Stephen Roy

Yes, I've seen you use this quote before. However, I'd like to see the full context. It seems as though Irion could be stating "there were Cubans at the other camps but... [begin excerpt] not the ones I went to [trained at or had personal knowledge of]." This is quite obviously not the full extent of the interview as it relates to Belle Chasse training. Could you provide the additional context? 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... 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. In any case, like I said, whether they were "Cubans" or "North Americans," this venture was still organized jointly by both Sergio Arcacha Smith and David Ferrie prior to the Bay of Pigs and thus attests to an earlier and stronger relationship between the two. 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.) 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. 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 The following is in response to Robert' comments about Camps: I don't find Ferrie affiliated with any of those 3 camps, but it is certainly striking that Ferrie's (not Cuban centered) IMSU training occurred at, among other places, Belle Chasse during the same period that CIA operated a camp training Cubans in UDT and other things at Belle Chasse.

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. As for why the retraction is phony; this is obvious. It contradicts the FBI's own account of the meeting and subsequent FBI memos voice great displeasure with Clark's disclosure; not his facts. One personal aside: One of the worst things Garrison did when confronted with challenges was to declare that something is "obvious". This word does not represent real argument; It is an attempt to dismiss challenges as stupid, or lacking the ability to see the obvious. What is obvious to one (especially one who ADVOCATES a case) is not always obvious to others. 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. OK. Hoover asks the SAC in San Francisco for an examination of 5 tickets, and copies went to Dallas and NO, both offices of origin for the Oswald investigation. Or the Kennedy assassination investigation in general. I'm pretty sure Oswald himself never took ANY trip to San Francisco on any train, let alone a Southern Pacific one. How do we know this relates to Shaw? How do we know this relates to Shaw? Deduction and process of elimination: I profoundly disagree that one can make a declarative finding with such methodology. 1. The FBI says it investigated Shaw in December 1963 in relation to the assassination. And also denies it. And who would have been the SOURCE of any 1963 allegation relating to Shaw? Andrews? Russo? 2. Hoover's request is from December 1963. 3. The request obviously relates to the assassination (Dallas) and the New Orleans aspect specifically. "Obviously"? How many many names appear in FBI files related to the assassination? Can we rule them all out? 4. It relates to a train ride from L.A. to San Francisco via a Southern Pacific train. 5. Its obviously recent, as the tickets are extant and the FBI has five of them. "Obviously"? Why would Shaw need five tickets? 6. Shaw took a Southern Pacific train from L.A. to San Francisco on November 20. How do we know it relates to Shaw's trip? Why 5 tickets instead of one? Isn't this presuming a link where none is warranted? Why five tickets? Just a guess, but I assume to check them to see which, if any, bore Shaw's fingerprint. So it's speculation, not an established fact. I think Joan Mellen was wrong to declare that this related to Shaw. No. People don't usually tell blatant lies for no reason. And Sullivan's account of Shaw's reaction to Kennedy's death tells a great deal about Shaw's professed love for Kennedy. 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? And, as I noted, that Shaw would provide information he knew was self-incriminating. My point was that you left out our key objection. But anyway, I think at this point, the reader can decide who is more credible (Shaw or Habighorst) and who's story makes more sense (Shaw's or Habighorst). I agree. I find it incredible that Shaw admitted using an alias that he knew was under investigation by Garrison. That's what mystified me. Garrison wrote as if he had some document in his posession, and he listed it in his notes. When I searched through documents at NARA, from AARC, from ARRB, at Georgetown, the Connick materials and other places, no such document emerged. Through an intermediary, I asked Ivon about this. Later, he tells Mellen that the whole thing went through back channels and there was no document. From memory, Garrison also utilizes another interview in his book, this one from Jimmy Johnson about Ferrie and his unusual financial situation. Garrison utilizes this interview again in OTTA with the caveat that this interview was stolen. I can easily imagine that a similiar befell the Ivon interview notes. But your speculation doesn't answer my question. The Jimmy Johnson interviews DID surface later. The Ivon interview did not. Also, you made two errors. 1. Ivon did not use a back channel, he delivered the memo directly to Garrison. 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. 2. Ivon never told Mellen there was no document. Actually, he said it was not typed as a report, just handwritten notes. And parts of this account, if Ferrie actually said it to Ivon, appear to be impossible. This appears to be an overstatement. Ferrie did support Castro prior to the revolution, but in a 1961 letter, did not indicate any actions on his behalf. So wait, Ferrie didn't indicate any actions on his behalf in this 1961 letter? That's not evidence one way or the other. He indicated that he first became active in 1960. The idea of him training Cubans for the Bay of Pigs in Retalhuleu makes no sense. First, by Ferrie's own account, he was not accepted by the Cubans until after the BoP. I'm pretty sure what Ferrie is referring to here (not knowing your reference) is the cubans of Sergio Arcacha Smith's Cuban Revolutionary Front. And indeed, Ferrie's involvement in this circle after the Bay of Pigs very much intensified (indeed, there is what I would call very strong evidence pre-Bay of Pigs activity on the part of Arcacha and Ferrie). I'd like to know what that is. My information is to the contrary. In any case, the standard "conspiracy" narrative has Ferrie in the employ of Eladio del Valle prior to this. The Ferrie-del Valle connection has been confirmed recently by Gen. Escalante. 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. Ferrie's involvement with the Bay of Pigs is also confirmed by Victor Marchetti. Who was not involved with Ferrie, only repeating what somebody told him in 1969. Second, the training at TRAX would have to have been sometime between late 1960 and April 1961, but Ferrie continued to make his Flights 573/6 and 572/9 from and to Houston three times a week, including two overnights. His co-pilots (Shedden and Rosasco) tell me he didn't disappear for any length of time. So, according to you, Ferrie's day job kept him busy for three days a week (was this the maximum? Did the schedule fluctuate?). That leaves about four days in the week, presumably including the weekend. I don't find this to be a compelling objection. Sun-Mon, Tue-Wed, Friday. But those were his main scheduled trips. He also made other runs in between. The log books for his Stinson indicate he didn't use that plane for such trips, and his passport shows no indication that he traveled there commercially. I don't think Ferrie would be flying to Guatemala for commercial purposes. Anyway, as to the Stinson objection: 1. As you have made clear before, Ferrie had other planes. Yes, a Taylorcraft L-2, for which I also have a log book. (No such flights listed.) 2. In fact, he had ready access to a friend's plane. He had access to several plane, but which one do you reference? 3. Ferrie may not have included certain things in his log books (such as CIA missions, one would presume), assuming he used the Stinson. But the mileage indicator would cause problems. And there would be fuel receipts and takeoff/landing clearances. 4. Mellen writes that Ferrie "flew for South Central Air Lines, a CIA proprietary." (pg. 33) This is unsourced, which is why I include it last. Perhaps this issue will be fixed in the new edition. 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. Training pilots for combat was not something one could do by spending a few hours here, a few hours there commuting from New Orleans to Guatemala. Ferrie would have to have made some kind of time commitment, but the evidence suggests that he didn't. And there is other evidence to support this. So I have difficulty accepting that what Ferrie allegedly told Ivon was true, or accurately reported. Much more in my book. The pre-assassination trips to Guatemala (there were two) were in reference to his work with Marcello attorney Wasserman to prove that Carl I. Noll did some hanky-panky with Marcello's birth certificate. I have Ferrie's letters from Guatemala recounting this. But so did Garrison: They were seized on 11/24/63 by Raymond Comstock. How do you know Ferrie made only two pre-assassination trips to Guatemala? Are these just the ones he wrote letters about? There are records of two, and he claimed to have made two. By 1969 (even by 1960) it was known that CIA had trained exiles at Retalhuleu. It had been published in several books and newspapers. This would be irrelevant even if the date of the memo wasn't 1967. I was citing it as a worst case scenario: if Ivon had been working from memory, he might have mis-remembered this. I even think Retalhuleu was mentioned in an early NODA memo, sourced from the Wise-Ross book. There are enough problems with Ivon's recollection of the Ferrie conversation to have reservations about it. Again, when you see it in the context of what Ferrie did before and after 2/20/67, you'll see what I mean.

"Ferrie's association with the CIA began at least as far back as that agency's support of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's insurgents against Batista. He made flights into their mountain stronghold with munitions and supplies. Later, when Castro developed his relationship with Russia and the CIA began to launch guerrilla raids against Castro's Cuba, no one hated Castro more heartily than Ferrie. Ferrie spoke frequently of ways in which Castro could be assassinated, Havana harbor blown up or Cuba invaded. When the CIA trained Cubans in Guatemala for the Bay of Pigs invasion, Ferrie acted as a flying instructor at the Retalhuleu air strip in Guatemala. (48) Shortly before the assassination, he once again flew to Guatemala for a purpose still unknown. (49)" SOURCE: A Heritage of Stone Footnotes: (48) Interview of David W. Ferrie with New Orleans District Attorney's Office on Feb. 20, 1967 (49) Ibid. Feb., 19-20, 1967 And parts of this account, if Ferrie actually said it to Ivon, appear to be impossible. Ferrie did support Castro prior to the revolution, but in a 1961 letter, did not indicate any actions on his behalf. The idea of him training Cubans for the Bay of Pigs in Retalhuleu makes no sense. First, by Ferrie's own account, he was not accepted by the Cubans until after the BoP. Second, the training at TRAX would have to have been sometime between late 1960 and April 1961, but Ferrie continued to make his Flights 573/6 and 572/9 from and to Houston three times a week, including two overnights. His co-pilots (Shedden and Rosasco) tell me he didn't disappear for any length of time. The log books for his Stinson indicate he didn't use that plane for such trips, and his passport shows no indication that he traveled there commercially. The pre-assassination trips to Guatemala (there were two) were in reference to his work with Marcello attorney Wasserman to prove that Carl I. Noll did some hanky-panky with Marcello's birth certificate. I have Ferrie's letters from Guatemala recounting this. But so did Garrison: They were seized on 11/24/63 by Raymond Comstock. By 1969 (even by 1960) it was known that CIA had trained exiles at Retalhuleu. It had been published in several books and newspapers.

Miller then began serving as a courier between Shaw's lawyers and the CIA. Here is what he wrote to Lansdale on May 31st: He went on to make two more such deliveries. As for Novel and Lawrence Houston, the fact that Allen Dulles was the go between says it all. Case closed. I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Novel being CIA-connected BEFORE the Garrison probe. I acknowledge that Novel tried to contact CIA AFTER the probe began, and that they were receptive. (I also note that CIA generally made common-cause with those opposing Garrison's probe. And risk a chance of losing the case? Look, the absence of ANY contemporaneous trace of the Ivon conversation does create a glimmer of doubt. And you, yourself, suggest that the fact that it involved one of Garrison's own investigators creates a "perceived conflict of interest." Can we rule out the possibility that Ivon might have exaggerated something Ferrie really said? The absence of any contemporaneous record, the anomalousness to Ferrie's other actions in that period, and the lack of consideration of using it to prove a relationship between Ferrie and Shaw (not to mention Oswald) at least raises that possibility. Maybe it happened, maybe not, but the circumstances are fuzzy enough not to take it as absolute gospel. The absence of any contemporaneous record is explicable when one understands that Ivon delivered the handwritten notes to Garrison directly to avoid the risk of a leak. In 1967, sure. But why did the notes not turn up later, and why was there no reference to them in other documents? To Dave Snyder and his wife, for example, he denied everything and wanted to sue Garrison, then came the Ivon confession, then he was back to denying everything and wanting to sue Garrison. Why sue Garrison if he had just admitted that his case was solid? As for Ferrie's opinions, from the time he was questioned in December until mid-February 1967, he, too, thought that the criticisms of the WCR were vaild, that there may hev been more than one assassin. On Sunday February 19, he resolved his doubts by concluding that the in/out points of the bullets had been distorted while JFK lay on a slab at Bethesda. This was just Ferrie being Ferrie, the expert on everything, fancying himself a medical expert. I find it very odd Ferrie would make such a dubious turnaround on the 19th (what's your source?). Lardner's notes: "He said he resolved the problem in his own mind only last Sunday when he realized that the position of the bullets indicated..." etc. See, the 19th is the day that Ferrie requested protection from Garrison. Mellen recounts the scene as follows: Ivon got in touch with Garrison and Garrison got Ferrie a room in the Fontainebleau. Under an alias. It is here, according to Ivon, that Ferrie made his partial confession. In context, this makes much more sense than a conversion to the single bullet theory. Ferrie did start supporting the SBT AFTER fleeing from the Fontainebleau. Why would a conversion to the SBT make more sense afrer the Ivon conversation? Not only is ther no contemporaneous record of Shaw being investigated in 1963; the DoJ specifically called it an error on Clark's part: "Justice Admits Error in Shaw-Bertrand Tie", June 3, 1967, Washington Post. Why are we to surmise otherwise? But... Stephen... the Justice Department statement is provably wrong. Ramsey Clark didn't mishear the FBI and the FBI didn't admit any mistake. The FBI memos and Ramsey Clark's interview with Mellen show as much. The FBI (and Hoover specifically) were fuming that Clark leaked the data and gave him a lashing for it, which is why the Justice Department later issued a (phony) retraction. Can you quote the actual language you think indicates that Shaw was investigated in 1963? And why do you think the retraction was phony? And you know what? I was actually wrong, there is a meager, though surving, record of Shaw's investigation in December 1963 by the FBI (There's so much new material in Mellen's book, its hard to keep track of it all). So, now not even this objection of yours stands. OK. Hoover asks the SAC in San Francisco for an examination of 5 tickets, and copies went to Dallas and NO, both offices of origin for the Oswald investigation. How do we know this relates to Shaw? For those who are unaware, this relates to Shaw's trip to San Francisco to speak at J. Monroe Sullivan's San Francisco World Trade Center on November 22. Shaw travelled from Los Angeles to San Francisco on November 20. In his words, "I took the overnight train, the Lark, on the evening of the 20th, arriving in San Francisco[.]" (link) The Lark, of course, was a Southern Pacific train (link). How do we know it relates to Shaw's trip? Why 5 tickets instead of one? Isn't this presuming a link where none is warranted? Speaking of Shaw's trip to San Francisco, this has much bearing on the honesty and character of Clay Shaw. I quote Davy here: What did J. Monroe Sullivan dispute? Let's hear it from Bill Turner: That about says it all, doesn't it? No. I just disagree. As nonsensical as it it to believe that Habighorst or someone else added it to the card later, it is at least as nonsensical that Shaw would admit using the alias which he KNEW one of the consprators used. Its not just the idea that Habighorst added the alias that is found to be nonsensical, but Shaw's story that he signed a blank card. And, as I noted, that Shaw would provide information he knew was self-incriminating. That's what mystified me. Garrison wrote as if he had some document in his posession, and he listed it in his notes. When I searched through documents at NARA, from AARC, from ARRB, at Georgetown, the Connick materials and other places, no such document emerged. Through an intermediary, I asked Ivon about this. Later, he tells Mellen that the whole thing went through back channels and there was no document. Now, Shaw isn't mentioned in this reference, but there's a reason: Garrison had perjury charges pending against Clay Shaw at the time and so was not legally allowed to include his name in the book (Mellen pg. 323).

Not only is ther no contemporaneous record of Shaw being investigated in 1963; the DoJ specifically called it an error on Clark's part: "Justice Admits Error in Shaw-Bertrand Tie", June 3, 1967, Washington Post. Why are we to surmise otherwise? Absolutely. In fact (IMO) that would be the only sensible explanation. Too bad the judge didn't allow the evidence... it might have turned the case around.... and forced Shaw to disclose. I just disagree. As nonsensical as it it to believe that Habighorst or someone else added it to the card later, it is at least as nonsensical that Shaw would admit using the alias which he KNEW one of the consprators used. But this touches on one of my other issues about the Garrison case: The central charge was conspiracy to kill, not perjury. The conspiracy charge revolves around Russo and Spiesel. The perjury charge is a secondary matter. Assuming arguendo that Shaw knew Ferrie and Oswald, denying this still does not constitute evidence of conspiracy to kill. One of my research associates thinks Shaw knew them both but was concealing a homosexual relationship. Some books seem to dwell more on the alleged perjury and opposition to Garrison than the conspiracy charge. Not denying that it happened - I just wish we had some solid new evidence on the latter.

One could interpret this as a friendly contact between Novel and Dulles, but one could not rule out the possibility that Novel was trying to create a smokescreen that he was "CIA connected" to eventually use it to intimidate Garrison. I had correspondence and meetings with Novel, as well as people who knew him, and I came away with some strong impressions. To avoid liability, shoot me an e-mail (blackburst@aol.com) and I'll try to fill you in. Do you have a print source on this? On what? What he told to Weisberg? Weisberg recounted this to Dave Reitzes (here) and Joan Mellen (see pg. 197 of her book and the accompanying footnote). But the nature of the alleged comments was sensational, and could have "made" his case. It was tantamount to a deathbed confession to a cop. The fact that this didn't come out until so much later, and that there is not trace of it in the files makes me wonder. So many other things are recorded in memos. But this is just my opinion. I don't think it would have "made" his case at all. Rather, it would look awfully convenient (for Garrison) if Garrison trotted out Ivon to recount the self-incriminating things he said that Ferrie had said to him. Ivon may have been a cop, but he was still on Garrison's team. Ferrie allegedly said that he was acquainted with Shaw and Oswald, and that they were all CIA. How could that NOT have helped Garrison's case? The issues of Ferrie being acquainted with Shaw and Ferrie, at least, were central to the case. My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession. I asked the head of my County Bar Association, omitting all names and identifying characteristics, and he said this would be something a prosecutor would almost certainly use under Louisiana law. When you look at the Ivon conversation in chronological context, Ferrie 1) denied all, 2) told all to Ivon, and 3) denied all again. On the 20th, he was planning a lawsuit against Garrison and Martin, telling Bringuier he was not involved in the assasination, visiting the FBI and denying all. On the 21st, he said much the same to Pena, Snyder and Lardner. It just seems odd that this happened in between all his denials. Hey, we have his NODA interview from the 18th (with Ivon and Sciambra) and he was denying all then, too. It just seems anomalous. It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In the NODA interview, Ferrie pretty strongly hints at a broader conspiracy and he actually asked Garrison's people for protection because he feared for his life. Ferrie only started up on his previous spiel of Garrison trying to frame him after he had fled from the very protection (at the Fontainbleu Motel) that Garrison had given him. It seems to me like he was trying to send a strong message with this, namely that he'd be holding to the line from here on out. The February 18 interview? Can you cite a passage? He denies knowing Oswald and indicates Shaw is unfamiliar. (Joking reference to Ferrie in "JFK": "Really? What part?") I'm also factoring in some unpublished interviews with people Ferrie interacted with in this period. But even his wording quoted here shows that he saw it as some horrible thing that came out of left field. Thus, I can't see him being too casual about dropping the alias. The alias primarily centered around Shaw's homosexual identity. Even the Andrews call uses this persona, as it was under the alias Clay Bertrand that he sent the "gay kids" over to Andrews for legal aid. It does not center primarily around his assassination activities and he probably didn't associate it much with the assassination. Speculative, I'm sure you'd agree. If Shaw was not a conspirator, I can see him being casual about it. If he was a conspirator, I can't understand not being ahead of the curve. But we may disagree on this. I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there? Released records no, but then there are lots of records the government chooses not to release. I think the FBI knows who it investigated and when. But on the face of it, we have evidence that Bertrand was investigated, not Shaw (in 1963). So that only leaves us to speculate. We may just have different global views on this whole matter. I went into this convinced that Garrison was right. When I the documents from his investigation were released, I re-evaluated my position, and decided to take nothing for granted without challenge. Then when I did interviews (some who supported his case and some who did not), I was again convinced that one had to be cautious in this case. Maybe he was right, but "his" evidence needs to be challenged in the same way the WC evidence is. I suppose it's always dicely tring to categorize things, but I see research in this field polarized into the following groups: 1) Those who think Garrison was totally wrong, evil, crazy, what-have-you. 2) Those who think Garrison may have been made mistakes in his pursuit of Shaw, but who uncovered some valuable stuff. 3) Those who think Garrison was sincere in pursuing a conspiracy, but didn't uncover "the" right conspiracy. The right ta-ta but the wrong ho-ho. 4) Those who think Garrison was totally right, even prescient. Some in this group equate dissent with cover-up. Groups 1 and 4 will never make progress with each other. It sometimes makes it hard for those of us in the middle: In my case, wanting to have damn solid proof before making charges. What's your overall take?

OK I'll bite: Who's the close friend? Has he ever gone on record with this? Thanx, Dawn Awww, Dawn...I have to hold SOMETHING back for the book. He was well-known as one of Ferrie's boys, perceived as anti-Garrison, and quite adept at firearms. I don't want to play a guessing game, but you can probably surmise who it was. I was just startled because he was so adamant about Garrison being wrong about Ferrie. He thought the shooting was too much for one man, that Garrison was on the right track with the "forces" he mentioned in his NBC rebuttal (minus Ferrie), and that he thought Shaw was probably guilty. No, he never went on record.

Duplicate deleted

I wish all discussions on the Garrison case could be as civil! One side thinks I'm pro-Garrison, the other thinks I'm pro-Shaw.

One of the weirdest things I ever experienced: I'm sitting in the living room of one of Ferrie's closest friends, who defends him to this day, watching the NBC White Paper and Garrison's response, and the friend says: You know, he was right. Who was right? Garrison. I thought you said Dave was innocent. He was, but I think Garrison was right about Shaw. Ya never know.

Duplicate deleted

On the question of Garrison's sincerity, what I do not understand is this: Garrison claimed that he truly believed that Clay Shaw was guilty of conspiring to murder JFK. If a murder conspiracy suceeds, then every conspirator is as guilty of murder as the one(s) who pulled the trigger. Why did Garrison not charge Clay Shaw with murder, and instead charge him only with the much lesser crime of conspiracy? Off the top of my head, the conspiracy allegedly took place in Orleans Parish, the murder did not.

Possible. In all fairness, I was neither speculating nor making any unfounded statements. Owen and Robert and I are having a give and take. No knockouts here. In Andrews case, he admitted having made the earlier statements. Shaw denied them. And if we use that yardstick, there are quite a few cases of changing testimony on both sides of this case. To a large extent, we have to try to rationalize inconsistencies in statements by Russo, Beckham, the Clinton witnesses, etc. Again, I'm not defending Shaw or denying that he did any of these things. I am just pointing out the stupidity of it. I was a big supporter of Garrison's case and I still feel he was very sincere. But there are a few weak spots in his case, and I think we need to consider them.

I don't think many people believe it was Shaw himself who "pulled off a presidential assassination," which would indeed require him to be a very clever person. He was just one player in a larger conspiracy. Not by himself, no. But he is believed to have played a central role, and he was tried on that basis. Further, this is a guy who managed many complex projects, such as the ITM build. That requires attention to detail. This incident occurred very late in to the night (when peoples' judgements are perhaps not so good) in the context of a party that had mostly dispersed. Russo described the conversation as being like a "bull session" at the trial; not really a planning session, per se. Again, though, wouldn't you expect a guy of Shaw's ability, even drunk and tired, to be aware of the idiocy of giving the whole game away to a complete stranger? Clay Bertrand is only mentioned in one of the many, many, volumes of supporting evidence, not the main report. I do not know when or how Shaw would find the time or interest to dig through all the volumes just to make sure his alias doesn't pop up. If Shaw was the conspirator who called Andrews, one presumes he would be interested in what Andrews had to say to the FBI and WC. Wouldn't SOMEONE who read the WC materials have called Shaw and said "Guess who the WC was looking for...?" The conspirators (I would not class Shaw as a major figure among these) were probably pretty confident that they were able to foist one on the American people with the WC, and the media was very active in supporting the WC conclusions. So, for these people, the case has been "closed" quite satisfactorily and there isn't much reason to worry anymore. As for the guestbook, I will take the testimony of the two people who witnessed Shaw signing it or saw him in the VIP room that day (one of which denied knowledge to Garrison's people but told the real story to his CIA employers) and expert testimony of the documents analyst who wasn't involved in framing Bruno Hauptmann and wasn't a good buddy of J. Edgar Hoover (which apply to Team Shaw's expert) as pretty much definitive. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm questioning why Shaw would be so stupid. Reasons can be offered as to why Shaw signed the book, but I don't think its needful since the weight of the evidence against Shaw is already so heavy. The evidence that he conspired to kill JFK, or the evidence that he was less than candid about his assertions? Because these people think they're teflon, which, in view of the trial outcome and WC (among many other things), is probably close to the truth. Shaw most likely knew the CIA wouldn't let him out to dry, and they didn't. I'm just wondering what you base this supposition on. Do you have any other examples of such arrogance? Dean Andrews' original story is more accurate because there are independent witnesses (three of them) to confirm it. Dean Andrews wouldn't have called Eva Springer from the hospital in regards to representing Oswald on behalf of Bertrand at 4:00 on the 23rd if the call was something he made up. Are you saying there are no other possible reasons? I would dispute that. Dean Andrews had a good reason to change his story (namely, death threats from "Washington D.C." as he told Mark Lane). But he changed it in 1963, then reverted to it in 1964, then changed it again, reverted to it in 1966, played "can't say he is/ain't" in 1967, then finally changed to the story he went to his grave with. It's hard to fit your theory into that chronology. You're right. Ferrie wasn't bailed out by the CIA; in all probability he was murdered by them. In all probability? How did the CIA cause him to have a burst aneurysm? However, Ferrie was probably not regarded as as much of a team player as Shaw, which is demonstrated by his confession to Ivon, although I am aware you won't credit that. For the benefit of others, Lou Ivon claimed in the early 90s that Ferrie all but confessed to him on Feb 19-20, 1967. I have a few problems with that: If he DID confess, he was immediately back to denial the very next day. Also, I wonder why THIS important conversation, among all others, appears nowhere in the Garrison documents, and why it wasn't used in court. (Lawyers tell me that it would qualify in Louisiana as a deathbed confession.) Ferrie wasn't "one of the boys" and couldn't be relied upon. Then why did Ferrie deny all until his death? Besides that, the CIA would probably not risk another assassination so soon after Ferrie and in the context of Garrison's investigation. BTW, having read Shaw's diary, I don't regard it as a serious document. But that's just my opinion. You don't think it represents how he perceived things at that time? Why? If Clark ever did say this, that would be incorrect, as the FBI's own memos, reprinted in Davy's book, show (i.e. that Shaw's name came up in connection to the assassination in 1963 and this is what Clark was told). However, Clark has come clean about this issue. See Mellen pg. 128-9. As I read the FBI/DoJ traffic from 1967, it was a misunderstanding, and I don't think Bill or Joan proved otherwise. If you refer to Bill's comments about Regis Kennedy's testimony, I think it's a misreading. In any case, all of this only goes to perjury, not conspiracy. There is a case to be made that he did, and that he didn't sign it. Lacking certainty, I still find it an incredibly stupid thing to do. (Sorry, I think I deleted your comment by mistake.) Because Garrison's team wasn't aware of the booking card at the time and Habighorst wasn't aware of its significance. In any case, this is irrelevant, because it is conclusively not an ad hoc forgery. But the absence of awareness of it at least raises the possibility that it was added later. BTW, thanks for a civil discussion on the evidence. This is the way it should be!

Having studied many of Garrison's own documents, I wonder why there is no mention of the booking card during all the months his staff was looking for evidence that Shaw was Bertrand. Why even bother, if Shaw had already admitted it?

This is one of the problems of trying to deal rationally with the Garrison case. If one concedes any sincerity to his case, the Garrison-haters get emotional. If one questions any point of his case, the Shaw-haters get emotional. It is AS NECESSARY to question our own theorizing as it is to question the WC theorizing. We should be held to the same standards of logic. I truly find it difficult to believe that Shaw, if he was the wily conspirator some believe him to have been, could have been so stupid as to incriminate himself repeatedly. This is a man who is believed to have successfully pulled off a presidential assassination. Yet: He goes out of his way to be seen with Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton LA. He could have parked the car around the corner, used a different car, worn a disguise, not given his name when asked, even stayed at home. But no, he drew attention to his association with the man he presumably knew would soon be known as an assassin. He incriminates himself by plotting the assassination in front of a total stranger, Perry Raymond Russo. Any conspirator would presumably have shown some interest in checking to see if the Warren Commission mentioned their name, and in fact the WC did mention the mysterious Clay Bertrand. So he "playfully" signs the alias in the Eastern Air Lines guest book. By the day of his arrest, he DOES know that the name Bertrand has meaning to Garrison, having heard it from several sources, including Layton Martens. He was visited just a short time previously by Perry Russo, who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. So Habighorst asked him if he had any aliases, and he "absent-mindedly" or arrogantly says "Clay Bertrand." How stupid was this guy? Is it unfair of me to even ask the question? Well, I am not afraid of looking silly. Nor are you inclined to offer proof for your baseless assertions, apparently. Gut instincts are one thing; evidence rising to the level of legal requirements are another. Given the fact that both victims of your character assassination are now dead, you can malign them with impunity. But, appealing to your instincts as a gentleman, I say again: "You have suggested Garrison bribed Habighorst, and have called Habighorst a "crooked cop," all without a scintilla of proof for either assertion. If you have such proof, please offer it. If you do not have such proof, please acknowledge your unfortunate penchant for fabricating scurrilous nonsense from whole cloth as you require it." If I am wrong then I am wrong, and so be it. Ego to one side for the moment, there is more riding on this matter than whether or not you look silly. Have you some precedent for accusing Garrison of bribery and Habighorst with being a "crooked cop" or not? It's a simple question and can be resolved with a simple answer: yes or no? But I will wait for someone to challenge Stephen Roy's comments in a convincing way. "Comments" is precisely what they are. There was no evidence to support the conjecture, merely the incredulity that Shaw could have been so stupid. No evidence to support WHAT conjecture? Yet history is replete with examples of arrogant stupidity; why should Shaw be thought above being stupidly arrogant? Shaw had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. What makes you think he was in an arrogant mood? Please, do provide some reason for your assertions, rather than rely upon Mr. Roy to pull your fat out of the fire for you. I have never met Stephen, and all I know about him is that he gives the impression of having seriously studied the New Orleans aspect of the case. In fact I think he is writing a book on the subject. A biography of David Ferrie, not an assassination book. It will be interesting to see whether the byline is Stephen Roy or "David Blackburst," his previous alias. Apparently "Mr. Blackburn" was about as pleased to be outed as "Mr. Bertrand" had been. Interesting that in Mr. Roy's worldview Mr. Shaw was too smart to use an alias, and admit it, while Mr. Roy also used an alias, and was forced to admit it, much to his chagrin. Of what relevance is that? I came online under my own name and had an incident where somebody looked me up and visited my house when I wasn't home, so I used Blackburst (a word related to my job) at the insistence of my wife. Many people in this forum use aliases in the newsgroups. Dave Healy is one. A number of authors I helped knew who I was. When I spoke at Lancer in 2000 under my own name, my name tag listed both names. I was angry when I was outed because I had asked the person not to do it, and it was done unnecessarily. This is a cheap shot on your part. I agree with Stephen Roy that it is most improbable that Clay Shaw would reveal his alias if he really was Clay Bertrand. I know for certain that I woulld not. Yet Mr. Roy did use an alias, and was forced to admit same. I guess you're smarter than both of them. Another truly relevant comment. So I would repeat the words of Judge Haggerty: "I dont care, the whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst." Then bear in mind that, prior to his death, Judge Haggerty also claimed that "Clay Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trial and that Shaw "did a con job on the jury." Not exactly helpful to Shaw's apologists, is it? Bear in mind, also, that the judge with whom you so uncritically agree was removed from the bench for professional misconduct; the very thing of which you have accused both Garrison and Habighorst without troubling yourself to provide the slightest evidence for your assertions. Apparently you don't mind casting aspersions against the demonstrably innocent in your rush to agree with the demonstrably crooked. Given the company you keep, can you provide a single reason why we should care what you think? The goal of everyone here is to determine the truth related to the assassination. This is not a game of "for us or agin' us." Shaw may well have been a conspirator, but he sure was a stupid one. What are we to make of Dean Andrews? He claimed that he told a tale, then recanted it. How are we to know which of his statements to believe? Mr. Roy, This alias statement by Clay Shaw certainly wasn't something said playfully or absent mindedly. Two other possibilities come to mind. One. Shaw revealed his alias to the officer because he thought it would be revealed by some manner sooner or later anyhow. It would be safer to be honest at this point, the CIA would sure to bail him out, would it not...??? But on what basis can we presume arrogance on his part? He had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. To read his diary and the accounts of lawyer Panzeca, he regarded it as a very serious matter. His alleged co-conspirator David Ferrie doesn't seem to have been bailed out by the CIA. Two. It was a pure slip of the tongue, as he was startled and didn't expect to be arrested and must have thought that his alias would not be significant in terms of incriminating him in any way. Apparently he was debriefed later (by some friends....), after his arrest and found out his alias would be key in incriminating him in the case, after all the CIA had it's insiders within Garison's team. I find it hard to believe. See my other comments in this topic. If he was a conspirator, he must have known the FBI and WC had looked into a Clay Bertrand. According to his memoir, the name was mentioned to him by Garrison's men before his arrest, and Layton Martens also told him that Garrison was interested in Bertrand. And he had just received a "pretext visit" by Perry Russo, who allegedly knew him as Bertrand.

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!? If Shaw was Bertrand, he MUST have known how damaging an admission it would be. If he was Bertrand, he must have taken note that the name was discussed in the WC Report and Hearings/Exhibits. If he was Bertrand, he must have been alerted when one of Garrison's Assistant DAs mentioned the name to him. He must also have been alerted a few days earlier when Perry Russo showed up at his door, a man who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. And since Shaw subsequently denied that he was Bertrand, we can assume it was something he had no interest in admitting to. Then why was Shaw stupid enough to casually tell Habighorst that this was his alias?!? This can't be blithely dismissed by Shaw doing it "absent-mindedly" or "playfully." One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias. As for Andrews, I don't know if we can ever know for sure. While he first brought up the name Bertrand, he later insisted and swore under oath that he was not Shaw. The Garrison-haters see it one way, the Shaw-haters see it another way. The only resolution is that Andrews' various statements cannot be taken as proving the matter either way.

Forgive me for pulling up an old post about Joannides, but I ran across a reference to him in another case, and I wondered of anybody else had ever made the connection. Back in 1977-1978, there was a spy case involving one William Peter Kampiles, who sold a KH-11 satellite manual to the Soviets. He told a sanitized version of his action to a fellow former CIA staffer who told George Joannides. Joannides then caused the investigation of Kampiles to begin. Irionically, this seems to have been right around the time Joannides was involved with the HSCA. Source: Jeffrey T. Richelson, America's Secret Eyes in Space.

I haven't seen anything that indicates that Eastern Air Lines (correct spelling, 3 separate words) was some kind of CIA front, but Captain Eddie certainly was a vociferous anti-communist. He served on the Hoover Commission in 1954(?), the group who wrote that: we face an implacable enemy, and we must use methods more devious than theirs, etc. Maybe somebody here has the exact quote.

Just a few observations from someone who worked with film (mostly 16mm, but also 8mm) and later tape for many years. Engaging a film camera involves several mechanical processes, and disengaging (that is, stopping filming) also involves mechanical processes. In many cameras, this results in a final frame that is imperfect, which may exhibit blurring and slight mechanical misframing. The film editing process, on the other hand, also often exhibits certain characteristics, depending on the nature of the splice technique. The final frame might be non-blurry and normally framed, but there may also be visible indications of splice tape (as we can see in the famous Life magazine splice). Looking at an optical print of the Z-film (8mm, probably sourced from Groden's 16mm copy), the last frame appears to me more like a disengagement than an edit. As for Zapruder's filming, it is certainly notable that he continued to film as the shooting took place, but such a thing occurs often enough for it not to be suspicious. I, myself, was videotaping an event when a shooting broke out, and I am still amazed that I continued to roll on it. (In retrospect, it was a foolhardy thing to do, but it was news instinct)

While Ferrie was connected with training at Belle Chasse, it does not seem to have been the same camp referred to in the Phillips memo. Bill says in "Let Justice..." p. 30, that "According to former CAP member John Irion prior to the Bay of Pigs Ferrie trained Cubans at a camp at Belle Chasse Naval Station just south of New Orleans", with the source listed as "HSCA interview with John Irion, October 18, 1978, document #012754." In that interview, Irion is not describing a Cuban training camp; he is describing training of the IMSUs, an offshoot of Ferrie's Falcon Squadron. He describes one Cuban who accompanied Ferrie on one occasion to the Belle Chasse training. Irion then adds that "The training camps he went to were arranged by Ferrie and Smith but they were with North Americans at these camps, not Cubans except for the one man he described from Miami." It is certainly striking that Ferrie was training his American IMSUs at Belle Chasse with implied State Department/CIA support, at about the same time as CIA was operating a Cuban camp at Belle Chasse. However the evidence is not strong enough to say that Ferrie was involved with the camp Phillips describes.

Hold on, a couple of observations: I am acquainted with two people who were involved in matters related to that tape. First, there WAS a tape of a conversation between Loisel/Ivon and Beaubouef/Exnicios. The transcript utilized by the NOPD, who investigated it, was an accurate representation of what was on the tape. But there were two issues: Loisel and Ivon said that there was conversation that took place before (or after) the main body of conversation. Exnicios agreed that he started the recorder after the conversation began and the tape ran out just before the conversation ended. What was said before or after, we don't know. The second issue is the interpreation of what was said in the body of the conversation. There was clearly conversation about Beaubouef (correct spelling) changing his statements, and there was also conversation about in-kind rewards for this. Loisel and Ivon later said they wanted Beaubouef to stop lying and tell the truth, and he would be rewarded for this. Beaubouef and Exnicios said that Loisel and Ivon wanted Beaubouef to tell untruths in return for a reward. The transcript is too ambiguous to clearly establish which was the case. I beleive the matter was referred to Langridge for two reasons: First, it was representatives of the Orleans Parish DA who were being charged with impropriety. Second, the conversation took place in Ex's office in Jefferson Parish. Hope this clarifies a bit.

Just some sketchy bits. Langridge was the Jefferson Parish DA from the late 50s to the late 60s. He was reputed to be Carlos Marcello's man. When David Ferrie was arrested on morals charges in 1961, it was Langridge's office that processed the charges. Ferrie also charged that he was being "shaken down" for payoffs alleged to go to Langridge. When the complaining witness against Ferrie retracted his charges in September 1962, Langridge non prossed the cases. Langridge then went with the complaining witness and his father to Eastern Air Lines to plead for Ferrie's reinstatement from suspension.