Stephen Roy
-
Posts
852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Stephen Roy
-
-
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'm on my way home and will respond more tomorrow, but Davy is wrong about Irion. In that 10-18-78 interview, Irion says: "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 Cubans except for the one man he described from Miami."
-
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.
I recounted that to show that the CIA actually requested information (contrary to what you had typed previously) and that Novel was a very connected man. Also, I'd imagine it would take some doing for a character like Novel to become so friendly with Dulles if he wasn't a company man.
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?
Or then there is the Hoover sex picture that Novel says that James Jesus Angleton had him use to blackmail Hoover with. The existance of said picture was later independently corroborated. Or, for instance,
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.
In 1967, sure. But why did the [ivon] notes not turn up later, and why was there no reference to them in other documents?
1. Let's see, I think the investigation of Ferrie pretty much came to a halt after Ferrie died.
Not true. There was much investigation of Ferrie by NODA after his death, as shown by NODA files.
2. The confession does not give any new leads, it just confirms stuff that Garrison's office had uncovered previously.
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.
3. Garrison and Ivon may have kept it to themselves. Who knows?
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.
4. Garrison references the interview quite specifically in A Heritage of Stone in 1967.
But as I noted, there are problems with its content. And Ivon's later account adds more detail missing from Garrison's account in Heritage.
Why would a conversion to the SBT make more sense afrer the Ivon conversation?
Because Ferrie would have no reason to fear for his life if he really felt that there was any validity to the SBT, obviously.
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.
Can you quote the actual language you think indicates that Shaw was investigated in 1963? And why do you think the retraction was phony?
I'm pretty sure I've posted this before, but here goes again:
I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967:The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw.
[Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H.
This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book.
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.
-
More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").
One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an
interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu
interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with
the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a
few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)
As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation
Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)
"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.
-
Just as one example, CIA sent back info from Jane Roman through Sam Papich of the FBI that Novel was never of operational interest to CIA. One could argue that CIA was lying to protect Novel, but they also admitted that Shaw had a DCS contact at one time. Why admit to Shaw, who was alleged to have a connection with the JFK assassination, and Novel, who had no apparent connection with CIA. All we have for sources on Novel as CIA agent are his own claims. Novel later forwarded stuff to CIA, but there is no way to tell if it was because he had a CIA connection, or he was bluffing. I reiterate that my own contacts with Novel and his former associates did not tent to inspire confidence in his claims to be CIA.
Alright, lets look at this again. Novel had FOUR lawyers to defend him at a time when he had no visible means of support. One of these lawyers, Herbert Miller ("Miller the Killer" as Novel called him in his note to Dulles) was also Walter Sheridan's lawyer and, in 1963, "[a]ccording to both Seth Kantor and William Manchester, within about 72 hours of Kennedy's murder, Miller was Washington's man on the scene in Dallas coordinating the FBI, Justice Department and Texas investigations" (The Assassinations, pg. 36). Miller was also involved as a go-between with Sheridan and the CIA. On May 12th, 1968, "Lansdale wrote that Miller had called him on May 11th and said that Sheridan would be willing to meet with CIA 'under any terms we propose.' Sheridan would be willing to make the CIA's view of Garrison 'a part of the background in the forthcoming NBC show.' Lansdale goes on to write that Miller was selected by the CIA to be part of an unrelated litigation matter they were involved in and that he had worked closely with him on that matter and was 'quite favorably impressed with him.'" (The Assassinations, pg. 39)
In March, Miller wrote the following to Lansdale:
Dear Dick:Enclosed is the transcript you requested, in the Gordon Novel case. [Emphasis is DiEugenio's]
Miller then began serving as a courier between Shaw's lawyers and the CIA. Here is what he wrote to Lansdale on May 31st:
Dear Dick:Enclosed are the decuments I recieved from Clay Shaw's attorney, Ed Wegmann.
Best regards
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:
The following afternoon [after the NODA interview we have been talking about], just as Ivon was sitting down to Sunday dinner, his telephone rang. "My life is being threatened," Ferrie said. "They're going to kill me!" He pleaded for protection. (Mellen pg. 104)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.
Shaw's name came up in our investigation in December 1963, "Deke" told Clark. Few documents survive of this early FBI interest in Shaw, but for a suggestive fragment signed by Hoover from the "Latent Fingerprint Section" (Identification Division). Addressed to the SAC in San Francisco and dated December 5, 1963, it requests an examination of "five train tickets" from Southern Pacific. That this document was conected with an investigation of Clay Shaw is reflected in the fact that a copy went not only to Dallas, but also to New Orleans. (Mellen pg. 128)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:
Two days before Christmas in 1966, Sciambra interviewed Shaw in the D.A.'s office. Garrison found Shaw's answers evasive and in conflict with other information they had acquired. For example, when Shaw was asked where he was at the time of the assassination, he said he was travelling by train, on his way to San Francisco. With the exception of E. Howard Hunt, just about every American who was alive at the time of the assassination can remember where they were on that fateful day. It was ascertained later that Shaw was already in San Francisco at the time of the assassination, in the company of San Francisco Trade Mart Director, J. Monroe Sullivan. After his arrest, Shaw related another version to the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he was at the St. Francis Hotel at the time of the assassination. Later, under oath at his own trial, Shaw said he was invited to make a speech at the request of Sullivan. Sullivan, to this day, disputes this. (Davy pg. 63)What did J. Monroe Sullivan dispute? Let's hear it from Bill Turner:
I spoke with J. Monroe Sullivan, director of the San Francisco World Trade Center, which in 1963 was the only sister organization to the New Orleans Trade Mart. Sullivan recalled that some three weeks before the assassination, Clay Shaw, whom he had never met, phoned to ask him to put on a luncheon for that date because he had a program to obtain tenants for the International House in New Orleans, an affiliate of the Trade Mart. Shaw would send out the invitations and pay for everything. According to Sullivan, Shaw arrived at the San Francisco World Trade Center around mid-morning on November 22. As they were conversing, there was a bulletin that Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. Sullivan was stunned, but Shaw exhibited no reaction. A few minutes later, when the news arrived that the president was dead, Sullivan asked Shaw if he wanted to continue wtih the luncheon. He did. Sullivan called for a moment of silence, then introduced Shaw, who made his pitch for the International House. Sullivan was struck by Shaw's seeming indifference to the president's death. (link)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.
More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an
interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu
interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with
the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a
few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)
As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation
Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)
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).
-
If one reads the CIA stuff carefully, they are denying that they ever had contact with Novel and that Novel was trying to imply that he had CIA connections in a (futile) attempt to scare Garrison into calling off the pursuit. Novel himself has gone back and forth in claiming that he had CIA connections, and I've come into contact with other evidence that buttresses that one cannot be sure which of his claims are true. So this one goes in the undecided column for me.
I've read the memo (here for those interested). Things are quite highly compartmentalized in the CIA and can't always (or often) be taken at face value, especially memos "for the record" such as this one. The proof of the sheer bogusness of this note in the aforementioned memo follows: it was to Lawrence Houston (the writer of the memo denying Novel's CIA links) that Allen Dulles was forwarding material on behalf of Novel and to Houston's assistant counsel, Lansdale, that Novel's lawyer, Miller, forwarded material on the Novel case. It is quite a bit more than just Novel's "claim" that he is CIA. Novel has at various times schizophrenically said that he does not have anything to do with the CIA (and that he never said he did) and that talk of this nature is libelous. The evidence does not support the later assertion.
Just as one example, CIA sent back info from Jane Roman through Sam Papich of the FBI that Novel was never of operational interest to CIA. One could argue that CIA was lying to protect Novel, but they also admitted that Shaw had a DCS contact at one time. Why admit to Shaw, who was alleged to have a connection with the JFK assassination, and Novel, who had no apparent connection with CIA. All we have for sources on Novel as CIA agent are his own claims. Novel later forwarded stuff to CIA, but there is no way to tell if it was because he had a CIA connection, or he was bluffing. I reiterate that my own contacts with Novel and his former associates did not tent to inspire confidence in his claims to be CIA.
On the deathbed confession definition, I have only my lawyer friend's opinion. Paraphrased: The suspect gave a statement to the DA's investigator that essentially proves a substantial portion of the the DA's case. The statement was made two days before the suspect's possibly mysterious death. That would qualify it as a deathbed confession. It would be up to the judge to accept it or not.
Well, I have no way to judge the accuracy of this, so I will simply fall back on my previous comments in this regard on why I believe it to be unlikely for Garrison to use this evidence (the perceived conflict of interest and not wanting to draw the CIA into the trial).
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.
Oh, THAT part. First, I see his pre/post statements as consistent. Second, Ferrie claimed to have been studying some books and articles about the case to see if the DA was right, that there was a conspiracy. There are hints of this in statements Ferrie made to other people at this time. I lay it out chronologcally in my book.
They do not appear to me at all consistent, but I suppose I will just have to wait for you to put your cards on the table.
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'm not sure I understand. Is there any contemporaneous record that Shaw was investigated in 1963?
You missed my point. I am saying that there is no contrary evidence that Shaw was investigated in 1963 and some rather strong affirmative evidence (the FBI memos of DeLoach and Hoover). The only reason one would say that Shaw might not be investigated in 1963, that I can see, is because one is uncomfortable with what that might entail. Pleading to the lack of a "contemporaneous record" that in all probability exists but hasn't been declassified won't do.
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?
Owen Parsons Posted Yesterday, 09:13 PMQUOTE(Greg Parker @ Oct 5 2006, 12:30 AM)
With regard to Shaw, what really went more against self-interest - giving Habighorst an alias he used in matters unrelated to any conspiracy to assassinate anyone, or signing a blank booking sheet (as his lawyers wanted to have it)?
Indeed, what savvy businessman would ever sign a blank document?
I agree, Shaw's story about signing a blank card has always struck me as nonsense and far more unbelievable than him goofing and giving Habighorst his alias.
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 confess I do not really understand your point. Smoke screen or not (and I'm not clear on how this "smoke screen" would work), it remains a "friendly contact" with Dulles and I don't see how this can be spun any other way. And this was during a time when Novel's lawyer Herbert Miller was acting as a courier between Novel and the CIA's Richard Lansdale (who was Lawrence Houston's assistant council.) See same article, same page.
If one reads the CIA stuff carefully, they are denying that they ever had contact with Novel and that Novel was trying to imply that he had CIA connections in a (futile) attempt to scare Garrison into calling off the pursuit. Novel himself has gone back and forth in claiming that he had CIA connections, and I've come into contact with other evidence that buttresses that one cannot be sure which of his claims are true. So this one goes in the undecided column for me.
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.
Just send me a private message through the forum.
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.
Yes, it would be useful if the deathbed confession (assuming you are accurate here about what qualifies as a death bed confession under Louisiana law; its certainly not what I would think of as a deathbed confession, since Ferrie wasn't on his deathbed literally or figuratively; I'd appreciate it if you'd post some specifics about this) came from outside Garrison's own circle. If the Clinton witnesses couldn't do the job, I don't think the jury is going to be swayed by the "deathbed confession" given to one of Garrison's men.
On the deathbed confession definition, I have only my lawyer friend's opinion. Paraphrased: The suspect gave a statement to the DA's investigator that essentially proves a substantial portion of the the DA's case. The statement was made two days before the suspect's possibly mysterious death. That would qualify it as a deathbed confession. It would be up to the judge to accept it or not.
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.
I am not talking about what he says about Oswald and Shaw in the interview, I am speaking of what he is saying about the mechanics of the assassination. In the interview, he debunks the single bullet theory, which contrasts very much with his later statements after fleeing the hotel. My point is that Ferrie's various interviews are not uniform and they can be divided into pre- and post-Fontainbleu Motel. To my mind, Ferrie's sudden turn to the lone assassin line indicates that he felt he'd said too much.
Oh, THAT part. First, I see his pre/post statements as consistent. Second, Ferrie claimed to have been studying some books and articles about the case to see if the DA was right, that there was a conspiracy. There are hints of this in statements Ferrie made to other people at this time. I lay it out chronologcally in my book.
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.
Yes, I agree, but your query can only be answered with speculation by its very nature.
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 do have evidence that Shaw was investigated (and one can assume connected with the Bertrand alias) in 1963; the aforementioned memo. In the memos following Clark's disclosure to the press, quoted briefly in Mellen, Hoover is only complaining that Shaw made the disclosure in the first place (as he worried he would in the first memo), not that any of his facts are wrong. These memos circulated at the upper echelons of the FBI and I don't think they would be operating under such an easily dispelled illusion.
I'm not sure I understand. Is there any contemporaneous record that Shaw was investigated in 1963?
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?
I pretty much agree with the Probe magazine crew's take, which I suppose puts me close to 4, but I don't think Garrison was totally right, just correct in all the essentials.
I think the Probers have made the best possible case for Garrison being right, Davy especially. But there are still quite a few holes in the Probe theories, and a few clear mistakes. Pease, with whom I've sparred in the past, is a good researcher, but occasionally overstates her case. But I credit the Probe stuff with keeping me in the middle on this.
Carroll: I've dealt with this Marcello stuff before, do a search.
-
The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly.
There is a great deal of evidence of Novel's connections to the CIA. One example (among many) comes from Jim DiEugenio's article, "The Obstruction of Garrison," printed in The Assassinations. The following excerpt may be found on pg. 42:
One of the most curious comments made by Novel while he was ensconsed in Columbus evading Garrison's subpoena occured in February of 1968. He told a reporter in response to Garrison's subpoena that he would "wait and see what Mr. Dulles does." (Allen Dulles had been called by Garrison around the same time.) Most people could not fathom what this curious comment could mean; others had just cast it off as irresponsible drivel from the loquacious Novel. It now is revealed that Novel was telling the truth: Allen Dulles was in contact with Novel and was forwarding material from him to the CIA. [emphasis mine] When Miller came to Novel's aid and got an Ohio court to reject Garrison's subpoena, Novel forwarded a press clipping on the victory to the former CIA Director, and noted that Dulles himself could take advantage of the legal precedent to avoid Garrison's subpoena. This is what probably was meant by Novel's "wait and see" comment, quoted above. Dulles then forwarded Novel's cover letter to Lawrence Houston, keeping the enclosed clippings for himself.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?
-
[quote name='Stephen Roy' date='Oct 3 2006, 05:28 PM' post='76706']
[
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.
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
-
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?
People do all sorts of really stupid things when they are drunk/tired. Still, Shaw did very little talking and Russo himself says that he was in and out of the apartment during the conversation.
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...?"
Maybe I'm just thinking about what I'd do. If I were Shaw and a conspirator, I would damn well know if anything leaked out, and be sure to do anything to avoid it becoming a problem.
There is a possibility of this, but then, the matter was assumed to be settled and of little interest. Both the government and the media were fully behind the WC no conspiracy verdict and the FBI, in those very reports, had dismissed Dean Andrews' story as a drug-induced fantasy.
I'm just wondering what you base this supposition on. Do you have any other examples of such arrogance?
Gordon Novel comes readily to mind.
The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly.
Are you saying there are no other possible reasons? I would dispute that.
I suppose some other explanation can always be contrived, but I think its the only good one. Eugene Davis (who Andrews said was Bertrand at some point) would have no reason to make this call. Nor does it fit with a publicity stunt of some kind. Andrews only contacted the authorities after Oswald had been shot to say he had seen Oswald on three occasions, thinking his information would be useful. He didn't mention then that he had been asked to represent Oswald.
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.
His "change" in 1963, so far as I can see, is saying that he could have dreamed it up under sedation as the FBI suggested (in contradiction to the evidence it had collected). His descriptions of Bertrand got fuzzier and fuzzier after this. Later he would say that he made it up for attention (if I remember correctly) and/or that it was Eugene Davis. This, one assumes, is when the death threats from D.C. really kicked in (not MY theory, this is what Andrews told to Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Anthony Summers). The story he went to his grave with is apparently that Shaw and Bertrand are the same and that the call is real, as he told Weisberg.
Do you have a print source on this?
How did the CIA cause him to have a burst aneurysm?
There are many ways you can go about this. Let's see what Dimitri Contostavlos M.D. has to say about Ferrie's death. What follows is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Richard A. Sprague:
In 1969 I wrote to Jim Garrison of New Orleans to inform him about
a theory which I had developed concerning the death of David Ferrie, one
of Oswald's circle of acquaintances who died suddenly on the eve of his
official questioning by Garrison's investigators. After some confusion,
during which it was originally alleged that he had committed suicide by
poisoning, a pathologist ruled that the cause of death was subarachnoid
hemorrhage. At the time of my communication Garrison was preoccupied
with getting re-elected, and may have passed me off as just another crank
or he may have checked out my theory and ruled it out; in any case I got
no response to the letter or to a telphone call which his secretary
answered.
The cause of my concern in this case is that, although fatal
subarachnoid hemorrhage (a bleeding into one of the spaces around the
brain) is usually due to natural causes, namely rupture of aneurysm or
other arterial abnormality, it is recognized by Forensic Pathologists
as occuring in certain forms of blunt trauma. In the year prior to my
communication to Garrison, I had encountered while working in Dade County,
Florida, 3 cases of this condition all resulting from punches or karate
blows to the side of the neck and had demonstrated for the first time the
exact site and nature of the injury. My scientific paper on this subject
was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
and resulted in widespread recognition of the lesion and in a number of
additional published case reports.
It should be emphasized that the injury may be occult, manifesting
only as the brain hemorrhage which may be, and to my certain knowledge has
been in the past, labeled as a stroke due to normal causes. The New Orleans
district is served, or was during the period in question, by a coroner
system, with autopsies performed by hospital pathologists who are usually
not experienced enough in the pathology and investigation of trauma cases. It
is for these reasons that I became concerned that possibly a homicide had
been missed in the Ferrie case, particularly in view of the timing of his
death at such a critical moment during the Kennedy assassination investigation.
The injury involves the fracture of a small bone in the neck, and
may therefore be detected in the skeleton many years after death. Provided
that the body has not been cremated or buried at sea, the deceased can be
exhumed for reexamination. (link)
What do we make of the autopsist who was certain it was a stroke, and saw evidence of prior bleeds?
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.)
"So there would be no leak, Ivon decided not to have his report typed by an office secretary but to give Jim Garrison his handwritten notes directly." (Mellen 105) Mellen notes that these notes have vanished. Partial corroboration of this comes from Jim Garrison himself in OTTA, pg 376, where he writes that many of his notes were stolen.
As for why it wasn't used in court, its not hard to see why, for me at least. For such a sensational piece of evidence against Ferrie, I think Garrison would want a source beyond the word of one of his assistant D.A.s to present to the Jury. His other witnesses had been pilloried enough. On a minor point, Garrison wanted to avoid bringing the CIA (which figures in the confession) into the case, as he felt that to the Jury, this would seem like "talking about UFOs."
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.
Then why did Ferrie deny all until his death?
Are you referring to Ferrie's final interview with George Lardner in which he says that he and Oswald were in different CAP units and that he and his buddies went "goose hunting" on the weekend of the assassination? Ferrie would of course have an interest in sending a different signal to the press.
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.
You don't think it represents how he perceived things at that time? Why?
I think the first three paragraphs sum it up well:
And so it begins... this Journal which is to be a record of the most horrifying, unbelievable, nightmarish experience through which I have ever lived. March the first will be certainly the great day in my life. That water shed from which all events must be dated before and after. For it was on March 1 that I was arrested "for conspiring with others to murder the President, John F. Kennedy."
Even as look at the words now it seems absolutely unbelievable that such a thing could come about. But it has, and it is important that I try to set down for myself and possibly others, the Kafkaesque horror which began on this date.
But, when the mind is numbed with horror, the heart frozen with apprehension, where does one find words to describe that which is almost indescribable? (link)
He explicitly says that he is writing this not only for himself but "possibly others." All these melodramatic adjectives he uses I find to be quite overdone; they have very little to do with the reality of how Garrison conducted his case and I think Shaw knows this. Its a literary production (and not a very good one) with an audience in mind. It is also written on a type-writer, which is not suggestive of intimacy.
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.
As I read the FBI/DoJ traffic from 1967, it was a misunderstanding, and I don't think Bill or Joan proved otherwise.
I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967:
The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw.
[Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H.
This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book.
I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there?
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.)
Stupid thing to do or not, I think all the evidence leads to one, and only one, conclusion. Reitzes tried to make a case that Shaw didn't sign it, and Biles pretty much destroyed it.
I'll re-read Biles tonight. Shaw is not really my focus, but I had the impression that it was shaky.
But the absence of awareness of it at least raises the possibility that it was added later.
Maybe, but the point is moot.
BTW, thanks for a civil discussion on the evidence. This is the way it should be!
You're welcome, and I agree.
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.
-
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.
The devil resides in the details, and this whole episode is positively diabolical. However, we have prima facie evidence that Shaw was among those who told different stories to different people, admitting the "Bertrand" alias to Habighorst, but denying it to others.
In fairness, I do see a difference. Andrews's changing statements are recorded in FBI reports and testimony, and he stood by the gist of them, while indicating that his earlier accounts were not true. Shaw's alleged admission of the alias is recorded only on the card he claims did not contain the alias, and he denies giving it.
If we start with the premise that "Bertrand" was an alias he used while traveling in the gay circles Shaw habituated, there's nothing particularly ominous about that fact, just as steering mostly "gay kids" toward Andrews - Oswald among them, apparently - doesn't implicate "Bertrand" in much of anything. The latter-day allegations of Russo placed "Bertrand" in a more problematic circumstance, at least suggesting that he might have been part of a successul conspiracy to murder the President, assuming that such a conspiracy actually took place, and further assuming that Shaw actually played some role in it.
I'm not sure that we MUST start with that premise, but continue.
While that may have been Garrison's take on the matter, perhaps arrived at more of necessity [after Ferrie's demise] than any legitimate factor, I think Garrison was likely substantially over-reaching in using the "Bertrand" alias as a major factor in his case against Shaw. I also think we compound the error of over-reaching by assuming that Shaw was so fearful of this disclosure that he would never have admitted using "Bertrand" as an alias, because that fact alone proved little or nothing about his involvement in a conspiracy.
No, but it WAS the name under which Russo alleged to have heard him conspire. And Shaw knew that Garrison was interested in a Bertrand. I can see a certain casualness up to a point, but not after his arrest.
There's a possibility we should consider:
In Oliver Stone's JFK, he has a Mob character tell one of the DA's staff that it was well known Shaw used the name "Bertrand," which was used to discredit Stone, since this scene was without sufficient historical foundation.
But, let's assume for the moment that it was largely true; that Shaw was well known as "Bertrand" among the gay subculture in New Orleans. Knowing this, when asked by Habighorst if he had any aliases, perhaps Shaw - in a spur of the moment decision - revealed that he used "Bertrand" because he feared it would be too easily proved, if only Garrison's people trolled through the gay subculture where Shaw was known as "Bertrand." Moreover, really, what did it matter? It didn't make Andrews' assertions true, or even confirm them, and it didn't place Shaw in Oswald's company at anything other than a party.
However, in disclosing this to his legal counsel, perhaps his lawyers determined that this was too damning an admission. [i don't see it that way, but others certainly could do so, particularly those responsible for defending him against these sensational charges.] That would account for the apparent flip-flop in his initial admission versus his subsequent denial, and still not convict him of anything.
Possible, I s'pose, but I see it in the context of a whole series of really weird decisions on Shaw's part.
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.
You are remarkably charitable in your characterization of Garrison's case. Like you, I believe the DA to have been entirely sincere, and I think he likely uncovered more than he realized or knew how to exploit. However, at the end of the exercise, his case received precisely the verdict that it deserved. He may have convinced the jury that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy rather than a lone assassin, but he didn't have Shaw dead to rights and was incapable of proving a weak case against the man.
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
-
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.[/color]
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.
-
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.
Since I "hate" neither Garrison nor Shaw, where does that leave someone like me? It's an interesting smear to insert the words "rationally" and "get emotional" in your sentences above, as though anyone who has reached a decision on the matter - either way - is ipso facto "irrational" and unreasonably "emotional."
Apologies for poor phrasing. I was speaking in global terms, not this discussion. The Garrison matter is a microcosm of the JFK case, and is usually between two polarized sides, and it often moves away from evidence into argument very quickly.
I was struck that my simple comment about Shaw's seeming stupidity caused the reaction it did.
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.
I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that Ferrie did most of the talking at this event, while Shaw was more a discreet observer than a "plotter," if that evening could even be considered "plotting" the event. Too much liquor, in the company of men who all hold similar political views, can lead to heated statements that are open to subsequent misinterpretation.
But again, in front of a stranger? It seems as odd to me as him going out of his way to be seen in Clinton.
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?
Not at all. But claiming that somebody couldn't be so stupid as to do something stupid is conjecture without any basis offered to support it, or any realistic way to demonstrate it.
I'm not claiming he couldn't be that stupid. I'm just noting that he was.
People act against their own self-interest all the time. Dean Andrews is a perfect case in point. Let us assume he simply made the whole thing up, as many have alleged. Here is a lawyer, trained to understand the downside of making false reports to police, who claimed one thing, only to retract it under oath, leaving himself liable to perjury charges. One could just as easily ask why a man smart enough to become a lawyer would needlessly implicate himself this way, in an event that needn't have ever been disclosed were it not for his own big mouth. But asking the question isn't the same as answering it.
But Andrews wasn't part of the conspiracy, as Shaw was. The stakes were much higher.
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?
As noted above, claiming that Shaw was too clever to implicate himself is "conjecture," not a conclusion based upon any evidence.
If it were one incident, it wouldn't be noteworthy. But it was several, including some I haven't mentioned.
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.
Actually, rather than a cheap shot, it illustrates why people use an alias; self-protection. In Shaw's case, it was to prevent disclosure of his sexual orientation, an unknown detail in New Orleans polite society, the emergence of which would have seen Shaw's name struck from the social register, as it were.
Mine wasn't an alias, it was a screen name. I never used it anywhere but in the newsgroups. I wasn't introduced to anybody under it; I didn't sign it in a guest register; and I didn't give it to police as an alias.
Once you had been "outed" as Blackburst, you owned up to it, which is to your credit since you hadn't used the alias to commit any crime.
By that time, many people knew who I was. I had "owned up to it" four years previously at a conference.
Shaw's admission to having used the "Bertrand" alias was similar in that respect: it didn't put a rifle in his hands in Dallas; it didn't prove that he had any connection to the assassination; it simply meant that, if Dean Andrews told the truth, Shaw had sent him "gay kids" - Oswald among them - as clients in the past, and sought to retain his services to represent "gay kid" Oswald at his trial in Dallas.
True. It goes to perjury, not conspiracy.
Shaw may well have been a conspirator, but he sure was a stupid one.
Shaw may also well have been nothing more than a bit-part player who facilitated the framing of Oswald, without knowing in advance what purpose was being served by his actions. If so, he may have been an unwitting accessory to the crime, whose actions took on a darker hue after the assassination. Rather like Oswald himself, suddenly ensnarled in something large and sinister that only became truly apparent once it was too late.
As for Shaw's admission to Habighorst that he used Bertrand as an alias, whatever one posits for a rationale would, obviously, be entirely speculative and beyond our ability to confirm.
However, we should at least consider that Shaw thought himself either above suspicion, or at least bulletproof and immune from prosecution.
If so, his hypothetical feeling of omnipotence was well-founded.
Immediately after his arrest, the Attorney General of the US, Ramsey Clark, announced that soon after the assassination, Shaw had been investigated by the FBI and cleared of all suspicions [wholly untrue, per the extant record].
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.
According to Patricia Lambert, surely no Garrison fan and with whose work I know you are familiar, the entire episode was one farcical misunderstanding after another:
"The day after he arrested Shaw, Garrison again benefited from the hand of fate. United States Attorney General Designate Ramsey Clark had a blundering encounter with the press in Washington and provided Garrison with another credibility boost. Emerging from a Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination, Clark answered questions about events in New Orleans by saying that Clay Shaw had been investigated by the FBI in 1963 and cleared. Clark's statement was a simple mistake. He should have said "Bertrand" had been investigated. Shaw at first took comfort in the report. Assuming he had been investigated because of Oswald's pamphleteering in front of the Trade Mart, Shaw told reporters he had not known about the FBI investigation but was delighted and pleased that he had been cleared by them. That same day, the bureaucratic snafu was compounded when a befuddled spokesman for the Department of Justice, pressed on the issue, said of Bertrand and Shaw, "We think it's the same guy." "
The foregoing presupposes that Ramsey Clark was too stupid to distinguish between a real man and an alias, too ill-informed to know what had and hadn't been investigated by FBI in '63, and that the "befuddled [Justice] spokesman" also fell victim to this peculiar mass-delusion.
However, one might also posit, with equal feasibility, that Clark had announced to the press exactly what he'd been briefed to say, and that the "befuddled spokesman" made the grave error of speaking an uncomfortable truth on the Justice Department view of Shaw/Bertrand: "We think it's the same guy."
Jeez, Im running out of colors here!!!
While not certain, I read it as Clark asking Did we investigate this guy in 63? And the FBI saying Yeah, we looked for Bertand in 63, and Clark presuming Shaw was checked out and found clear. But I'm not sure, and the record doesn't settle it.
For the duration of the trial, according to CIA's Victor Marchetti, Langley expressed daily solicitude over his plight and wondered if CIA was doing all it could to aid Shaw.
Even Judge Haggerty admitted to a journalist that he thought "Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trail, after it ended in Shaw's acquittal.
If Shaw thought that "somebody up there likes him," he certainly wasn't wrong.
That still doesn't explain him "handing the sword" to Garrison.
Again, you think it's a "sword." But, was it? Even if Garrison had been able to definitively demonstrate to a jury that Shaw had used the alias "Bertrand," would it have affected the outcome of the case? Hardly. Even if the jury had been swayed to believe every single utterance made on the stand by Andrews, Russo, et al, the use of the "Bertrand" alias didn't implicate Shaw in the assassination. It merely placed Shaw in some bad company, partying with paramilitary lunatics and consorting with some very rough trade. Not something to be proud of, perhaps, but not - in and of itself - damning evidence of Shaw conspiring to kill the President.
Good point, and I agree. But it still damaged his denials of being the Bertand Andrews or Russo knew.
Moreover, if it was Shaw who signed the American Airlines VIP lounge guest register as "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, he clearly felt there was no downside to doing so.
Actually, it was Eastern Air Lines.
Apologies and thanks for pointing out the error. I stand corrected.
One witness who ID'ed Shaw as that signator [former AA VIP room employee Mrs. Jessie Parker] testified to that fact, and another person present, CIA asset Alfred Moran, denied Shaw had been present when questioned by Garrison's staff, but admitted Shaw had been present when speaking with other CIA personnel, as Agency documents - subsequently declassified - clearly illustrated. If he was brazen enough to sign "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, why would he refrain from such an admission to Habighorst a few months later? Because he was inebriated or disoriented when arrested? Or because he thought it was immaterial to the DA's case? Who knows?
With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.
That is your prerogative. But this perforce requires you to dismiss or ignore the testimony of Mrs. Parker, the CIA documents refecting the identical admission of Alfred Moran, and expert graphology opinion regarding the bona fides of the signature. One can dismiss anything as "inconclusive" if one arbitrarily raises or lowers the evidentiary bar at will. But you must consider this signature issue inconclusive, for were you to accept it as genuine, you could no longer argue that Shaw was too clever to implicate himself over the use of the "Bertrand" alias.
As I note elsewhere, I am not denying he signed it, but the evidence is not conclusive in my eyes. Plus, he denied it.
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?
It is my speculation [please note the qualifier] that two gross assumptions converged. The DA's staff - much like yourself - assumed that Shaw wouldn't be so accommodating as to admit to using the "Bertrand" alias upon his arrest, and therefore didn't seek out the arrest records. Likewise, Habighorst assumed the DA already had evidence demonstrating Shaw's of the "Bertrand" alias, as Garrison announced to the press on the day following Shaw's arrest, and therefore Habighorst didn't draw the DA's attention to the arrest records.
Possible.
I was going to comment on Stephen Roy's posts about Clay Shaw, but I'm glad I waited. Owen and Robert made their cases clearly and convincingly. They did a better job than I could have.A command of the facts and logic trump speculation and unfounded statements almost every time.
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.
Mr. Roy,I am not suggesting arrogance in any way. I shall rephrase. I am offering 2 possibilities as to why Mr. Shaw could have told Officer Habighorst his alias, neither has to do with arrogance.
My first suggestion said, (in other words) he probably made a quick decision (answered after considering) under pressure, and didn't fully realize the implications of this until later. He may have though that he'd be protected by his lawyers and/or agency ties, if any, and that his alias would be insignificant information.
Possible, sure. But one of the first considerations of most defendants (especially after having consulted with a lawyer) is to admit nothing. Panzeca said he told him to admit nothing. And one could make a case that Shaw knew the significance of the Bertand name by this time.
Second suggestion, it might have just been a slip of the tongue (answered spontaneously, without considering), as he never expected to be arrested. Again, I'm sure he was under pressure, while under arrest and giving his personal information to the police.
I believe both above scenarios are more likely than the scenario that Habighorst took a bribe and altered 5 copies of the arrest card. It is a possibilty though, but I haven't seen or heard anything that would support this. On the otherhand other information suggests that Clay Shaw did in fact convey Clay Bertrand as his alias.
This reinforces the statements and questions in the initial postings of this thread, relating to Mr. Dean Andrews' phone calls and discussions of one "Clay Bertrand" requesting Andrews' to represent one Lee Oswald in the murder of the President.
Coincidence that both Andrews and Shaw withdrew/denied something they had said earlier?
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 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.
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.
He incriminates himself by plotting the assassination in front of a total stranger, Perry Raymond Russo.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?
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.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?
Shaw had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. What makes you think he was in an arrogant mood?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?
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?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.
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.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?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.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.
With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.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.)
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?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!
-
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?!?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see "people" questioning Habighorst's motives; I see one person, who has yet to provide any reason for suspecting Habighorst of fabricating anything. Not much of a case for the prosecution.
My point was that someone asked what motive Habighorst might have for fabricating.
As for Shaw's admission to Habighorst that he used Bertrand as an alias, whatever one posits for a rationale would, obviously, be entirely speculative and beyond our ability to confirm.
However, we should at least consider that Shaw thought himself either above suspicion, or at least bulletproof and immune from prosecution.
If so, his hypothetical feeling of omnipotence was well-founded.
Immediately after his arrest, the Attorney General of the US, Ramsey Clark, announced that soon after the assassination, Shaw had been investigated by the FBI and cleared of all suspicions [wholly untrue, per the extant record].
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.
For the duration of the trial, according to CIA's Victor Marchetti, Langley expressed daily solicitude over his plight and wondered if CIA was doing all it could to aid Shaw.
Even Judge Haggerty admitted to a journalist that he thought "Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trail, after it ended in Shaw's acquittal.
If Shaw thought that "somebody up there likes him," he certainly wasn't wrong.
That still doesn't explain him "handing the sword" to Garrison.
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.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. The Report itself glossed over this detail, and Shaw would have had to either read the 26 volumes, or had it brought to his attention, in order to learn this detail. Since four years had elapsed, perhaps he felt that the situation had blown over.
Look at it this way: It was Deano who originated the Clay Bertand story. By 12/14/66, Garrison had spoken with Andrews and subpoenaed Ferrie. Wouldn't that have alarmed Shaw a bit?
Moreover, if it was Shaw who signed the American Airlines VIP lounge guest register as "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, he clearly felt there was no downside to doing so.
Actually, it was Eastern Air Lines.
One witness who ID'ed Shaw as that signator [former AA VIP room employee Mrs. Jessie Parker] testified to that fact, and another person present, CIA asset Alfred Moran, denied Shaw had been present when questioned by Garrison's staff, but admitted Shaw had been present when speaking with other CIA personnel, as Agency documents - subsequently declassified - clearly illustrated. If he was brazen enough to sign "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, why would he refrain from such an admission to Habighorst a few months later? Because he was inebriated or disoriented when arrested? Or because he thought it was immaterial to the DA's case? Who knows?
With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.
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.
And yet neither you, nor Mr. Carroll, nor any other advocate for Shaw whose prose I've read in the past 40 years has ever managed to lay a glove on Habighorst. How do you explain this?
I'm not an advocate for Shaw. I'm trying to reason if the evidence against him is credible.
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.
Were Dean Andrews the only material witness, the issue would have long since died. He was not, as you are well aware. Please explain how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest, and you'll have done us all a massive favour. Mr. Carroll seems incapable. Perhaps you are.
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?
. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.
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?
Stephen Roy Posted Yesterday, 03:02 PMI 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.
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.
-
George Joannides, the son of a journalist, was born in New York on 5th July, 1922. He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1951 and later became chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's station in Miami. In this role he worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963.
In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The CIA did not reveal to the committee that Joannides had played an important role in the events of 1963. Some critics believe that Joannides was involved in a conspiracy to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the government of Fidel Castro.
George Joannides died in Houston in March 1990. In recent years investigators into the assassination of John F. Kennedy such as G. Robert Blakey, Anthony Summers, John McAdams and Gerald Posner have campaigned for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides.
Has anyone got a photograph of Joannides?
How important is Joannides in this case? Is he a red herring? For example, why should McAdams, Posner and Blakey be so concerned with the files of Joannides. After all, in the past, they have been associated with providing misinformation about the assassination.
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.
-
It's just a passing connection but when one of Ferrie's friends Alvin Beauboeuf claimed that two of Garrison's investigators tried to bribe him to testify favourably for Garrison and supposedly had a tape recording of it, (which was later discovered to be a fabrication) Beauboeuf's lawyer Hugh Exnicios first offered to give the tape to Langridge who refused it. Subsequently the tape wound up with Shaw's lawyers.
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.
-
Does anyone have info on one Frank H. Langridge of New Orleans, who was the Jefferson Parish DA in 67' ?
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.
Dean Andrews
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Stephen Roy
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.