Stephen Roy

Lots of interesting stuff here. But... I was always amazed that Sciambra dismissed Ferrie's complaints of sickness as phony, since he died a few days later, and this memo is dated after Ferrie's death. BTW, Sciambra died recently.

"1.In Garrisons book "On the trail..."he is called Marachini...(german edition)" Garrison was going from memory. I base the correct spelling on a lengthy personnel file on Marochini, provided to HSCA in May 1978 by his then-employer, Chrysler Michoud. "2. Nobody knows, which kind of relationship Ferrie and Marachini had. Marachini was living next door to Clay Shaw,(1309 Dauphine street) and a frequent Ferrie-visitor..." I am saying that Marochini only shows up those 2 times on Ferrie's radar, based on my long study of his life: In the EAL investigator's report (visit to apartment) and Ferrie's testimony at an EAL dismissal hearing (translation of document). None of Ferrie's friends I've interviewed knew Marochini. What is your source that he was a "frequent Ferrie-visitor"? "3. You are right, it was Coffee, not Marachini, who was with Ferri on his Huston trip... sorry for that..." "4. Garrison says in his book, that Marachini and Oswald started working at Reilys exact on the same day --sry I rather believe Garrison, who was at the center of the events, than you..." Again, Marochini's Chrysler personnel file would seem to be a pretty solid source. Marochini's record from that time: 2/1/62 to 8/15/62: Asst Mgr, L & J Wine Co. 11/1/62 to 3/19/63: Sales Rep, Solari Inc Wine 3/19/63 to 6/10/63: Sales Rep, Standard Coffee 6/10/63 to 8/25/63: Wine Steward, Arnaud's Restaurant 8/26/63 to 7/9/64: Shop Scheduler, CCSD (Chrysler) Michoud 7/10/64 to "present" (1978) Material Specifications, CCSD Michoud With all due respect to Garrison, he goofed on details from time to time.

"One of Ferries boys Dante Marachini - he was with Ferrie on his Huston trip 22.11.63 - started working for Reilys the same day Oswald and Judyth did: coincident? hardly..." Lots of mistakes here: 1) Not "Marachini". His name was Dante A. Marochini. 2) He was not what we would consider as one of "Ferrie's boys." He was much older (38 in 1963), and his only connection with Ferrie was that he was a friend of James Ronald Lewallen, who had been a friend of Ferrie's since 1947. Marochini came across the Ferrie radar only briefly: A private detective hired by Eastern Air Lines noted that he visited Ferrie's home with Lewallen once in late 1962, and he also helped Ferrie translate an Italian document. 3) Marochini was not on Ferrie's 11/22/63 Houston trip: Ferrie was accompanied by Alvin Roland Beaubouef and Melvin Stacey Coffee. 4) Marochini did not start at Reily on the same day as Oswald or Baker (May 9); He started at Standard Coffee as a Sales Rep on March 19, and worked there until June 10, when he left for a job at Arnaud's Restaurant.

Duh, me! I just clicked on his website. This is the same guy, and there's much more bio detail there!

If this is the same guy: Donald A. Adams, b.Jan. 21, 1931, Barbertown OH Barbertown High School, U.S. Army (Kentucky, Japan, Korea), BA in Education from Kent State, NY Life Insurance Co. Married Jeanette 1955, 4 children Became SA September 1962, retired from Akron RA December 1982 VP/Security of Brenlin Group, Chief of Police at Fairlawn OH, June 1993-present Member SFSA and other groups

Interesting. Like David, I have a long background in TV (including the end of the film era), and I'd like to give this some consideration. The question of a film alteration technology being adequate in 1963 depends on the type of alteration one believes was used on this film in 1963. Greg, can you specify any particular type of alteration you believe was used on the Z-film? Is there any consensus among "alterationists" as to what type of alteration might have been used? Another factor to consider is if such alteration could go undetected by both the public and by trained eyes. I confess that I come at this as something of a skeptic, but I'm not closed-minded

I have that pic, I'll see if I can find it. However, I am convinced that, while it shows Shaw, it does not show Ferrie or Oswald. The people involved said it was an "adventure party" in 1949 for WDSU employees, and the figure resembling Ferrie was a WDSU announcer named Robert Brannon. Ferrie did not move to New Orleans until 1951. And the young guy is almost certainly not the 10-year old Oswald.

Just an FYI: One of Dave Ferrie's former "Falcon Squadron" cadets told HSCA that Ferrie took them to several locations for training, and he mentioned Belle Chasse (correct spelling; correct pronunciation is bell chase)as one of them. The Falcons were a non-CAP sanctioned group created by Ferrie, which also included his "Internal Mobile Security Unit" or IMSUs. The boys recalled, however, that this was all American boys, except for one visit by a couple of Cubans (which probably included Buznedo). The interesting thing is that this Ferrie activity at Belle Chasse was also in the spring of 1961.

I know Novel. I really don't think he knows anything about the assassination. He likes to be mysterious, and Garrison elevated him to mysterious.

I had a feeling (and, I think, mentioned it several hundred posts ago) that when Fetzer stopped serial responding (and being insulting), the activity in the thread would go down. In terms of numbers, a shame...Nearly 3000 posts, surely a record, and nearly as many views as the pinned "Who Killed JFK?"

I see your point. SR

I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it. Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??) Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection? What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint?

RE: The proposed Black Op program: I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617: "In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President." Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

What concerns me in the transcript above is not so much the material about McGehee and his responses; what concerns me are some of Baker's statements. Several of them seem to be "leading statements." About the lady in the car, Baker says "That was me...I kept everything...I've got this all documented...I've got all the proof." When there seems to be uncertainty about the length of the woman's hair, Baker makes comments about how HER hair looked in 1963. When McGehee gives his opinion of why Oswald was there, Baker "shocks" him with information about experiments on prisoners. When the car is discussed, she tells McGehee what the car looked like. When McGehee repeats information he had heard that Oswald could not drive, Baker insists that Oswald could drive. It may just be that this was exuberance on Baker's part, or that the interview was not a formal one. But I have to keep this sort of thing in mind when considering Anna Lewis's statement, and Baker's role in arranging it and presence during it.

Edwin Lea McGehee was one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who emerged during the Garrison investigation. The stories of these witnesses suggested that Oswald was in the Clinton/Jackson area in the late summer of 1963, accompanied by others, and various theories have been propounded as to the reason for Oswald's alleged presence there. McGehee once said he thought that a woman may have accompanied Oswald there. Baker and another individual interviewed McGehee in 2001. These are portions of the transcript. Excerpts of transcript of "highlights" of interview of Edwin Lea McGehee by Judyth Baker, January 20, 2001. Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car. McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw. Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady? McGehee: Right. That's all I know. Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired? McGehee: Yes, dark-haired. Baker: Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me. McGehee: Garrison always asked. He said, who...he wished he knew who that was. Baker: I kept everything. McGehee: Why didn't it come up at that time? Baker: Well, I was scared to death, because - Dave Ferrie, you know - think he was murdered - Mary Sherman was stabbed - fourteen times - the other person I worked with. McGehee: Well, I'll be damned. Baker: I've got all this documented. McGehee: Uh-huh, uh-huh. Baker: I've got all the proof. McGehee: Unbelieveable!... Baker: (showing picture of herself) Tell me, if you'll - look at her, and see what you think...Does she look anything like the woman you saw? McGehee: The back - yeah - but it's short - not long haired - long haired - uh - I think it's... Baker: It was a little longer at the time. McGehee: Yeah...uh. Maybe a bit longer down at...it was shoulder length... Baker: Well, that's exactly right, it was the year before... McGehee: Right... Baker: And, uh, my hair was a shorter length at the time... McGehee: [Oswald] got a haircut. And I thought that was strange. He kept trying to - in my opinion, he was trying to make me remember him. That was my opinion of why he was there. Baker: Well, there were some things we were trying to do to prove who we were... McGehee: Uh... Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there becuase of prisoners being experimented on at Jackson Hospital, and I don't know whether you heard any rumors about them or not. They were injected with cancer cells. did you hear anything about that? McGehee: No. Baker: Well, Okay. Did you hear of any experiments that were being done on any prisoners in 1963? McGehee: Right. No, no. Baker: Well that was what this whole trip was about - going out there and - I had all this medical training and everything like that, and we - I was out there to check the bloodwork... Baker: Do you remember about the car out there? I'll tell you what kind of a car it was in a minute, and see if you can remember. McGehee: It was an old car - and like I said, a Nash, a Frazier. Baker: Was it two-toned or one-toned? Or do you remember? I'm on record, so - I mean, uh, I'm on record as having already described the car. McGehee: I don't know...I just glanced at it, and I looked mostly at WHO was in the car...No, didn't know that car. Baker: Well, it was a...mainly green - darker green...two-tone, the other color had some tan in it... McGehee: Well, were you driving it? So Lee didn't drive? Baker: Lee was driving. He was afraid to drive because he didn't have a driver's license, so we were driving up side roads... McGehee: Everything I read about him - since then - it said he couldn't drive. Baker: Oh, believe me!..He told me he learned to drive when he was in the Marines. McGehee: Well, I'll be damned! Baker: I want you to know that you are not the only one on tape. I've got other witnesses.

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up... You did. Much appreciated. This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager. Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is. To you. I see Lewis differently and think there are other reasonable alternatives, including the possibility that Lewis sensed that leaking too much of what he really knew could backfire. I don't think he trusted Garrison to take care of him. HERE I GO WITH CAPS FOR CLARITY: BUT, THEN: WHY GO TO GARRISON IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF HE FEARED SOMETHING WOULD COME OUT WHEN THE THREAD WAS PULLED, WHY HAND GARRISON THE THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE? THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE THAT HE PULLED HIS PUNCHES. WELL, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER WHAT ANNA SAID, BUT IT IS HER STATEMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION. This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: Fair enough. But I don't think Lewis' statements can be accepted uncritically either. I look at his situation as analogous to that of Dean Andrews, who gave valuable information then shiffted in the wind when put under pressure by the WC. NO, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT DAVID'S CREDIBILITY WAS OPEN TO QUESTION, TOO. It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating. ]It does; I don't think that's reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I'M NOT ADVOCATING THROWING IT OUT; I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE UNCHALLENGED WEIGHT ACCORDED TO IT BY FETZER. Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962[/i], when the historical Oswald was in the USSR. That is a horse of a different color. AS I NOTED TO BAKER, SHE WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT FIT INTO HER 1962 TIMELINE. THIS WAS NOT A SIMPLE "MIS-SPEAK." UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE HARVEY AND LEE THINGS. I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965. BAKER HAS IT IN HER UNAUTHORIZED BOOK THAT LEWIS WAS USING THE TRAILWAYS STATION AS SOME KIND OF PROCESSING CENTER FOR CUBANS IN 1963. BUT DAVID NEVER GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT HE WORKED THERE PRIOR TO 1965. THE ONLY SOURCE WE HAVE (BESIDES BAKER) IS ANNA LEWIS. AND AGAIN, ONE NEEDS TO BE CAUTIOUS OF HER ACCOUNT, OR SEEK FURTHER CONFIRMATION. Acknowleged. THANKS FOR BEING OPEN MINDED ABOUT THIS, BY THE WAY.

This is getting positively weird now. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.

Sorry for the caps! I wasn't shouting, just don't know how to insert comments in a long post!

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA): Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald? A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with. Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald? A. Not that I know of, no. Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly Coffee Company? A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently. Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald? A. Over three years. Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife. A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home. Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald? A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up... This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager. Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is. This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating. Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR. I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

Interview of David Franklin Lewis Jr. by Det. Louis Ivon, Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966: Q. Approximately how many times have you seen Lee Harvey, who you later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald? A. No more than four times, each time in the company of Carlos [later identified as Carlos C. Quiroga]. Q. The day that you first met him, were you introduced to him? A. Yes. Q. Did you hold conversations? A. No, more or less "I'm glad to meet you." [...] Q. I am going to show you another photograph. Do you know this man? A. This man is Lee Harvey Oswald. The man I know as Lee Harvey and the man I was introduced to in the lower portion of our building, in Mancuso Restaurant by Carlos. [...] Q. Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie together? A. Not to my knowledge - No. They may have been, but I don't know. [...] Q. Is everything in this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge? A. That is correct. Q. You are making this statement freely and voluntarily? A. I am more than glad to give this statement. [...] Q. After leaving Banister's employment, where did you work? A. [...] Odd jobs from April [1963] to March 1964 and reported to Louisiana Employment Office...Trailways - April 4, 1965 - Continental Trailways Freight Agent to present [December 1966]. Statement of David Franklin Lewis Jr. to Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966: [...] In the late summer of 1963, I was reporting to the Louisiana State Employment Office, at 601 Camp Street seeking steady employment. At this time all I had was odd jobs from time to time...On one occasion I...stopped by Mancuso's Restaurant...I noticed...a fellow I was introduced to by Carlos as Lee Harvey in the restaurant. It has now been determined by me through photographs that this man was Lee Harvey Oswald...When I first seen Lee Oswald in the restaurant, he didn't talk much, but he seemed to be anxious about getting on his way...I had only seen Oswald about three or four times in the neighborhood of Lafayette and Camp Streets in the Newman Building...

OK. SINCE I HAVEN'T MASTERED THE ART OF REPLYING TO PIECES OF POSTS, I'LL INSERT MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY. For reasons I don't fully understand, you find it necessary to preemptively try to attack me and my project. Judyth, it doesn't matter what I think. Yes I have doubts, for what I consider to be good reasons. Your story does not stand or fall on my opinion. If you want me to be less visible, you and Fetzer should just leave me alone. Ignore me, if you want.

Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.) I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.) I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

Thanks for noticing, Todd. Fetzyr keeps ignoring the points I raise, and trying to suggest that there's something suspicious about me.

Miss Baker: Lemme see if I follow this: Because you failed to correctly identify the stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway until you saw the picture, this enhances your credibility in some way? So even though I told you back almost a decade ago that it was a stuffed monkey, it just now clicked in your head that it fits in with the many monkeys you say were processed there? I do have many other pictures, including a whole series from 1963, and I know more about where/when the stuffed monkey was obtained, but I'm mindful of the fact that some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account. You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie. But since you're inclined to talk about Ferrie's apartment, tell us more about Ferrie's "large kitchen", as Fetzer described it. I posted pictures of it a few pages back. How was the research done in that kitchen?