Stephen Roy

I disagree with Davy on this. Garrison makes too much of it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one; I think Garrison may have gotten it wrong. That whole time period (especially 1962-3) was a "boom time" for the aerospace industry, due to the expansion of the space program. In my neck of the woods, it was General Dynamics or Electric Boat; In Seattle, it was Boeing; In New Orleans, it was a series of aerospace companies located in the Michoud area. MANY men and women wanted work there: better jobs, jours, pay, prestige. I can see why a few workers at Reilly wanted jobs there. We can even add others to the list: Banister's friend Bill Nitschke got a job there. Even Oswald said he might find his pot of gold there. Garrison cites three people who knew Oswald and got jobs there, and suddenly it's part of the conspiracy. Lewallen didn't work at Reilly and didn't know Oswald. He did know Marochini (correct spelling) and Ferrie. Marochini's work records show that he applied for work at Chrysler long before Oswald started at Reilly. Marochini did NOT start at Reilly on the same day or at the same time as Oswald. In fact, he worked at a different location and said he never met Oswald. Marochini did NOT leave Reilly for Chrysler on the same day Oswald left Reilly, or anywhere near the same time. I don't know where Garrison came up with such wrong information, or why he published it, or why he tries to make it sound like part of the conspiracy. This is one of the things that made me double check everything Garrison claimed.

Stephen, you are probably the world's leading expert on David Ferrie. What do you make of Ed Haslam's claim posted here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3205 The link leads to a thread, and I'm not sure which of Haslam's statements you reference. Can you quote a specific one here? Nevertheless, let me make a generalized statement: I have read only the first edition of Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus, and the online portions of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I am a real stick in the mud when it comes to evidence. As intriguing as Haslam's theories are, he actually offers very little checkable evidence, if you read closely. In his original edition, he seemed to speculate a lot; a few pages later, the speculation would become fact; and he would then pile "fact" upon "fact" to create the impression of something sinister. They key to his main thesis is that Ferrie had a working relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman, but he presents no evidence that the two were acquainted in his first edition. He merely speuclates that they had common interests and quotes Garrison (who could often be wrong) as a source on the relationship. Whatever one may think of Ferrie's surviving friends and acquaintences, I find it hard to believe that they would all be lying about the following: I have asked those I've interviewed if they knew of Ferrie working with a woman doctor, or a woman named Mary Sherman, or if they recognize her pictures, and none have any recollection of her. How could this be? Likewise, they recall no white mice or laboratory at Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Along the same line, the late Don Lee Keith spent many years researching a biography of Sherman, and his papers reveal NO link between the two, save a document from a local reporter working with Garrison, whose source was...Garrison. Sherman's death was surely an unsolved mirder, and who knows if it may have been related to her work. The link between her death and the JFK matter is Ferrie; and given the paucity of evidence that she knew or worked with Ferrie, it is hard to do anything other than file this under interesting speculations. I tried to discuss this with Haslam, but he seems to have dropped contact with me. Barring any new evidence, this is my take on it, in a general way.

Yes and no. The bulk of the testimony was taken April 6-8, 1964, but a few people were questioned on July 21. And the Commission was not there, just counsels Liebeler and Jenner.

I don't know if this answers your question, but I'll have a bash at it: For some reason, the research community is often very polarized about Garrison. To some, he is a hero who, whatever shortcomings he may have had, had the guts to expose the conspiracy. To those people, any criticism of Garrison or his case elicits anger. To others, Garrison was a bad or confused person who mounted an ill-conceived prosecution and brought our community to disrespect. To those people, any praise of Garrison or his case elicits anger. Both sides seem incapable of discussing the case without resorting to sarcasm and/or accusations.

_______________________________ William, A statement and a question: If the newsmen were already at Ferrie's apartment when Rice arrived, they knew (or found out) where it was, too. Was Ferrie's address listed in the New Orleans telephone book? If so, maybe that's how Rice found out where it was.... (Nah. Not sinister enough.....) Keep up the good work, Sincerely-- --Thomas _______________________________ To the best of my knowledge, this took place early on Monday Nov 25. WWL reporters had first heard about Ferrie from Martin late Saturday night, and they presumably got the address from Martin. They visited 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway a couple of times on Sunday, and again on Monday. WDSU reporters also heard about Ferrie from their WWL counterparts. Rice first heard of Ferrie early Sunday night from Donald Mitchell and Alec Gifford (WDSU). Rice may have gotten the address from Gifford, from SS Agent Anthony Gerrets, who also had a tip on Ferrie, or when, on Monday morning, Rice called FBI ASAC Joe Sylvester, who was scrambling to find out why the NOPD/NODA had arrested Beaubouef and Martens (at 3330) the night before.

To Bill Kelly: I'm not sure where to begin. I'm not saying that we have unequivocal evidence that RFK was aware of or approved any particular Castro plot. I'm saying that the record as it stands doesn't rule out that possibility. We have to be reasonably realistic about this. The record is pretty clear that both JFK and RFK were pretty annoyed with Castro both pre-and post-BoP, and indicated that they wanted something done about him, and are alleged to have said they wanted somebody to "get rid of " Castro. The group who was charged with this sort of task was the CIA. After the BoP, RFK "rode herd" on the CIA, and apparently became very involved in anti-Castro operations. RFK was aware of at least one plot, after the fact(?), and while he was opposed to the use of crime figures, he didn't seem to object to the concept of an assassination. But this is based only on CIA documents and recollections. JFK was apparently aware that such things were being considered, according to Goodwin, Smathers and Szulc. Castro assassination plotting did take place during this period. So either it was done with Kennedy approval or without it. The whole concept of deniability was in use, and even discussed at this time (in other contexts), and there appears to be no document indicating Kennedy approval for the assassination plots. This could be because there WAS NO approval or because there was, but it was done in a way so as to leave no record. A number of CIA people have indicate that they knew firsthand or heard secondhand that at least some of the plotting had been authorized. Several of them have indicated that the plots were verbally approved but that they would not so state on the record. One said (and I paraphrase) Of course they approved it, but I'M not going to be the one to break that confidence. We may consider CIA sources unreliable on this, but they are really all we have. In addition, we have such people as LBJ stating that the Kennedys were trying to get Castro. The record does not resolve the issue, but it does raise possibilities, one of which is that RFK and/or JFK did authorize or tacitly accept CIA plots to kill Castro. From a scholarly viewpoint, given the record and recollections, one cannot rule out the possibility. If the Kennedys did not approve in any way, it means the CIA acted unilaterally, and possibly against administration wishes. I don't consider the failure to tell McCone about the plans as absolutely ruling out the possibility that RFK, in contact with line-level officers may have somehow indicated either consent or tacit acceptance. In any case, I think that blithe declarations that the Kennedys absolutely did not approve of the plots, and that the CIA absolutely did it without authorization do not objectively reflect the ambiguity of the evidence. I don't want to believe that either brother would have approved such idiotic ideas, but given the tenor of the times, I could understand if they did. I know this is an unpopular analysis, but in a scholarly forum, it is the kind of thing that needs to be considered.

I may take some flak for this, but... Much as I don't want to believe it, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Jack and Bobby really wanted the CIA to "do something" about Castro, or even "get rid of" him, and that both may have been aware of plots to harm him. It seems that a large number of knowledgable CIA people indicate that at least Bobby was aware of at least some of the plots and gave some measure of approval. This dates as far back as the CIA IG report of 1967. CIA people suggest that, while there is no existing paper approval, it was understood by CIA that this was what Bobby wanted.The CIA people say that they are loathe be the one to go on record as saying Bobby approved it. Even LBJ said the Kennedys were trying to get Castro. It sems to me that, in the face of all these recollections, it would be hard to be certain that Bobby did not give some sort of consent to what went on. I wish it were not true, but I wouldn't blame Bobby, given the tenor of the times.

I could be wrong, but I believe Haslam's new witness is Judyth Baker.

Thank you, Stephen. If, as he claimed to the '67 Grand Jury, that he was only 16 in '63, then he was only around 14 when these shots were taken. Interesting company for a 14 year old. I do have doubts, far from quelled by those pics, that Quiroga was Oswald's visitor. Regarding Q's age, he was born in Havana on January 27, 1936 and, as a boy, he rode on the bus with Carlos Bringuier to Belin Catholic School. He attended Holy Cross High School in New Orleans from 1952-1956, studied pre-engineering at St. Edward's University in Austin TX, then returned to NO and obtained a BA in Electrical Engineering at Louisiana State University in August 1961. Q said his initiation into the anti-Castro movement was when he visited SA Warren deBrueys at the FBI on September 11, 1961. deBrueys referred him to Arcacha, across the street in the Balter Building. Q was 27 and 1/2 years old when the alleged visit to Oswald occurred. As to why his name was kept out, Q claimed it was because he worried about his family in Cuba. As for Q actually visiting Oswald, Rudolph Richard "Ricardo" Davis claimed that he accompanied Q there, but gave conflicitng accounts. Stephen, why did he lie to Garrison and the GJ about his age? "I have told Mr Garrison on two occasions that I met Lee Oswald when I was 16 years old, in 1963..." "This slip Mr Oswald had given me, he and I were alone at his house, I was 16 in 1963..." If he lied about something as seemingly innocuous as his age under oath, then what other lies did he tell (aside from the lie detector questions he failed)? Having his correct age does make it easier to accept it was him, even if some of the other descriptors used by witnesses may be a little out. Quiroga does seem to be a cagey character. You're right that he made an important alleged contact with Oswald, but always insisted on anonymity. If you haven't seen his HSCA testimony, you probably should. That's what I used for the biographical details. I'm not sure what to make of Ricardo Davis and his account. He may have just been trying to share a bit of history, and bragged about something he didn't do.

Thank you, Stephen. If, as he claimed to the '67 Grand Jury, that he was only 16 in '63, then he was only around 14 when these shots were taken. Interesting company for a 14 year old. I do have doubts, far from quelled by those pics, that Quiroga was Oswald's visitor. Regarding Q's age, he was born in Havana on January 27, 1936 and, as a boy, he rode on the bus with Carlos Bringuier to Belin Catholic School. He attended Holy Cross High School in New Orleans from 1952-1956, studied pre-engineering at St. Edward's University in Austin TX, then returned to NO and obtained a BA in Electrical Engineering at Louisiana State University in August 1961. Q said his initiation into the anti-Castro movement was when he visited SA Warren deBrueys at the FBI on September 11, 1961. deBrueys referred him to Arcacha, across the street in the Balter Building. Q was 27 and 1/2 years old when the alleged visit to Oswald occurred. As to why his name was kept out, Q claimed it was because he worried about his family in Cuba. As for Q actually visiting Oswald, Rudolph Richard "Ricardo" Davis claimed that he accompanied Q there, but gave conflicitng accounts.

Greg: This is all I have. They were published in the Times-Picayune in December 1961, but all I have are 3rd generation photocopies. Top photo: Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos Crusto Quiroga, Manuel Gil Bottom photo: Carlos Crusto Quiroga, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Dr. Gilbert Mellin, Manuel Gil

Greg: This is all I have. They were published in the Times-Picayune in December 1961, but all I have are 3rd generation photocopies.

Thank's Stephen, I really appreciate your comments...... There is something about Ferrie that invites suspicion. This is what interested me in him in the first place: Here was a guy who seems to have been involved, but nobody had ever (by about 1974) really nailed it down. I wanted to learn everything about Ferrie and be the person to nail him (with proof) for the assassination. First, there is the undeniable stuff: Ferrie and Oswald did cross paths in 1955, but the depth of the relationship is hard to pin down. Then there is the coincidence(?) that Oswald chose to stamp some of his pamphlets and leaflets with the address of a building where Ferrie didn't work, but was often seen. Those are the hard facts. Then there are some more inferential facts: His former friend, Jack S. Martin, ratted him out to the authorities and press immediately after the assassination. Martin's charges were amorphous and easily dispensed with by the cops, but it is intriguing that Martin seemed to focus-in so quickly on a man who DID have at least two slender connections with Oswald. Then there was the trip to Houston, Galveston and Alexandria. There is a case to be made that it just involved legal business, checking out a business opportunity, visiting relatives, relaxing and carousing, but it seemed suspicious because it was a trip to Texas on the evening of the assassination in Texas. Then there was Ferrie's statements to authorities. There are no PROVABLE lies in them, but there are several arguable statements. And if the dozen or so people who claim to have seen Ferrie in 1963 with Oswald were truthful (alas, it is hard to tell because none of them were strong, unimpeachable witnesses), then Ferrie was less-than-candid about "knowing" Oswald. (What Ferrie actually said: he intially denied knowing Oswald at all, but his picture bore a vague familiarity; over the next few days, he said that he had been told that Oswald had once briefly been in a CAP unit with him and may even have attended a party at his home; he ultimately said this might be true, but he didn't remember him.) Then there was who Ferrie WAS: He had a brief but significant stint as a leader of a local anti-Castro group, and he was publicly critical of JFK regarding the Bay of Pigs. The local group's parent organization had ties to the CIA. After Ferrie was forced out of this group, he fell in the the Marcello organization, another group not well-disposed to (at least) RFK. Then there were the circumstances of his death: In Dec66, he became one of Garrison's suspects. This investigation leaked to the press on Feb 16, and Ferrie called the press and said that he was the chief suspect. Six days later, he was found dead. The official verdict was essentially a stroke with no sign of murder or suicide, but the autopsist failed to consider some other possibilities. And two "farewell notes" were found in his apartment. So it is easy to see why some suspicion attaches to Ferrie, but the evidence could point either way. Why are people inclined to always think the worst of Ferrie? Partly because of the mystique of an odd-looking guy whose death came at a very suspicious time. Partly due to the publicity he received in death. Partly due to his "unlikeableness": weird to look at, fierce anti-Communist, a sexual predator on boys 14-18. Paradoxically, those who knew him remember a likeable side: He was smart, funny, generous, adventurous and fun to be around. Some liken him to a god or saint. Despite any ulterior motives, he helped many boys by counseling them, interesting them in the service or the priesthood, spurring them on to higher education and sometimes paying for it. He was talented pianist and mimic. His political philosophy was more diverse than people think. An interesting case, an interesting guy. What do others think of him? I've been studying him in detail for more than 30 years: Sometimes, I think I've found the real Ferrie, but sometimes I'm not sure.

Sure, I can only give my take on it. But it's actually a moot point: Ferrie owned another plane, he could have borrowed one of several, and he could have rented one. Short answer: I think the FBI's quotation of Ferrie's comment is probably accurate. The Stinson log books (which I have) show that he used the plane quite a bit in 1961 up until mid-October. Now a little bit of context: Ferrie was arrested on morals charges in August 1961, and he was in the middle of a big beef with the police in both parishes (Jefferson and Orleans) and the Jeff Parish DA's office. As the cops saw it, Ferrie was a bad hombre, diddling underage boys; As Ferrie saw it, the cops were intruding in his private life and shaking him down for money. On October 22, he went to the Stinson at Lakefront Airport and found that "about a handful of an abrasive compond had been placed in each wing tank [and] short plastic strips [had been put into] the crankcase of the engine." Ferrie thought this was police harrassment, and one might be tempted to write it off as vandalism by the kids who hung out there, but not in view of what Ferrie found after further inspection. Someone had removed the nuts from the wing-attach bolts, and concealed this by replacing the fairings over them. I asked a Stinson expert about this, and he said that this was the work of someone who knew planes and was hoping to either scare or kill Ferrie by making the plane stall or lose a wing in flight. Ferrie added: "From this moment on I have lived in terror and with the fear that nothing could save me from these people." This corresponds with the log book. A friend who met Ferrie in February 1962 said that he never knew the Stinson to be flyable, that it was later towed to a gas staion to be rebuilt but ended up being sold (to Brister). Others have told me basically the same thing. In light of this, I am inclined to believe that the plane became unflyable in October 1961, that its Airworthiness Certificate expired in April 1962, and that Ferrie never flew it again. Mel Coffey had been Ferrie's friend in the 50s, but went off to other endeavors for a few years, and rekindled his friendship with Ferrie in early 1963, so he may not have known when the plane stopped flying. Martin, as you indicate, was prone to mixing things up a bit. In a July letter to the FAA, suggested that Ferrie "MAY BE flying to Kankakee Il in a Stinson" for an upcoming ordination." Martin was estranged from Ferrie at that point and trying to torpedo him at every turn. Ferrie himself was fairly close in what he told the FBI. He may have been thinking of when the Airworthiness Certificate expired. And it is fair to say that a long FBI interview is not verbatim. Important evidenciary statements are often taken verbatim, but peripheral matters are often paraphrased.

Everette Howard Hunt Jr.

Umm, this would seem to be a flawed statement in the review of "Flawed Patriot". It was Michael Straight who fingered Philby and the "Cambridge Five". Straight had been a communist mole and was scared that his appointment by the JFK administration to a political post would reveal his involvement. Straight was never prosecuted for his involvement despite his role. His story, in his words, is found his book "After Long Silence". In my opinion, he should have been jailed for life or worse. No, Bill was right. In May 1951, just after Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean disappeared (and later were found to be in the USSR), anybody who knew them came under suspicion. Kim Philby received special scrutiny, as Burgess had lived with him in Washington D.C. shortly before he returned to England to warn Maclean to flee. U.S. intelligence agents submitted memos about their dealings with Burgess, Maclean or Philby. Angelton's was said to be brief and superficial, but Harvey's pointed a finger straight at Philby, to such an extent that DCI Walter Bedell Smith demanded that MI6 withdraw Philby from the U.S. It LATER turns out that Harvey was right-on. MI6 was reluctant to believe that ol'Kim could be a spy, so they basically cut him loose. The one who really fingered Philby in ealy 1963 was Flora Solomon, whom Philby had tried to recruit many years earlier. Straight confirmed this after Philby's 1963 defection and led to Blunt, Long and Cairncross. But that was all in 1963-4. Harvey fingered him in 1951! Hi Stephen, While Harvey may have been suspicious and fingered Philby early on, it took another ten to twelve years to develop the evidence necessary to book Philby as the Third Man beyond a shadow of a doubt to anybody. For that they needed Michael Straight. For more on this, Chris and Stephen, please see my thread on Ian Fleming and the Cambridge Spys, which goes into some of this. Today, we face the same problem in JFK assassination research. While it may only take a viewing of the Zapruder film to convince some people there was a conspiracy, the evidence needed to take the case to court is more demanding. BK I could be wrong about this, Bill, but most of the stuff I've read from a Brit POV (Chapman Pincher, Peter Wright, Rupert Allason/Nigel West, etc) indicate that Solomon was what caused Nick Elliot to confront Philby in Beirut. To the best of my knowledge, the Straight confession came later in 1963 or 1964, after Philby defected.

Umm, this would seem to be a flawed statement in the review of "Flawed Patriot". It was Michael Straight who fingered Philby and the "Cambridge Five". Straight had been a communist mole and was scared that his appointment by the JFK administration to a political post would reveal his involvement. Straight was never prosecuted for his involvement despite his role. His story, in his words, is found his book "After Long Silence". In my opinion, he should have been jailed for life or worse. No, Bill was right. In May 1951, just after Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean disappeared (and later were found to be in the USSR), anybody who knew them came under suspicion. Kim Philby received special scrutiny, as Burgess had lived with him in Washington D.C. shortly before he returned to England to warn Maclean to flee. U.S. intelligence agents submitted memos about their dealings with Burgess, Maclean or Philby. Angelton's was said to be brief and superficial, but Harvey's pointed a finger straight at Philby, to such an extent that DCI Walter Bedell Smith demanded that MI6 withdraw Philby from the U.S. It LATER turns out that Harvey was right-on. MI6 was reluctant to believe that ol'Kim could be a spy, so they basically cut him loose. The one who really fingered Philby in ealy 1963 was Flora Solomon, whom Philby had tried to recruit many years earlier. Straight confirmed this after Philby's 1963 defection and led to Blunt, Long and Cairncross. But that was all in 1963-4. Harvey fingered him in 1951! Hi Stephen, While Harvey may have been suspicious and fingered Philby early on, it took another ten to twelve years to develop the evidence necessary to book Philby as the Third Man beyond a shadow of a doubt to anybody. For that they needed Michael Straight. For more on this, Chris and Stephen, please see my thread on Ian Fleming and the Cambridge Spys, which goes into some of this. Today, we face the same problem in JFK assassination research. While it may only take a viewing of the Zapruder film to convince some people there was a conspiracy, the evidence needed to take the case to court is more demanding. BK I could be wrong about this, Bill, but most of the stuff I've read from a Brit POV (Chapman Pincher, Peter Wright, Rupert Allason/Nigel West, etc) indicate that Solomon was what caused Nick Elliot to confront Philby in Beirut. To the best of my knowledge, the Straight confession came later in 1963 or 1964, after Philby defected.

Umm, this would seem to be a flawed statement in the review of "Flawed Patriot". It was Michael Straight who fingered Philby and the "Cambridge Five". Straight had been a communist mole and was scared that his appointment by the JFK administration to a political post would reveal his involvement. Straight was never prosecuted for his involvement despite his role. His story, in his words, is found his book "After Long Silence". In my opinion, he should have been jailed for life or worse. No, Bill was right. In May 1951, just after Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean disappeared (and later were found to be in the USSR), anybody who knew them came under suspicion. Kim Philby received special scrutiny, as Burgess had lived with him in Washington D.C. shortly before he returned to England to warn Maclean to flee. U.S. intelligence agents submitted memos about their dealings with Burgess, Maclean or Philby. Angelton's was said to be brief and superficial, but Harvey's pointed a finger straight at Philby, to such an extent that DCI Walter Bedell Smith demanded that MI6 withdraw Philby from the U.S. It LATER turns out that Harvey was right-on. MI6 was reluctant to believe that ol'Kim could be a spy, so they basically cut him loose. The one who really fingered Philby in ealy 1963 was Flora Solomon, whom Philby had tried to recruit many years earlier. Straight confirmed this after Philby's 1963 defection and led to Blunt, Long and Cairncross. But that was all in 1963-4. Harvey fingered him in 1951!

And yet another article, this one from the Noblesville Ledger: http://www.thenoblesvilleledger.com/articl...6-4385-119.html

I've been answering questions about this for two days..! The guy who owns the plane, Don Roberts, MISUNDERSTOOD what I said. He asked if Oswald was associated with the plane, or if I had any pictures of Oswald and the plane. I said no, there is no evidence connecting Oswald with the plane. Then I added that Oswald had told his family that he had ridden on A plane while at a CAP function. Roberts asked if it could have been the Stinson. I said it might or might not have been the Stinson. (Ferrie was always taking CAP boys for rides in his plane.) I guess this got garbled between Roberts and I, or between Roberts and the reporter. In response to Robert Howard, Ferrie sold the plane on February 13, 1967 to Tom Brister, one of his flight students.

I specialize in the study of primary materials related to New Orleans, but my focus for many years has been more on Ferrie than Shaw. However, the only time I've ever seen the name Lambert possibly associated with Shaw was in the Girnus interviews and the flight plan, which seems to have originated with Girnus. I have a friend (not a member of this forum) who specializes in Shaw, and I will ask him if he knows of any other association of the Lambert name with Shaw. Hi Stephen, thank you, if you could ask your friend that would be much appreciated. My friend is working on a Shaw biography. I asked, and he had not run into the Lambert alias in any non-Girnus connection.

I specialize in the study of primary materials related to New Orleans, but my focus for many years has been more on Ferrie than Shaw. However, the only time I've ever seen the name Lambert possibly associated with Shaw was in the Girnus interviews and the flight plan, which seems to have originated with Girnus. I have a friend (not a member of this forum) who specializes in Shaw, and I will ask him if he knows of any other association of the Lambert name with Shaw.