Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Not to distract from Thornley or Oswald but as Garrison is part of the story I thought this might fit here as it's maybe not worth a thread by itself.

I thought I'd read something about a possible hit attempt or plot against Garrison's life during/preceding the Shaw trial.  After reading about it in his book I wondered where I might have seen this.  I looked in Destiny Betrayed since it deals with Nawlins but didn't find Edward Whalen in the name index.

Garrison found his story credible.  Whalen came to Garrison's office and made a statement to Asst. DA Jim Alcock.  He was a life long criminal, spending most of it in the penitentiary.  In Columbus Ohio a un named mutual acquaintance put him on the phone with Ferrie who promised opportunities for theft regarding a hotel and jewelry.  He stole a car went to NO and ditched it.  Ferrie proposed a bigger job, provided a place to stay, and a vehicle.  Introduced him to Clay Bertrand.  Then said he could get a $10,000 advance and 15,000 more for killing someone who Bertrand said might put him n prison for a long time.  He already had doubt's about Ferrie and the plan but then Ferrie told him it was the local DA.  He said no.  Another meeting including Shaw trying to convince him where they ended up at Ferrie's apartment and a man named Dean Andrews appeared, and spoke with Shaw privately. 

Ferrie told Whalen Dean Andrews had told him and Bertrand Garrison was investigating them.

Garrison had had lunch with Andrews, pressing him for information on Ferrie and Shaw.  Andrews tap danced, Garrison mentioned the investigation, Andrews walked out without finishing lunch.  Andrews was the only person to know about the investigation other than his tight at that early time team of investigators, per Garrison.  Which helps make Whalen at least somewhat legit for him.

Never knew any of the details of this myself.

Any more detail?  Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Not to distract from Thornley or Oswald but as Garrison is part of the story I thought this might fit here as it's maybe not worth a thread by itself.

I thought I'd read something about a possible hit attempt or plot against Garrison's life during/preceding the Shaw trial.  After reading about it in his book I wondered where I might have seen this.  I looked in Destiny Betrayed since it deals with Nawlins but didn't find Edward Whalen in the name index.

Garrison found his story credible.  Whalen came to Garrison's office and made a statement to Asst. DA Jim Alcock.  He was a life long criminal, spending most of it in the penitentiary.  In Columbus Ohio a un named mutual acquaintance put him on the phone with Ferrie who promised opportunities for theft regarding a hotel and jewelry.  He stole a car went to NO and ditched it.  Ferrie proposed a bigger job, provided a place to stay, and a vehicle.  Introduced him to Clay Bertrand.  Then said he could get a $10,000 advance and 15,000 more for killing someone who Bertrand said might put him n prison for a long time.  He already had doubt's about Ferrie and the plan but then Ferrie told him it was the local DA.  He said no.  Another meeting including Shaw trying to convince him where they ended up at Ferrie's apartment and a man named Dean Andrews appeared, and spoke with Shaw privately. 

Ferrie told Whalen Dean Andrews had told him and Bertrand Garrison was investigating them.

Garrison had had lunch with Andrews, pressing him for information on Ferrie and Shaw.  Andrews tap danced, Garrison mentioned the investigation, Andrews walked out without finishing lunch.  Andrews was the only person to know about the investigation other than his tight at that early time team of investigators, per Garrison.  Which helps make Whalen at least somewhat legit for him.

Never knew any of the details of this myself.

Any more detail?  Anyone?

Ron,

Hmm.

I remember the Whalen story from “On The Trail . . .”, but I don’t recall any further details.

However, consider the probable outcome, had Garrison really gone for Whalen’s version of events: Dean Andrews would have been discredited in Garrison’s eyes.

If Dean Andrews was not believable to Garrison, then much of the case against Shaw would go away. (Not all of it, but it would weaken.)

Could the CIA have pushed Whalen  (a career criminal who supposedly turned down $10,000 - 15,000!) to tell Garrison this story, and thus improve their own asset’s chances in the courtroom?
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, in this new article in The Telegraph, its like nothing happened on the New Orleans scene since 1991.

This Fordy guy wants to take us back to  the 1967-71 hatchet jobs on Jim Garrison.

When, in fact, so many of the ARRB  releases had to do with New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry.  I mean, just what we know today about what the CIA and FBI did to thwart Garrison is really remarkable.  And what makes it even worse is that so much of the FBI information coincided with what Garrison was digging up.

Nothing by Mr. Fordy in that regard. DId this guy read even one declassified file?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, in this new article in The Telegraph, its like nothing happened on the New Orleans scene since 1991.

This Fordy guy wants to take us back to  the 1967-71 hatchet jobs on Jim Garrison.

When, in fact, so many of the ARRB  releases had to do with New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry.  I mean, just what we know today about what the CIA and FBI did to thwart Garrison is really remarkable.  And what makes it even worse is that so much of the FBI information coincided with what Garrison was digging up.

Nothing by Mr. Fordy in that regard. DId this guy read even one declassified file?

Jim,

What is your basic take on Perry Russo? 

He was adamant over the years that he attended some kind of "party" (maybe on September 13) at which David Ferrie raved about killing JFK. He also admitted in this interview (linked below) that he strongly disliked JFK. Russo blamed President Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and considered the Cuban Missile Crisis an American failure and sell-out. Russo was strongly anti-Castro and was closely affiliated with some Cuban groups. 

What's particularly curious to me is Russo's description of "Leon Oswald": dirty, unshaven, unshowered, and a regular overnight guest at David Ferrie's apartment. Supposedly, Russo could not identify our "Oswald' until a sketch artist dirtied-up his picture. Russo freely talked about a second LHO running around.

So:

Did Perry Russo actually meet our "Oswald" (the man shot to death by Jack Ruby) and was there really a gathering attended by Shaw, Russo, Ferrie, "Leon Oswald" and a few others at which the assassination of JFK was discussed? Or, since he admitted he'd been in regular contact with the CIA up until 1979, was he some kind of disinformation agent?

I honestly don't know, and I'd like your thoughts. 

Thanks.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Perry.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Jim,

What is your basic take on Perry Russo? 

He was adamant over the years that he attended some kind of "party" (maybe on September 13) at which David Ferrie raved about killing JFK. He also admitted in this interview (linked below) that he strongly disliked JFK. Russo blamed President Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and considered the Cuban Missile Crisis an American failure and sell-out. Russo was strongly anti-Castro and was closely affiliated with some Cuban groups. 

What's particularly curious to me is Russo's description of "Leon Oswald": dirty, unshaven, unshowered, and a regular overnight guest at David Ferrie's apartment. Supposedly, Russo could not identify our "Oswald' until a sketch artist dirtied-up his picture. Russo freely talked about a second LHO running around.

So:

Did Perry Russo actually meet our "Oswald" (the man shot to death by Jack Ruby) and was there really a gathering attended by Shaw, Russo, Ferrie, "Leon Oswald" and a few others at which the assassination of JFK was discussed? Or, since he admitted he'd been in regular contact with the CIA up until 1979, was he some kind of disinformation agent?

I honestly don't know, and I'd like your thoughts. 

Thanks.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Perry.html

 

Thanks for this link Paul.  Just read the first page.  It's deep and his dislike pf JFK actually gives credence to his being at Ferrie's apartment with Oswald and Shaw.  I still find his identification of Shaw at his trial credible and forceful, flying in the face of what the CIA was trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paul:

I went over this issue at length and in depth in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.  There, using people like Bill Davy and Joe Biles,  the actual Sodium Pentothal transcripts, and most of all Matt Herron,  I impaled that whole BS story put out by Phelan. God that guy was such a l--r.  And I later exposed him as a government stooge. As anyone who reads the actual transcripts can see, there was no leading the witness by Chetta. 

The thing is, IMO, that was not Oswald at that gathering.  As I discuss in my book, I think that was an Oswald double.  It might have been the "Leon Oswald" at Odio's door, and the one that Nagell and others have talked about. Niles Peterson, who was there, told Davy that this was the guy's name. (DiEugenio, pp. 248-49)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Paul:

I went over this issue at length and in depth in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.  There, using people like Bill Davy and Joe Biles,  the actual Sodium Pentothal transcripts, and most of all Matt Herron,  I impaled that whole BS story put out by Phelan. God that guy was such a l--r.  And I later exposed him as a government stooge. As anyone who reads the actual transcripts can see, there was no leading the witness by Chetta. 

The thing is, IMO, that was not Oswald at that gathering.  As I discuss in my book, I think that was an Oswald double.  It might have been the "Leon Oswald" at Odio's door, and the one that Nagell and others have talked about. Niles Peterson, who was there, told Davy that this was the guy's name. (DiEugenio, pp. 248-49)

Thanks, Jim.

I own and have read the first edition of "Destiny Betrayed", but I guess I'll have to read the second edition. 

I, too, have long suspected that Ferrie might have been interacting with a different LHO (i.e. not our "Oswald"). So a mid-September meeting with Shaw and Ferrie, Russo probably met a different LHO.

For that matter, Richard Case Nagell's observations of LHO in Mexico City, must have been a different LHO - our "Oswald' didn't even go (supposedly) to Mexico City until after Nagell had been arrested in El Paso!

The pro-segregationist LHO hanging around with Guy Bannister on the LSU/NO campus in the summer of 1963 was very likely an imposter, too, although our "Oswald" probably made an appearance at Bannister's office at 544 Camp. (Guy Bannister knew both our "Oswald" and the impostor - no wonder he died of a "heart attack" in the the spring of 1964!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

You have to get the second edition, its like night and day.

The difference is the ARRB.  Contrary to what this idiot Fordy writes, the ARRB declassified a lot of really interesting, some of it even startling, information.  A lot of it about New Orleans.

The second edition is  so much better than the first, much longer and better in quality of information--with two thousand footnotes--that it really is a different book.  If I had to do it over, I would have given it a different title and brought it out as a hardcover.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Jim

I just finished reading your two-part series on Kerry Thornley.  Its wonderfully laid out, and convincing.  Its difficult to see how anyone would portray this character as an innocent libertarian.  Thornley's life is  full of numerous "remarkable coincidences" (as Garrison once stated) which crop up in his purported association with Oswald.  I agree with your conclusion that - along with the Paines - Thornley's testimony and so-called 'books' were intended as an incriminating character assassination of Oswald (and clearly disinformation). His inexplicable move to New Orleans in February 1961, and his hasty cross-country departure to Arlington (for the Warren Commission) are quite telling.  As is his strange (and mischaracterized) interaction with Jim Garrison's investigation ... and his side-stepping of the HSCA.  Thornley is a central character in the entire plot/charade, and well-protected one at that. 

None of what you write is simply conjecture ... its all backed up by sourced interviews and released AARB documentation about New Orleans.  Thornley was always an enigma to me, and I avoided trying to understand his true role and story ... it just seemed like a diversion or distraction to the overall plot.  In retrospect, many have tried to dismiss him as an innocent right-wing/religious eccentric.  But you have connected the dots in a convincing manner. 

I've read the 1st edition of Destiny and plan to get the second edition soon. I am curious as to what that alternate title you mention would have been.  Also, while avoiding the controversy of challenging Best Evidence, your two-part series has raised other questions. Without being defamatory, do you think that David Lifton was simply mislead (and/or used) by Thornley, or does it go deeper than that?

Gene

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gene.  Definitely get the second edition.  The ARRB made all the difference.

Thornley is simply in too many places at just the right time, and secretly associating with people who he tries to separate himself from for it to be a coincidence.

As per LIfton, well, as I said in the article, its pretty clear that the two became friends in California.  And Lifton accepted Thornley's story.   And when Thornley seemingly accepted some of Lifton's arguments about Oswald's innocence, LIfton appreciated that.

When Garrison started turning up contrary evidence, some of it produced by Thornley and Lifton themselves, this enraged Lifton. In light of what the record is today, Lifton's long Open CIty article today is really kind of offensive to read. Because its wrong on the facts and very unfair to Garrison, while almost making Thornley out to he a seminary student.  And that is not much of an exaggeration considering the declassified grand jury records. I also think that this contributed to the whole anti Garrison mob mania at the time.  Which, of course still exists in some quarters.  And he still contributes to, as with Adam Gorightly's two hatchet jobs.

Kerry Thornley was a very interesting character.  And I do not think there is any debate today that he lied about his association with Oswald and the network around Oswald in New Orleans.  Thornley went out of his way to smear Oswald as something he knew he was not, and part of his motive is his almost pathological antipathy towards Kennedy. 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response Jim.  Not sure why any objective person - who does their due diligence - would continue to defame Garrison, or defend Thornley.  I suppose that I'm preaching at the saved here, but strong opinions/emotions still prevail. I can understand putting some stock/faith in Thornley's persona (and skepticism about Jim Garrison)  in the mid-to-late 60's ... but not today, after all the released AARB records.  It seems that informed readers are correct in thinking that Garrison should've aimed his prosecution at Thornley instead of Shaw (and for sound reason).  But I remain curious ... what would you have retitled Destiny, if you had it to do over?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for the second edition, I think I should have renamed  it and brought it out in hardcover. Since, its really a different book than the first edition.

If it was me, i probably would have named it Though the Heavens Fall: A Reexamination of Garrison vs Shaw

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 6:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I have Lifton on ignore.  Thanks Micah😀

I was very specific in my list, I said Americans and then I named the most popular American authors at that time . 

As I recall it, Salandria's article in Liberation is not about these matters.  Arnoni was Dutch and left the US in 1969,  Joesten was not an American by birth either. You could have thrown in Sauvage also. But again, he's French.

 

Finally, I really hope you are not referring to that December 1966  Esquire article titled something like "Primer on Assassination Theories". That article was penned by Epstein, who was about to morph into his "Garrison is a fraud and the WC was correct adjustment". That article, is a smorgasbord of summaries of different angles of the case and its set up by like a bookie marker: Proponents, Thesis, Selling Point, Drawback , it then categorizes things like  the FBI Theory , Underground man theory etc It then includes a chart of how the major writers assess each of the idea. It then sets up a Rube Goldberg graph illustrating all these ideas and how they may connect with each other.

That article, for me, was the beginning of the end for any real discussion of the case in the MSM.  And there were very few exceptions after.  The piece  was such a smartass, quasi satirical, mish mash designed to confuse and obfuscate, while making the critics look like a retinue of fools in revue, that I have tried my best to forget it.  What makes it worse is that  I heard that  Meagher worked on this with Epstein. It was not until later, that  she was convinced he was a spook.

Again, thanks Micah, I have to answer the guy who thinks I do not think I write my own articles.

To Jim D.Your last sentence could use some improvement: As written, it states: "I have to answer the guy who thinks I do not think I write my own articles." (italics added).  This is poorly stated.   What the heck are you saying: "Who thinks I do not think"...??  Is that a Freudian slip?  Or simply the result of syntactical confusion. 

Suggested improvement:

You wrote:  "I have to answer the guy (apparently me, DSL) who thinks I do not write my own articles." 

My Response:  That's correct.  It was well known (years ago) that submissions would be made to your newsletter, and that they would then be published and signed by you.  Maybe you're not doing that anymore, but do you deny that that's the way you (once) functioned?  Further, you would then refer to yourself as "Chairman of the Board." 

I don't know if you're still doing that, and frankly don't care.   But that's the origin of the problem (and hopefully its no longer the case).  But if there's any confusion about the authorship of material published in your newsletter (and under your aegis) you have only yourself to blame.  (DSL, 1/19/21, 4:30 AM PST; 1/20/21 3 PM PST)

Edited by David Lifton
improving format.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2021 at 11:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Well, for the second edition, I think I should have renamed  it and brought it out in hardcover. Since, its really a different book than the first edition.

If it was me, i probably would have named it Though the Heaves Fall: A Reexamination of Garrison vs Shaw

1. Yes, Jim D., it was in fact  "really a different book".  FWIW: I never heard of someone writing "a different book" (your own description) and  then trying to pass it off as a "revision" of the original book that he wrote.  If one wants to write "another" book (i.e., a separate book), one publishes it as a separate title, or, alternatively, if one retains the original title, then calls it "Volume II."   

2. Regarding your second paragraph, QUOTE ON:  "If it was me I probably would have named it "Though the Heave's Fall"..(sic) .etc.

DSL Response: Frankly, I wasn't sure what you were referring to, so I looked up "heave" (which I thought might be related to what happens when someone has had too much to drink).  FYI: Here's what I found: 

QUOTE:

• 1. lift or haul (a heavy thing) with great effort: "she heaved the sofa back into place". . .pull, lug, manhandle, drag, ... . . 

•  2.produce (a sigh):"he heaved a euphoric sigh of relief"

noun

1. an act of heaving, especially a strong pull: "With that last heave, Maurice's anchor wrenched clear of the mud"

MY Final commentary:  All of this is irrelevant.  Apparently, you were referring to Garrison's making an astronomical reference to the "heavens"; i.e., "though the heaven's fall" justice will be done, etc..

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...