Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did the Warren Commission Look at Clay Shaw and David Ferrie?


Terry Adams
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lyndon Johnson told John Connally that the Garrison investigation was a fraud because the Warren commission people had heard the same rumors concerning Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, and, after interviewing both of them, came to the conclusion that there was nothing to it. If this has been discussed before, I apologize for posting on it. I was on Youtube listening to a phone conversation between President Johnson and Governor Connally, and the President told the Governor that he had heard about the Shaw/Ferrie situation from two other sources. While listening to their converation, I felt that the President was attempting to convince Governor Connally that it would not be a big deal, but he was going to speak to the Attorney General about it, and they would talk again.

Is this news or old business?.......................... I would appreciate some input.

Edited by Terry Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave for that information. Sadly though, we have come to know that anything said by many government officials may need to be scrutinized beyond their statements.

I seem to remember reading (or listening to a tape) that Hoover was very worried with what was going on in New Orleans with Garrison's case, and said so to the President. I believe he said something to the effect that he (Garrison) might win that thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, I'm not aware of any Hoover tape or remarks on that although I might well be missing it. Perhaps you are thinking of the series of high level CIA memorandum produced during the Garrison investigation that express their concerns about the inquiry including the extent to which Garrison will expose their activities in New Orleans and the number of individuals associated with them and anti-Castro activities. They went to a great deal of trouble to establish legal defenses to undercut Garrison's ability to call witnesses, that's all in the memos. And one memo does express the opinion that Garrison may very well be able to make his case.

It would also be relevant to note that one and possibly more documents exist confirming that the CIA was in the process of clearing Bannister's agency as a cover business prior to the Bay of Pigs, under their domestic "Goliath" program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not address the following:

"When it was all over, Garrison had discovered about a dozen witnesses who certified that Shaw was Bertrand. (ibid, pgs. 210-11, 387) But it wasn't just Garrison who knew this in 1967. The FBI knew it at about the same time Garrison was about to discover it. In a memo of February 24, 1967, the Bureau "received information from two sources that Clay Shaw reportedly is identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand." (ibid, p. 388) In another FBI report of the same time period, reporter Lawrence Schiller told the Bureau that he knew three homosexual sources in New Orleans and two in San Francisco who indicated that Shaw was known by other names, including that of Clay Bertrand. (ibid)

I should add, this was an open secret in the spring of 1967. Even Ed Guthman, an editor of the Los Angeles Times knew about it. And he told former Warren Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler that Shaw was Bertrand. (DiEugenio, p. 269) You will find none of this declassified information on the professor's site."

Edited by Andric Perez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave for that information. Sadly though, we have come to know that anything said by many government officials may need to be scrutinized beyond their statements.

I seem to remember reading (or listening to a tape) that Hoover was very worried with what was going on in New Orleans with Garrison's case, and said so to the President. I believe he said something to the effect that he (Garrison) might win that thing!

Terry,

I certainly never objected to scrutiny of government officials when I was a CT, and while I changed my mind about there being a conspiracy, I don't see any reason to object to such scrutiny now. (Before Bill Kelly leaps in to challenge me on that, I do distinguish between legitimate inquiry, which is healthy and essential for a democracy, and rumormongering, which is counterproductive and corrosive).

I don't recall the Hoover statement you reference, but a lot of people in Washington were concerned about what Garrison was doing, and it wasn't necessarily because they thought he was on the right track. In fact, a lot of internal correspondence from both the FBI and CIA shows that both agencies were relying primarily on press coverage to figure out what Garrison's theories were in the first place, just like everyone else outside the DA's office.

What I learned through bitter experience, though, is that government official Jim Garrison is at least as deserving of scrutiny as anyone else. When I began to research the assassination, I refused to take seriously anything official sources said about the case, but I uncritically accepted many of Garrison's claims as fact. When some superior researchers steered me towards contemporaneous primary sources, my outlook changed considerably. Personally, I think Garrison and his stable of malleable witnesses led the entire research community on a wild goose chase.

A lot of people didn't want to hear that from me when I was a CT, and becoming an outspoken LN has obviously not made my message any more palatable. I've put together a lot of research resources at my website, though -- including the Clay Shaw preliminary hearing and trial transcripts, key grand jury sessions, and a lot more -- and I invite any and all interested parties to take a look, scrutinize my sources, consult opposing points of view, ask questions, and decide for themselves.

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

For obvious reasons, there's also a lot of material on Garrison and his suspects in my critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK":

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

Dave

Dave... Why do you assume Bill Kelly will give you anything more than a quick: LOL? You've posted nothing new on the assassination in 15 years. A big ho-hum in conspiracy researchers book.

The SBT is kaput! A conspiracy murdered JFK, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...