Stephen Roy

How did this get Ferrie into trouble? James Richards slightly misquoted the line: "..because I was the one who always got you in trouble." Al had taken Baragona up for a flying lesson in late '65, but he was not certificated as a flight instructor, and this was observed by an FAA inspector. It caused a ruckus, but no penalty was imposed.

I'm glad you referred to it as a supposed suicide note. Contrary to a few published reports, it was found in an envelope taped under a table. The envelope was marked "Open in the event of my death", and contained a list of people to contact in the event of his death and a handwritten will, dated July 1966. Given Ferrie's frequent claims that year to have been feeling very ill, including a hospitalization, it is unclear if this is a farewell note or a suicide note. I am certain that it was written to Al Beaubouef. My best guess on Tommy is Thomas Nation Compton III, a former CAP boy, amateur rocket enthusiast, the boy with whom he stayed on the night of 11/24/63, and an employee at Ferrie's gas station in 1964. He was a friend of both men, of long standing. Compton began pulling away from Ferrie's circle in 1965. "Barogona" is probably James Baragona, whom Ferrie taught to fly in a Beechcraft, and whose license application Ferrie sponsored.

Hi, Joan! Glad to have you with us!. Congratulations on finally seeing AFTJ through to publication. The amount of raw material you accumulated is staggering, with loads of new material for the rest of us to digest. And many thanks for the acknowledgment! I hope I helped in some small way. I appreciate this question in particular because there has been a great deal of controversy on Thomas Edward Beckham, whose story runs throughout "A Farewell to Justice." In New Orleans on December 7th, I had a long talk with L. J. Delsa, whom you all know as a member of Team #3, the Louisiana team for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and a long-time homicide detective with the New Orleans police department. L. J. believes firmly in the statements Thomas Edward Beckham made first to him and to Jonathan Blackmer and Robert Buras, and then his further statements to me. Here is a witness who is talking AGAINST INTEREST. Here is a witness who is asking for nothing, who refused to speak to Oliver STone's people, who were offering thousands of dollars to people as consultants. Here is a person who refused to speak to Jim Garrison when, as a judge, Garrison approached him in the 1980s. Some of Delsa's views about Beckham are offered in "A Farewell to Justice." Recently, we discussed the issue again. With his long experience with witnesses, Delsa remains certain that Beckham is an important piece of the puzzle regarding the planning, the origins, of the plan to murder President Kennedy. We are now in the process of approaching new witnesses, people never before questioned, to further this research. As I noted in a prior post, the Beckham account presents certain problems. His current account differs drastically from his testimony before the Grand Jury. One of the two accounts must be untrue. I do understand that Delsa believes that his later account is true, but as he was not privy to those activities in the 1961-3 period, I presume he is basing his belief on his late 70s discussions with Beckham. He may be right, but his belief does not resolve all doubts about Beckham. I would be interested in your followup research. On the other hand, the recent furor about Beckham in my book should excite suspicion. I told Beckham on Sunday about Gus Russo's statement that Beckham was peddling a 300 page manuscript about the assassination in the 1970s. "I couldn't write a three word manuscript," he said to me. As you all know, his formal education ended in the third grade. So disinformation is being spread, smoke to confuse, like the recent book with the absurd thesis that Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcello and Johnny Rosselli, plotted the assassination of President Kennedy, a book that goes on to defame a very decent man, Alberto Fowler. Beckham is not a well man today, Steve. He has no need to exaggerate or lie. At some point, either in 1968 or later, Beckham must have lied. The questions are when, and why. His Grand Jury testimony was given under oath, in an atmosphere where he might have been indicted for perjury or some other offense. Today, he is not under oath and is in no peril of prosecution. The Grand Jury transcript is interesting reading. If he was lying then, he gave a skilled performance, coming across as telling all he could, despite some very pointed questioning. As the proceedings were in secret, I wonder why he didn’t tell more at that time. I’m sure you are aware that, from time to time, people peripherally connected to this case come forward with fanciful tales, and it is up to responsible researchers and historians to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think the New Orleans case, in particular, has a certain romantic appeal to some people. I have run into several people who have claimed to have information which ties together the loose ends of the case, but who have failed to withstand critical scrutiny. I find it hard to fathom the reasons why. In some cases, they have read the books and seen the films and simply want to be the person who solved the case. But perhaps my experiences with such people have set my “radar” a bit too high. Beckham may well have lied in 1968 and told the truth to you and Delsa, but I am just not sure. It is a concern for me because, as you noted above, his account runs through the book and it does tie up a lot of loose ends. Can you explain what it was, for you, that caused you to accept his current account? Jack Martin was not his friend but his handler. Jack Martin was also his enemy, and a man Beckham feared. When I first approached him, he asked, "is Jack Martin alive." L. J. notes, by the way, the very name "Jack Martin," a name so common (like Joe Jones) that it could refer to anyone....but that gets us into the Jack Martin controversy. I'll just add that there is no question in my mind, or in Delsa's, that Jack Martin was a CIA asset in New Orleans. In fact, Guy Banister told Thomas Edward Beckham as much. I would like to discuss the Jack Martin matter, perhaps at a later time. Here is a relevant Martin reference I found: On February 10, 1961 Jack S. Martin contacted the New Orleans FBI office and "advised that two of his clients in South America, who were in the oil business, had requested him to check on a Charles F. Riker, 2610 S. MacGregor Drive, Houston, Texas, who reportedly was in Venezuela and on various occasions had represented himself as an FBI agent or Central Intelligence agent. Martin advised that he was a private detective and wished to obtain any data the Bureau could give him regarding Riker on behalf of his client. Martin was unsuccessful in obtaining any information." The FBI seems to have been unaware of the sort of background information on Riker that the CIA would receive a few weeks later. "[informant number] MM T-1 advised that C.F. Riker, 2610 MacGregor #2, Houston, Texas...was in Miami and claimed to represent a group of assassins that operate exclusively against Communists. Riker is described as being well educated, and claims to have attended a number of Government schools having to do with arms, demolitions and languages. Riker claims he lived in Mexico during his youth, and speaks Spanish." It is intriguing to find Jack Martin seeking information about a self-described representative of assassins at this point. But I have a few more questions: It is my understanding that David Ferrie had other aircraft available to him in November 1963, and also had in excess of $8000. at that time. Why would he have needed to approach Herb Wagner for a $400. loan to rent a plane? Was Wagner’s associate the only source of that account? As for George Wray Gill Sr. having instructed him to do so, what was Gill’s motivation for becoming directly involved in the assassination conspiracy? The account of Ferrie having a machine gun mounted on the landing of his home is quite interesting. In what time frame did this occur? What was the source of the account? Thanks so much for the information.

Gerry may well be right on this one. I've searched in vain for this, for years. Everybody knows there were training camps north of the lake in 1963, right? There was certainly a training area north of the lake involving some 20 Cubans from late June to late July, 1963, involving Victor Paneque and the Movimiento Democratico Cristiano. It was closed after the Mandeville arms bust, and Carlos Jose Bringuier was called upon to help some of the trainees back to Miami. Garrison tried hard to find this camp (or camps) after hearing of it from Carlos Crusto Quiroga on January 13, 1967, but was never able to do so, the documents of his investigation show. Several of those with knowledge of the camp were interviewed, including some who attended it, but they all said it was a Cuban affair, with no significant involvement by Americans. My interviews with two of the trainees elicited the same result. No Ferrie, Banister or Oswald. (Parenthetically, there were several training camps of various sorts in the area two years earlier, in 1961. The CIA operated a training camp in UDT and other activites in the Belle Chasse area between February and April of 1961. Between November 1960 and August 1961, David Ferrie conducted training of "Internal Mobile Security Units" in various areas, including Belle Chasse and Abita Springs, but those attending say it was for his unofficial "Metairie Falcon Cadet Squadron" (a CAP-style unit) and did not include Cubans (except for a one-time post BoP visit by Julian Buznedo Castellanos, who Ferrie had in-tow for several weeks and may have been the "thick-necked Cuban" Garrison was looking for.) After his August 1961 arrests and the September Houma caper, Ferrie was ostracized by the FRD/CRC, the "official" anti-Castro group. I can find little, if any, verifyable anti-Castro activity by him after that date!) I always wondered if Garrison simply mixed up the chronology, and conflated the 1961 activities with the 1963 camp. The Garrison documents seem to support this confusion. What, then, are we to make of Delphine Points Roberts' belated assertion that Banister ran the 1963 camp, and that Ferrie frequently took Oswald there? Or a couple of other similar accounts? Or of HSCA's Tannenbaum claining to seen a film of Oswald and Ferrie at the 1963 camp, a film that has never surfaced (and nobody else on HSCA recalls)? (Tony Summers, who elicited this from Roberts, still feels that her account seemed sincere.) One or the other account is wrong. Either there was only one camp, and Garrison, Roberts and Tannenbaum are wrong, or the Cubans are lying, or there was ANOTHER camp which is confusing the issue. At this point, I can't say which might be true. It's one of those widely held and repeated assassination stories that might prove to be wrong.

Thoughtful post, Owen. I'm on the run, but I thought I'd take a stab at this. I'm not asserting that the trip WAS innocent, just a Devil's Advocate view of an alternate interpretation, based on the accounts of the boys. As I haven't mastered the art of quoting in this forum, I'll italicize my comments. Loyalty to a friend? Self-preservation (I am not speaking of legal complications here)? I think there are some concerns that may override monetary gain. I don't understand why the need to maintain a putuative lie all these years later, even while admitting other embarrasing non-relevant stuff. Like a jury seeing a witness or defendant in a courtroom, you get a different impression in person. Beaubouef said that Ferrie told him to lie about the guns. Ferrie also told his godson, Morris Brownlee, that this attempt to lie about the guns was to keep the D.A. from getting anything on him. As noted, Al did not tell me this, but he apparently told Joan Mellen this. I can se why one might be skittish about admitting taking guns, given the circumstances. Coffee says the trip was planned two days in advance, that they left at 7 pm, and that it was Ferrie's idea. Beaubouef says it was planned in detail a week in advance, that the trio left at 4 pm, and that he came up with idea. These two stories are not all that reconciliable. Ferrie and Beaubouef apparently did discuss a trip a few weeks earlier, and apparently a hunting trip was aborted due to Ferrie's work on the Marcello case. Coffey (correct spelling) was brought in, as he said, a couple of days before, somewhat related to some legal pressure from which he needed a break. Ferrie picked up Beuabouef at about 4pm, so the trip started for him then. Tehy went to Ferrie's apartment and packed a few things and watched assassination coverage. At about 6:45 they arrived a Coffey's house and called a few skating rinks, inclusding Rolland's. They left Coffey's at about 7pm, the start of the rip for him. They went to John Paul's Restaurant in Kenner for dinner and spoke with another pilot there. They actually hit the road between 9 and 9:15. Given that scenario, I can see the different recollections about when the trip started. I am perfectly aware of this, of course. Ferrie apparently had a change of alibi plans. I wonder why, however, Ferrie felt the need (after learning that he was being investigated) to drop his buddies off in New Orleans and then flee to Hammond in the first place. Are these the actions of an innocent man? What did Ferrie have to fear? At about 9-9:30pm on Nov. 22, Ferrie's alibi was no longer an issue. I can see no purpose in establishing an alibi over 24 hours after the assassination. As for Sunday night, the trio returned to Ferrie's home and went in at about 9:30. At around 11:30, Ferrie went to drop off Coffey. When he was returning home, he saw the police cars, drove to a grocery store and called home. "A cop" answered. Keep in mind that Ferrie had experienced a lot of grief from the cops when arrested two years previously on morals charges, and was terribly paranoid about them (I get into this in some detail in my book. Rightly or wrongly, it made him hate the cops.) Now in 1963, he and one of the boys were terribly worried about an embarrasing photo album, which the police did get. He called Gill and wanted him to accompany him when he presented himself to the cops. I resume that Gill didn't want to come out after midnight, so Ferrie spent the night at a friends and turned himself in with Gill the next day. I think if any account of this alleged discussion is to be authoritative, it ought to be the one Ferrie gave to the FBI within days of the incident. And, as I noted before, Ferrie would later drop this aspect of his story totally. If you read Ferrie's 12/15/66 questioning by Volz, he says repeatedly that he doesn't recall the details from 3 years earlier and refers Volz to his statements taken in 1963. He also volunteers to take a polygraph and/or sodium pentothal test. This is not exactly accurate. Rolland doesn't base his conclusions on Ferrie's skating activities on what he saw, but rather on the fact that Ferrie did not buy a ticket for that purpose, a thing Rolland would be in a position to know. I don't know what you're point is about Rolland not watching Ferrie at all times. When Rolland was watching Ferrie, he was far more often than not on the phone. This is a he said/they said. Beaubouef and Coffey both say he saketd briefly, and Rolland wasn't there at the time. I can't say if Rolland later checked to see if he had bought a ticket. I agree with you here. I think Garner was probably mistaken about the date. I just can't figure when on the night of the 22nd, he may have done this, and why about 5 or 6 people had no indication that he did. I have to guess that she might be mistaken. The biggest problem with this account is that it has Ferrie first learning of the library card from the FBI. I think this is unlikely, as G. Wray Gill knew of this allegation and left a message to that effect at Ferrie's residence. Gill had been conversing with Ferrie over the phone prior to Ferrie's return to New Orleans and his FBI interview. Besides that, it still doesnt explain why Ferrie would get worked up over Oswald being in possession of his library card, even after the FBI had dropped the matter. As I reconstruct it from CD75, the closest account to the events, Martin first mentioned the library card to Hardy Davis early Saturday evening. Later that evening, Davis spoke with Gill and repeated what Martin had said. The card is next mentioned by Gill to Martens at about 1pm Sunday. At 3pm, Martens talks with Ferrie by phone, but there is no indication that he mentioned the card. At around 6pm, Gill is called by Ferrie and tells him 1) Martin had contacted authorities and newspapers, 2) Martin tied him in with the assassination, and 3) Martin said Ferrie knew Oswald, trained him, flew him to Texas. No mention in this report of the library card. The friend said Ferrie said he was blindsided by the library card mention by the Feds, that he then learned that Oswald had been in one of his CAP units and attended a party at his house. At this point I only surmise that Ferrie went to what he thought were Oswald's recent homes to see if any document of his had been found. I know it sounds like a stretch, but it's not out of character for Ferrie. He told people that he had done some investigation sfter the assassination. And after his 1961 arrests, he did indeed run around questioning witnesses against him. But I'm not wedded to this interpretation. Maybe it's what Stone would call a "counter-myth"!!!

I think there is some reason to doubt the veracity of Ferrie's friends, seeing as how they initially couldn't keep their stories straight as to who proposed the trip and when, whether there were weapons in the car or not, and its exact purpose. I certainly think their accounts should be presented though. As for Mr. Rolland, he may have arrived late, but Ferrie apparently didn't mention anything about opening an ice rink in his call to him a week prior. And if Ferrie was genuinely interested in purchasing a skating rink, I find it odd that he would say nothing of this during the five times he came up to Mr. Rolland to mention his name and make his presence known (which I think qualifies as "draw[ing] attention to himself" and comes from a source who was certainly "involved" and seems to have no ulterior motives, unlike Ferrie's friends). Ferrie's friends are either very much mistaken or just plain untruthful if they insist that Rolland was probably not the one Ferrie allegedly talked to about his rink purchasing plans. Ferrie, in his FBI interview of the 25th, very close to the incident, states that it was Rolland that he had a lengthy conversation with about the "cost of installation and operation of the rink" (which is not born out by Rolland himself). Apparently Ferrie realized this story wouldn't be corroborated by Rolland and later dropped the rink purchasing aspect of his tale, stating that he "just had the urge to go ice skating" in his 1967 NODA interview. Also, Rolland may not have have been monitoring Ferrie's activities at all times, but he did testify that Ferrie "did not buy a ticket of admission for skating purposes," which would appear to rule out skating activity. When you talk to them, you don't get the impression of lying. One of them was remarkably candid about all sorts of embarrassing things, and he agrees with Garrison that there was a conspiracy at high levels, but he thinks the only way his close friend could have been a part of it was to completely fool him, and he doubts that. Why, 40 years later, with no real legal complications, would they lie about this one thing? If there were something suspicious on the trip, they could make a bundle with a book. As for guns, both told me there were no guns, but that there had been a separate hunting trip around that time. Mellen quotes Beaubouef as saying that there were guns but that they were afraid to admit it. I hope to follow up on this. As for purpose, as one put it, a trip is not always for one reason. I don't really see much conflict. "A" trip had been discussed as far back as a month or so. None were sure exactly when it would be. The end of the Marcello trial made it possible. The need to transact legal business with a Gill client in Vinton made it almost imperative. It seemed apparent on about the 20th that the trial would soon end, and tentative plans were made. On the 22nd, they decided to go. Part business, part visiting relatives, part drinking and driving, etc., and part looking at ice rinks as a business venture. (There was apparently some pre-assassination interest in one particular rink venture. And remember that Ferrie and Beaubouef had capital and DID invest in a business together just a few weeks later.) In one sense, it seems a little odd, but when I think back to some of my trips, I can see his point. What purpose would Ferrie have had for establishing his presence there on Saturday November 23 from 3:30-5:30pm? Russo claimed the trip was to form an alibi for the assassination, not the day after. They had originally planned to go to a rink in Baton Rouge, which was closed. Then they tried Winterland. And one of the boys said that, when they got there, Ferrie talked for about 5 minutes with the "manager". But Ferrie did mention Rolland by name, so it becomes a he said-he said. With respect to Rolland, he seemed very eager to please Garrison. He said that Ferrie did not don skates, then admitted that he had not been there when Ferrie arrived (and his friends say he tried skating). He said Ferrie stayed at the phone, but admitted that he was doing other things and did not watch him. As I note, it is a he said (Rolland) vs they said (Ferrie, Beaubouef, Coffey). In numbers, it is 3 to 1. But again, when you talk to them it just seems like an ordinary trip. But I have spoken only to the boys, not Rolland. As they tell it, the trip went just as they said to authorities and Ferrie pretty much never left their sight. I'd like to hear this "sketchy account" re: the library card. Again, I'm just recounting it as it was told to me, not endorsing it. First, as Ferrie's time is accounted for by the boys from about 4pm Friday through the weekend, it doesn't seem possible for him to have visited Garner on the night of the assassination, or until at least the night of Monday November 25. The library card did not become a big issue until after Ferrie's death, but the friend remembered him mentioning it just after the assassination. He said Ferrie was called in by the FBI and Secret Service and questioned about Oswald, whom he said he did not know or recall. One of the two agencies asked about "one of his cards" that might have been found in Oswald's possessions, and he said he knew nothing about it. Then he contacted a CAP boy [presumably Voebel] who told him that Oswald had been in the Moisant squadron in the mid-50s and attended a party at Ferrie's home. Ferrie said he didn't remember him but worried that he might have been there and taken one of his cards. That's the extent of what he remembers. Ferrie did contact Voebel, according to the FBI, and he passed Voebel's info back to the FBI. I speculate that this is when Ferrie looked to see if the authorities had found any card of his at Oswald's homes. As I noted in another thread, the FBI/SS interest in a library card is directly attributable to Jack Martin, who said he based it on something he heard on TV. I'd consider the possibility that this is just Ferrie's "spin", but for the fact that Martin was the source of the allegation and there was no such card ever recorded in Oswald's possession. So I'm following Ferrie on two tracks, two possibilites: One, that the prevailing wisdom about Ferrie is true, and Two, that it may not be.

If anybody is interested, I heard a sketchy account of this from a person VERY close to Ferrie who would only talk to me on a deep pledge of anonymity. I do not necessarily endorse the account, but it seems to explain the anxiety and tie up that loose end. This post popped up out of sequence. I was referring to the library card issue.

I have some new info about that, which involves some pre-assassination interest in a rink and a different man. I spoke with both the boys who made the trip, and they insist that Ferrie did discuss operating a rink with somebody at Winterland, but they think it may have been the manager on duty before Rolland arrived. They insist that all three men skated initially but Ferrie gave up because he was "hopeless", ate a sandwich and made a few calls. Rolland did arrive late. They deny that he tried to draw attention to himself. It is enlightening, talking to the actual people involved. I don't have the tapes handy, but they say things like: "I was THERE. It was a damn trip. Dave did nothing suspicious, I would have noticed if he did. People have elevated a simple trip with some legal business and a joyride to something sinister." I am NOT saying this is the final word on it! People have warned me that "Ferrie's friends are all a bunch of lairs", but you don't get that impression talking to them. I'm just going to tell "both" sides of it in the book.

OK: Riddle me this, Batman: If Garrison was trying to cover-up for Marcello, why were his first three targets Dean Adams Andrews Jr, who once worked for Marcello, David William Ferrie, who worked for Marcello's attorney on the Marcello deportation, and William Guy Banister, who also worked on the Marcello deportation? Not to mention Morris Brownlee, who worked for Gill, and a few others? Explain this, Sherlock. Why would Garrison cover for Marcello by focusing on three or more people who can be clearly associated with him? You be right. I was a idiot. Lemme consider dropping the nugget. I was going to save it for the book, but maybe... I recently ran across one of those raw FBI files in which the memo said that there had been allegations that Jack Ruby was running drugs through the training camp near Lake Ponchatrain in the summer of 1963. In the same memo I think it was, it was also alleged that Lee Harvey Oswald sometimes used the alias, Tom Kane. Have you ever heard of these allegations before? Steve Thomas I've heard that one, but it's not fresh in my memory. I probably saw the same document. But I have spoken with someone who was there, but he insists that it was just an MDC project, 20 Cubans, no NorteAmericanos. Jury is still out for me.

Completely ignored my message and offer. Correct. They don't. That's why others who encounter them DO. I sometimes wonder if you're just one of those people who gets a charge out of being contrary. Shame. I was just going to offer you a juicy unpublished Garrison nugget to help you with your case, but you were too arrogant to accept it.

Let me try one last time to reason with you, Lynne. I noted that you came out here recently, bashing Garrison, but you immediately incurred the ire of those who think he could do no wrong, or who was essentially right in spite of his errors. I have some empathy for your position, as I think it likely that Garrison did not find "the" conspiracy. But I base this not on a few books or websites. I base it on obtaining most of the documents of his investigation, and on personal interviews with some of those involved. You must certainly agree that such primary sources are more compelling than most books or websites. One of my major issues is that Garrison's books make assertions that are contradicted by his own files. And in a few cases, his books are misleading by citing evidence out of chronological sequence, giving the impression that he knew more than he did at certain critical times. And in a broader sense, my very deep study of all sorts of primary materials on Ferrie indicates that, while some of the "mythology" about him in assassination books turns out to be true, some of it is plainly wrong. And I take a lot of crap when I point these things out. Just a few days ago, I had to explain to my 6-year-old daughter that some people know more than others: Adults know more than kids, and people who study something know more than those who don't. More time = more input data = more knowledge = more accurate conclusions. Especially for people who specialize in study of such topics. To be blunt, I probably know a lot more about Garrison than you do. I am more than willing to engage in a discussion and offer any insights I can, and listen to your observations and look for common ground. You would probably learn things that would support some of your theories. But you need to learn how to LISTEN before you go shooting your mouth off. I extend the offer. If you want to respond like a smartass, I withdraw the offer.

What is there to explain? I know a few writers date Garrison's epiphany earlier, but I see his real change to doubting the WCR occuring after his lunch with Dean Andrews, apparently in late October 1966. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Will my book reveal a garbled interpretation of history? No. Your time frame is completely wrong.

I do. There is an unfavorable account in False Witness and a sympathetic account in A Farewell To Justice. With all due respect, you strike me as a "newbie", one who has seen limited material and come to conclusions based on it. Your repeated citations of things that are demonstrably wrong indicate that you have not read widely on this case or studied primary source material. I have. Yet even with limited study, you state your opinions in an uncategorical way. I don't have the kneejerk reaction that some do, because I have issues with Garrison, too. But his sincerity is not one of them. He didn't protect Marcello: He simply decided early on that it was the CIA and the national security state, and looked no further. You would do well to LISTEN, to study a bit more, consider all POVs on Garrison before so forcefully advocating one theory. There may be people who have a much more detailed knowledge of Garrison than you do. There is no misperception in the fact that Garrison said that. Example: He is completely wrong about Ferrie's post-assassination trip, and I will cite chapter and verse. By the way, can you answer my question about Garrison's 1971 arrest? See Post 20.

There are a number of inaccuracies and misperceptions in this passage. You should read my book on Ferrie when I finish it.

Believe it or not, Garrison made some significant mistakes about Ferrie in his books. And it was all very deliberate, to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Are you new at this? I have lots of issues with Garrison, but he sincerely believed he had solved the assassination. But I think he was wrong. There are no mistakes in the zeal to cover up the truth. Nice phrase, but wildly inaccurate.

Believe it or not, Garrison made some significant mistakes about Ferrie in his books.

That is not what Jim Garrison said. He said theNovember 1963 report on David Ferrie was deemed classified until 2038. You're a bit behind the curve on this. First, you said testimony, but it was interview reports. Second, I explained the routing of those reports. Weisberg quoted them in print in 1967 in Oswald in New Orleans. I don't know why Garrison said that, but the reports have been available since 1967. Ferrie was mildly involved in anti-Castro activities Nov 1960-April 1961, and heavily involved from April 61 to about October 1961. Very little Cuban stuff after that. Fanatic? Well, his rhetoric was tough, but fanatic is a bit strong.

Several writers and commentators have made reference to an 11/25/63 FBI interview with Ferrie's friend Layton Martens, and Martens' assertion that he was told by Ferrie's lawyer and employer G. Wray Gill that Ferrie's library card had been found on Oswald when he was arrested. This is a reference to Commission Document 75. Let us follow the assertion through the other pages of the document. Martens told the FBI that Gill had stopped by Ferrie's apartment at about 1:00pm on 11/24/63, and that "Gill stated that he had gotten word that Lee Oswald, when he was picked up, had been carrying a library card with David Ferrie's name on it." When the FBI asked Gill about this, he replied that he had spoken to a man named Hardy Davis, who "informed him that he had learned through hearsay when Oswald was arrested by the Police Department in Dallas, Texas, he had in his posession a library card of David Ferrie." The FBI then questioned Hardy Davis, who said that he had spoken to Jack Martin who "told Davis that (a) television program had reported that the library card of David Ferrie had been found in the posession of Oswald in Dallas, Texas upon the latter's arrest." This led the FBI to Jack Martin, who told the agents that "he had several phone conversations with Hardy Davis...regarding a television program which mentioned the possibility that David Ferrie was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, and Martin and Davis may have come to the conclusion that Oswald had used or carried Ferrie's library card." Let us reverse this evidence trail and follow it forward: Jack Martin came to the conclusion that Ferrie's library card had been found in Oswald's posession, and he told this to Hardy Davis. Davis repeated this assertion to G. Wray Gill. Gill repeated the information to Layton Martens. While there were references on New Orleans TV stations that Oswald may have served under Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol, there is no record of any reference to Oswald having Ferrie's library card. Could Jack Martin have made the story up? Martin had briefly been a friend of Ferrie's but had developed a grudge after Ferrie threw him out of Gill's office the previous May. Over the years Martin gave numerous statements to investigators about Ferrie which are filled with demonstrably erroneous information. By any measure, Martin had a peculiar background. One investigator wrote that "Martin is considered extremely unreliable and on several occasions this man has himself been involved in matters which bordered on extortion." Could these words have been written as part of a cover-up/smear? Not likely - they were written nearly a year before the assassination. When Ferrie was questioned by the FBI, Ferrie said that "he has never loaned his library card to Lee Harvey Oswald or any other person at any time." It is not unreasonable to speculate that the FBI's reason for asking this question was the assertion of Jack Martin, reported to the Bureau by Martens, Gill, Davis and Martin himself. The Secret Service may have obtained this information from the FBI. After Ferrie's 1967 death, Oswald's landlady and a former neighbor told Jim Garrison's investigators that Ferrie had visited them and inquired about a library card. (The landlady said Ferrie's visit was on the night of the assassination, but his whereabouts during that evening are accounted for.) Presumably, Ferrie did visit the women a few days later in response to the allegation made by Jack Martin.

One can read a certain attitude into that choice. As with CIA's cryptonym for the FBI: ODENVY

I looked at the Stephen Roy post on alt.assassination.jfk, which seems to be the major source of your information. He raises another point, that Ferrie owned a Taylorcraft L-2 which was airworthy. Why didn't he use that? I did a little a digging and discovered from one of Stephen's own posts on this forum that Ferrie's Taylorcraft was disassembled in 1963. Since the instructions for the flight were pretty short notice, I doubt Ferrie would have had time to reassemble it. I have a pretty detailed chronology of every scrap I've found about Ferrie. Many are from documents but some are from interviews. In that thread, I was noting that Ferrie's Taylorcraft L-2 was apparently disassembled in April 1963, at the time of the alleged Lambert/Diaz/Hidell flight plan. Here is what I have: He flew the Taylorcraft on September 9, 1962, apparently in connection with a funeral. Its certificate expired on December 31, 1962. The aircraft was towed to a service station "in early 1963" where its engine was removed for work, performed by a friend. On June 18, 1963 a student took his test flight in the Taylorcraft. In mid-1964, the plane was sold to the station owner. He was unsure of the date, but he said it was while Ferrie owned his own service station, between January 9 and November 30, 1964. The record is sketchy, but it seems to indicate that the plane was flyable up to about early 63, went down for repairs and was flying again by June 63, until it was sold the next year. But upon reexamination of this record, I can't be completely certain the plane was flyable in either April 1963 or November 1963. As noted elswhere, Ferrie also listed a Cessna 206 (probably owned by his longtime friend Lewis J. "Buster" Abadie) on an FAA application as available to him on November 11, 1963.

Then maybe you could explain what Bob Woodward has refused to do since going public on his story. If Felt was Deep Throat: In Felt's position, he had access not only to what he saw in the 302s, summaries, airtels, etc. He undoubtedly knew many people in government. He presumably had his own Deep Throats in various places. Can we limit it just to what the written record shows? (1) Why did Felt not tell Woodward about Alfred Baldwin's role in the break-in. Baldwin was a former FBI man and he was cooperating, and implicating some big names. Might Felt have protected him? (2) How did Felt know about Nixon's taping system? Through his US Secret Service liaison? (3) How did Felt know that Nixon had erased part of the tapes? A source in the Justice Department? In the White House? All speculation, but all possible. Do you think that the lack of definitive answers to these questions calls the possibility of Felt as DT into serious question? I read Felt's book many years ago and thought he would have made a great DT, but I discarded it due to the smoking issue and other reasons. Not to mention, it is kind of fantastic to contemplate one of the top FBI guys in a garage with Woodward, etc. Now that BOTH of them say it was him, the motive is very clear (in Felt's book.) What would be the purpose in floating such a false story?

Sorry, John, but I have to disagree with you. Woodward explained that he initially dissembled a bit when asked about Felt, but once he confirmed that Felt had indeed gone public, the game was over. Woodward says it was Felt. Felt says it was Felt and his motives are clearly stated in his book. He was angry at Nixonian meddling with the FBI; he was mad at being passed over for Director, and a political outsider being appointed; and he was aware that the WH was covering up involvement in Watergate and attemting to get the FBI to do the same. Even Nixon and his people thought it was Felt. Felt was Deep Throat.