Owen Parsons

Yes, because he had known Chambers under another name ("George Crosley" according to Hiss, and "Carl" according to Chambers, although Chambers later allowed that Hiss was possibly correct) and had not yet had a face-to-face meeting with him. When he finally had the face-to-face meeting, he identified him as George Crosley after a physical examination. Who is this unnamed witness? There are many named people who knew nothing of this.

Sure. See this post of mine here. And thanks for the Brandt article.

No, it's a figment of YOUR fertile imagination. I followed your advice and looked through your various newsgroup postings (under various alliases) and found the original Prouty quote, which is a bit, err... differen't.

And even Don Gibson made these same claims at the COPA conference in the 1993-94 timeframe as I recall. Bill, do you remember the audience reaction when Prouty made his anti JFK statements? Were you there or would John Judge have any of the VHS transcripts available? How about when Mark Lane said: "Files? What files? There are no files for the Congress of Freedom!" I have to thank Vicky Wertz for turning me on to The Liberty Lobby and their chosen promulgators of the party line. Prouty made no anti-JFK comments. The quote you have presented to this forum is a fabrication and the original offers you no support. I'm pretty sure the Gibson comments are similiarly fabricated, but I was unable to find anything about it. But considering the source...

He initially denied it because he had known Chambers under a different name and his physical appearance had changed drastically in the interval. Context. I think you'll find that just about all the allegations of interest in the American Communist movement track back to one person.

http://www.prouty.org/fletch4.html

Your quote from Col. Prouty as presented in this thread is a fabrication. I followed your advice and sifted the newsgroups. You presented the quote in a more accurate form a decade ago. "I come from 9 generations of Americans going back to the Mayflower. I don't know when the uhh... Kennedys came over here from Ireland...but the people of Massachusetts sure seemed to like him." [Note: the Mayflower of course landed in Massachussetts.] A user named steve4439 put the quote in context: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...b41dca13652599f

My eyes must have decieved me then, because I'm pretty sure I did read it. Bingo, they weren't refuting the actual, unpublished, article, but an oral presentation, which, if I understand correctly, they did not even attend. Now let's actually address the paper, shall we?

Yeah, they are essentially "refuting" an article they had not even read at the time. It was a preemptive strike. I find their "refutation" weak and facile, particularly their attempt to explain away Gorsky's placing Ales in Mexico while Hiss was in Washington, compare which to Kai and Chervonnaya. Jeff Kisseloff calls it "a quickly assembled, conjectural, truncated, inaccurate summary of Bird and Chervonnaya's findings included in a premature and hostile response to reports of "The Mystery of Ales" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (see "Hiss Was Guilty," History News Network, April 16, 2007), which was posted on the Internet two months before the Bird and Chervonnaya paper was published or even available for review." http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/tanenhausresponse.html By "objective scholars" I assume you mean Allen Weinstein, Bush's Chief Archivist and the man who said of the National Endowment for Democracy, which he helped create, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." He wrote a book almost entirely worthless called "Perjury." Since you are not dealing with any real issues, I will just direct you to some refutations and leave it at that. See here: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/kissel.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/navasky.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/gaps.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/jones.html

Um yeah, and the article you posted also only deals with the Ales issue. If you want to get into all the other fraudulent so-called "evidence" of Hiss' guilt, we can do that. Yeah, academic papers are typically very cautious and measured in their conclusions and use words like "suggest" rather than definitive statements. This is the rule, not the exception. Hardly surprising. Now why don't you actually get around to addressing the evidence in the paper?

Typical tendencious Haynes and Klehr schlock. All of which can be rebutted by simply comparing this article to the Bird/Chervonnaya paper which it attempted to pre-emptively rebut. After studying this matter in some depth, I can say that the entire case against Alger Hiss is one blatant fraud after another and that he is entirely innocent.

[EDIT: I'm cutting out my comments in re: Ferrie, Cubans, and IMSU pre-BoP. Since I don't really have the documents to work with except the excerpts you are giving me and I don't really feel comfortable arguing from that position, I'm not really going to press this particular side issue further.] I used McAuliffe because I had it handy and he crystallized it succinctly. As you note, he was president of the FDC and that quote was based on a conversation with Ferrie himself. What I have not used here is interviews I did for a book. I hope they're less equivocal than McAuliffe. Given one of the sources, I'd need some more confirmation. Just my opinion. Well, that's your prerogative. What could be more solid than an attorney? I asked if a partial confession to a DA'a investigator would be hearsay. He said yes, inadmissible. In the course of the conversation, I said the suspect died. The lawyer said "when?". I said about 3 days later. How did he die? The coroner said it was a stroke, but there were a couple of notes found that seemed to foretell his death. He said THAT could be considered a deathbed confession, if the suspect knew he might die. Would that make it admissible? Under some circumstances, yes. In Louisiana? Yes. (He was an attorney practicing in Louisiana.) I don't know the name of this attorney and I don't know how valid his offhand remarks are. I'm also not even sure if this aspect of La. law existed around Garrison's time as D.A. I can't take this to bank. Why did he wait three days to go loud and public? I don't think you can get interviews on demand from newspapers. Biles cites Davy 191. I have found the quote. You aren't even citing an FBI denial. You are citing the retraction the Justice Department made in June. Now we are back to a single unequivocal FBI statement that says Shaw was investigated in December 1963. Why did the CIA admit to the FBI associations with Shaw, Bringuier and others, but dissemble abut this? You can't pick and choose like that. First, as you yourself should realize, at least 1/3rd of Roman's statement to the FBI is a lie, as I don't think even you question Sergio Arcacha Smith's CIA connections. Second, I don't know where the CIA informed the FBI about Shaw and Bringuier, but if so, this is still interagency communication and should not be put on level with the memos circulating between the top three of the FBI. But not definitive enough to be sure. Yes, but definitive enough to be pretty confident about it. There are two world views about Shaw. One is that he was lying, the other that his accusers were lying. I think in the instances I cited and in others, Shaw is provably lying. The head of the ITM knows and anti-Communist, maybe even worked with him. That proves what? Yeah, an anti-Communist and... racist. And this is not the end of Shaw's connections. Or one could look at Shaw's associations within PERMINDEX and Centro Modiale Commerciale. But he went into much less detail then. Mostly about 'forces'. Yes, he did talk about the forces behind the assassination, but he also discusses concrete details of the events surrounding this from his own files. You know this. "9. When did you first meet David Ferrie? Ans. The summer of 1961" Smith is lying here, or he goofed on the year. He did not "first meet David Ferrie" in the "summer of 1961." According to you, Smith and Ferrie became much more friendly in late April of 1961, but even then, they still knew each other prior to that. EDIT: I've found the relevant excerpt here. It reflects DiEugenio's representation save for the date. Since this is supposed to be Ferrie's first meeting with Arcacha, it could not possibly be in the Summer of 1961. It would of necessity have to take place prior to the Bay of Pigs. There are two options: 1. Arcacha's account of his first meeting with Ferrie is accurate, with the exception of the date. 2. Arcacha is telling a blatant lie about the details of his first meeting with Ferrie (one assumes to cover-up something perhaps more incriminating). I think #1 is most likely. Let the reader decide. So my research is disqualified? I supported and admired Garrison, but came to feel that he made some wrong decisions. One of those was when he started regarding those who disagreed with him as some sort of enemies. I'm disqualified? I don't think that comparing Garrison to Joseph McCarthy speaks to your objectivity, no. Given Escalante's tendency to quote assassination books (Please read his inverview in Furiati) and the absence of a source in the one mention, I'm not comfortable with claiming it as a fact. Certainly del valle was involved in counterrevolutionary activites, but the involvement of Ferrie with del Valle is questionable. Again, how could he have spent 6 months with del Valle but still flown his EAL flights? Why did his roommate not see him disappear for 6 months? The reason you are having trouble with this is because you are conflating Escalante's account with Tendedara's. Escalante does not say that Ferrie spent an entire 6 months with del Valle, merely that he made some flights for del Valle's organization. It's a big difference. He mentions Ferrie's flights in the context of intelligence gathered from infiltration of del Valle's organization. As an example of Escalante's use of other assassination materials, he talks about his knowledge of a Carlos Rocha and mentions that "A DAVID FERRIE investigation of Jim Garrison said he was waiting for a Cuban exile named CARLOS. So we cannot say that this is the same person, but there is a very interesting relation." (link) So he is only using it insofar as it might relate to his own knowledge of Cuban intelligence. In this instance, he explicitly says he can't confirm it, but its "very interesting." Ferrie was involved with the FRD, so he may be regarded as a contact. Yeah, and that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the Bay of Pigs Yes, she did. Do you still think we can trust CIA/FBI documents that were not meant for public eyes? See my comments about Roman and the FBI above. How else might pilots be used in an invasion? Bomb dropping. But all the interview says is that Ferrie acted as a "flying instructor." Ferrie would just be teaching the basic mechanics of flying. Someone else could fill in the rest. I don't think you can train pilots a few hours at a time for an event like this. I think a great deal could be a accomplished in oh, say, a hypothetical situation of 3-4 hour lessons on a Thursday at the air strip over a span of 5-6 weeks (more or less). And I'm pretty sure Ferrie wasn't the only flying instructor the CIA had on hand. I imagine things could be coordinated pretty easily. Not to mention the whole backdrop that Ferrie was not that active before the BoP! The only case you have been able to make is that Ferrie might not have been very active with the FRD pre-BoP. But even if true, this is very different from saying that Ferrie was not very active overall pre-BoP. Training of pilots in Guatemala would not fall under the aegis of FRD. We have Marchetti's information that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the BoP and the Ferrie interview with Ivon that we are currently disputing about. Martens, you recall was cagey about Houma before the Garrison and the Grand Jury. he was not cagey about it in later years. Martens died a few years ago, BTW. Layton Martens has at various times said he was only Ferrie's roommate since November 17, 1963, or that he was never Ferrie's roommate (link). Now, I'm certain he was Ferrie's roommate, and prior to 1963, but would you classify him as a reliable source? So stipulated. he could have borrowed or rented a plane. There's no evidence that he did, but yes, he could have. So, Ferrie's flight to Guatemala isn't really "impossible" like you said earlier. Why do you think Ferrie was a CIA agent? Well, lets see, as an example, E. Carl McNabb/Jim Rose, a CIA pilot, says he went on flights for the CIA with Ferrie and that Ferrie had a higher security clearance than he did. In theory, anything is possible. I'm looking for what we can prove. This is not "in theory." Garrison refers to an interview with Ferrie (almost certainly identical with the "confession" to Ivon) that describes trips to Guatemala for the purpose of training pilots. You brought up some evidence that did not really prove or disprove this. It would be "in theory" if I wasn't basing this on anything; its not some wild speculation. My study will fill in a lot of gaps about Ferrie. Some things about him prove to be true, and are carried forward. Some things do not prove to be true. There is some bad information about him out there, that bounces from book to book. You will find a lot of new information in the book which will support what I think are your beliefs. Be patient, I'm getting there. I just hope its out before Lifton's Oswald book. I'm not attacking Garrison, or DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen. I appreciate the work they've done. I've found some mistakes here and there, and I sometimes disagree with their analysis. So be it. There will be the DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen books presenting one case, the Lambert and other books presenting another, and my book introducing a lot of new stuff, some of which will support one side or the other. Serious researchers will read them all and decide what to believe or not. That's the way it goes. If it's any consolation, my book is NOT an assassination book; It's an attempt to define who Ferrie was, so that others may take the research in different directions. Sometimes it seems that you go out of your way to put Ferrie in a good light. For example, we had a discussion of Ferrie's activites at the ice rink a while ago. You used the latter-day statements of Beauboef and Coffey to show that Ferrie probably didn't talk to Chuck Rolland. The problem with that was that not only did this contradict Chuck Rolland's story, it contradicted Ferrie's own to the FBI within days of the event. But this case carries some strong convictions. I've been raked over the coals by one side for even doing a biography of a "nobody" like Ferrie. Others have gotten angry that I don't agree with some of the accepted wisdom about Ferrie. Yes, I can recall "Jerry" on alt.assassination.jfk making complaints of this nature. I know you get it from both directions. I meant what I said before, and I don't intend it to be condescending in the least: You appear to be a good deal younger than me. I'm impressed by your interest in this (much as I was with Joe Biles) and I encourage you to learn further. Don't just accept what you read in books. Find the original documentation, contact witnesses, try to resolve all the discrepancies. But I recommend some level of historian's disclipline. The goal is truth, not some particular theory (including LN theories, too). That means going where the evidence points, not speculating. If you do this and write your own analysis, I'll buy your book. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for a gentlemanly exchange. Thanks, and I've enjoyed it (although its been time consuming). In the meantime, when mine is published, you, in particular will be surprised at how much you agree with! I hope so.

Double post. Ugh.

It spreads over some area, but here's the relevant stuff: While a member of the Falcon Squadron he joined the Internal Mobile Security Unit (IMSU). The mission of this unit was to "operate as an autonomous an self-sustaining rescue and combat unit in Cuba. This was pre-1961...[shown a picture marked #77,] Irion remembers a man that looked like this man was at one of the training camps with the IMSU. They trained with M1903-A3 bolt action rifles and 22s. Ferrie said that more equipment would be coming from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency through Sergio Arcacha Smith. #77 looked like a man that was from the Cubans based in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs. He is described as 5'8-9", 170-5 lbs, olive comp. well built and good looking man that was to help with training. This training took place at Belle Chasse Naval Station south of New Orleans. The IMSU also trained in Abita Springs north of Lake Ponchartrain. Irion has photos of some of the training but this man is not in them. After the Bay of Pigs Ferrie and the IMSU just faded away but he (Ferrie) started talking abiut the Minutemen helping them out...Irion stated that the training camps he went to were arranged by Ferrie and Smith but they were with North Americans at these camps, not Cuban except for the one man he described from Miami. The contacts that Irion had with Cubans was mostly in raising funds both before and after the Bay of Pigs... I would like to see the excerpts just prior to the last sentence, but its not really needful, since the NODA interview below provides me with everything I need. But there's also this from Irion's NODA interview: Q. Do you recall anything about the Cubans that you saw him with? A. His involvement was always kind of vague. We met a few of the people at the time they were collecting contributions on Canal Street at Elks Place and I think there was one of the the Cubans training with the IMSU unit... Q. Do you know how many Cubans were trained in his Cuban CAP? A. Several Cubans from Miami were here...I don't think they spent any time out there, just weekends and I think they made two or three training trips... Q. How many Cubans trained with him? A. I remember two. I don't remember their names or what they looked like. Q. Two Cubans in this private CAP that he developed? A. The IMSU connection with the Cuban Revolutionary thing was his own project... I have interviewed Irion, and he believes (from pictures) that the Cubans were Julian Buznedo and Carlos Lopez, both of whom came to New Orleans after the Bay of Pigs. Now this IS interesting. Ferrie had a "Cuban CAP," huh? This seems to tie in with Billings' notes about Ferrie and Arcacha trying to cover their pre-Bay of Pigs Cuban training programs as a CAP thing. More on this below. Here's the way it happened: Ferrie organized his Falcon Squadron in October 1960. He volunteered for the FRD in about November 1960, but at that time, the Cubans were standoffish toward Americans, so Ferrie became more involved with the American-focused Friends of Democratic Cuba. In about January 1961, Ferrie recruited his IMSUs from the Falcons, and apparently tried to interest Arcacha in it, with only limited success. After the Bay of Pigs, Arcacha need somebody, and Ferrie was there and willing, and at this time, he became close to Arcacha (April 1961). He continued his excursions with the IMSUs and after Buznedo and Lopez arrived in early May, he brought them to a few IMSU sessions. This was Ferrie's most intense period with the FRD, but after his August arrests, he was ostracized (by October, he was out of the FRD and the Falcons and IMSUs had collapsed.) Alright, this timeline appears to contradict your own data. You say that Julian Buznedo and Carlos Lopez both came to New Orleans after the Bay of Pigs. This is true in the sense that they came to LIVE in New Orleans at Arcacha's house after the Bay of Pigs (which they participated in) (from your Arcacha timeline here). However, Irion has these Cubans coming over for training to New Orleans from Miami on the weekends. Therefore, Buznedo and Lopez must have been training in Ferrie's "Cuban CAP" PRIOR to the Bay of Pigs, before they came to New Orleans to LIVE. Irion has the "Cuban CAP" team running concurrently with his own IMSUs and says one (but only one) of the "Cubans based in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs" (presumably Buznedo or Lopez) trained with them and he also talks about Sergio Arcacha Smith funding the project. So this is still prior to the Bay of Pigs. Also, Irion has the IMSUs "just fad[ing] away" after the Bay of Pigs, which appears to contradict your picture of heightened IMSU activity afterwards. Ferrie's relative inactivity in the Nov60-Apr61 period comes from numerous sources, but here's a quote from Martin McAuliffe of the Friends of Democratic Cuba: He said he was a flier and wanted to train flyers. My impression is that he wasn't allowed to do anything prior to the Bay of Pigs. He wanted to train flyers for the FRD, but it was my impression that he was not accepted at that time. I understand that he became more active later. He says twice that this is "my impression." No real evidence or anything. I assume this is the strongest among your numerous sources, since its the one you choose to cite. If this is the case, I do not place much weight at all on it. McAuliffe, by the way, was "owner of a publicity agency that handled propaganda for Arcacha's exile groups, [he] was listed as president [of the FDC]. McAuliffe would later state that an FDC member asked him if the Friends could use his name on the letterhead. 'Next thing I knew I was down as president of the organization,' he said" (Davy pg. 17). It took me a long time and a lot of research and interviews to nail down the time sequence, but this is it. Actually, it makes little difference: Ferrie was loosely affiliated with the CIA-backed FRD from November 1960-April 1961, and very closely affiliated with it from April 1961-about October 1961 It appears that your timeline is refuted by your own data. I waved it off because I doubt that it happened. Really? John Weitz, an OSS veteran, independently confirms that the picture was real and in the possession of Angleton. Yes and no. There was lot of Shaw investigation, but still MANY interviews related to Ferrie. Which was sorta what I was saying. Again, in the context of what Garrison knew and when he knew it, this was explosive. You have to see the context of his files. I really must. Unfortunately, I'm not really in a position to do see them (school etc.) As I said, I thought it was hearsay, too, until I asked an attorney. Thats the thing. It seems very strained and doesn't ring true. I'd like a solid, verifiable source about this aspect of La. law. How was it loud and public? How was the public to have found out about it? I think the interview with George Lardner just before he died was the vehicle. Too little, too late though. Biles 88: "Clay Shaw, New Orleans businessman, was not investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation during its inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy..." Sorry, Biles' book is one I haven't obtained yet. Just to clarify, when I've referred to his research in the past, its been the stuff on his website. Can you give Biles' citation? If we use that yardstick, what are we to make of Jane Roman's 3/2/67 statement to the FBI (never intended for public eyes) that "CIA has not had any operational interest in any of the following individuals at any time: Sergio Arcacha Smith, David William Ferrie, Gordon Dwane Novel"? And a number of other examples. You seem to be tacitly admitting that you are using the public statement of the FBI. And I think you know that Jane Roman's statements to the FBI about Ferrie, Arcacha, and Novel, is very different from the internal memos circulating in the upper echelons of the FBI. The CIA and FBI are historically antagonistic government organizations that have problems sharing information. Communications between the two of this nature should be judged accordingly (I give it about as much credibility as the public statements of said agencies). No. But can we conclude that it could be nobody else but Shaw? Especially since there is no contemporaneous trace of 1963 interest in him? I think the possibility of it being somebody else besides Shaw is very, very, slim. Interesting conclusion. My point is that Shaw has proven himself to be a xxxx in this and other matters relating to himself. Again, which is in contrast to what others said. Or take Shaw's dubious political associations, such as Alton Oschner, as one example. No, but he made a number of errors from memory in his book. Yeah, in On the Trail of the Assassins, when he was many years removed from the events and does not seem to have had ready access to his own files. A Heritage of Stone is much different however. It was very close to the investigation and trial and he can directly cite the documents. However, DiEugenio, who made mistakes in his writings, and this was one. Arcacha did NOT say on that date that Ferrie walked in "in advance of the Bay of Pigs"; Arcacha said it was "The summer of 1961", which reflects the time when Ferrie was ACTIVE with him. It looks like you are making the mistake. Arcacha couldn't have "said" that it was "The Summer of 1961" because, correct me if I'm wrong, people who are being put through a Polygraph are asked Yes or No questions to which they give "Yes" or "No" answers. I have spoken to Irion and several others who took part in this training. It was not masked Cuban training. DiEugenio was wrong. See above. Quick observation: I have plowed the same ground as DiEugenio, Davy, Mellen, Lambert, etc. I know as much about the New Orleans scene as they do, and probably more about Ferrie. I've obtained every available document about him and interviewed many who knew him. Why do you seem to accept anything DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen say but argue against anything I say? It's a long, complicated book, in which you will find much new material of interest. While some of the prevailing wisdom is right, some of it is wrong, too. It is hard to put this in a few short posts. I dunno, maybe its the fact that you've said that Garrison is sincere in the same sense that Joseph McCarthy was "sincere" in the past (here). But thats just me. Yes, it was. See above. Fabian Escalante was not involved in any of the activities related to DelValle of Ferrie. By his own biography, some time around the time of HSCA, he familiarized himself with all of the published works on the assassination (which, as you know contain some good info and some bad). In reading his book "The Secret War", there is no mention of a delValle-Ferrie link, even though the book chronicles CIA activities against Castro in that period (late 1960). In a similar book by Claudia Furiati in which he is interviewed, he refers repeatedly to "information coming out of the Garrison investigation" or to books like Chuck Giancana's "Double-Cross". On the topic of delValle and Ferrie, this is all he says: In the investigations of District Attorney Jim Garrison, one of the first to investigate the assassination of JFK, the Cuban Eladio del Valle, alias Yito, is mentioned. Yito del Valle was brutally murdered on the same day that David Ferrie died in mysterious circumstances...Immediately after he arrived in exile [in the US], he joined the conspiracies of Carlos Prio and Tony Varona - who were associated with David Ferrie, the pilot they used for their subversive expeditions against Cuba. Then he goes on to make more references to Garrison and to talk about Richard Cain, the Chicago mafia, del Valle resembling one of the shooters mentioned by Roger Craig, finishing: All of this permits us to conclude that...Eladio del Valle particpated in the assassination of Kennedy [as a shooter in DP]. As I said, this guy is admits to being steeped in our own assassination literature and he fails to discriminate between the good stuff and the bad stuff. How do we know the difference between what he is relating from HIS files and what he read somewhere? Absent any direct quotes from his own files, that leaves us with Tendedera. Sorry, still wrong. This does not "leave us with Tendedera." Here is Escalante, at the conference in 1995, speaking strictly from his own knowledge. Transcripts from cuban-exile.com: Now, ELADIO DEL VALLE. He worked for two police services - military intelligence and the traditional police. He was in charge of narcotics. He was also a legislature in the government - a representative. He was from a little town from the south of Havana. He was a captain in the merchant marines. In 1958 he was doing business dealings with SANTOS TRAFFICANTE in a little coastal town south of Havana. There he brought in contraband whose destination was SANTOS TRAFFICANTE. When the revolution triumphed, he went to Miami., ELADIO DEL VALLE went to Miami. He settled in Miami, we don't know the address and he allied himself with ROLANDO MASFERRER and other Batista supporters and they formed an organization called the Anti Communist Cuban Liberation Movement. From that moment on, ELADIO was involved in many project against Cuba. But as I told you yesterday, we managed to penetrate this organization. And we came to know of a lot of projects, efforts, for an invasion of Cuba in secret. In order to provide arms to internal rebel groups, they needed DAVID FERRIE as the pilot on these flights. In 1962. ELADIO DEL VALLE tried to infiltrate Cuba with a commando group of 22 men but their boat had an English key - a little island. In the middle of 1962. Of course, we knew this. I tell you about this, because one of our agents who was one of the people helping to bring this group to Cuba, was a man of very little education. They talked English on many occasions on this little island with DEL VALLE.. DEL VALLE told this person , on many occasions, that Kennedy must be killed to solve the Cuban problem. After that we had another piece of information on ELADIO DEL VALLE. This was offered to us be CUESTA. He told us that ELADIO DEL VALLE was one of the people involved in the assassination plot against Kennedy. As you know, he was taken prisoner and he was very thankful to be taken back - he was blind. (link) Marchetti? He wasn't even in DDP. From Marchetti's interview with Fensterwald, "...this guy Ferrie came up,...and I was given a similiar kind of explanation [as he had been about Shaw], that he's been involved in the Bay of Pigs and been a contract agent or contact at some time" (Davy pg. 304, n. 40) What about the CIA people who have denied that Ferrie was an agent? Like Jane Roman? Jane Roman denied it in a communication to the FBI. So he gets back from an overnight trip, somehow gets to Guatemala, and trains combat pilots (at which he has had no experience) for a few hours, somehow gets back to New Orleans and gets ready for his next EAL flight? Does he get a chance to sleep anywhere in here? And why didn't Layton Martens, who lived with him, know anything about trips to Guatemala in early 1961? No, I really don't see a problem with Ferrie flying over to Guatemala on Saturdays to do extended flying lessons (Ferrie's confession to Ivon does not say he trained "combat pilots"; read it carefully). According to this site, it is only 2 hours and 30 minutes of flight from Miami to Guatemala. New Orleans is not far from Miami and I don't imagine the flight time would be drastically different. As for Martens, I think he had more than a few secrets he's hiding. He was actually involved in this sort of activity, as evidence by the Houma burglarly/weapons transfer. Also, Layton Martens has at various times said he was only Ferrie's roommate since November 17, 1963, or that he was never Ferrie's roommate (link). Would you classify him as a reliable source? He was a pilot with many pilot friends. Yes, so he had many planes to borrow from, assuming he borrowed a plane. Anything "could" have happened. Whe are trying to find what DID hapen. I'm pretty sure the CIA likes to keep the missions of its operatives and agents secret. I'm sure there are stratagems that CIA pilots use to cover for their activities and I wouldn't expect differently. I offered one possibility that would really not be hard or difficult to do at all. I think she saw the similarity to Southern Air Transport and made an assumption. Or perhaps she has hard evidence, we'll just have to wait for the next edition. This refers to Ferrie's 1963 trips to Guatemala. It is not neutral evidence when one claims to have made two trips, is supported by flight records, and mails correspondence that supports what he claimed he did there. And again, why did his roommates not notice any other trips? But none of this precludes other trips. I don't see your point.

Yes, I've seen you use this quote before. However, I'd like to see the full context. It seems as though Irion could be stating "there were Cubans at the other camps but... [begin excerpt] not the ones I went to [trained at or had personal knowledge of]." This is quite obviously not the full extent of the interview as it relates to Belle Chasse training. Could you provide the additional context? In any case, like I said, whether they were "Cubans" or "North Americans," this venture was still organized jointly by both Sergio Arcacha Smith and David Ferrie prior to the Bay of Pigs and thus attests to an earlier and stronger relationship between the two.

Double post.

Somehow we're not communicating on this. I stipulate that the anti-Garrison parties did join forces after early 1967. But on the Dulles matter, Novel sent him some material. Di Dulles ever reciprocate the friendliness? Dulles kept the news clippings to himself and forwarded the cover letter to Houston. I would classify this as "positive," a rather "friendly" reaction. Owen, I've met Novel and people who knew him, and it goes to the issue of his credibility. I'll discuss it by email or you can read it in my book. There are reasons to be less than certain about his claims. I'm aware that Novel is a nut (or at least acts like one, I should say). But he has many connections to certain characters and he has demonstrated knowledge of certain *things* that he shouldn't have, such as the Hoover sex pictures, which you waved off by referring to your opinion and your various interviews, without specifying details. Not true. There was much investigation of Ferrie by NODA after his death, as shown by NODA files. I don't have access to the NODA files, but I assume that, while Ferrie was still investigated, most of the attention shifted to Shaw. By February 20, 1967? No. Garrison suspected Ferrie had CIA connections, but had no other evidence of it by February 20. This would be considered hard evidence. "Hard evidence" yes, but not really a new lead. Look at it in context. I find no other instance of any such thing being kept in confidence. Garrison shared amny things with many people - why not this? What about it was so secretive? And if it was important enough to be kept secret 1967-9, it was important enough to be revealed at the trial. At one point, Bethell said he didn't see much in the files connecting Ferrie to Oswald, but nobody suggested that that there was any secret material that satified this deficiency. From a historical point of view, the absence of any reference to this material until Heritage should raise questions. This is not a case of advocating for Garrison or attacking him: It is a matter of trying to determine if this genuinely happened. While it does not give many new leads, it is still an important memo, which Garrison and Ivon would want to keep under wraps. And there were many leakers and crooks (*cough* Bethell *cough*). And again, about the trial, I am not convinced that this death bed thing is being presented accurately. It still looks like hearsay evidence that is being stretched to fit the definition of a "deathbed confession." Garrison did want to keep mention of the CIA to a minimum in the trial. There probably would be a "percieved conflict of interest." I can't follow the logic of that. Ivon says Ferrie is fearful for his life. Then Ferrie confesses to Ivon. Shouldn't he then have been MORE fearful of his life??? What you suggest only makes sense if Ferrie truly believed he was innocent. Yes, he should be more fearful of his life. Which is why a loud and public shift to the SBT could be interpreted as a "signal" he was trying to send ("See? I'm safe, don't kill me!"). Thanks. After I asked this question, I looked it up in Biles's book and found it (I can't find Davy right now). I stipulate that I was wrong. deLoach did say this. So we are faced with two FBI statements, one saying he was investigated, and another saying he wasn't. Which one saying he wasn't investigated? I'd like you to quote this. Are you talking about *public* statements? The FBI did make a *public statement* that it didn't investigate Shaw after Clark's disclosure. If this is what you refer to, in my considered opinion, this is worthless. As a rule, the internal statements of government agencies are always more reliable than the public ones. We have two FBI statements. He was investigated, he wasn't investigated. They contradict. Despite mountains of FBI documents released, there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was investigated. How is it it obvious which FBI statement is accurate and which is not? It seems to me that we have to obtain some contemporaneous evidence to be sure. Again, where and what is this denial statement? And also denies it. When, where, what? And who would have been the SOURCE of any 1963 allegation relating to Shaw? Andrews? Russo? It couldn't have been Andrews because he never told the FBI WHO Bertrand was. Nor could it have been Russo, because he only came forward much latter by his own account. DeLoach says it is "as a result of several parties furnishing information." "Obviously"? How many many names appear in FBI files related to the assassination? Can we rule them all out? I don't know how many names appear, honestly, I'm not keeping track, but I don't imagine it would be too many after only about two weeks into the investigation. And the list needs to be narrowed down to those named who hail from New Orleans. And those who took a Southern Pacific train to San Francisco in the recent past. Can you offer a candidate who better fits the data? So it's speculation, not an established fact. Of course its speculation, but an entirely reasonable one that does not require any sort of strained logic. I think Joan Mellen was wrong to declare that this related to Shaw. In light of everything, Mellen's declaration makes perfect sense. In contrast to Shaw's own statements about Kennedy, and the statements of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter. Were they all lying? Since Shaw also seemed to have trouble remembering when and where he first heard about Kennedy's assassination I would have to say yes, he is lying. I've also heard about statements "of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter" but have not seen them, aside from casual acquaintances and people he did business with. Maybe you could help. There is the information from Carroll Thomas, funeral home director who did the arrangements for the funeral of Shaw's father and close personal friend of Shaw, however. He told the FBI (not Garrison) that Shaw knew Ferrie but that he could not imagine why Shaw would hang around with a communist like Oswald, since "Shaw was always politically conservative." But your speculation doesn't answer my question. The Jimmy Johnson interviews DID surface later. The Ivon interview did not. Yes, but these interviews specifically? Mellen does use the Johnson material, but it is different from the document Garrison refers to. To me, all this is irrelevant, Garrison, as you point out, refers to a specific interview at a specific time as if it where something he had in his possession. I have no reason to believe Garrison is a xxxx who fabricates documents. Not an error. The "front channel" was for memos to go into the files. This one did not go into the files. it was my characterization of this as a back channel. Fair enough. Actually, he said it was not typed as a report, just handwritten notes. I believe this still qualifies as a NODA interview with a date. And it is certainly still a document. He indicated that he first became active in 1960. Could you quote from this letter? I'd like to know what that is. My information is to the contrary. From DiEugenio's Rose Cheramie article: Smith was also close to Garrison's prime suspect, David Ferrie. In a polygraph test taken in Dallas on March 8, 1967, Smith admitted that Ferrie walked into his office and asked to train Cubans in advance of the Bay of Pigs. In the notes of reporter Dick Billings, dated 2/21/67, he writes that Ferrie and Smith helped train the Bay of Pigs invasion force with M-1 rifles and they masked the training as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol. But just in case, they were ready to produce an official who would testify that it was CIA sponsored. 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. In any case, the relationship of Ferrie and Arcacha certainly wasn't cold prior to the Bay of Pigs. The delValle material is wrong. It all stems from a Diego Gonzales Tendedera article which has Ferrie and delValle together nearly every day IN MIAMI in late 1960. Not likely, according to Ferrie's flight records. And Escalante is relying on the Tendedera article. I am not relying on the Tendedera article (which, while reflecting a certain level of truth, seems to be exagerated). Escalante bases his information on intelligence from the infiltration of del Valle's Anti-Communist Cuban Liberation Movement. He does NOT base his information on Tendedera. He has Ferrie only making "some flights" for del Valle. Who was not involved with Ferrie, only repeating what somebody told him in 1969. Yeah, a CIA somebody. Sun-Mon, Tue-Wed, Friday. But those were his main scheduled trips. He also made other runs in between. So, that would presumably leave him Thursdays and Saturdays (and perhaps much of Sunday). It would be helpful also if you gave the hours Ferrie worked for Eastern. He had access to several plane, but which one do you reference? You had earlier mentioned that he had access to a friend's plane. But now that you say he had access to several, I'll answer "any one of them, take your pick." But the mileage indicator would cause problems. And there would be fuel receipts and takeoff/landing clearances. 1. Do you have access to Ferrie's plane to check the mileage indicator? 2. Who even keeps fuel receipts around anyway? 3. Who says these were authorized takeoffs/landings? And where would one find record of said clearances assuming this to be the case? Alternatively, Ferrie could have covered for real CIA-related flights with fake flights in his log book. First of all, Ferrie's connection with Southcentral was in 1966, not pre-Bay of Pigs. Second, Joan Mellen is wrong about the airline. Southcentral Air Lines was originally Space Air Freight, chartered by Charles Wendorf and Jacob Nastasi. It was changed to Southcentral Air Lines on June 22, 1966, but had trouble being accepted by the FAA. Ferrie was dismissed on July 23, 1966 (interestingly, the date Ferrie hand-wrote his last will). There is NO EVIDENCE that Southcentral had anything to do with the CIA, much less being a proprietary. Mellen was wrong to make this claim. That was just my confusion. Mellen includes this in a list of Ferrie's CIA links, but doesn't say it was pre-Bay of Pigs. She may well have evidence of the CIA ties of Southcentral/Space Air, but who knows. Anyway... There are records of two, and he claimed to have made two. So this is really neutral evidence, then. Ferrie claimed to have made two. Did he rule out others? And if he did, might not he have reason not to mention what is presumably CIA activity in written letters?

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. 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, In 1967, sure. But why did the 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. 2. The confession does not give any new leads, it just confirms stuff that Garrison's office had uncovered previously. 3. Garrison and Ivon may have kept it to themselves. Who knows? 4. Garrison references the interview quite specifically in A Heritage of Stone in 1967. 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. 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: 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. 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: 1. The FBI says it investigated Shaw in December 1963 in relation to the assassination. 2. Hoover's request is from December 1963. 3. The request obviously relates to the assassination (Dallas) and the New Orleans aspect specifically. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. Also, you made two errors. 1. Ivon did not use a back channel, he delivered the memo directly to Garrison. 2. Ivon never told Mellen there was no document. 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. 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). 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. Ferrie's involvement with the Bay of Pigs is also confirmed by Victor Marchetti. 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. 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. 2. In fact, he had ready access to a friend's plane. 3. Ferrie may not have included certain things in his log books (such as CIA missions, one would presume), assuming he used the Stinson. 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. 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? 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.

Thanks for the full reference, Robert.

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"). 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).

DOUBLE POST (again) Sorry.

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: Miller then began serving as a courier between Shaw's lawyers and the CIA. Here is what he wrote to Lansdale on May 31st: He went on to make two more such deliveries. As for Novel and Lawrence Houston, the fact that Allen Dulles was the go between says it all. Case closed. 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. 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?). See, the 19th is the day that Ferrie requested protection from Garrison. Mellen recounts the scene as follows: Ivon got in touch with Garrison and Garrison got Ferrie a room in the Fontainebleau. Under an alias. It is here, according to Ivon, that Ferrie made his partial confession. In context, this makes much more sense than a conversion to the single bullet theory. Ferrie did start supporting the SBT AFTER fleeing from the Fontainebleau. 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. 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. 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). Speaking of Shaw's trip to San Francisco, this has much bearing on the honesty and character of Clay Shaw. I quote Davy here: What did J. Monroe Sullivan dispute? Let's hear it from Bill Turner: That about says it all, doesn't it? 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.

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.

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. 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). 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. 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.