Thomas Graves Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) If I read your comments correctly, Don, I share your confusion about the Andrews story. On the face of it, it makes no sense at all. Why would the conspirators engage an attorney of Andrews' flamboyance/eccentricity, and one based in New Orleans, to boot? What made them think they could trust him as part of the plot? If he was part of the plot, why would he immediately contact FBI Special Agent Regis Leo Kennedy and tell him about it, blowing the whole thing? If Andrews was determined to tell Kennedy about it, why didn't he name Shaw? Why were his earlier descriptions of Bertrand so different from Shaw? Why, from time to time, did Andrews even suggest that he may have misunderstood or mischaracterized the call in the first place? Why didn't the conspirators find a way to shut Andrews up? Why, after Orleans Parish DA Jim Garrison started questioning him about it and speculated that it might be Shaw, did Andrews (by his own account) deny that it was Shaw, and stick with that position? How about to make it look like Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination? --Tommy Oh, I see what you're saying: That the plotters called a lawyer who was known to be an associate of Marcello (Andrews). I've been over the New Orleans evidence in deep detail, and I think it's unlikely that Andrews was brought in in this way, for some of the reasons I stated in 2012. Stephen, Thanks for the feedback. The only other thing I can think of (at the moment) is that Andrews fabricated the story. --Tommy Edited October 31, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now