Stephen Roy

James, do you ( or anyone ) have a decent picture of Joe Newbrough, that we could use....

...'Suitable for Framing'

Thanks, Bill

If you can do a capture from video, Newbrough is in the 1993 Frontline Oswald special.

I live in the US and I don't see the US you think you see. Having also traveled extensively, I see many of the same problems in other areas of the world, including the UK.

I would agree that there is sometimes a sense of fear in the BIG CITIES of the US, but this is also true of Paris, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities.

I'm probably a bit more familiar with the US than you are, and I think you are looking at it through your own biases.

First off, forgive me for taking this topic off in another direction. I was bothered by your suggestion that violence is a part of American culture.

Of course I am guilty of making subjective comments. That is what we do all the time.

And I don't question your right to do so. I don't think you are seeing America as it really is. I think you are starting with the conclusion that it's a violent culture, and looking for evidence to support it.

You are also guilty of being subjective, or as you put it, “looking at it through your own biases”.

How so?

Anecdotal stories are interesting but they can only be used to illustrate the point you are making. When it comes down to it, my experience of New York or your experience of London, is fairly irrelevant to the argument that America is a more violent place that other industrialized countries.

Your original argument was that violence is a part of American culture.

As I pointed out, there is a considerable amount of statistical data to support this claim.

While statistics do not often tell the whle story, I'd be interested in some citation of these statistics, and in comparison with other nations.

For example, you have had for many years the highest murder-rate in the advanced world.

The US offers a great amount of personal liberty, and that includes firearms, which are too easily used in the heat of anger. But a great deal of this occurs in the big cities (of which there are many), in the drug/gang subculture.

You also imprison the highest percentage of your population than any other country.

I guess the idea is that they can't be out committing crimes if they're doing time.

The state also carries out more acts of extreme violence on its citizens. The United States, alone amongst the Western World, retains the death penalty.

The DP is still a topic of much debate here.

Have you got some alternative statistics to support the claim that other countries have a worse record for violence than the United States?

I'm not making that claim.

Like many Americans, I fear that those outside the US get a skewed picture of this country from "popular culture", mostly TV and films, and from sensationalist news reports which focus only on the bad things. By and large, Amercians are nice, happy, gentle people who are happy to live in this country and are striving to make it better. It certainly doesn't FEEL like a "violent culture."

I live in the US and I don't see the US you think you see. Having also traveled extensively, I see many of the same problems in other areas of the world, including the UK.

I would agree that there is sometimes a sense of fear in the BIG CITIES of the US, but this is also true of Paris, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities.

I'm proably a bit more familiar with the US than you are, and I think you are looking at it through your own biases.

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

John:

Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture?

Steve

As you might infer, I found this opinion troubling.

It is indeed true that a large percentage of members of this forum are Americans.

It is also true that the United Staes of America is a large country, with internet available to nearly everyone, and that Americans may have a disproportionate interest in an assassination which occurred in this country.

It is also true that the majority behave in an exemplary way. However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American member.

But, as you note, a large percentage of members of this forum are Americans.

I do think it is partly cultural.

This, I don't understand. You believe it is a part of American culture to be aggressive?

For example, the films that you make often include people being very aggressive to each other.

The films that "we" make? Again, we make MANY of the films seen here and around the world. Do other nations make less aggressive films? I am troubled by this projection of what filmmakers do to American culture in general.

In fact, it seems as the aggression is part of some sort of formula that the American public like.

Americans, of course, are not the only consumers of American films. As I flip through the movie listings in my local paper, I see only a small proportion that seem to have an aggressive theme. In any case, there is a universal theme to creative works involving the antagonist and the protagonist, and it's not excusively American.

Of course the “baddies” are portrayed in this way, but so are the “goodies”. Take the example of the crime movie. The detectives attempting to solve the case are invariable unpleasant to each other for most of the time. However, by the end of the film, they are the best of friends, and in many cases, lovers. American movies are not only aggressive and violent, they are also extremely sentimental.

I'm not sure this represents the majority of American films, but I'm also not sure how this applies to out culture.

I have visited the United States many times and have not found the American people to be particularly aggressive or violent. They are just as polite and courteous as members of any country I have visited. In fact, on average, I would say they are better behaved that the British.

Indeed, one could look at different cultures and cherry-pick certain traits. Such as a culture where sarcasm is frequently used.

However, on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies.

I do agree that there are some over-aggressive Americans on forums.

Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this.

I think that's a wrong assumption on your part. From an American perspective, it certainly is.

That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach.

Is this what's at the root of it? From an American perspective: There was a power-vacuum after World War II, and the the US, the UK, the USSR and other rushed to fill it, for better or worse. The US has made mistakes in foreign policy, but the American people always seem to find a way to curtail it, as we did in Southeast Asia, and as we are now trying to do in the Middle East. Some of our leaders are cowboys, but some are peacemakers.

I think the good often gets lost in the torrent of criticism. Come to America again some time. I'll show you an America you may not know.

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

John:

Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture?

Steve

SR, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

I'm more inclined to side with Nosenko being legit, but he DID admit lying about a few things.

I can't get in to edit the above, but I forgot to mention...

Ther's an interesting group shot of CIA officials with some rarely-photographed people, such as Sheff Edwards and Jack Maury. Angleton is looking down, trying to hide his face.

I know this is not directly on topic, but this battle formed the underpinning of the era of the JFK assassination.

Does anyone who has studied this "defector war" have any strong opinions as to who was right: Golytsin or Nosenko? I can see cases for and against either. While it is striking that the Golysin side still has its defenders - Scott Miler being one of them - there is also a contingent who came out against Golytsin, like Kisevalter and Bulik. And a whole raft of undecideds, like Helms, McCone and others.

I'm re-reading the interesting "Spy Who Saved The World" about Penkovskiy, by Schecter and Deraibin, and the authors note that when Angleton took aside Bulik (one of those who ran Penkovskiy) and told him about Golytsin's "false defector" scenario, Bulik left the office in a huff and never spoke with Angleton again. And Kisevalter, a true cold-warrior, simply never believed that Golytsin was anything more than a defector who had already disgorged all of his useful stuff, and was now trying to justify CIA interest in him.

BTW, there are some interesting pictures in this book: Bulik and Kisevalter meeting with P, P in US and Brit military uniforms, KGB pictures of all the principals in the case like Alexis Davison and D/COS Hugh Montgomery, KGB films of P and Mrs Chisholm meeting, etc. Schecter was allowed to go to Lubiyanka to get the official KGB take on the case. His co-author Deriabin, a former KGB officer who defected to the west, wisely declined the offer!

Does anyone know whose baby is posing with Uncle Dave?

That's "Little Al" Beaubouef, son of Al Beaubouef, and the original picture is in Al's scrapbook. Little Al was born in early 1966, so this picture must be mid-late 1966.

Al's last name, by the way, is pronounced Bo-buff, and is correctly spelled Beaubouef, not Beauboeuf.

Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

That is not true. I provided a detailed answer (61). So did Robert Charles-Dunne (63).

I stand corrected. As some of her questions came within quoted text, it is difficult to follow the questions and resonses. I see her question in 63 (which I thought was addressed to you) and your response in 67.

Jean Davidson is welcome to post on the forum.

Davison, no second "D". Her welcome was a bit ambiguous.

So far, we have been unable to find a supporter of the LN theory willing to defend their position for any length of time while abiding by the rules. Jean has already made clear that she is unwilling to do this

She made clear that she is not willing to abide by the rules?

and does not intend to stay long. It is up to our readers to decide why this is.

I disagree that readers are free to draw inferences from her disinclination to stay.

The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true.

If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

<snipping the review>

Jean

Jean:

Hope you do pop in from time to time.

Let me play Devil's Advocate: I think there is one school of thought on the torso wound, that the positioning of the wounds was actually too flat: in other words that the back would was level with or lower than the throat wound.

As something of a fence-sitter on certain aspects of this matter (yeah, I know, I know, beat me up!), I will say this about some of the LN postings that have been appearing of late, here and elsewhere: I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments. A few years back, there seemed to be some LN postings that followed these guidelines; but lately, a lot of the LN stuff has taken on an overly-aggressive and deprecating quality. I've just about given up on alt.conspiracy.jfk, and I'm close to giving up on alt.assassination.jfk. I don't think some of these posters realize how ineffective their arguments are when they phrase them in such insulting tones.

What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Stephen Roy's gentlemanly solicitude toward Ms. Davison is examplary, but unnecessary.

Ms. Davison authored a book 23 years ago, and in the interim has demonstrated on various JFK fora that she is perfectly capable of holding her own in debates. She needs no protection, and - contrary to Stephen's impression of this thread - hasn't been subjected to any "guilt by association."

In re-reading this thread, I see no incivility or "attacks" toward Ms. Davison; only toward Mr. Von Pein, whose Amazon review highly lauds Ms. Davison's book. If the odium is directed toward Mr. Von Pein, it is less because he admires Ms. Davison's book, and more because there is a relatively fresh residual odour here from his efforts in these parts. Mr. Von Pein's MO is to trumpet the importance of logic and common sense, yet resorts to vituperative insults toward the "idiots" and "fools" who don't agree with his point of view - or worse, have the cheek to dare challlenge his unsupported assumptions. He may have earned whatever comes his way, but this doesn't reflect poorly upon Ms. Davison; only upon Mr. Von Pein, who is something far more disagreeable than merely a "notably more aggressive writer," to use Stephen's highly charitable description.

There is a remarkable tendency among a small group of players to highly praise each other at every turn. Mel Ayton will characterize Max Holland as a brilliant historian, and Holland will return the favour by characterizing Ayton's latest literary effort as brilliant, which is then regurgitated at every opportunity. When there are so few remaining adherents to their particular cause, they must make maximal use of each other's ability to propagdanize on behalf of that shrinking cause. If Ms. Davison's book attracts proponents like Mr. Von Pein, it is unfortunate for her, but it wasn't the result of anything done by a member of this forum.

Had John Simkin wished to denigrate Ms. Davison's book, he wouldn't have cited Mr. Von Pein's capsule review of fulsome praise, but would have employed the only other review for the book at Amazon, penned by forum member Vince Palamara: "More Oswald-did-it alone garbage; avoid."

Those wishing to learn more about the book in question are advised to spend the $5.95 it will cost them at Amazon, and read Ms. Davison's work for themselves.

As to Stephen's larger point pleading for greater civility here, that is always a good idea, no matter how difficult some members here make it to maintain a level of politesse.

Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Indeed,

DVon Pain is wrong about everything else he says about Oswald, but Jean's writing on the assassination does have reasoned thinking, sound logic and common sense, and she should be a welcome addition to the discussion.

I started a thread on her book Oswald's Game under History Books to broaden such a discussion, if she bothers to stick around.

I would also like to address DVP's points in another thread as well.

You would think that if DVP and JD used common sense they would recognize that if all the evidence points so distinctly at one person as the culpret, that it may be planted as a set up?

As for Ford, I would like to know what Jean Davison thinks Ford had in mind when he changed the wording of the report if it was not to reallign the facts to fit the single-bullet-theory?

BK

Just after I made the above post, I checked "History Books" and saw your new thread on her book. Bravo. That's the kind of open-mindedness I was talking about. Sure, hold her feet to the fire on what she's written - that's fair game. The attack mode is not. It is just so hypocritcal that it comes in a thread about that very subject.

What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

OK, now I'm confused. Does he say that someone was CURRENTLY spying on the FDC in April 1963?

The Friends of Democratic Cuba existed only from January 6, 1961 to the third week of March, 1961. All of the people involved with it agreed that it only lasted a few months in 1961, and contemporaneous documents (1961) support this.

He definitely gives the date April 1963. He said these meetings took place in the offices of the CRC and the headquarters of the Friends of Democratic Cuba. He adds that they were both located in the same building as Banister's detective agency. (page 103)

Something is definitely wrong here.

The FDC existed at 402 St. Charles Street (the Balter Building) from January 6, 1961 to the third week in March, 1961. This was the same building that the Frente Revolucionario Democratico was located in.

Guy Banister had had an office in that building from July 1958 to January 1960, when he moved to the Newman Building at 531 Lafayette Street. Banister was never in the same building, at the same time, as the FRD or the FDC. (But from October 1961 to February 1962, Banister and the FRD's successor, the Cuban Revolutionary Council, were in the same building, the Newman Building.)

With all due respect, Fabian Escalante's information is wrong. I have opined here before, based on Escalante's previous book (and the Furiati book) that Escalante combines what he gets from his flies/interviews with information in US assassination books. The problem is, some of the latter is wrong. One has to read his stuff with a fine filter, and use supporting sources wherever possible.

In 1976 Fabian Escalante was appointed as head of the Department of State Security (DSE). Later that year members of the US House of Representatives Select Committee visited Cuba and requested help with investigating the assassination of JFK and MLK. Escalante was asked to oversee this investigation.

During his investigation, Fabian Escalante came across a Cuban intelligence source report in April 1963. It seems that G-2 had someone spying on the Friends of Democratic Cuba in New Orleans. It seems that some interesting characters were associating with each other during this period. This included Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada, Sergio Arcacha, Antonio Cuesta, Eladio del Valle, Frank Bartes, Carlos Bringuier, Manuel Salvat and Manuel Villafana.

OK, now I'm confused. Does he say that someone was CURRENTLY spying on the FDC in April 1963?

The Friends of Democratic Cuba existed only from January 6, 1961 to the third week of March, 1961. All of the people involved with it agreed that it only lasted a few months in 1961, and contemporaneous documents (1961) support this.

This is why I worry sometimes about Escalante's reporting.

http://www.jfk-online.com/shinley.html

Might I recommend that all take the time to review Mr. Shinley's work.

Although he may not have made ALL of the interconnections, he is no doubt

getting closer than most.

By the way Jerry, just may want to check out the "family tree" of

former New Orleans FBI Agent (& attorney) Robert Rainold.

I do believe that you will find some "Phelps" in the limbs.

Which may help explain why other FBI agents got the "finger" pointed

at them.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously:

Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt

Garrison Lies about Banister's Files

Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed

Garrison Accused of Perjury

I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF?

I think it is fair to say that Shinley does not hold Garrison's case in high regard. But he has helped many a researcher, without regard to whether or nor he agrees with them.

And most important, I have absorbed and checked much of his material, and it all checks out. Most significant are his posts regarding material from the New Orleans newspaper archives, a treasure trove of contemporaneous information.

I often get interesting leads from people with whom I disagree, and I would urge people interested in NO to check out Jerry Shinley's material, and take from it what they will.

I'd be careful of red-flagging people. The research community is still somewhat conflicted about Garrison's case. Some support it completely, some support only parts of it, some think the conspiracy was elsewhere.

I myself have been critical of parts of it, where I think it conflicts with other records. The objective in this case has always been to establish what is true and what isn't true. Just my 2 cents.

http://www.jfk-online.com/shinley.html

Might I recommend that all take the time to review Mr. Shinley's work.

Although he may not have made ALL of the interconnections, he is no doubt

getting closer than most.

By the way Jerry, just may want to check out the "family tree" of

former New Orleans FBI Agent (& attorney) Robert Rainold.

I do believe that you will find some "Phelps" in the limbs.

Which may help explain why other FBI agents got the "finger" pointed

at them.

Jerry P. Shinley is amazing at turning up obscure info about the New Orleans milieu. Anybody interested in the topic should read his stuff. He has pointed me in new directions many times.

The guy who was distributing leaflets with LHO and the men who passed by LHO as he stared at them, arms folded.

I always thought the guy you showed distributing leaflets with LHO was Charles Hall Steele, and Johann Rush (who was there) says in a.a.jfk that it was Steele. But Stu Wexler has an interesting alternate theory, which he presented at Lancer this year.

The latin-looking guy leafletting with LHO (?) has never been identified.

The Cubans coming out of court are probably Bringuier, Celso Hernandez and Miguel Cruz, and a few friends. Frank Bartes is also supposed to have been there, as was Dr. Augustin Guitart.

I trust you will forgive me if I am skeptical of any paperwork/witness which gives a CIA operative an alibi?

We have learned we can not rely upon the paper/witnesses from the Warren Report nor can we fully trust

those provided by the other "investigations" undertaken over the years.

A point well taken on the believeability of the paperwork and witnesses, but one has to look at it in context. There's a bunch of mutually corroborative stuff. How much could have been faked?

On the other hand, I am VERY leery of this stuff of identifying people from crowd photographs.

It's just my cautious nature.

I read an article once, about an incident in Canada, where a man thought to be David Ferrie was speaking

with an associate in public. A canadian overheard him talking about the assassination.

What caught my attention in this article was a statement which said Ferrie talked about someone involved

in the assassination being dumb enough to be photographed at Love Field.

I scanned Love Field photos and did find one face, and, if it is who it looks like, he said he was in California

at the time of the assassination.

This was posted at Lancer by me a few years back. It got some attention, but, I felt it was not given the

scrutiny it deserved.

Here is the face in the crowd and next to it is a photo of Clay Shaw.

I'm sure someone else could pull a much clearer image from the picture than I did. I was very new to

working with images at the time I cropped and enlarged this blurry thing.

There sems to be a good paper/witness trail that Shaw was on the West Coast at the time.

[EDIT: I'm cutting out my comments in re: Ferrie, Cubans, and IMSU pre-BoP. Since I don't really have the documents to work with except the excerpts you are giving me and I don't really feel comfortable arguing from that position, I'm not really going to press this particular side issue further.]

I used McAuliffe because I had it handy and he crystallized it succinctly. As you note, he was president of the FDC and that quote was based on a conversation with Ferrie himself. What I have not used here is interviews I did for a book.

I hope they're less equivocal than McAuliffe.

Yes, they are. One unspoken here is that I'm basically using published sources for this discussion, trying to avoid publishing too much from my interviews.

But quickly, on the topic of Ferrie's relationship with Arcacha, let me invoke Ferrie himself, from an August 22, 1961 FBI interview (note that this is two years before the assassination, and whan these events were still fresh in his mind.):

"Ferrie informed that he has been working with and assisting the Cuban Revolutionary Front, which is under the leadership of Sergio Arcacha Smith...on and off since November 1960. He stated that HE HAS BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN WORKING WITH THE CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY FRONT SINCE THE END OF APRIL 1961, collecting food, money, medicine, and clothing for that organization." [Emphasis added]

Given one of the sources, I'd need some more confirmation. Just my opinion.

Well, that's your prerogative.

What could be more solid than an attorney? I asked if a partial confession to a DA'a investigator would be hearsay. He said yes, inadmissible. In the course of the conversation, I said the suspect died. The lawyer said "when?". I said about 3 days later. How did he die? The coroner said it was a stroke, but there were a couple of notes found that seemed to foretell his death. He said THAT could be considered a deathbed confession, if the suspect knew he might die. Would that make it admissible? Under some circumstances, yes. In Louisiana? Yes. (He was an attorney practicing in Louisiana.)

I don't know the name of this attorney and I don't know how valid his offhand remarks are. I'm also not even sure if this aspect of La. law existed around Garrison's time as D.A. I can't take this to bank.

I just related it as it happened. He didn't know I was talking about Ferrie and Garrison. Hey, maybe the discussion was as Ivon recalls it, but I have some reservations about the absence of any mention of it until Heritage; and I find the Retalhuleu thing puzzling, as it conflicts with a bunch of other evidence. That's all I'm saying.

Why did he wait three days to go loud and public?

I don't think you can get interviews on demand from newspapers.

Biles cites Davy 191.

I have found the quote. You aren't even citing an FBI denial. You are citing the retraction the Justice Department made in June. Now we are back to a single unequivocal FBI statement that says Shaw was investigated in December 1963.

First, isn't the DoJ the parent organization of the FBI? Second, it still states that Shaw was not investigated.

Why did the CIA admit to the FBI associations with Shaw, Bringuier and others, but dissemble abut this? You can't pick and choose like that.

First, as you yourself should realize, at least 1/3rd of Roman's statement to the FBI is a lie, as I don't think even you question Sergio Arcacha Smith's CIA connections.

It depends, to some extent, on how aware CIA was of the details of one of the FRD satellite offices. I suppose they considered Arcacha's boss, Tony Varona, of "operational interest". But I agree that Arcacha was part of an admittedly CIA-created and fnded group, and ferrie worked with him. That's my point: One cannot be sure that something in a document not meant for public eyes is necessarily true or accurate. Consider some of the stuff Hoover sent Johnson right after the assassination. Many mistakes.

Second, I don't know where the CIA informed the FBI about Shaw and Bringuier, but if so, this is still interagency communication and should not be put on level with the memos circulating between the top three of the FBI.

On what basis do you draw the distinction?

But not definitive enough to be sure.

Yes, but definitive enough to be pretty confident about it.

There are two world views about Shaw. One is that he was lying, the other that his accusers were lying.

I think in the instances I cited and in others, Shaw is provably lying.

An objectivity issue. You've picked one side over the other. And some of Shaw's accusers "provably lied" about things too.

The head of the ITM knows and anti-Communist, maybe even worked with him. That proves what?

Yeah, an anti-Communist and... racist. And this is not the end of Shaw's connections. Or one could look at Shaw's associations within PERMINDEX and Centro Modiale Commerciale.

Again, tell me how this proves...what, that Shaw was right-wing, racist, anti-Kennedy??? Do you know what guilt by association is?

But he went into much less detail then. Mostly about 'forces'.

Yes, he did talk about the forces behind the assassination, but he also discusses concrete details of the events surrounding this from his own files. You know this.

I'm not sure I appreciate that gratuitous last sentence. He includes very little detail from his overall case, in my opinion.

"9. When did you first meet David Ferrie?

Ans. The summer of 1961"

Smith is lying here, or he goofed on the year. He did not "first meet David Ferrie" in the "summer of 1961." According to you, Smith and Ferrie became much more friendly in late April of 1961, but even then, they still knew each other prior to that.

Too unequivocal. Arcacha was being questioned FIVE YEARS later. He actually met Ferrie in late 1961 but had minimal contact with him, as Ferrie and others stated. His period of intense activity with Ferrie began in late April 1961 and extended to about Sept-Oct (the Houma heist, which actually occurred in September 1961). The center of this period was the summer of 1961, which is when Arcacha wrote his letter to EAL deatiling all of Ferrie's help. Was it inaccurate, yes, a bit. Was Arcacha "lying"?

EDIT: I've found the relevant excerpt here. It reflects DiEugenio's representation save for the date. Since this is supposed to be Ferrie's first meeting with Arcacha, it could not possibly be in the Summer of 1961. It would of necessity have to take place prior to the Bay of Pigs. There are two options: 1. Arcacha's account of his first meeting with Ferrie is accurate, with the exception of the date. 2. Arcacha is telling a blatant lie about the details of his first meeting with Ferrie (one assumes to cover-up something perhaps more incriminating). I think #1 is most likely. Let the reader decide.

I agree. Let the reader decide.

So my research is disqualified? I supported and admired Garrison, but came to feel that he made some wrong decisions. One of those was when he started regarding those who disagreed with him as some sort of enemies. I'm disqualified?

I don't think that comparing Garrison to Joseph McCarthy speaks to your objectivity, no.

Have you ever studied McCarthy? He was a guy who started with a legit issue, but became obsessive and paranoid. He eventually started accusing people, including former allies, of being liars and conspirators. Watch McCarthy's CBS response to the Ed Murrow broadcast, and Garrison's NBC response to the White Paper.

Given Escalante's tendency to quote assassination books (Please read his inverview in Furiati) and the absence of a source in the one mention, I'm not comfortable with claiming it as a fact. Certainly del valle was involved in counterrevolutionary activites, but the involvement of Ferrie with del Valle is questionable. Again, how could he have spent 6 months with del Valle but still flown his EAL flights? Why did his roommate not see him disappear for 6 months?

The reason you are having trouble with this is because you are conflating Escalante's account with Tendedara's. Escalante does not say that Ferrie spent an entire 6 months with del Valle, merely that he made some flights for del Valle's organization. It's a big difference. He mentions Ferrie's flights in the context of intelligence gathered from infiltration of del Valle's organization.

But given his proven tendency to use material from assassination books, how can we be sure? he doesn't specifically cite a source (DGI document 12 says... Informant X-2 said...)

As an example of Escalante's use of other assassination materials, he talks about his knowledge of a Carlos Rocha and mentions that "A DAVID FERRIE investigation of Jim Garrison said he was waiting for a Cuban exile named CARLOS. So we cannot say that this is the same person, but there is a very interesting relation." (link) So he is only using it insofar as it might relate to his own knowledge of Cuban intelligence. In this instance, he explicitly says he can't confirm it, but its "very interesting."

That's the problem. He finds the books - including wacky ones - very interesting.

Ferrie was involved with the FRD, so he may be regarded as a contact.

Yeah, and that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the Bay of Pigs

I contest that, and I'll show why in detail in my book. But frankly, it changes nothing. Ferrie WAS involved in the FRD. It's just that IMO a myth has been created which distorts the time.

Yes, she did. Do you still think we can trust CIA/FBI documents that were not meant for public eyes?

See my comments about Roman and the FBI above.

How else might pilots be used in an invasion?

Bomb dropping. But all the interview says is that Ferrie acted as a "flying instructor." Ferrie would just be teaching the basic mechanics of flying. Someone else could fill in the rest.

I don't think you can train pilots a few hours at a time for an event like this.

I think a great deal could be a accomplished in oh, say, a hypothetical situation of 3-4 hour lessons on a Thursday at the air strip over a span of 5-6 weeks (more or less). And I'm pretty sure Ferrie wasn't the only flying instructor the CIA had on hand. I imagine things could be coordinated pretty easily.

I will have a specific quote from Ferrie on this in my book.

Not to mention the whole backdrop that Ferrie was not that active before the BoP!

The only case you have been able to make is that Ferrie might not have been very active with the FRD pre-BoP. But even if true, this is very different from saying that Ferrie was not very active overall pre-BoP. Training of pilots in Guatemala would not fall under the aegis of FRD.

??? Read up on the FRD.

We have Marchetti's information that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the BoP and the Ferrie interview with Ivon that we are currently disputing about.

Marchetti was not there, so it is heresay. But my understanding is that it came from Tom Karamessines, a good source. But Tom K wasn't involved in the BoP either.

Martens, you recall was cagey about Houma before the Garrison and the Grand Jury. he was not cagey about it in later years. Martens died a few years ago, BTW.

Layton Martens has at various times said he was only Ferrie's roommate since November 17, 1963, or that he was never Ferrie's roommate (link). Now, I'm certain he was Ferrie's roommate, and prior to 1963, but would you classify him as a reliable source?

Martens was candid with the FBI in 1963 that he "stayed in Ferrie's apartment for two weeks" after a family dispute. He was not asked, and did not volunteer, that he had lived with Ferrie on other occassions, such as 1961. But Martens was horrified when, after the Garrison news broke, he was described repeatedly as "Ferrie's roommate", because of the homosexual implications.

So stipulated. he could have borrowed or rented a plane. There's no evidence that he did, but yes, he could have.

So, Ferrie's flight to Guatemala isn't really "impossible" like you said earlier.

I will reclassify it as very unlikely, and certainly unproven.

Why do you think Ferrie was a CIA agent?

Well, lets see, as an example, E. Carl McNabb/Jim Rose, a CIA pilot, says he went on flights for the CIA with Ferrie and that Ferrie had a higher security clearance than he did.

I don't believe him.

In theory, anything is possible. I'm looking for what we can prove.

This is not "in theory." Garrison refers to an interview with Ferrie (almost certainly identical with the "confession" to Ivon) that describes trips to Guatemala for the purpose of training pilots. You brought up some evidence that did not really prove or disprove this. It would be "in theory" if I wasn't basing this on anything; its not some wild speculation.

But in response to my points, many of your answers are that "Ferrie could have..." done one thing or another.

My study will fill in a lot of gaps about Ferrie. Some things about him prove to be true, and are carried forward. Some things do not prove to be true. There is some bad information about him out there, that bounces from book to book. You will find a lot of new information in the book which will support what I think

are your beliefs. Be patient, I'm getting there.

I just hope its out before Lifton's Oswald book.

Hard to say. I have it written up to early 1963, a complicated year. To speed things along, I recently jumped to November 22 and re-started from there. I'll close the gap later. As I write (and refer to documents and interviews) I keep re-discovering things I had forgotten about, or seeing interesting possible interrelationships between events! So maybe a year or two more of writing and editing, then who knows? If my publisher declines, I may just put it online.

I'm not attacking Garrison, or DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen. I appreciate the work they've done. I've found some mistakes here and there, and I sometimes disagree with their analysis. So be it. There will be the DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen books presenting one case, the Lambert and other books presenting another, and my book introducing a lot of new stuff, some of which will support one side or the other. Serious researchers will read them all and decide what to believe or not. That's the way it goes. If it's any consolation, my book is NOT an assassination book; It's an attempt to define who Ferrie was, so that others may take the research in different directions.

Sometimes it seems that you go out of your way to put Ferrie in a good light. For example, we had a discussion of Ferrie's activites at the ice rink a while ago. You used the latter-day statements of Beauboef and Coffey to show that Ferrie probably didn't talk to Chuck Rolland. The problem with that was that not only did this contradict Chuck Rolland's story, it contradicted Ferrie's own to the FBI within days of the event.

I don't recall the exchange, but I just wrote that part of the book. There is actually no significant conflict between Ferrie and Rolland's accounts. But there is some new material on the skating rink issue involving another man from Houston. If (as I said above) I had forgotten some details in an earlier post, I stand corrected. The most accurate source will be my book.

I think some people go out of their way to put Ferrie in a bad light. He had qualities that seemed to invite that. In some cases, where I think the recrd has been distorted through repitition, I have tried to correct it, yes.

But this case carries some strong convictions. I've been raked over the coals by one side for even doing a biography of a "nobody" like Ferrie. Others have gotten angry that I don't agree with some of the accepted wisdom about Ferrie.

Yes, I can recall "Jerry" on alt.assassination.jfk making complaints of this nature. I know you get it from both directions.

And more, too. Some of my colleagues who seem to despise Garrison or find his probe totally without merit have chastized me too.

I meant what I said before, and I don't intend it to be condescending in the least: You appear to be a good deal younger than me. I'm impressed by your interest in this (much as I was with Joe Biles) and I encourage you to learn further. Don't just accept what you read in books. Find the original documentation, contact witnesses, try to resolve all the discrepancies. But I recommend some level of historian's disclipline. The goal is truth, not some particular theory (including LN theories, too). That means going where the evidence points, not speculating. If you do this and write your own analysis, I'll buy your book. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for a gentlemanly exchange.

Thanks, and I've enjoyed it (although its been time consuming).

VERY time consuming. I'm using my hour-per-day book-writing time on this, and I'm running out of gas. We don't seem to be convincing each other, either. I'd like to put it on pause for now.

So all is good if you admit that I'm totally right and you're totally wrong!

JUST KIDDING, OWEN!!!!!

In the meantime, when mine is published, you, in particular will be surprised at how much you agree with!

I hope so.

I can think of three things you'll read and go Wow! I didn't know that!

It spreads over some area, but here's the relevant stuff:

While a member of the Falcon Squadron he joined the Internal Mobile Security Unit (IMSU). The mission of this unit was to "operate as an autonomous an self-sustaining rescue and combat unit in Cuba. This was pre-1961...[shown a picture marked #77,] Irion remembers a man that looked like this man was at one of the training camps with the IMSU. They trained with M1903-A3 bolt action rifles and 22s. Ferrie said that more equipment would be coming from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency through Sergio Arcacha Smith. #77 looked like a man that was from the Cubans based in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs. He is described as 5'8-9", 170-5 lbs, olive comp. well built and good looking man that was to help with training. This training took place at Belle Chasse Naval Station south of New Orleans. The IMSU also trained in Abita Springs north of Lake Ponchartrain. Irion has photos of some of the training but this man is not in them. After the Bay of Pigs Ferrie and the IMSU just faded away but he (Ferrie) started talking abiut the Minutemen helping them out...Irion stated that the training camps he went to were arranged by Ferrie and Smith but they were with North Americans at these camps, not Cuban except for the one man he described from Miami. The contacts that Irion had with Cubans was mostly in raising funds both before and after the Bay of Pigs...

I would like to see the excerpts just prior to the last sentence, but its not really needful, since the NODA interview below provides me with everything I need.

There was nothing relevant in between. These were comments inserted as Irion was commenting on various persons.

But there's also this from Irion's NODA interview:

Q. Do you recall anything about the Cubans that you saw him with?

A. His involvement was always kind of vague. We met a few of the people at the time they were collecting contributions on Canal Street at Elks Place and I think there was one of the the Cubans training with the IMSU unit...

Q. Do you know how many Cubans were trained in his Cuban CAP?

A. Several Cubans from Miami were here...I don't think they spent any time out there, just weekends and I think they made two or three training trips...

Q. How many Cubans trained with him?

A. I remember two. I don't remember their names or what they looked like.

Q. Two Cubans in this private CAP that he developed?

A. The IMSU connection with the Cuban Revolutionary thing was his own project...

I have interviewed Irion, and he believes (from pictures) that the Cubans were Julian Buznedo and Carlos Lopez, both of whom came to New Orleans after the Bay of Pigs.

Now this IS interesting. Ferrie had a "Cuban CAP," huh? This seems to tie in with Billings' notes about Ferrie and Arcacha trying to cover their pre-Bay of Pigs Cuban training programs as a CAP thing. More on this below.

"Everything you need"? The Cuban CAP quesions were Garrison, and he was wrong. He was just starting to learn the details of Ferrie's life, and he conflated the two things. Irion and others in the IMSUs make it clear that it was a "Falcons" thing with a few Cuban visitors.

Here's the way it happened: Ferrie organized his Falcon Squadron in October 1960. He volunteered for the FRD in about November 1960, but at that time, the Cubans were standoffish toward Americans, so Ferrie became more involved with the American-focused Friends of Democratic Cuba. In about January 1961, Ferrie recruited his IMSUs from the Falcons, and apparently tried to interest Arcacha in it, with only limited success.

After the Bay of Pigs, Arcacha need somebody, and Ferrie was there and willing, and at this time, he became close to Arcacha (April 1961). He continued his excursions with the IMSUs and after Buznedo and Lopez arrived in early May, he brought them to a few IMSU sessions. This was Ferrie's most intense period with the FRD, but after his August arrests, he was ostracized (by October, he was out of the FRD and the Falcons and IMSUs had collapsed.)

Alright, this timeline appears to contradict your own data. You say that Julian Buznedo and Carlos Lopez both came to New Orleans after the Bay of Pigs. This is true in the sense that they came to LIVE in New Orleans at Arcacha's house after the Bay of Pigs (which they participated in) (from your Arcacha timeline here). However, Irion has these Cubans coming over for training to New Orleans from Miami on the weekends.

No. The IMSU training was on weekends, and Irion was saying that the Buznedo/Lopez visits to the IMSU training were on weekends. You need to read the whole document.

Therefore, Buznedo and Lopez must have been training in Ferrie's "Cuban CAP" PRIOR to the Bay of Pigs, before they came to New Orleans to LIVE.

No, they weren't. I've interviewed Buznedo and have copies of other interviews with him.

Irion has the "Cuban CAP" team running concurrently with his own IMSUs

There was no Cuban CAP. But Ferrie did indicate to his Falcons/IMSUs that the training (of American boys) did relate to Cuba.

and says one (but only one) of the "Cubans based in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs" (presumably Buznedo or Lopez) trained with them

No, that's not what he said. He said he ran into one of the Cubans during a fundraising event.

and he also talks about Sergio Arcacha Smith funding the project. So this is still prior to the Bay of Pigs.

The IMSUs existed before and after the BoP. Before, Ferrie was trying to interest Arcacha in it, with little success. After, he got more support from Arcacha.

Also, Irion has the IMSUs "just fad[ing] away" after the Bay of Pigs, which appears to contradict your picture of heightened IMSU activity afterwards.

Are you reading the words I'm writing? FERRIE'S activites with Arcacha increased after the BoP. The IMSUs continued on (until the arrests) with a few visits from Buznedo and Lpez after the BoP. The IMSUs faded away after Ferrie's morals arrests.

Ferrie's relative inactivity in the Nov60-Apr61 period comes from numerous sources, but here's a quote from Martin McAuliffe of the Friends of Democratic Cuba:

He said he was a flier and wanted to train flyers. My impression is that he wasn't allowed to do anything prior to the Bay of Pigs. He wanted to train flyers for the FRD, but it was my impression that he was not accepted at that time. I understand that he became more active later.

He says twice that this is "my impression." No real evidence or anything. I assume this is the strongest among your numerous sources, since its the one you choose to cite. If this is the case, I do not place much weight at all on it. McAuliffe, by the way, was "owner of a publicity agency that handled propaganda for Arcacha's exile groups, [he] was listed as president [of the FDC]. McAuliffe would later state that an FDC member asked him if the Friends could use his name on the letterhead. 'Next thing I knew I was down as president of the organization,' he said" (Davy pg. 17).

I used McAuliffe because I had it handy and he crystallized it succinctly. As you note, he was president of the FDC and that quote was based on a conversation with Ferrie himself. What I have not used here is interviews I did for a book.

One cannot get the gist of this simply by reading Davy or any other book. One needs to see the original evidence.

It took me a long time and a lot of research and interviews to nail down the time sequence, but this is it. Actually, it makes little difference: Ferrie was loosely affiliated with the CIA-backed FRD from November 1960-April 1961, and very closely affiliated with it from April 1961-about October 1961

It appears that your timeline is refuted by your own data.

"Really? What part?" (Pesci/Ferrie to Garrison in "JFK") No, actually, this is the accurate truth about Ferrie and the FRD.

I waved it off because I doubt that it happened.

Really? John Weitz, an OSS veteran, independently confirms that the picture was real and in the possession of Angleton.

Given one of the sources, I'd need some more confirmation. Just my opinion.

Yes and no. There was lot of Shaw investigation, but still MANY interviews related to Ferrie.

Which was sorta what I was saying.

I thought you were saying that the Ferrie investigation sorta ended, which it didn't. My mistake.

Again, in the context of what Garrison knew and when he knew it, this was explosive. You have to see the context of his files.

I really must. Unfortunately, I'm not really in a position to do see them (school etc.)

One quick plug here: You seem bright and very interested in Garrison's case. You will not get the full picture from books or the internet. You need to see the documents from that time (NODA, NOPD, FBI, CIA) and other related stuff.

As I said, I thought it was hearsay, too, until I asked an attorney.

Thats the thing. It seems very strained and doesn't ring true. I'd like a solid, verifiable source about this aspect of La. law.

What could be more solid than an attorney? I asked if a partial confession to a DA'a investigator would be hearsay. He said yes, inadmissible. In the course of the conversation, I said the suspect died. The lawyer said "when?". I said about 3 days later. How did he die? The coroner said it was a stroke, but there were a couple of notes found that seemed to foretell his death. He said THAT could be considered a deathbed confession, if the suspect knew he might die. Would that make it admissible? Under some circumstances, yes. In Louisiana? Yes. (He was an attorney practicing in Louisiana.)

How was it loud and public? How was the public to have found out about it?

I think the interview with George Lardner just before he died was the vehicle. Too little, too late though.

Why did he wait three days to go loud and public?

Biles 88: "Clay Shaw, New Orleans businessman, was not investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation during its inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy..."

Sorry, Biles' book is one I haven't obtained yet. Just to clarify, when I've referred to his research in the past, its been the stuff on his website. Can you give Biles' citation?

Biles cites Davy 191.

If we use that yardstick, what are we to make of Jane Roman's 3/2/67 statement to the FBI (never intended for public eyes) that "CIA has not had any operational interest in any of the following individuals at any time: Sergio Arcacha Smith, David William Ferrie, Gordon Dwane Novel"? And a number of other examples.

You seem to be tacitly admitting that you are using the public statement of the FBI. And I think you know that Jane Roman's statements to the FBI about Ferrie, Arcacha, and Novel, is very different from the internal memos circulating in the upper echelons of the FBI. The CIA and FBI are historically antagonistic government organizations that have problems sharing information. Communications between the two of this nature should be judged accordingly (I give it about as much credibility as the public statements of said agencies).

Why did the CIA admit to the FBI associations with Shaw, Bringuier and others, but dissemble abut this? You can't pick and choose like that.

No. But can we conclude that it could be nobody else but Shaw? Especially since there is no contemporaneous trace of 1963 interest in him?

I think the possibility of it being somebody else besides Shaw is very, very, slim.

But not definitive enough to be sure.

Interesting conclusion.

My point is that Shaw has proven himself to be a xxxx in this and other matters relating to himself.

There are two world views about Shaw. One is that he was lying, the other that his accusers were lying.

Again, which is in contrast to what others said.

Or take Shaw's dubious political associations, such as Alton Oschner, as one example.

The head of the ITM knows and anti-Communist, maybe even worked with him. That proves what?

No, but he made a number of errors from memory in his book.

Yeah, in On the Trail of the Assassins, when he was many years removed from the events and does not seem to have had ready access to his own files. A Heritage of Stone is much different however. It was very close to the investigation and trial and he can directly cite the documents.

But he went into much less detail then. Mostly about 'forces'.

However, DiEugenio, who made mistakes in his writings, and this was one. Arcacha did NOT say on that date that Ferrie walked in "in advance of the Bay of Pigs"; Arcacha said it was "The summer of 1961", which reflects the time when Ferrie was ACTIVE with him.

It looks like you are making the mistake. Arcacha couldn't have "said" that it was "The Summer of 1961" because, correct me if I'm wrong, people who are being put through a Polygraph are asked Yes or No questions to which they give "Yes" or "No" answers.

"9. When did you first meet David Ferrie?

Ans. The summer of 1961"

I have spoken to Irion and several others who took part in this training. It was not masked Cuban training. DiEugenio was wrong.

See above.

See above.

Quick observation: I have plowed the same ground as DiEugenio, Davy, Mellen, Lambert, etc. I know as much about the New Orleans scene as they do, and probably more about Ferrie. I've obtained every available document about him and interviewed many who knew him. Why do you seem to accept anything DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen say but argue against anything I say? It's a long, complicated book, in which you will find much new material of interest. While some of the prevailing wisdom is right, some of it is wrong, too. It is hard to put this in a few short posts.

I dunno, maybe its the fact that you've said that Garrison is sincere in the same sense that Joseph McCarthy was "sincere" in the past (here). But thats just me.

So my research is disqualified? I supported and admired Garrison, but came to feel that he made some wrong decisions. One of those was when he started regarding those who disagreed with him as some sort of enemies. I'm disqualified?

Yes, it was.[The relationship between Ferrie and Arcacha was cold prior to the BoP]

See above.

Fabian Escalante was not involved in any of the activities related to DelValle of Ferrie. By his own biography, some time around the time of HSCA, he familiarized himself with all of the published works on the assassination (which, as you know contain some good info and some bad). In reading his book "The Secret War", there is no mention of a delValle-Ferrie link, even though the book chronicles CIA activities against Castro in that period (late 1960). In a similar book by Claudia Furiati in which he is interviewed, he refers repeatedly to "information coming out of the Garrison investigation" or to books like Chuck Giancana's "Double-Cross". On the topic of delValle and Ferrie, this is all he says:

In the investigations of District Attorney Jim Garrison, one of the first to investigate the assassination of JFK, the Cuban Eladio del Valle, alias Yito, is mentioned. Yito del Valle was brutally murdered on the same day that David Ferrie died in mysterious circumstances...Immediately after he arrived in exile [in the US], he joined the conspiracies of Carlos Prio and Tony Varona - who were associated with David Ferrie, the pilot they used for their subversive expeditions against Cuba.

Then he goes on to make more references to Garrison and to talk about Richard Cain, the Chicago mafia, del Valle resembling one of the shooters mentioned by Roger Craig, finishing:

All of this permits us to conclude that...Eladio del Valle particpated in the assassination of Kennedy [as a shooter in DP].

As I said, this guy is admits to being steeped in our own assassination literature and he fails to discriminate between the good stuff and the bad stuff. How do we know the difference between what he is relating from HIS files and what he read somewhere? Absent any direct quotes from his own files, that leaves us with Tendedera.

Sorry, still wrong. This does not "leave us with Tendedera." Here is Escalante, at the conference in 1995, speaking strictly from his own knowledge. Transcripts from cuban-exile.com:

Now, ELADIO DEL VALLE. He worked for two police services - military intelligence and the

traditional police. He was in charge of narcotics. He was also a legislature in the government - a

representative. He was from a little town from the south of Havana. He was a captain in the merchant

marines. In 1958 he was doing business dealings with SANTOS TRAFFICANTE in a little coastal

town south of Havana. There he brought in contraband whose destination was SANTOS

TRAFFICANTE. When the revolution triumphed, he went to Miami., ELADIO DEL VALLE went to

Miami. He settled in Miami, we don't know the address and he allied himself with ROLANDO

MASFERRER and other Batista supporters and they formed an organization called the Anti

Communist Cuban Liberation Movement. From that moment on, ELADIO was involved in many

project against Cuba. But as I told you yesterday, we managed to penetrate this organization. And we

came to know of a lot of projects, efforts, for an invasion of Cuba in secret. In order to provide arms

to internal rebel groups, they needed DAVID FERRIE as the pilot on these flights. In 1962. ELADIO

DEL VALLE tried to infiltrate Cuba with a commando group of 22 men but their boat had an English

key - a little island. In the middle of 1962. Of course, we knew this. I tell you about this, because one

of our agents who was one of the people helping to bring this group to Cuba, was a man of very little

education. They talked English on many occasions on this little island with DEL VALLE.. DEL

VALLE told this person , on many occasions, that Kennedy must be killed to solve the Cuban

problem. After that we had another piece of information on ELADIO DEL VALLE. This was offered

to us be CUESTA. He told us that ELADIO DEL VALLE was one of the people involved in the

assassination plot against Kennedy. As you know, he was taken prisoner and he was very thankful to

be taken back - he was blind. (link)

Given Escalante's tendency to quote assassination books (Please read his inverview in Furiati) and the absence of a source in the one mention, I'm not comfortable with claiming it as a fact. Certainly del valle was involved in counterrevolutionary activites, but the involvement of Ferrie with del Valle is questionable. Again, how could he have spent 6 months with del Valle but still flown his EAL flights? Why did his roommate not see him disappear for 6 months?

Marchetti? He wasn't even in DDP.

From Marchetti's interview with Fensterwald, "...this guy Ferrie came up,...and I was given a similiar kind of explanation [as he had been about Shaw], that he's been involved in the Bay of Pigs and been a contract agent or contact at some time" (Davy pg. 304, n. 40)

Ferrie was involved with the FRD, so he may be regarded as a contact.

What about the CIA people who have denied that Ferrie was an agent? Like Jane Roman?

Jane Roman denied it in a communication to the FBI.

Yes, she did. Do you still think we can trust CIA/FBI documents that were not meant for public eyes?

So he gets back from an overnight trip, somehow gets to Guatemala, and trains combat pilots (at which he has had no experience) for a few hours, somehow gets back to New Orleans and gets ready for his next EAL flight? Does he get a chance to sleep anywhere in here? And why didn't Layton Martens, who lived with him, know anything about trips to Guatemala in early 1961?

No, I really don't see a problem with Ferrie flying over to Guatemala on Saturdays to do extended flying lessons (Ferrie's confession to Ivon does not say he trained "combat pilots"; read it carefully).

How else might pilots be used in an invasion?

According to this site, it is only 2 hours and 30 minutes of flight from Miami to Guatemala. New Orleans is not far from Miami and I don't imagine the flight time would be drastically different.

I don't think you can train pilots a few hours at a time for an event like this. Not to mention the whole backdrop that Ferrie was not that active before the BoP!

As for Martens, I think he has more than a few secrets he's hiding. He was actually involved in this sort of activity, as evidence by the Houma burglarly/weapons transfer.

Martens, you recall was cagey about Houma before the Garrison and the Grand Jury. he was not cagey about it in later years. Martens died a few years ago, BTW.

He was a pilot with many pilot friends.

Yes, so he had many planes to borrow from, assuming he borrowed a plane.

So stipulated. he could have borrowed or rented a plane. There's no evidence that he did, but yes, he could have.

Anything "could" have happened. Whe are trying to find what DID hapen.

I'm pretty sure the CIA likes to keep the missions of its operatives and agents secret. I'm sure there are stratagems that CIA pilots use to cover for their activities and I wouldn't expect differently. I offered one possibility that would really not be hard or difficult to do at all.

Why do you think Ferrie was a CIA agent?

I think she saw the similarity to Southern Air Transport and made an assumption.

Or perhaps she has hard evidence, we'll just have to wait for the next edition.

I have lots of material about Space Air/Southcentral, too. It was not a CIA proprietary.

This refers to Ferrie's 1963 trips to Guatemala. It is not neutral evidence when one claims to have made two trips, is supported by flight records, and mails correspondence that supports what he claimed he did there. And again, why did his roommates not notice any other trips?

But none of this precludes other trips. I don't see your point.

In theory, anything is possible. I'm looking for what we can prove.

My study will fill in a lot of gaps about Ferrie. Some things about him prove to be true, and are carried forward. Some things do not prove to be true. There is some bad information about him out there, that bounces from book to book. You will find a lot of new information in the book which will support what I think

are your beliefs. Be patient, I'm getting there.

I can see that we have different views about some things. I think I am more inclined to try to nail down what can be proven and less inclined to speculate. I suspect I'm not going to change your views on anything, and I know what the documents I've seen and interviews I've done show, and it would take a very strong case to change my mind. I do appreciate the exchange. (Like some I've had with others, it may well affect how I present a few things.)

I'm not attacking Garrison, or DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen. I appreciate the work they've done. I've found some mistakes here and there, and I sometimes disagree with their analysis. So be it. There will be the DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen books presenting one case, the Lambert and other books presenting another, and my book introducing a lot of new stuff, some of which will support one side or the other. Serious researchers will read them all and decide what to believe or not. That's the way it goes. If it's any consolation, my book is NOT an assassination book; It's an attempt to define who Ferrie was, so that others may take the research in different directions.

But this case carries some strong convictions. I've been raked over the coals by one side for even doing a biography of a "nobody" like Ferrie. Others have gotten angry that I don't agree with some of the accepted wisdom about Ferrie.

I meant what I said before, and I don't intend it to be condescending in the least: You appear to be a good deal younger than me. I'm impressed by your interest in this (much as I was with Joe Biles) and I encourage you to learn further. Don't just accept what you read in books. Find the original documentation, contact witnesses, try to resolve all the discrepancies. But I recommend some level of historian's disclipline. The goal is truth, not some particular theory (including LN theories, too). That means going where the evidence points, not speculating. If you do this and write your own analysis, I'll buy your book. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for a gentlemanly exchange.

In the meantime, when mine is published, you, in particular will be surprised at how much you agree with!

Somehow we're not communicating on this. I stipulate that the anti-Garrison parties did join forces after early 1967. But on the Dulles matter, Novel sent him some material. Di Dulles ever reciprocate the friendliness?

Dulles kept the news clippings to himself and forwarded the cover letter to Houston. I would classify this as "positive," a rather "friendly" reaction.

Me too.

Owen, I've met Novel and people who knew him, and it goes to the issue of his credibility. I'll discuss it by email or you can read it in my book. There are reasons to be less than certain about his claims.

I'm aware that Novel is a nut (or at least acts like one, I should say). But he has many connections to certain characters and he has demonstrated knowledge of certain *things* that he shouldn't have, such as the Hoover sex pictures, which you waved off by referring to your opinion and your various interviews, without specifying details.

I waved it off because I doubt that it happened.

Not true. There was much investigation of Ferrie by NODA after his death, as shown by NODA files.

I don't have access to the NODA files, but I assume that, while Ferrie was still investigated, most of the attention shifted to Shaw.

Yes and no. There was lot of Shaw investigation, but still MANY interviews related to Ferrie.

By February 20, 1967? No. Garrison suspected Ferrie had CIA connections, but had no other evidence of it by February 20. This would be considered hard evidence.

"Hard evidence" yes, but not really a new lead.

Again, in the context of what Garrison knew and when he knew it, this was explosive. You have to see the context of his files.

Look at it in context. I find no other instance of any such thing being kept in confidence. Garrison shared amny things with many people - why not this? What about it was so secretive? And if it was important enough to be kept secret 1967-9, it was important enough to be revealed at the trial. At one point, Bethell said he didn't see much in the files connecting Ferrie to Oswald, but nobody suggested that that there was any secret material that satified this deficiency. From a historical point of view, the absence of any reference to this material until Heritage should raise questions. This is not a case of advocating for Garrison or attacking him: It is a matter of trying to determine if this genuinely happened.

While it does not give many new leads, it is still an important memo, which Garrison and Ivon would want to keep under wraps. And there were many leakers and crooks (*cough* Bethell *cough*).

Say what you will about Bethell: He was there, and he kept a detailed diary.

And again, about the trial, I am not convinced that this death bed thing is being presented accurately. It still looks like hearsay evidence that is being stretched to fit the definition of a "deathbed confession." Garrison did want to keep mention of the CIA to a minimum in the trial. There probably would be a "percieved conflict of interest."

As I said, I thought it was hearsay, too, until I asked an attorney.

I can't follow the logic of that. Ivon says Ferrie is fearful for his life. Then Ferrie confesses to Ivon. Shouldn't he then have been MORE fearful of his life??? What you suggest only makes sense if Ferrie truly believed he was innocent.

Yes, he should be more fearful of his life. Which is why a loud and public shift to the SBT could be interpreted as a "signal" he was trying to send ("See? I'm safe, don't kill me!").

How was it loud and public? How was the public to have found out about it?

Thanks. After I asked this question, I looked it up in Biles's book and found it (I can't find Davy right now). I stipulate that I was wrong. deLoach did say this. So we are faced with two FBI statements, one saying he was investigated, and another saying he wasn't.

Which one saying he wasn't investigated? I'd like you to quote this.

Biles 88: "Clay Shaw, New Orleans businessman, was not investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation during its inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy..."

Are you talking about *public* statements? The FBI did make a *public statement* that it didn't investigate Shaw after Clark's disclosure. If this is what you refer to, in my considered opinion, this is worthless. As a rule, the internal statements of government agencies are always more reliable than the public ones.

If we use that yardstick, what are we to make of Jane Roman's 3/2/67 statement to the FBI (never intended for public eyes) that "CIA has not had any operational interest in any of the following individuals at any time: Sergio Arcacha Smith, David William Ferrie, Gordon Dwane Novel"? And a number of other examples.

We have two FBI statements. He was investigated, he wasn't investigated. They contradict. Despite mountains of FBI documents released, there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was investigated. How is it it obvious which FBI statement is accurate and which is not? It seems to me that we have to obtain some contemporaneous evidence to be sure.

Again, where and what is this denial statement?

See above. It's pretty unequivocal.

And also denies it.

When, where, what?

And who would have been the SOURCE of any 1963 allegation relating to Shaw? Andrews? Russo?

It couldn't have been Andrews because he never told the FBI WHO Bertrand was. Nor could it have been Russo, because he only came forward much latter by his own account. DeLoach says it is "as a result of several parties furnishing information."

But no such parties have surfaced. Yet we know that Bertrand WAS investigated in 1963, and several parties were interviewed.

"Obviously"? How many many names appear in FBI files related to the assassination? Can we rule them all out?

I don't know how many names appear, honestly, I'm not keeping track, but I don't imagine it would be too many after only about two weeks into the investigation. And the list needs to be narrowed down to those named who hail from New Orleans. And those who took a Southern Pacific train to San Francisco in the recent past. Can you offer a candidate who better fits the data?

No. But can we conclude that it could be nobody else but Shaw? Especially since there is no contemporaneous trace of 1963 interest in him?

So it's speculation, not an established fact.

Of course its speculation, but an entirely reasonable one that does not require any sort of strained logic.

Here I disagree. If the goal is to find truth, this is strained logic.

I think Joan Mellen was wrong to declare that this related to Shaw.

In light of everything, Mellen's declaration makes perfect sense.

No, she was wrong about this.

In contrast to Shaw's own statements about Kennedy, and the statements of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter. Were they all lying?

Since Shaw also seemed to have trouble remembering when and where he first heard about Kennedy's assassination I would have to say yes, he is lying.

Interesting conclusion.

I've also heard about statements "of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter" but have not seen them, aside from casual acquaintances and people he did business with. Maybe you could help.

I don't have time right now, but Kirkwood and Lambert have many of them.

There is the information from Carroll Thomas, funeral home director who did the arrangements for the funeral of Shaw's father and close personal friend of Shaw, however. He told the FBI (not Garrison) that Shaw knew Ferrie but that he could not imagine why Shaw would hang around with a communist like Oswald, since "Shaw was always politically conservative."

Again, which is in contrast to what others said.

But your speculation doesn't answer my question. The Jimmy Johnson interviews DID surface later. The Ivon interview did not.

Yes, but these interviews specifically? Mellen does use the Johnson material, but it is different from the document Garrison refers to.

Yes. I have all of the Johnson (Agent #1) documents.

To me, all this is irrelevant, Garrison, as you point out, refers to a specific interview at a specific time as if it where something he had in his possession. I have no reason to believe Garrison is a xxxx who fabricates documents.

No, but he made a number of errors from memory in his book.

Not an error. The "front channel" was for memos to go into the files. This one did not go into the files. it was my characterization of this as a back channel.

Fair enough.

Actually, he said it was not typed as a report, just handwritten notes.

I believe this still qualifies as a NODA interview with a date. And it is certainly still a document.

He indicated that he first became active in 1960.

Could you quote from this letter?

I'd like to know what that is. My information is to the contrary.

From DiEugenio's Rose Cheramie article:

Smith was also close to Garrison's prime suspect, David Ferrie. In a polygraph test taken in Dallas on March 8, 1967, Smith admitted that Ferrie walked into his office and asked to train Cubans in advance of the Bay of Pigs.

As I noted elsewhere, Ferrie did meet Arcacha prior to the Bay of Pigs, but had little contact with him.

However, DiEugenio, who made mistakes in his writings, and this was one. Arcacha did NOT say on that date that Ferrie walked in "in advance of the Bay of Pigs"; Arcacha said it was "The summer of 1961", which reflects the time when Ferrie was ACTIVE with him.

Jim Marrs was right when he cautioned readers not to trust assassination books, to check the primary sources.

In the notes of reporter Dick Billings, dated 2/21/67, he writes that Ferrie and Smith helped train the Bay of Pigs invasion force with M-1 rifles and they masked the training as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol. But just in case, they were ready to produce an official who would testify that it was CIA sponsored.

My Billings notes are at home, but I'd have to see what Billings' sources were. If I quoted various things from his notes, there might be quite a few you'd disagree with.

Furthermore, Arcacha and Ferrie were organizing some kind of military training at Belle Chasse prior to the Bay of Pigs, according to Irion. Davy says Irion says it was training of Cubans, you say it was the elite of Ferrie's CAP. Might this not be the training "masked...as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol?" Either way, this says a lot.

I have spoken to Irion and several others who took part in this training. It was not masked Cuban training. DiEugenio was wrong.

Quick observation: I have plowed the same ground as DiEugenio, Davy, Mellen, Lambert, etc. I know as much about the New Orleans scene as they do, and probably more about Ferrie. I've obtained every available document about him and interviewed many who knew him. Why do you seem to accept anything DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen say but argue against anything I say? It's a long, complicated book, in which you will find much new material of interest. While some of the prevailing wisdom is right, some of it is wrong, too. It is hard to put this in a few short posts.

In any case, the relationship of Ferrie and Arcacha certainly wasn't cold prior to the Bay of Pigs.

Yes, it was.

The delValle material is wrong. It all stems from a Diego Gonzales Tendedera article which has Ferrie and delValle together nearly every day IN MIAMI in late 1960. Not likely, according to Ferrie's flight records. And Escalante is relying on the Tendedera article.

I am not relying on the Tendedera article (which, while reflecting a certain level of truth, seems to be exagerated). Escalante bases his information on intelligence from the infiltration of del Valle's Anti-Communist Cuban Liberation Movement. He does NOT base his information on Tendedera. He has Ferrie only making "some flights" for del Valle.

Fabian Escalante was not involved in any of the activities related to DelValle of Ferrie. By his own biography, some time around the time of HSCA, he familiarized himself with all of the published works on the assassination (which, as you know contain some good info and some bad). In reading his book "The Secret War", there is no mention of a delValle-Ferrie link, even though the book chronicles CIA activities against Castro in that period (late 1960). In a similar book by Claudia Furiati in which he is interviewed, he refers repeatedly to "information coming out of the Garrison investigation" or to books like Chuck Giancana's "Double-Cross". On the topic of delValle and Ferrie, this is all he says:

In the investigations of District Attorney Jim Garrison, one of the first to investigate the assassination of JFK, the Cuban Eladio del Valle, alias Yito, is mentioned. Yito del Valle was brutally murdered on the same day that David Ferrie died in mysterious circumstances...Immediately after he arrived in exile [in the US], he joined the conspiracies of Carlos Prio and Tony Varona - who were associated with David Ferrie, the pilot they used for their subversive expeditions against Cuba.

Then he goes on to make more references to Garrison and to talk about Richard Cain, the Chicago mafia, del Valle resembling one of the shooters mentioned by Roger Craig, finishing:

All of this permits us to conclude that...Eladio del Valle particpated in the assassination of Kennedy [as a shooter in DP].

As I said, this guy is admits to being steeped in our own assassination literature and he fails to discriminate between the good stuff and the bad stuff. How do we know the difference between what he is relating from HIS files and what he read somewhere? Absent any direct quotes from his own files, that leaves us with Tendedera.

Who was not involved with Ferrie, only repeating what somebody told him in 1969.

Yeah, a CIA somebody.

Marchetti? He wasn't even in DDP. What about the CIA people who have denied that Ferrie was an agent? Like Jane Roman?

Sun-Mon, Tue-Wed, Friday. But those were his main scheduled trips. He also made other runs in between.

So, that would presumably leave him Thursdays and Saturdays (and perhaps much of Sunday). It would be helpful also if you gave the hours Ferrie worked for Eastern.

So he gets back from an overnight trip, somehow gets to Guatemala, and trains combat pilots (at which he has had no experience) for a few hours, somehow gets back to New Orleans and gets ready for his next EAL flight? Does he get a chance to sleep anywhere in here? And why didn't Layton Martens, who lived with him, know anything about trips to Guatemala in early 1961?

He had access to several plane, but which one do you reference?

You had earlier mentioned that he had access to a friend's plane. But now that you say he had access to several, I'll answer "any one of them, take your pick."

He was a pilot with many pilot friends.

But the mileage indicator would cause problems. And there would be fuel receipts and takeoff/landing clearances.

1. Do you have access to Ferrie's plane to check the mileage indicator?

The mileage had to be listed in the logbook, and it had to match when inspected. BTW, I have seen Ferrie's Stinson.

2. Who even keeps fuel receipts around anyway?

The company who sells the fuel.

3. Who says these were authorized takeoffs/landings? And where would one find record of said clearances assuming this to be the case?

If Ferrie took off from Lakefront (where he kept his Stinson) or Moisant (where he worked) without a clearance, it would cause him some degree of difficulty.

Alternatively, Ferrie could have covered for real CIA-related flights with fake flights in his log book.

Anything "could" have happened. Whe are trying to find what DID hapen.

First of all, Ferrie's connection with Southcentral was in 1966, not pre-Bay of Pigs. Second, Joan Mellen is wrong about the airline. Southcentral Air Lines was originally Space Air Freight, chartered by Charles Wendorf and Jacob Nastasi. It was changed to Southcentral Air Lines on June 22, 1966, but had trouble being accepted by the FAA. Ferrie was dismissed on July 23, 1966 (interestingly, the date Ferrie hand-wrote his last will). There is NO EVIDENCE that Southcentral had anything to do with the CIA, much less being a proprietary. Mellen was wrong to make this claim.

That was just my confusion. Mellen includes this in a list of Ferrie's CIA links, but doesn't say it was pre-Bay of Pigs. She may well have evidence of the CIA ties of Southcentral/Space Air, but who knows. Anyway...

I think she saw the similarity to Southern Air Transport and made an assumption.

There are records of two, and he claimed to have made two.

So this is really neutral evidence, then. Ferrie claimed to have made two. Did he rule out others? And if he did, might not he have reason not to mention what is presumably CIA activity in written letters?

This refers to Ferrie's 1963 trips to Guatemala. It is not neutral evidence when one claims to have made two trips, is supported by flight records, and mails correspondence that supports what he claimed he did there. And again, why did his roommates not notice any other trips?