Owen Parsons

DOUBLE POST (again) Sorry.

The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly.

There is a great deal of evidence of Novel's connections to the CIA. One example (among many) comes from Jim DiEugenio's article, "The Obstruction of Garrison," printed in The Assassinations. The following excerpt may be found on pg. 42:

One of the most curious comments made by Novel while he was ensconsed in Columbus evading Garrison's subpoena occured in February of 1968. He told a reporter in response to Garrison's subpoena that he would "wait and see what Mr. Dulles does." (Allen Dulles had been called by Garrison around the same time.) Most people could not fathom what this curious comment could mean; others had just cast it off as irresponsible drivel from the loquacious Novel. It now is revealed that Novel was telling the truth: Allen Dulles was in contact with Novel and was forwarding material from him to the CIA. [emphasis mine] When Miller came to Novel's aid and got an Ohio court to reject Garrison's subpoena, Novel forwarded a press clipping on the victory to the former CIA Director, and noted that Dulles himself could take advantage of the legal precedent to avoid Garrison's subpoena. This is what probably was meant by Novel's "wait and see" comment, quoted above. Dulles then forwarded Novel's cover letter to Lawrence Houston, keeping the enclosed clippings for himself.

Do you have a print source on this?

On what? What he told to Weisberg? Weisberg recounted this to Dave Reitzes (here) and Joan Mellen (see pg. 197 of her book and the accompanying footnote).

What do we make of the autopsist who was certain it was a stroke, and saw evidence of prior bleeds?

Our own Greg Parker made a great deal of very interesting posts on Ferrie's death in alt.conspiracy.jfk advancing a very credible and persuasive case for the Proloid theory a few years back. Here are some of the things he writes:

And what about those "symptoms" described by Lambert? "Physically ill"; "feeble steps"; "barely audible speech"; "unsteady breathing"; "severe headaches". Are any of these associated with a "bleed" from a berry aneurysm? Yes...or at least vomiting, weakness and headaches... with those headaches, typically described "as the worst headache of my life". It it just about inconceivable that Ferrie... if these bleeds occurred, did not seek treatment. The most widely used clinical method for grading the clinical severity is the Hunt and Hess scale: Grade 0 - Unruptured aneurysm; Grade 1 - Asymptomatic or minimal headache and slight nuchal rigidity (stiff neck); Grade 1A - No acute meningeal or brain reaction but with fixed neurologic deficit; Grade 2 - Moderate-to-severe headache, nuchal rigidity, no neurologic deficit other than cranial nerve palsy; Grade 3 - Drowsiness, confusion, or mild focal deficit; Grade 4 - Stupor, moderate-to-severe hemiparesis (weakness), possible early decerebrate rigidity and vegetative disturbances; Grade 5 - Deep coma, decerebrate rigidity, and moribund appearance. It seems then that ***if*** Snyder was correct, then Ferrie had to be in Grade 3 or 4.... BUT... again I ask... how does that square with the description given by those "others", including Lardner? Apart from anything else... Ferrie would have had great difficulty staying awake untill 4:00am... Could it be that Ferrie was well or near death as needed by certain researchers?

So how accurate is this? Again referring to Dr Soliman at www.emedicine.com/med/topic3468.htm "Ruptured aneurysms that are not operated on have a very high risk of rebleeding after the initial hemorrhage has occurred. The risk is estimated at 20-50% in the first 2 weeks, and such rebleeding carries a mortality rate of nearly 85%." So... I accept Welsh here as being accurate. The problem with the Lambert/Reitzes scenario is Lardner and those "others". If, as stated, Ferrie was "feeble" and suffering debilitating headaches in the days leading up his death, it is unlikely in the extreme he could have recovered to the extent of being in a "combative mood"... let alone be able to keep talking until 4:00am without interim medical intervention. This is because the weakness (feebleness) would be the result of the aneurysm being compressed against a nerve, or a clot blocking the supply of blood. But what about that scar tissue described by Dr Welsh... isn't that proof? Yes... proof that Ferrie had one small bleed... the fact that a scar was present though, actually shows this small bleed healed over, and therefore this particular one could have been much older than two weeks. Moreover, such small bleeds are not uncommon, and can result from hypertension, trauma, tumour or infection, as well as a berry aneurysm - though a berry aneurysm will more often cause massive bleeding...

If Ferrie had been having severe headaches for much of his life, and these were being caused by bleeds in the brain, he would have been dead long before 1967. It is also unlikely in the extreme that he would not have sought medical attention for them, given that all the evidence suggest these types of headaches (from bleeds) are excruciating beyond belief. Had he sought such medical attention... it is again unlikely a proper diagnosis would not have been made, given his known hypertension, stressful lifestyle, and location of the ache. The second assertion is difficult to comment on without access to the full Coroner's report. It is unclear from the comments made by Welsh to Lambert regarding a prior bleed ("Welsh told her that microscopic slides of Ferrie's brain tissue indicated that in addition to blood vessel perforating, there was "scar tissue indicating that Ferrie had had another bleed, a small one, previously . . . at least one or two of them at least two weeks before he died.") came from the autopsy, or much later examination of the brain. If it came from the autopsy... why would Lambert need to be told about by Welsh when she could read it and quote direct from that report? If it was NOT in the report (ie... examination of the brain tissue as described above was NOT done at autopsy)... then any claims of a thorough examination of Ferrie's corpse go out the window.

But the nature of the alleged comments was sensational, and could have "made" his case. It was tantamount to a deathbed confession to a cop. The fact that this didn't come out until so much later, and that there is not trace of it in the files makes me wonder. So many other things are recorded in memos. But this is just my opinion.

I don't think it would have "made" his case at all. Rather, it would look awfully convenient (for Garrison) if Garrison trotted out Ivon to recount the self-incriminating things he said that Ferrie had said to him. Ivon may have been a cop, but he was still on Garrison's team.

When you look at the Ivon conversation in chronological context, Ferrie 1) denied all, 2) told all to Ivon, and 3) denied all again. On the 20th, he was planning a lawsuit against Garrison and Martin, telling Bringuier he was not involved in the assasination, visiting the FBI and denying all. On the 21st, he said much the same to Pena, Snyder and Lardner. It just seems odd that this happened in between all his denials. Hey, we have his NODA interview from the 18th (with Ivon and Sciambra) and he was denying all then, too. It just seems anomalous.

It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In the NODA interview, Ferrie pretty strongly hints at a broader conspiracy and he actually asked Garrison's people for protection because he feared for his life. Ferrie only started up on his previous spiel of Garrison trying to frame him after he had fled from the very protection (at the Fontainbleu Motel) that Garrison had given him. It seems to me like he was trying to send a strong message with this, namely that he'd be holding to the line from here on out.

But even his wording quoted here shows that he saw it as some horrible thing that came out of left field. Thus, I can't see him being too casual about dropping the alias.

The alias primarily centered around Shaw's homosexual identity. Even the Andrews call uses this persona, as it was under the alias Clay Bertrand that he sent the "gay kids" over to Andrews for legal aid. It does not center primarily around his assassination activities and he probably didn't associate it much with the assassination.

I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there?

Released records no, but then there are lots of records the government chooses not to release. I think the FBI knows who it investigated and when.

DOUBLE POST, SEE ABOVE

Again, though, wouldn't you expect a guy of Shaw's ability, even drunk and tired, to be aware of the idiocy of giving the whole game away to a complete stranger?

People do all sorts of really stupid things when they are drunk/tired. Still, Shaw did very little talking and Russo himself says that he was in and out of the apartment during the conversation.

If Shaw was the conspirator who called Andrews, one presumes he would be interested in what Andrews had to say to the FBI and WC. Wouldn't SOMEONE who read the WC materials have called Shaw and said "Guess who the WC was looking for...?"

There is a possibility of this, but then, the matter was assumed to be settled and of little interest. Both the government and the media were fully behind the WC no conspiracy verdict and the FBI, in those very reports, had dismissed Dean Andrews' story as a drug-induced fantasy.

I'm just wondering what you base this supposition on. Do you have any other examples of such arrogance?

Gordon Novel comes readily to mind.

Are you saying there are no other possible reasons? I would dispute that.

I suppose some other explanation can always be contrived, but I think its the only good one. Eugene Davis (who Andrews said was Bertrand at some point) would have no reason to make this call. Nor does it fit with a publicity stunt of some kind. Andrews only contacted the authorities after Oswald had been shot to say he had seen Oswald on three occasions, thinking his information would be useful. He didn't mention then that he had been asked to represent Oswald.

But he changed it in 1963, then reverted to it in 1964, then changed it again, reverted to it in 1966, played "can't say he is/ain't" in 1967, then finally changed to the story he went to his grave with. It's hard to fit your theory into that chronology.

His "change" in 1963, so far as I can see, is saying that he could have dreamed it up under sedation as the FBI suggested (in contradiction to the evidence it had collected). His descriptions of Bertrand got fuzzier and fuzzier after this. Later he would say that he made it up for attention (if I remember correctly) and/or that it was Eugene Davis. This, one assumes, is when the death threats from D.C. really kicked in (not MY theory, this is what Andrews told to Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Anthony Summers). The story he went to his grave with is apparently that Shaw and Bertrand are the same and that the call is real, as he told Weisberg.

How did the CIA cause him to have a burst aneurysm?

There are many ways you can go about this. Let's see what Dimitri Contostavlos M.D. has to say about Ferrie's death. What follows is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Richard A. Sprague:

In 1969 I wrote to Jim Garrison of New Orleans to inform him about

a theory which I had developed concerning the death of David Ferrie, one

of Oswald's circle of acquaintances who died suddenly on the eve of his

official questioning by Garrison's investigators. After some confusion,

during which it was originally alleged that he had committed suicide by

poisoning, a pathologist ruled that the cause of death was subarachnoid

hemorrhage. At the time of my communication Garrison was preoccupied

with getting re-elected, and may have passed me off as just another crank

or he may have checked out my theory and ruled it out; in any case I got

no response to the letter or to a telphone call which his secretary

answered.

The cause of my concern in this case is that, although fatal

subarachnoid hemorrhage (a bleeding into one of the spaces around the

brain) is usually due to natural causes, namely rupture of aneurysm or

other arterial abnormality, it is recognized by Forensic Pathologists

as occuring in certain forms of blunt trauma. In the year prior to my

communication to Garrison, I had encountered while working in Dade County,

Florida, 3 cases of this condition all resulting from punches or karate

blows to the side of the neck and had demonstrated for the first time the

exact site and nature of the injury. My scientific paper on this subject

was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

and resulted in widespread recognition of the lesion and in a number of

additional published case reports.

It should be emphasized that the injury may be occult, manifesting

only as the brain hemorrhage which may be, and to my certain knowledge has

been in the past, labeled as a stroke due to normal causes. The New Orleans

district is served, or was during the period in question, by a coroner

system, with autopsies performed by hospital pathologists who are usually

not experienced enough in the pathology and investigation of trauma cases. It

is for these reasons that I became concerned that possibly a homicide had

been missed in the Ferrie case, particularly in view of the timing of his

death at such a critical moment during the Kennedy assassination investigation.

The injury involves the fracture of a small bone in the neck, and

may therefore be detected in the skeleton many years after death. Provided

that the body has not been cremated or buried at sea, the deceased can be

exhumed for reexamination. (link)

For the benefit of others, Lou Ivon claimed in the early 90s that Ferrie all but confessed to him on Feb 19-20, 1967. I have a few problems with that: If he DID confess, he was immediately back to denial the very next day. Also, I wonder why THIS important conversation, among all others, appears nowhere in the Garrison documents, and why it wasn't used in court. (Lawyers tell me that it would qualify in Louisiana as a deathbed confession.)

"So there would be no leak, Ivon decided not to have his report typed by an office secretary but to give Jim Garrison his handwritten notes directly." (Mellen 105) Mellen notes that these notes have vanished. Partial corroboration of this comes from Jim Garrison himself in OTTA, pg 376, where he writes that many of his notes were stolen.

As for why it wasn't used in court, its not hard to see why, for me at least. For such a sensational piece of evidence against Ferrie, I think Garrison would want a source beyond the word of one of his assistant D.A.s to present to the Jury. His other witnesses had been pilloried enough. On a minor point, Garrison wanted to avoid bringing the CIA (which figures in the confession) into the case, as he felt that to the Jury this would seem like "talking about UFOs."

Then why did Ferrie deny all until his death?

Are you referring to Ferrie's final interview with George Lardner in which he says that he and Oswald were in different CAP units and that he and his buddies went "goose hunting" on the weekend of the assassination? Ferrie would of course have an interest in sending a different signal to the press.

You don't think it represents how he perceived things at that time? Why?

I think the first three paragraphs sum it up well:

And so it begins... this Journal which is to be a record of the most horrifying, unbelievable, nightmarish experience through which I have ever lived. March the first will be certainly the great day in my life. That water shed from which all events must be dated before and after. For it was on March 1 that I was arrested "for conspiring with others to murder the President, John F. Kennedy."

Even as look at the words now it seems absolutely unbelievable that such a thing could come about. But it has, and it is important that I try to set down for myself and possibly others, the Kafkaesque horror which began on this date.

But, when the mind is numbed with horror, the heart frozen with apprehension, where does one find words to describe that which is almost indescribable? (link)

He explicitly says that he is writing this not only for himself but "possibly others." All these melodramatic adjectives he uses I find to be quite overdone; they have very little to do with the reality of how Garrison conducted his case and I think Shaw knows this. Its a literary production (and not a very good one) with an audience in mind. It is also written on a type-writer, which is not suggestive of intimacy.

As I read the FBI/DoJ traffic from 1967, it was a misunderstanding, and I don't think Bill or Joan proved otherwise.

I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967:

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw.

[Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H.

This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book.

There is a case to be made that he did, and that he didn't sign it. Lacking certainty, I still find it an incredibly stupid thing to do. (Sorry, I think I deleted your comment by mistake.)

Stupid thing to do or not, I think all the evidence leads to one, and only one, conclusion. Reitzes tried to make a case that Shaw didn't sign it, and Biles pretty much destroyed it.

But the absence of awareness of it at least raises the possibility that it was added later.

Maybe, but the point is moot.

BTW, thanks for a civil discussion on the evidence. This is the way it should be!

You're welcome, and I agree.

I truly find it difficult to believe that Shaw, if he was the wily conspirator some believe him to have been, could have been so stupid as to incriminate himself repeatedly. This is a man who is believed to have successfully pulled off a presidential assassination.

I don't think many people believe it was Shaw himself who "pulled off a presidential assassination," which would indeed require him to be a very clever person. He was just one player in a larger conspiracy.

He incriminates himself by plotting the assassination in front of a total stranger, Perry Raymond Russo.

This incident occurred very late in to the night (when peoples' judgements are perhaps not so good) in the context of a party that had mostly dispersed. Russo described the conversation as being like a "bull session" at the trial; not really a planning session, per se.

Any conspirator would presumably have shown some interest in checking to see if the Warren Commission mentioned their name, and in fact the WC did mention the mysterious Clay Bertrand. So he "playfully" signs the alias in the Eastern Air Lines guest book.

Clay Bertrand is only mentioned in one of the many, many, volumes of supporting evidence, not the main report. I do not know when or how Shaw would find the time or interest to dig through all the volumes just to make sure his alias doesn't pop up. The conspirators (I would not class Shaw as a major figure among these) were probably pretty confident that they were able to foist one on the American people with the WC, and the media was very active in supporting the WC conclusions. So, for these people, the case has been "closed" quite satisfactorily and there isn't much reason to worry anymore.

As for the guestbook, I will take the testimony of the two people who witnessed Shaw signing it or saw him in the VIP room that day (one of which denied knowledge to Garrison's people but told the real story to his CIA employers) and expert testimony of the documents analyst who wasn't involved in framing Bruno Hauptmann and wasn't a good buddy of J. Edgar Hoover (which apply to Team Shaw's expert) as pretty much definitive. Reasons can be offered as to why Shaw signed the book, but I don't think its needful since the weight of the evidence against Shaw is already so heavy.

Shaw had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. What makes you think he was in an arrogant mood?

Because these people think they're teflon, which, in view of the trial outcome and WC (among many other things), is probably close to the truth. Shaw most likely knew the CIA wouldn't let him out to dry, and they didn't.

What are we to make of Dean Andrews? He claimed that he told a tale, then recanted it. How are we to know which of his statements to believe?

Dean Andrews' original story is more accurate because there are independent witnesses (three of them) to confirm it. Dean Andrews wouldn't have called Eva Springer from the hospital in regards to representing Oswald on behalf of Bertrand at 4:00 on the 23rd if the call was something he made up. Dean Andrews had a good reason to change his story (namely, death threats from "Washington D.C." as he told Mark Lane).

But on what basis can we presume arrogance on his part? He had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. To read his diary and the accounts of lawyer Panzeca, he regarded it as a very serious matter. His alleged co-conspirator David Ferrie doesn't seem to have been bailed out by the CIA.

You're right. Ferrie wasn't bailed out by the CIA; in all probability he was murdered by them. However, Ferrie was probably not regarded as as much of a team player as Shaw, which is demonstrated by his confession to Ivon, although I am aware you won't credit that. Ferrie wasn't "one of the boys" and couldn't be relied upon. Besides that, the CIA would probably not risk another assassination so soon after Ferrie and in the context of Garrison's investigation. BTW, having read Shaw's diary, I don't regard it as a serious document. But that's just my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.

If Clark ever did say this, that would be incorrect, as the FBI's own memos, reprinted in Davy's book, show (i.e. that Shaw's name came up in connection to the assassination in 1963 and this is what Clark was told). However, Clark has come clean about this issue. See Mellen pg. 128-9.

With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.

That's because you want to see it like that, but there is not a great deal of wiggle room, IMO. Mellen has only further solidified this (DiEugenio calls her work here "quite solid").

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

Because Garrison's team wasn't aware of the booking card at the time and Habighorst wasn't aware of its significance. In any case, this is irrelevant, because it is conclusively not an ad hoc forgery.

I have no need to fabricate anything. Habighorst did not testify at the preliminary hearing in 1967.

http://www.jfk-online.com/pre01hayward.html

As far as I know, he first came up with his story about the fingerprint card in 1969.

No, the story was first made public in 1968, whereupon it was verified by police chief Giarusso. Five copies of the card were made; one was kept by the NOPD, one was sent to the FBI, and one was sent to the state police. Officers Habighorst and Millet each kept a copy. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

I doubt if many researchers believe that Dean Andrews was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

You are right, probably no researcher believes that. This is a straw man that you have built.

As for why Shaw was stupid enough to give his alias to Habighorst... The alias and Shaw's use of it (for which there is abundant evidence beyond the booking sheet, detailed by both Davy and Mellen) was primarily for his homosexual activities and Dean Andrews' story, buried as it was in the many volumes of Warren Commission exhibits, does not appear to have been common knowledge in New Orleans. Garrison only became aware of it by actually going through the 26 volumes. Shaw doesn't strike me as a particularly clever man, IMO, but who knows. In addition, there is the precedent of the VIP room incident (see here).

Beyond that, however, the theory of the Shaw defense team isn't credible. The theory was that Habighorst had supposedly copied the alias off the Arrest Register during Shaw's processing, as was sometimes done in the NOPD. The Arrest Register, in turn, typically uses information copied from the Field Arrest Report.

Now:

1. Lou Ivon testified that he had only filled out the papers, which included the Field Arrest Report, after turning Shaw over to Central Lockup. [1] After dropping Shaw off with Habighorst, Ivon filled out the paper work. [2] This agrees with Habighorst's statement that he only viewed the Report sometime after booking Shaw. Captain Louis Carole, consistent with this, testified that it is uncommon, but not unknown and unusual, for the Field Arrest Report to be filled out after the arrestee is turned over to Central Lockup. [3] Habighorst expedited the process by questioning Shaw and taking the information down because the Arrest Register had not yet arrived. [4]

2. In any case, the Arrest Register did not in fact include the alias, as the blue copy of the Arrest Register shows and as even Shaw's lawyer Wegmann [5] and Clay Shaw himself confirmed. [6] So, Habighorst, even if he did have the Register before filling out the booking sheet, would not have been able to obtain the alias from it, regardless of which time line is correct, Shaw's or Habighorst's. In addition the Field Arrest Report is not sent to the Fingerprinting Department (which would be where Habighorst was), so Habighorst could not somehow have obtained the alias from that. [7]

3. Shaw himself actually said that Habighorst (who, as Robert Charles-Dunne points out, received three letters of commendation a year for his work) asked him NO questions whatsoever [8], which contradicts even Sgt. Butzman's foggy and vague memories. [9]

4. Shaw signing a blank booking card, as alleged, would not have been standard procedure. "A police information officer said the directions in the Manual of Procedure 'indicate' by the order in which the words appear, that all cards should be typed first and then signed by the arrested. He said this is 'indicated' twice on page 227 of section 9 in the manual, and this is the procedure that has been followed by officers." [10]

Wrong. Garrison prosecuted Dean Andrews and obtined a perjury conviction. Mark Lane bragged about it in his pro-Garrison book "A Citizen's Dissent". The conviction was eventually thrown out years later, but in the meantime Dean Andrew's career had been destroyed and along with it his ability to support his large family (I think Andrews had seven or eight kids).

Score one for Jim Garrison.

Of course I know Garrison won a perjury conviction against Andrews (because he had, in fact, committed perjury). The conviction was "thrown out" because Garrison was concerned about Andrews' health. The Supreme Court remanded the conviction to Garrison's office and Garrison himself threw it out. This is simply not "persecution."

Of course Garrison eventually recognized the inevitable and eventually supported the overturning of Andrew's conviction. But that was too little and too late. Garrison had already abused his power to destroy the life of a good man.

Garrison didn't "recognize the inevitable." Rather, it was Andrews' lawyers who did. The appeal of Andrews' conviction had already been lost in the lower courts, so they approached Garrison, who signed the remand out of the goodness of his heart (as corny as that sounds).

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 29 2006, 08:49 AM)

Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???).

Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself?

Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

The officer in question went by the salubrious name of Aloyisius Habighorst. The trial judge excluded his testimony on Constitutional grounds, but the judge knew Habighorst and his family well. Recall that Garrison had produced his case two years earlier at the preliminary hearing, so Habighorst had ample time to know what was going on. There is such a thing as a crooked cop (otherwise we would not be here), and the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could tell the prosecution and the world's press: " I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

I don't believe him either, not for a cotton-pickin' minute.

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record?

If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

I've gone over this with Mr. Carroll before. I will just add that not even Shaw's defense time could argue, as Carroll seems to be doing now, that Habighorst had fabricated the booking sheet (just that he had obtained the information for the card from some source other than Shaw himself, and that Shaw had signed a blank booking sheet ). NOPD chief Giarrusso, a political opponent of Garrison, has verified it as authentic in 1968 (see here).

When I was hospitalized for pneumonia I used the telephone also, but I cannot swear that I was able to make rational decisions at that time.

Dean Andrews' doctor J.D. Andrews said that he did not believe it was possible for Dean Andrews to make phone calls with the level of sedation Andrews' was under (here). Therefore, it follows Andrews was not sedated at the time, consistent with the medical records. Dr. Andrews, btw, was the the one who authorized the hospital librarian to furnish the medical records for the 23rd.

In summary, I just do not see anything sinister about Dean Andrews, unless we consider it sinister that he was willing to defend Lee Oswald, and I think that Garrison's persecution of Dean Andrews was an abuse of power.

I don't think anyone has implied anything overtly "sinister" about Andrews. There was something sinister about the call he received, however. And Garrison didn't persecute Andrews; in fact, he signed the petition of remand for Andrews' perjury conviction (here).

Sorry, Owen, but I am not convinced. Having been hospitalized for pneumonia myself (I don't recommend it to anyone) I can testify that I was continously medicated, i.e regularly throughout the day. Your last post seems to suggest that the FBI is infallible, and I can only say that their investigation of the JFK asssination does not encourage this assumption.

I'm not saying they're infallible (by no means!), I am saying that the context and wording of the information in the report show this to be the case and that the the FBI would have no incentive or logical reason to arbitrarily limit the time period of the medical information covered. AND the fact that Andrews was able to use the telephone indicate that he wasn't sedated at the time. You seem to have left that last part out.

If Dean Andrews was hospilized for nine days then he must have had a very serious bout of pneumonia. While it may be true that the hospital records cited in your post only refer to medication administered after 6 P.M, does that neccessarily mean that the hospital neglected to medicate him earlier in the day?

If this was the case, this would have been reflected in the hospital records cited by the F.B.I. report. As should be obvious from the report itself, the records pertain to all medication "on November 23, 1963" and not to any specific and limited time period of that day (which in any case, would be an odd thing for the F.B.I to request; of course they are interested in ALL the medication Andrews had received that day).

Besides that, the very fact that Andrews was even able to pick up the phone and call Eva Springer about Clay Bertrand at 4:00 (as confirmed by both of them) indicates that he was not sedated at the time, consistent with the hospital records.

I have not gone back to cjheck the primary sources, but according to Dave Reitzes website:

"Attorney Dean Andrews spent much of the weekend of the Kennedy assassination in a state of delirium induced by pneumonia, fever, medication, and oxygen. His physician told the FBI that Andrews had spent the entire weekend "under heavy sedation," so much so that he had trouble believing the patient had even been "capable of using the telephone during that time."(24)

24. FBI report of interview with J. D. Andrews, December 5, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2899, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 355."

What bothers me about this is that Reitzes cites Andrews as quoting his own doctor, so it looks like hearsay. On the other hand, Andrews should know if it is true. Did the doctor himself testify to investigators?

One of the symptoms of pneumonia is a high fever. It is a very serious illness and was a leading cause of death among adult males until the discovery of antibiotics. It would be very surprising, and probably malpractice by the doctors/hospital, if a patient hospitalized with pneumonia was not receiving medication.

He DID receive medication, but it was at a later time than when he recieved the phone call and informed his secretary Eva Springer about it at 4:00. All of this should have been clear from reading my post. The information about his medication comes from "Commission Document 126 - FBI Reynolds Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Oswald" p. 27, which I will excerpt below:

Mrs. THELMA MASSARINI, Medical Records Librarian, Hotel Dieu Hospital, advised that hospital records of Mr. DEAN ANDREWS show he was there from November 20, 1963 to November 29, 1963, and on November 23, 1963, at 6:00 PM was treated with nose drops and cough medicine. At 8:00 PM he received sedation in the form of phenobarbitol and also at that time Mr. ANDREWS complained of pains in the chest. At 9:00 PM he was given anti-biotics. At 10:00 PM, the chart shows he was quiet again. (link)

Where does Dave Reitzes make this claim?

Reitzes mentions this in his magnum opus "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?".

And last but not least, Dean Andrews told researcher Harold Weisberg some years later that "Bertrand" had been Clay Shaw after all. "You understand," Weisberg cautions, "Andrews was the biggest xxxx that ever lived" (Author's interview with Harold Weisberg, December 3, 1998). (link)

I would note that Weisberg's opinion of Andrews is just that. Its his information that's valuable.

This series by Peter Whitmey is very relevant, to say the least.

Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 1

Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 2

Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 3

Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Update

Priscilla Johnson McMillan and the CIA

Subsequent Letters to the Editor

Peter Whitmey wrote an article about his correspondence with Aline Mosby, which may be found here.

Agreed that Dean was stupid to come up with the Clay Bertrand story. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he was in hospital and presumably was medicated at the time.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the FBI reports of December 1963, using information from the hospital, show that Dean Andrews was not "medicated" at the time of the call. In addition, Andrews told three other people in his law office about the call before any of this was public, thus invalidating Carroll's theory. Andrews called his secretary Eva Springer at 4 pm on the 23rd, the day of the call and before he was medicated at 8 pm. He would also tell Sam "Monk" Zelden and Sergeant R.M. Davis about the call on the 24th.

As for why Andrews recanted his story, variously saying he had either made it up or that Eugene Davis was "Clay Bertrand," I will quote Davy and DiEugenio:

When Mark Lane wanted to interview him, Andrews begged off, saying he had been warned by "Washington, D.C." that he would "have a hole blown in his head if he talked." Many years later when Anthony Summers interviewed Andrews, the normally loquacious lawyer was still reticent on the subject of Bertrand. Summers wrote, "he [Andrews] has since said that to reveal the truth about his caller would endanger his life, and my own brief contact with Andrews confirmed that the fear is still with him today." (link)

Later, Andrews would tell Harold Weisberg that the call was real and that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Weisberg recounted this to both anti-Garrison "researcher" Dave Reitzes and Joan Mellen. Dean apparently did know the name of the "big enchillada."

This is a myth. Arab bodies were recovered.

Very sad. I can't say I expected this to happen. He put out uniformly high quality and informative books (e.g. Shadow Play).

My post from the History Books section:

Jim DiEugenio's review of Joan Mellen's A Farewell to Justice is now available on the PROBE/CTKA site.

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

Ron W

Huh. I was just wondering yesterday what Jim has been up to and where the Probe site had gone. Good to see the site back (and updated!) and good to see this article. It outlines the real problems with AF2J, unlike some of the anti-Garrison rantings that punctuate this thread (yes, you know who you are).

I agree with most of what he says about Mellen's book. Its a shame she had to mix all the valuable and new information she has on Garrison with a few dubious assertions and much RFK-bashing. I think the review is particularly dead-on about Ralph Schoenmann's influence on Mellen's view of the Kennedys. I came to this same conclusion a while ago and told Dawn about it.

Its still a valuable book for research purposes (with a good deal of suplementary reading and familiarity with the case) and the new edition should at least improve its aesethetic qualities, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the book isn't the thorough and definitive take on Garrison's investigation that many of us were hoping it would be. Nor is it a particularly good overview and introduction for the newcomer.

This is a good move. Hopefully he won't be "persuaded" to back down. Its a rare thing for a public official to oppose the neo-liberal agenda.

I am not a pacifist. I am not against armed intervention. In 1992, I was one of the Labour Members of Parliament who called for much earlier intervention in Bosnia. I shall never forget the surprised and bemused expression on John Smith's face when some 20 newly elected Labour Members of Parliament went to see him to demand Labour support for a foreign war. I believe that we should have supported it, and that, had we done so, Balkan history might be different. I supported our action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. (link)

I think Denham is at least a little tarnished.

I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter.

I cant argue with that Owen. Ridiculously trivial is accurate.

Yes, and that's why I chose it. It shows just how deep the thread actually runs, not limited merely to the big issues.

It's like being transported back in time to the Spanish Inquisition. Renounce your support for Sid Walker or face the consequences. Notice the subtle, almost imperceptible changes to the wording of the charges to suit the Inquisitors?

The only (possible) "consequences" that you will face is loss (or lessening) of my previous high opinion of you, whatever that may be worth. Also, you are correct that your post wasn't quite so sweeping as I rendered it (working from my impressions of your post, a little time removed), so apologies for that.

Well hello, Owen--good to see Andy's sent you in to bowl a few overs. He was starting to get carved up. Maybe you can break this annoying partnership. Intellectual dishonesty is the new charge, eh.

Andy has nothing to do with my postings.

What's a holocaust revisionist? Someone who denies the event occurred? Well that's just dopey. Someone who thinks some aspects of the accepted historical narrative are inaccurate?

"Revisionist" is the title Holocaust deniers like to use. For more on this, see here.

Maybe that's an issue worth debating. Some evidence to support such an assertion would help but nothing would surprise as the official story on many controversial issues can often turn out to be a lot of rubbish. Regular Forum readers know that. I've grown to mistrust certain 'official stories'.

I have already shown the evidence Sid has presented to be composed of laughable frauds and "a lot of rubbish," such as the Auschwitz 4 million red herring (also used by Piper). These aren't issues over which there is any legitimate debate. There is no evidence to support holocaust "revisionism." As the afore-linked webpage says:

"...so-called 'Holocaust revisionism' is not history at all; it is dishonest. Calling their efforts "revisionist history" is like calling the Piltdown man hoax 'revisionist science.'

It's not history. It's fraud. "

In the main it is simply crude apologetics for National Socialism; Sid uses it because he has an axe to grind with the international Zionist cabal, so far as I can tell.

Sid Walker as the king of intellectual dishonesty? Sorry, can't agree. This seems to irritate the hell out of you, Andy and others, doesn't it? Let it go. Who cares if someone disagrees with your point of view? Why is it so important that I agree with your view? Sorry, Owen--no soap.

I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter. I'll repeat it: Who else but an intellectually dishonest person would request an opponent to 1. "Blow me" after complaining of "smutty language" being directed at him 2. Deny the sexual connotations to the phrase after his hypocrisy is pointed out 3. Point to some song lyrics that include the phrase "blow me away" as an indication of what he really meant (!?) 4. Dismiss the issue as some weird hang up on the part of his opponent (as if his initial obsession with "smutty language" wasn't).

EDIT: And Sid doesn't really "irritate the hell" out of me anymore. I'm inviting (not threatening) you to take another look at Sid and his M.O., which is why my posts are adressed directly to you, not him.

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Your comments are "foolish" because they allege that Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books, which isn't the case, and leave out some other aspects of his service, as Andy outlined. Gee.

I find your continued support of Mr. Walker, even after he had outed himself as a holocaust "revisionist," to be intellectually dishonest. Especially so, since prior to that you had been defending him from these charges. Why has his "revisionism" now become kosher?

Mr. Walker, by the way, is the king of intellectual dishonesty. Witness his recent exchange with Len Colby, wherein he invited Len to "blow me." This was after complaining of alleged "smutty language" directed at him. After his hypocrisy was pointed out, Walker denied any sexual connotations to this phrase. After being corrected with the dictionary definition, Walker pointed to some song lyrics containg the phrase "blow me away," asserting that that was what he really meant (I guess?). The man's intellectual fraudulence extends beyond his holocaust "revisionism" to just about every subject he touches.