New Book by Fred Litwin on Garrison

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I made no claim or attempt to represent your case against Clay Shaw; I only quoted your slide presentation to establish an answer to a question I asked concerning whether you personally continue, now and today, to believe in Clay Shaw's guilt, which you did not answer me (not that you had any obligation to do so). (Maybe it came across as a stupid question.)

But to address this which you bring up, on the six lies (listed above), as you are aware all of the ones except for the CIA one are disputed. The HSCA investigators judged that Ferrie and Oswald were in Clinton but that Clay Shaw was not. At least in HSCA investigators' judgment it is not obvious that Clay Shaw perjured himself there, and Clay Shaw seems to have a fairly good alibi putting him elsewhere during the time in Clinton at issue. So that is one of the six.

I have only myself intensively studied one of these, the claim that Clay Shaw called Dean Andrews to request legal assistance for Oswald, and it is plainly clear that, though someone surely did call Dean Andrews with that request, it was not Clay Shaw. One strong piece of evidence of this is that Dean Andrews said it was not Clay Shaw. Dean Andrews perjured himself but the perjury was not in the denial that it was Clay Shaw, but in the claim that he could not remember or had imagined the phone call. Perjury from Dean Andrews, yes, but not on the matter you say. The true identity of the caller to Dean Andrews for the call which DID HAPPEN, was almost certainly Clem Sehrt, a senior Mob-connected lawyer but that is not why he made the call to Dean Andrews, it was because he was a childhood friend of Marguerite Oswald and had helped her out, because of that, over the years. There is independently derived corroborating testimony both that Marguerite told of calling Clem Sehrt after her son's arrest appealing for help in getting Lee a lawyer, and from Clem Sehrt's end of it a partner of Sehrt said Clem Sehrt told of being called by someone asking for legal representation for Oswald. Clem Sehrt had helped Marguerite with Lee's enlistment in the Marines (though he falsely denied it under oath), and is the most likely identity of the LAWYER (which Clay Shaw was not) who Dean Andrews claimed had referred Oswald to him for legal help in the summer of 1963 concerning Oswald's Marine discharge appeal issue. Clem Sehrt gets a pleading phone call from longtime friend Marguerite for help for son Lee; Sehrt does what he can--phones Dean Andrews and asks him to go to Dallas to assist Lee, asking Dean Andrews (very firmly) for absolute confidentiality in this request (just as Clem Sehrt wanted nothing to do with talking about his earlier assistance in an underage Lee enlisting in the Marines, that Marguerite told of). Dean Andrews, as he privately told one or more people, knew the identity of the caller but would not say because he feared for his life if he did so. The fear was not from Clay Shaw but from the Mob with whom Clem Sehrt was associated, from the people around Marcello. Dean Andrews considered a risk or and even a conviction for perjury to be preferable to outing the identity of the caller--Clem Sehrt--because these were dangerous people. The reason why neither Sehrt nor the Mob would want Sehrt's identity disclosed as Dean Andrew's caller is because that would put all sorts of focus on Marcello as possibly involved in the JFK assassination. In fact whether or not Marcello actually was is beside the issue, that was not the reason for Clem Sehrt's call which was instead the childhood family friend and relationship with Marguerite. In any case, Dean Andrews would not under any circumstances reveal Sehrt's identity, under a realistic fear of dire consequences if he did so, and at the same time Dean Andrews was not willing to see an innocent man (innocent of having called Dean Andrews I mean here) falsely accused and implicated on the basis of false testimony. Dean Andrews said at one point, no matter the consequences, no matter what other sins I have committed, I am doing a good and right thing, I am not going to falsely name Clay Shaw. 

How did the name "Clay Bertrand" come from Dean Andrews? I don't know for sure, but it is curious that the first name of the true caller, Clem Sehrt, sounds so similar. There was also a very early attempt by Dean Andrews to cover up or deny the reality of the phone call altogether but his secretary knew of the call so that could not be done successfully, and it is possible the secretary is the actual original source of the name "Clay Bertrand" in some misunderstanding of what Andrews had told her, and Andrews stuck with that as a fictitious name (because, under no circumstances, is Andrews going to disclose to the world the true name). There are also stories--all unconfirmed but here and there in the documents--that supposedly a nurse at the hospital where Dean Andrews was at the time had a last name "Bertrand" and some speculated that was what was handy in an invention of a fictitious name. 

Finally, not to be underestimated is the mention made by Micah that there WAS A REAL CLAY BERTRAND, by that name, in Louisiana, who may have been in New Orleans at the time. According to a 1967 FBI document (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/217/217855/images/img_217855_167_300.png😞

Aaron Kohn, managing director, Metropolitan Crime Commission, advised February 24, he had received information that Clay Bertrand and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Kohn advised he picked this information up from one of 89 news sources that contacted him on February 24, 1967.

Kohn advised that he also received information that there is a man named Clay Bertrand living in Lafayette, Louisiana, a real estate broker that lived in New Orleans about the time of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Was the real Clay Bertrand ever questioned or asked or any inquiry made by Garrison investigators, FBI, or anyone else, concerning the Dean Andrews phone call, or any of the other alleged "Clay Bertrand" name mentions? No. Perhaps Garrison did not know of the existence of this Clay Bertrand, but that does not change the relevance that in all the debates over "who was Clay Bertrand", NOBODY EVER THOUGHT TO CONSIDER OR QUESTION CLAY BERTRAND!

And so on one of the alleged six major lies of which Clay Shaw is accused in your list, the phone call to Dean Andrews, I am certain that at least that one is just wrong. Clay Shaw did not lie, Dean Andrews did, but Dean Andrews' lie was covering up a Clem Sehrt identity of the caller, and Dean Andrews told the truth that it was not Clay Shaw.

On the others, these again are all, except for the CIA connection, disputed and contested, so it matters very much how reasonable researchers or informed citizens on a criminal jury would assess each of these, case by case, in deciding whether, in fact, Clay Shaw was lying in major ways suggesting he had "something to hide" material to the charge against him. Though I have not studied in detail the others, I will outline a working hypothesis of interpretation of all of these six claims, in the order you give:

(1) knew Ferrie, said he did not--uncertain; ambiguous but possible perjury. Both Clay Shaw and Ferrie, from most reports, were promiscuous and active in New Orleans' gay underworld subculture, and Clay Shaw was not publicly outed. Clay Shaw could have known Ferrie, if he did, most likely in this context (nothing to do with the assassination). If so, Clay Shaw would have strong motive to deny, if he could get away with it, knowing Ferrie at all. Admission that he knew Ferrie would raise the question, "why?", and to establish it was not related to the assassination Clay Shaw would have had to claim some form of gay sex as the (actually truthful) alibi. If there was perjury here, there is a motive for it that has nothing to do with implicating Clay Shaw in the assassination. 

(2) knew Oswald, said he did not--reject this one, unproven (reject testimony of dicey witnesses here; hearsay attributed to Clay Shaw has issues of interpretation of that hearsay). Oswald was neither gay nor bi, and there is no obvious reason why Clay Shaw would have met or known Oswald personally, other than casual knowledge of the arrest incident outside his building in the news.

(3) used alias of Bertrand, said he did not--reject this one (reject testimony of dicey witnesses). 

(4) worked for CIA, and lied about it--on this one, documents subsequently have established unequivocally that Clay Shaw did have a relationship with CIA, minimally in the 1950s involving lengthy debriefings from his travels overseas, uncertain degree above that level or further chronological timeframe. Whether with the help of a good lawyer Clay Shaw could have beaten a perjury charge on this one based on technical definition of the wording of the question and words ("employee", "working for", etc.) I would not know. This one therefore, though not disputing a CIA relationship itself for Clay Shaw, my first assumption would be "uncertain" concerning legal perjury. Whether or not it was legally perjury it is clear Clay Shaw did not wish to voluntarily disclose it. However, there are motives for nondisclosure of that that have nothing to do with involvement in the assassination of JFK, or a framing of Oswald, etc. Therefore the certain secrecy, and the more ambiguous but possible legal perjury, if so, in this case does not in any obvious sense give weight toward implicating Clay Shaw in an assassination conspiracy.  

(5) drove to Jackson, and lied about it--unlikely, reject, in keeping with HSCA investigators. Whether or not Oswald and Ferrie were there irrelevant here.

(6) called Dean Andrews, and lied about it--no, reject (for reasons given earlier).

This analysis would add up to four non-perjuries, two possible perjuries, and zero certain (legal) perjuries. Of the two possible perjuries, each have obvious possible alternative motivations that have nothing to do with covering up involvement or complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy.

GD 

You never mentioned the story of a New Orleans policeman who reportedly heard Clay Shaw affirm 

to the booking officer upon his arrest that he did use the alias "Clay ( or Clem ) Bertrand?"

I am not sure if it was the officer who was asking the booking questions or another officer within earshot who reported this admission on the part of Clay Shaw during booking.

I think something like this story did happen based on Garrison's attempt to have this report or the officer who stated it included into the court hearings which was denied.

Why even submit such a request if the reported incident never happened?

Assessments like yours and others regards Shaw's guilt or innocence

eventually boil down to a subjective take on witnesseses, their testimonies, court decisions, evidence especially circumstantial evidence, etc.

I am not in an informed study position to weigh in with a worthy take on Shaw's guilt or innocence.

All I can throw into the debate is a common sense, life experience questioning of the case in general.

One thing that is now clear however is Shaw's connections to the agency and how he lied about this under oath. So, he is a proven xxxx at least in this context.

And ( again from life experience ) it is my belief that people who have long term ( years) of secret and what most would consider deviant or at least unacceptable sex lives as Shaw did, have to, for self, career and reputation protection reasons, become practiced XXXXX.

They lead secret lives. And to keep them secret often use aliases or code names, have secret bank accounts, secret lairs, secret phone numbers, secret friends, etc. 

If Shaw did admit to the New Orlean's Police Department booking officer he used the "Bertrand" alias, most of your argument regards Shaw's innocence is invalid imo.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

My review is now online:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/10/book-review-on-trail-of-delusion.html

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

You know, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.  First, there was that windy defense of the Paines and the Minox camera.  Then you go over to ROKC and you try every rhetorical and argumentative twist to deny it was Hootkins at Shasteens' with Oswald.  In my view, and I think many others, that turned into windiness also.  An attempt to deny by length of the argument, not facts.  And now this.

1.) Today, there is no doubt that Shaw was Bertrand.  The declassified files of the ARRB reveal that the FBI, the DOJ, and Garrison all came to the same conclusion based upon about 14 witnesses. You are dead wrong about Andrews also.  Andrews was one of those who said it was Shaw!  He told this to Weisberg but on the condition that it be kept secret, because he feared for his life.  This is in the unpublished manuscript Harold wrote about Norman Mailer's book. Andrews also said the threat to his life came from Washington. Did Trafficante call Dean him from DC?  If you recall, the DOJ told the NY TImes that Shaw was Bertrand.  That story was published in March of 1967. Ramsey Clark had to walk back it back later. Why?  BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE.  The FBI, through DeLoach told him not to say that kind of stuff in public.  Because Hoover was completely against helping Garrison at all.  Clark did not understand this. So they forced him to lie.  This was all revealed in Bill Davy's book. (Let Justice be Done, pp. 191-92) BTW, even Wesley Liebeler knew that Shaw was Bertrand.  Because Ed Guthman, who had worked with DOJ and was now with the LA Times, told him this had been established. (Destiny Betrayed, by James DiEugenio, p. 269)

2.) Please, the one about Ferrie is just as silly.  The FBI had an informant who said Shaw's secretary said she saw him in Shaw's office more than once!  A secretary at G Wray Gill's office, where Ferrie worked, said she saw a picture of  them together. A friend of Shaw's who was a funeral director saw them together;  again that is through the FBI.  The Tadins swore under oath at Shaw's trial that Ferrie referred to Shaw as his friend. (DiEugenio, p. 310) Deceased lawyer David Chandler's son e mailed me and said yes, Chandler knew the two were friends but Shaw's defense decided they had to stonewall on this issue.  At the perjury trial, Garrison also had four more witnesses to this relationship.

3.). That Shaw never used the alias, he signed the alias at the VIP lounge, and there was a witness who saw him there that day.  The CIA heard about this and got an asset to talk him out of his story. (Davy, pp. 178-79) There is also Habighorst, and that one is right out of Shaw's mouth. (Davy, p. 123)

4.) Shaw had a covert security clearance.  The CIA finally admitted in the nineties that he was a valuable and highly paid contract agent. He was also on the board of Permindex which actually approached the CIA about having a representative on their board.

5.) The HSCA lied about Shaw in their report on the Clinton/Jackson incident.  And we know about this through the declassified files of the ARRB.  This matter was so important that the HSCA called John Manchester to Washington and took his sworn deposition in executive session.  Because Shaw was attracting so much attention at the voter registration drive, registrar Palmer told the sheriff to go over and check the driver since it might be the FBI. Manchester went over and asked the driver who he was.  The reply was Clay Shaw of the Trade Mart.  He asked him for his driver's license, which matched what he said. He asked him what he was doing there and he said he had nothing to do with the voter drive, which was true. (Executive session, HSCA, March 14, 1978) BTW, Greg, do you also still believe VInce Guinn? I mean he is that report also.

6). As per Oswald and Shaw, Oswald knew the names of two doctors at the hospital in Jackson.  He showed Palmer his Marine separation papers. (Davy, Let Justice Be Done, pp 106-07)  He then reported to the front desk there and then the personnel office. (HSCA depositions of Bobbie Dedon 5/19/78 and Maxine Kemp 2/16/78) And lastly, let me add the following from a new article up at Kennedys andking.com :

Doug Caddy is an attorney in Houston. He has a strong interest in the JFK case. He noted online that he had a friend who lives in Houston who had told him for years about a meeting he had with Shaw. His name is Phil Dyer, and at that time—late 1972—he would regularly visit an acquaintance of his in New Orleans who was an interior designer. It was usually on weekends. The reader must comprehend that, at this time, Garrison’s case had been thrown out of court. Shaw had now gone on the offensive and filed a civil suit against Garrison. Therefore, Shaw was in the clear as far as any legal liability went. Because of the two (phony) tax cases the Justice Department had filed against him, Garrison was not going to be DA much longer. In fact, in several months, he would be voted out of office.

Phil and his friend had a mutual female companion, who was a gynecologist. On the weekend under discussion, they were staying with her. Phil planned on leaving on Sunday after they had brunch. His friend had arranged for them to meet an acquaintance of his named Clay Shaw for that brunch. Since at this stage of his life Shaw was restoring homes and turning them over for nice profits, that relationship would make sense.

Shaw was impeccably dressed and had sharp blue eyes. He was accompanied by an older woman. Phil recalled the Shaw trial and he came from a family who practiced hunting. So, during the conversation, and over some drinks, he asked Shaw if he knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Shaw replied that yes he did, he knew him fairly well. Phil asked him what kind of a person he was. Shaw said that he knew him to be pretty active in the French Quarter, but he was always kind of quiet around him. Phil now asked his last question about Oswald. He told Shaw that he did not think that Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did, getting off those precise shots in that time sequence. Shaw said quite coolly that Phil had to understand. Oswald was just a patsy. He was also a double agent. When I told Phil that Shaw had denied knowing Oswald on the witness stand, he replied with words to the effect: if you were in his position would you have admitted knowing him? In other words, everything Shaw’s defense presented in court was false. And Shaw knew it was false. (Interview with the author on August 8, 2020)

Let me add one last point, I did reply to your question .  I said I agreed with Joan Mellen, the Clinton/Jackson incident would demonstrate an overt act in aid of a conspiracy.  Which would fulfill the statute.

Edited October 10, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/9/2020 at 11:34 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

My review is now online:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/10/book-review-on-trail-of-delusion.html

Who had more good character 

honesty, integrity and better case presentation skills and maybe even mental health between these two big city District Attorneys - Jim Garrison or Henry Wade?

Jim Garrison - broadly well read, well dressed, extremely well spoken, well liked and respected even with colored citizens. Author of several books of decent critical reception.

Henry Wade - frumpy, poorly spoken, non-intellectual good ole boy racist.

If Garrison was the dishonest, low integrity, unstable bad guy here...what would you call Henry Wade?

I don't mean to turn this thread into a Henry Wade one, but if one is going to pound Garrison and his integrity, I ask them to compare these two big city DA's, especially in regards to their take on Oswald and Jack Ruby, and tell us which of the two sounds more honest and correctly informed?

Feigning unsureness or ignorance Wade described to the world press the Oswald killer's name "a Jacob Rubenstein I believe") the night of the killing. 

Wade also told the press the evening of 11,24, 1963 he did not personally know Jack Ruby.

Please!

Henry Wade knew Jack Ruby well. He had even been in his strip club and imbibbed according to Ruby employee Nancy Hamilton in her Mark Lane interview.

 

 

0:40NOW PLAYING

 

 

Did Dallas DA Henry Wade know Jack Ruby ?

 

Dallas DA Henry Wade is asked point blank if he knew Jack Ruby. He denies it. But Nancy Hamilton, a former bartender for Ruby, ...

 

If Jim Garrison was a misguided attention seeking loon, Henry Wade was a downright lying ... whatever.

Again, to put Jim Garrison and his integrity, intellect and skills into a proper perspective besides a totally negative one, take a look and listen to this 11,24, 1963 press conference video of Dallas DA Wade with it's clear depiction of his embarrassingly poor and stammering elocution and articulation and presentation of so many proven wrong facts about Oswald and evidence such as prints, gun powder parrafin tests, etc.

And watch Wade's facial expressions when he was asked whether he knew Jack Ruby, and how one press member who witnessed Wade talking one-on-one with Ruby the evening of 11,22,1963 actually said to Wade " it looked like you were good friends!"

To which Wade just smiled nervously.

Press conference that took place at Dallas City Hall 11,24,1963:

 

24:53NOW PLAYING

 

 

HENRY WADE'S PRESS CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1963

Henry Wade's Legacy[edit]

Wade once again gained national attention in 1988 with the release of Errol Morris's documentary film The Thin Blue Line. The documentary tells the story of Randall Dale Adams' 1977 conviction for the murder of Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer. Adams was sentenced to death for the crime. The execution was scheduled for May 8, 1979, but US Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., ordered a stay only three days before the scheduled date. Instead of conducting a new trial, Governor Bill Clements commuted Adams's sentence to life in prison. Adams was exonerated in 1988, after serving 12 years in prison. Similar cases of exonerated men have recently arisen, putting the legality of Wade's practices in question.

As of July 2008, fifteen persons convicted during Wade's term as Dallas County District Attorney have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were accused in light of new DNA evidence. Because of the culture of the department to "convict at all costs," it is suspected that more innocent people have been falsely imprisoned.^[7] Project Innocence Texas currently has more than 250 cases under examination.

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Steve Roe]

On 10/4/2020 at 11:02 PM, S.T. Patrick said:

There is something about the psychology of LNers that has always puzzled me. But to the point... I understand the psychology of challenging the establishment. I don't get what drives people for decades to defend establishment narratives to the point where you hold a sword outside the gates of the MSM castle, defending it more actively than they do. Inside the castle are people sipping Brandy Alexanders as you put everything on the line outside the castle just to protect them. Why?

For example, and without getting into a discussion about the merits, there is no reason to be carrying water for mainstream rock journalists who believe the Beatles are the best band of all-time. The challenge is to write the dissenting work. You're not a brave warrior for writing the book AGAINST those writing the dissenting book. You've already "won." The mainstream has your back. What are you challenging? What's the purpose?

As Jim eluded to, at some point it's just all personal. Something gets into their mind and they can't cease the personal vendetta. At this point, it isn't about being pro - or anti-Garrison... at least I don't think so. At this point, it's about getting the accolades for those in the community that you want the back pats from and it's about continually digging at those who you see as ideological enemies. The subject matter is secondary. 

Somewhere along the way, CT researchers had to stop using Posner and Bugliosi in every conversation. They had to get back to the arguments at hand. People outside these communities - people you are giving the spiel to for the first time in a ten-minute chat - don't care about the names of the writers. They want the quick "I believe" or "I don't believe" thing that inspires them to go further on it than they have before.

The LNers get their best laughs when the CT folks do their own work for them and start firing upon one another at the family reunions. But that's another topic for another day. Point: The worst thing for Litwin (in the mind of a LNer) would be if no one even acknowledged he existed. 

ST, didn’t YOU interview Fred Litwin on your podcast? What happened? I don’t see it anymore. I see Jim Fetzer and others. Technical difficulties? https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-show-archives/

[Steve Roe]

On 10/9/2020 at 11:41 AM, Greg Doudna said:

I made no claim or attempt to represent your case against Clay Shaw; I only quoted your slide presentation to establish an answer to a question I asked concerning whether you personally continue, now and today, to believe in Clay Shaw's guilt, which you did not answer me (not that you had any obligation to do so). (Maybe it came across as a stupid question.)

But to address this which you bring up, on the six lies (listed above), as you are aware all of the ones except for the CIA one are disputed. The HSCA investigators judged that Ferrie and Oswald were in Clinton but that Clay Shaw was not. At least in HSCA investigators' judgment it is not obvious that Clay Shaw perjured himself there, and Clay Shaw seems to have a fairly good alibi putting him elsewhere during the time in Clinton at issue. So that is one of the six.

I have only myself intensively studied one of these, the claim that Clay Shaw called Dean Andrews to request legal assistance for Oswald, and it is plainly clear that, though someone surely did call Dean Andrews with that request, it was not Clay Shaw. One strong piece of evidence of this is that Dean Andrews said it was not Clay Shaw. Dean Andrews perjured himself but the perjury was not in the denial that it was Clay Shaw, but in the claim that he could not remember or had imagined the phone call. Perjury from Dean Andrews, yes, but not on the matter you say. The true identity of the caller to Dean Andrews for the call which DID HAPPEN, was almost certainly Clem Sehrt, a senior Mob-connected lawyer but that is not why he made the call to Dean Andrews, it was because he was a childhood friend of Marguerite Oswald and had helped her out, because of that, over the years. There is independently derived corroborating testimony both that Marguerite told of calling Clem Sehrt after her son's arrest appealing for help in getting Lee a lawyer, and from Clem Sehrt's end of it a partner of Sehrt said Clem Sehrt told of being called by someone asking for legal representation for Oswald. Clem Sehrt had helped Marguerite with Lee's enlistment in the Marines (though he falsely denied it under oath), and is the most likely identity of the LAWYER (which Clay Shaw was not) who Dean Andrews claimed had referred Oswald to him for legal help in the summer of 1963 concerning Oswald's Marine discharge appeal issue. Clem Sehrt gets a pleading phone call from longtime friend Marguerite for help for son Lee; Sehrt does what he can--phones Dean Andrews and asks him to go to Dallas to assist Lee, asking Dean Andrews (very firmly) for absolute confidentiality in this request (just as Clem Sehrt wanted nothing to do with talking about his earlier assistance in an underage Lee enlisting in the Marines, that Marguerite told of). Dean Andrews, as he privately told one or more people, knew the identity of the caller but would not say because he feared for his life if he did so. The fear was not from Clay Shaw but from the Mob with whom Clem Sehrt was associated, from the people around Marcello. Dean Andrews considered a risk or and even a conviction for perjury to be preferable to outing the identity of the caller--Clem Sehrt--because these were dangerous people. The reason why neither Sehrt nor the Mob would want Sehrt's identity disclosed as Dean Andrew's caller is because that would put all sorts of focus on Marcello as possibly involved in the JFK assassination. In fact whether or not Marcello actually was is beside the issue, that was not the reason for Clem Sehrt's call which was instead the childhood family friend and relationship with Marguerite. In any case, Dean Andrews would not under any circumstances reveal Sehrt's identity, under a realistic fear of dire consequences if he did so, and at the same time Dean Andrews was not willing to see an innocent man (innocent of having called Dean Andrews I mean here) falsely accused and implicated on the basis of false testimony. Dean Andrews said at one point, no matter the consequences, no matter what other sins I have committed, I am doing a good and right thing, I am not going to falsely name Clay Shaw. 

How did the name "Clay Bertrand" come from Dean Andrews? I don't know for sure, but it is curious that the first name of the true caller, Clem Sehrt, sounds so similar. There was also a very early attempt by Dean Andrews to cover up or deny the reality of the phone call altogether but his secretary knew of the call so that could not be done successfully, and it is possible the secretary is the actual original source of the name "Clay Bertrand" in some misunderstanding of what Andrews had told her, and Andrews stuck with that as a fictitious name (because, under no circumstances, is Andrews going to disclose to the world the true name). There are also stories--all unconfirmed but here and there in the documents--that supposedly a nurse at the hospital where Dean Andrews was at the time had a last name "Bertrand" and some speculated that was what was handy in an invention of a fictitious name. 

Finally, not to be underestimated is the mention made by Micah that there WAS A REAL CLAY BERTRAND, by that name, in Louisiana, who may have been in New Orleans at the time. According to a 1967 FBI document (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/217/217855/images/img_217855_167_300.png😞

Aaron Kohn, managing director, Metropolitan Crime Commission, advised February 24, he had received information that Clay Bertrand and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Kohn advised he picked this information up from one of 89 news sources that contacted him on February 24, 1967.

Kohn advised that he also received information that there is a man named Clay Bertrand living in Lafayette, Louisiana, a real estate broker that lived in New Orleans about the time of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Was the real Clay Bertrand ever questioned or asked or any inquiry made by Garrison investigators, FBI, or anyone else, concerning the Dean Andrews phone call, or any of the other alleged "Clay Bertrand" name mentions? No. Perhaps Garrison did not know of the existence of this Clay Bertrand, but that does not change the relevance that in all the debates over "who was Clay Bertrand", NOBODY EVER THOUGHT TO CONSIDER OR QUESTION CLAY BERTRAND!

And so on one of the alleged six major lies of which Clay Shaw is accused in your list, the phone call to Dean Andrews, I am certain that at least that one is just wrong. Clay Shaw did not lie, Dean Andrews did, but Dean Andrews' lie was covering up a Clem Sehrt identity of the caller, and Dean Andrews told the truth that it was not Clay Shaw.

On the others, these again are all, except for the CIA connection, disputed and contested, so it matters very much how reasonable researchers or informed citizens on a criminal jury would assess each of these, case by case, in deciding whether, in fact, Clay Shaw was lying in major ways suggesting he had "something to hide" material to the charge against him. Though I have not studied in detail the others, I will outline a working hypothesis of interpretation of all of these six claims, in the order you give:

(1) knew Ferrie, said he did not--uncertain; ambiguous but possible perjury. Both Clay Shaw and Ferrie, from most reports, were promiscuous and active in New Orleans' gay underworld subculture, and Clay Shaw was not publicly outed. Clay Shaw could have known Ferrie, if he did, most likely in this context (nothing to do with the assassination). If so, Clay Shaw would have strong motive to deny, if he could get away with it, knowing Ferrie at all. Admission that he knew Ferrie would raise the question, "why?", and to establish it was not related to the assassination Clay Shaw would have had to claim some form of gay sex as the (actually truthful) alibi. If there was perjury here, there is a motive for it that has nothing to do with implicating Clay Shaw in the assassination. 

(2) knew Oswald, said he did not--reject this one, unproven (reject testimony of dicey witnesses here; hearsay attributed to Clay Shaw has issues of interpretation of that hearsay). Oswald was neither gay nor bi, and there is no obvious reason why Clay Shaw would have met or known Oswald personally, other than casual knowledge of the arrest incident outside his building in the news.

(3) used alias of Bertrand, said he did not--reject this one (reject testimony of dicey witnesses). 

(4) worked for CIA, and lied about it--on this one, documents subsequently have established unequivocally that Clay Shaw did have a relationship with CIA, minimally in the 1950s involving lengthy debriefings from his travels overseas, uncertain degree above that level or further chronological timeframe. Whether with the help of a good lawyer Clay Shaw could have beaten a perjury charge on this one based on technical definition of the wording of the question and words ("employee", "working for", etc.) I would not know. This one therefore, though not disputing a CIA relationship itself for Clay Shaw, my first assumption would be "uncertain" concerning legal perjury. Whether or not it was legally perjury it is clear Clay Shaw did not wish to voluntarily disclose it. However, there are motives for nondisclosure of that that have nothing to do with involvement in the assassination of JFK, or a framing of Oswald, etc. Therefore the certain secrecy, and the more ambiguous but possible legal perjury, if so, in this case does not in any obvious sense give weight toward implicating Clay Shaw in an assassination conspiracy.  

(5) drove to Jackson, and lied about it--unlikely, reject, in keeping with HSCA investigators. Whether or not Oswald and Ferrie were there irrelevant here.

(6) called Dean Andrews, and lied about it--no, reject (for reasons given earlier).

This analysis would add up to four non-perjuries, two possible perjuries, and zero certain (legal) perjuries. Of the two possible perjuries, each have obvious possible alternative motivations that have nothing to do with covering up involvement or complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Greg, I find your research into the Andrews/Betrand/Sehrt matter very interesting. There's some good logic there, and it's certainly worth taking a look into further. May I contact you via private message on this forum to discuss further? Thanks.

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/9/2020 at 2:01 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Who had more good character 

honesty, integrity and better case presentation skills and maybe even mental health between these two big city District Attorneys - Jim Garrison or Henry Wade?

Jim Garrison - broadly well read, well dressed, extremely well spoken, well liked and respected even with colored citizens. Author of several books of decent critical reception.

Henry Wade - frumpy, poorly spoken, non-intellectual good ole boy racist.

If Garrison was the dishonest, low integrity, unstable bad guy here...what would you call Henry Wade?

I don't mean to turn this thread into a Henry Wade one, but if one is going to pound Garrison and his integrity, I ask them to compare these two big city DA's, especially in regards to their take on Oswald and Jack Ruby, and tell us which of the two sounds more honest and correctly informed?

Feigning unsureness or ignorance Wade described to the world press the Oswald killer's name "a Jacob Rubenstein I believe") the night of the killing. 

Wade also told the press the evening of 11,24, 1963 he did not personally know Jack Ruby.

Please!

Henry Wade knew Jack Ruby well. He had even been in his strip club and imbibbed according to Ruby employee Nancy Hamilton in her Mark Lane interview.

 

 

0:40NOW PLAYING

 

 

Did Dallas DA Henry Wade know Jack Ruby ?

 

Dallas DA Henry Wade is asked point blank if he knew Jack Ruby. He denies it. But Nancy Hamilton, a former bartender for Ruby, ...

 

If Jim Garrison was a misguided attention seeking loon, Henry Wade was a downright lying ... whatever.

Again, to put Jim Garrison and his integrity, intellect and skills into a proper perspective besides a totally negative one, take a look and listen to this 11,24, 1963 press conference video of Dallas DA Wade with it's clear depiction of his embarrassingly poor and stammering elocution and articulation and presentation of so many proven wrong facts about Oswald and evidence such as prints, gun powder parrafin tests, etc. And watch Wade's facial expressions when he was asked whether he knew Jack Ruby, and how several press people actually said to Wade it looked to them that he did in their watching Wade and Ruby conversing one on one the evening of 11,22,1963.

Press conference that took place at Dallas City Hall 11,24,1963:

 

24:53NOW PLAYING

 

 

HENRY WADE'S PRESS CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1963

Henry Wade's Legacy[edit]

Wade once again gained national attention in 1988 with the release of Errol Morris's documentary film The Thin Blue Line. The documentary tells the story of Randall Dale Adams' 1977 conviction for the murder of Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer. Adams was sentenced to death for the crime. The execution was scheduled for May 8, 1979, but US Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., ordered a stay only three days before the scheduled date. Instead of conducting a new trial, Governor Bill Clements commuted Adams's sentence to life in prison. Adams was exonerated in 1988, after serving 12 years in prison. Similar cases of exonerated men have recently arisen, putting the legality of Wade's practices in question.

As of July 2008, fifteen persons convicted during Wade's term as Dallas County District Attorney have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were accused in light of new DNA evidence. Because of the culture of the department to "convict at all costs," it is suspected that more innocent people have been falsely imprisoned.^[7] Project Innocence Texas currently has more than 250 cases under examination.

 

7/7/62. " Zuroma club guests, mayor Earle Cabbell, District Attorney Henry Wade and sheriff Bill Decker".  From a copy of Texas Tribune, Italian - American news letter.  Found in the back of Betrayal In Dallas, sourced to the LBJ library in Austin.

[Joe Bauer]

13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

7/7/62. " Zuroma club guests, mayor Earle Cabbell, District Attorney Henry Wade and sheriff Bill Decker".  From a copy of Texas Tribune, Italian - American news letter.  Found in the back of Betrayal In Dallas, sourced to the LBJ library in Austin.

Please Ron, can you explain the "Zuroma Club?"

[Ron Bulman]

27 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Please Ron, can you explain the "Zuroma Club?"

It was an Italian American club in Dallas that met at a house north of love field on Thursday nights for dinner, poker (illegal) and business discussions.   Civello and Campisi were members.  It was the Anonymous Club until 1958 when Civello got busted in Appalachian NY at a national gathering.  They changed it afterwards to I just re read correctly the Zu Roma club, whatever that means in Italian.  Judge Barefoot Sanders was a guest as well, he's important in a bigger sense.  

Edited October 12, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Richard Price]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

It was an Italian American club in Dallas that met at a house north of love field on Thursday nights for dinner, poker (illegal) and business discussions.   Civello and Campisi were members.  It was the Anonymous Club until 1958 when Civello got busted in Appalachian NY at a national gathering.  They changed it afterwards to I just re read correctly the Zu Roma club, whatever that means in Italian.  Judge Barefoot Sanders was a guest as well, he's important in a bigger sense.  

Ron, not that it is earth shattering, but Zu Roma is kind of like a toast. It means, "To Rome".

[S.T. Patrick]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:24 PM, Steve Roe said:

ST, didn’t YOU interview Fred Litwin on your podcast? What happened? I don’t see it anymore. I see Jim Fetzer and others. Technical difficulties? https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-show-archives/

I believe Rob interviewed him on The Lone Gunman.

[Steve Roe]

On 10/12/2020 at 11:39 AM, S.T. Patrick said:

I believe Rob interviewed him on The Lone Gunman.

Thank you, yes it was Rob Clark.

[S.T. Patrick]

Thank you for acknowledging that, Steve. I have never pulled an interview from the website. Once it's posted, it's there. I had one guest who shall remain nameless who was incredibly rude to me off-air. I still have their episode posted. I don't have a personal vendetta against the "Oswald-Acted-Alone" people, though I believe they are wrong. I just usually don't have them on the show because it seems like they have the entire mainstream media as their outlet already. I can't see conceding the independent/alternative media to them also. I also haven't had anyone on who believes John Dean is the hero of Watergate, that 9/11 was totally and completely executed by OBL from a cave, and that FDR was taken completely by surprise at Pearl Harbor. Again, I respect a person's right to belief. But they have the mainstream media and the big publishing houses willing to promote those beliefs excitedly. We have a very small corner of the world in the alt/indy media. I like to keep the alternative to the mainstream as the alternative to the mainstream. As I analogized earlier in the thread, no reason to feature someone who thinks the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. That's the mainstream. I'd be more interested in featuring someone who thinks they aren't and it isn't even close. Thanks, Steve.

Edited October 14, 2020 by S.T. Patrick

[Steve Roe]

7 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Thank you for acknowledging that, Steve. I have never pulled an interview from the website. Once it's posted, it's there. I had one guest who shall remain nameless who was incredibly rude to me off-air. I still have their episode posted. I don't have a personal vendetta against the "Oswald-Acted-Alone" people, though I believe they are wrong. I just usually don't have them on the show because it seems like they have the entire mainstream media as their outlet already. I can't see conceding the independent/alternative media to them also. I also haven't had anyone on who believes John Dean is the hero of Watergate, that 9/11 was totally and completely executed by OBL from a cave, and that FDR was taken completely by surprise at Pearl Harbor. Again, I respect a person's right to belief. But they have the mainstream media and the big publishing houses willing to promote those beliefs excitedly. We have a very small corner of the world in the alt/indy media. I like to keep the alternative to the mainstream as the alternative to the mainstream. As I analogized earlier in the thread, no reason to feature someone who thinks the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. That's the mainstream. I'd be more interested in featuring someone who thinks they aren't and it isn't even close. Thanks, Steve.

ST, wasn’t Rob Clark a guest host interviewing Fred Litwin? I know it’s on the Lone Gunman podcast, but can you explain to everyone here why you pulled it off your MWN podcast roster? 

[S.T. Patrick]

5 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

ST, wasn’t Rob Clark a guest host interviewing Fred Litwin? I know it’s on the Lone Gunman podcast, but can you explain to everyone here why you pulled it off your MWN podcast roster? 

It was never on the roster, Steve (and "everyone here"). Rob offered me the show and I passed. As I said, I'm not really trying to give the mainstream more coverage. Rob is a great host. He hosts or co-hosts two of the best podcasts around. He's kind enough to do a quarterly guest host spot on MWN. He offered me the Litwin episode, I passed, and he gave MWN another one instead. I explained the reasons above. I assure you that it was never on the roster at all. Rob can attest to this. I like to give time to the alternatives. I respect everyone's right to a belief, whether I agree or not, but I am pretty adamant about airing the alternative to the mainstream on the show. Thank you.