I have communicated with many who knew Ferrie. Some were friends, but some were acquaintances, some who liked Ferrie and some who did not. I am savvy enough to distinguish between self-interest and useful information. I'm not sure why or how people who knew Ferrie might all be telling similar false stories after all these years. On the aftermath of Ferrie's death, should I disregard the contemporaneous police and coroner's reports, the photos (which I can see with my own eyes) and the recollections of the officers and others, in favor of what Haslam says Chetta's son says his father told him? I wouldn't jump the gun on the Sherman murder, either. There is a lot of unpublished information coming up on that matter. Based on the evidence or lack therof, I simply cannot put my imprimatur on Haslam's main thesis. I guess we disagree on this.

My intent in the original post was to provide an easy online source for a dissenting view of the thesis presented in these two books, not to re-argue the evidence. But let me take a quick stab at this. In February 1967, a private detective volunteering for Garrison named Bill Gurvich (a controversial figure) wrote a memo to Garrison about a visit to Ferrie's home, where Gurvich saw a number of caged white mice, and when Ferrie said he was searching for a cure for cancer. However, this was in 1957 on Vinet Street, 5 years and three homes before Ferrie moved to Louisiana Avenue Parkway in March 1962 (and 6 years before the Haslam thesis, and 10 years before Gurvich's memo to Garrison). Having spoken with many people who knew Ferrie (and some who spent a great deal of time at the Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment), I have not been able to find anyone who recalls seeing mice THERE in 1963 or any other time. Some say there were never any at that apartment, to their knowledge. The police and coroner's reports and pictures from the time of Ferrie's death, as well as interviews with some of the officers, show no indication that there were mice there on February 22, 1967. Further, the reports and reminiscences indicate that Garrison was not at Ferrie's apartment in the hours following his death. However, one cannot rule out Garrison going there at some point after the police and coroner left. (One officer said he did not perceive an animal smell, but he did see a dog's food and water dishes. Ferrie had a dog. See, for example, Southern Research report November 1962, surveillance.) I surmise that Garrison mixed up the 1957 Vinet Street report with the 1967 Louisiana Avenue Parkway situation. How could Garrison have smelled mice which were kept at a different home? And even if they were moved there in 1962, how could he have smelled them 5 years later, and distinguished it from a dog smell? As for Sherman's murder (and it was clear to investigators that it WAS murder), Garrison's office was in constant touch with the NOPD investigators. Much ground was covered, but there was never a strong enough suspect to consider indictment.

Haslam this morning on WWL-TV: http://www.wwltv.com/video?id=118771099&sec=554827 Paulsen asks what proof Haslam has that Baker was LHO's lover: "Well, because she says so."

It has come to my attention that Edward Haslam has engaged a reputable New Orleans PR firm and has undertaken a series of personal appearances/book signings to promote "Dr. Mary's Monkey," as well as the book of his star character Judyth Vary Baker and her book "Me and Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald." Indeed, Haslam is appearing this morning on WWL-TV in New Orleans. As I have stated before, it is not my intent to come between Haslam-Baker and their book buyers or possible movie deals; Nevertheless, in the search for factual accuracy in the field of JFK research, I wish to offer a dissenting view for any who may be compelled to search the topic online. Hence, this post in a more narrowly-focused forum for serious research. I have studied the life of one of Haslam-Baker's major characters, David Ferrie, for many years and am in the process of writing a biography of him. I have obtained every document I could find about Ferrie and interviewed many who knew him, and I write from that informed perspective. With his permission, my comments are seconded in whole or in part by Stephen Tyler, a New Orleans filmmaker who produced "He Must Have Something," a look at the Jim Garrison investigation, and who has conducted a great deal of research into the other major character, Dr. Mary Sherman. It is fair to say that my thoughts are also supported by others with special expertise in the New Orleans aspects of this case. I have read "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" and "Dr. Mary's Monkey." While I have no issue with Ed Haslam sharing his thoughts about Ferrie, Sherman, Baker and other matters, I respectfully dissent from the notion that his main thesis is supported by the evidence he presents, or by any available evidence. Specifically, he does not provide credible evidence that Ferrie was acquainted with Dr. Sherman; that Ferrie and Sherman worked on medical research in 1963 or at any other time; that such research occurred in Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; that such research was part of a covert US government project; or that Judyth Vary Baker was part of such research (beyond Baker's own claims). I have attempted to discuss these matters with Haslam, but he has been unreceptive. I have read "Me and Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald." In addition, I have read Baker's earlier unauthorized book "Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy by His Lover," and have read many more writings by Baker. I respectfully dissent from Baker's claims regarding David Ferrie, and see no credible evidence to support them; In fact, it is my opinion that she never even met Ferrie. While I stipulate that she was a science prodigy and worked at the same company as Oswald in 1963, I do not understand, if the Ferrie portions of the book are not accurate, how the Oswald portions could be accurate. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, that something did not happen. Notwithstanding, my contacts with people who knew Ferrie suggest to the contrary, that he did not have a relationship with Dr. Sherman or Baker, and that he was not engaged in medical research in that apartment in 1963. Further, Dr. Sherman and Baker appear nowhere in the contemporaneous documentary record of the case. For these reasons, I strongly urge persons interested in the Haslam or Baker theses to seek alternate primary sources to either confirm or deny them. It makes me uncomfortable to observe that, thanks to the internet, such unproven theses are creeping out into our body of knowledge and being accepted uncritically as fact. There are two sides to every story, and there is definitely a dissenting side to this story.

John: I have a 3-VHS tape set, Inside the CIA, where Phillips in interviewed. Only fair film quality, mid-70s. It's this set: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-CIA-Vol-Subversion-VHS/dp/6300200191

I once viewed Lamphere with some suspicion after reading of his role in the cold war spy cases, Rosenberg and Coplon cases, but I found myself a lot more understanding of him after reading his book.

When I hear this, I can't shake the image of Malkovich/Mitch Leary in "In the Line of Fire" saying to Eastwood/Frank Horrigan: I have a rendezvous with death, and Horrigan's response...

Off topic: No, not that Judyth... One of the classic cold war spy cases. In late 1948, the famous Venona break of coded Soviet communications by the precursor of the NSA revealed a spy codenamed SIMA. Trianguation of the involved documents pointed to a political analyst in the Department of Justice named Judith Coplon, and surveillance indicated that she was in contact with Valentin A. Gubichev, an NKVD agent under UN cover. FBI agent Robert Lamphere dangled a fabricated document to Coplon, and she was arrested with the document in her possession while meeting Gubichev. She was convicted in her second trial, but it was reversed on appeal on technicalities, with the notation that she was clearly guilty. Coplon married her attorney and dropped into obscurity in New York, later opening two restaurants. She died last Saturday at 89. Her daughter, who shared Coplon's left/progressive orientation, told the press that her mother's actions would not be considered treason if they were for a higher good. I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to let people who turn over secret information to foreign powers decide if it is for some higher good.

Charles Spiesel, 91, at Nashville. One of the witnesses at the Shaw trial, said he saw Shaw and Ferrie together, seemingly plotting assassination. On cross examination, Shaw's lawyers elicited testimony of odd behaviour, like fingerprinting his daughter. John Volz, 74, at Tulsa. Was an Assistant DA under Garrison, interviewed Ferrie in December 1966, was not a strong supporter of Garrison's case, became U.S. Attorney for the NO area in 1978.

Escalante, again. Some thoughts on Escalante: When I first heard of him in the Furiati book, I thought we might have a good source here, from a Cuban intelligence point of view. But the Furiati book was not strong on useful info. Then came Escalante's first book. Again, notably short on useful info, and written from a strident position. Most of his reference notes were to US assassination books, some good and some not, but very little seems to have come from his own knowledge or DGI files. And certain bits of it were inaccurate. Since that time, Escalante has not yet impressed me as a good source of new information. Even the article above (which, granted, is filtered through the writer, Allard) contains questionable stuff: He has Oswald at 544 Camp along with the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Rudimentary research would show that we don't know for sure if Oswald had an office there or was pretending that he did. Rudimentary research would show that the Cuban Revolutionary Council occupied that building from October 1961-February 1962. (And despite one person being seen at the office after the CRC left, the group was long gone by August 1963.) And his claim that Friends of Democratic Cuba was formed by the FBI is unsupported by the evidence. These claims are central to Escalante's linkages; how can we have confidence in his historical analysis?

Hi Stephen: I hope you find this thread helpful re quoting with the forum software. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15256&st=0 Thanks. That WAS helpful. I see others picking multiple short quotes, and they appear in boxes on the final version. I wish I could do that. Maybe when I master "wrap in quotes." I have mastered deleting repeat text (as you note, as long as I keep the top and bottom "quote".) What does MultiQuote do?