On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

[James DiEugenio]

Just remember what Ray Rocca said at the first meeting of the Garrison Group.

He predicted that if Garrison was allowed to proceed as he was Clay Shaw would be convicted.

Garrison died before that document saw the light of day.

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He predicted that if Garrison was allowed to proceed as he was Clay Shaw would be convicted

 

But what could Shaw be convicted of? Planning an assassination (without implementing it)?

 

[James DiEugenio]

My reading of the law is that there has to be one overt act in aid of the plot.

When I was arguing this before, I said that the whole Clinton Jackson episode can be considered an overt act.

[Ron Ecker]

One knock against Garrison (justified or not) was that he chose to ignore an elephant in the living room, or more specifically Carlos Marcello, a Mob boss right there in New Orleans. The HSCA Report states that "The committee found that Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to have President John F. Kennedy assassinated, though it was unable to establish direct evidence of Marcello's complicity". But Marcello was full of complicity according to G. Robert Blakey's "Fatal Hour," John H. Davis's "Mafia Kingfish,"  Lamar Waldron's "The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination," Mob lawyer Frank Ragano's "Mob Lawyer," and Stefano Vaccara's "Carlos Marcello: The Man Behind the JFK Assassination." 

Garrison mentions Marcello one time in "On the Trail of the Assassins," on page 337 of my paperback edition, where Garrison states, "I do not even know Carlos Marcello." Well, that settles that!

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

First, do you really find any of those books convincing?

Ragano, now there is a real BSer for you.  Trafficante drove something like 300 miles to make a phone call with a kidney dialysis bag on his hip?

And John Davis bought into him and wrote a brief book on this.

Blakey and Billings did not reveal the fact that the alleged bookmaking connection to the Murret family was not such a connection since the guy was working on his own at the time and not for Sam Saia.  That was in a two declassified interview which somehow Blakey and Billings forgot about.

If you buy Waldron's C Day theory I have some prime beachfront property to sell you in Arizona. And the so called CAMTEX confession was from a guy with dementia who was hitting his head up against rocks while in prison.

Jim Garrison closed about five saloons that were owned or operated by Marcello or one of his front guys in his B girl drinking clean up.  He also circulated a memo to his staff about being on the lookout for any kind of Mafia leads.  But Jack Ruby did not live in New Orleans.  Garrison ended up thinking that there was a mob connection, although he thought it was the Lansky/Trafficante end of the Mob.

The idea that a second tier mob guy like Marcello--who was not even on the national commission-- could pull of the murder of Kennedy is so bizarre that I really think its misleading.

 

 

 

Edited March 16 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

Jim, 

I just wanted to point out, on the subject of Garrison, that one of the usual suspects (credibly or not) in the assassination was a Mob boss right there in Garrison’s back yard of New Orleans. The only books on the subject I remember looking at are “Fatal Hour” and “Mafia Kingfish.” I don’t remember if I read the whole things or not. But in “Fatal Hour,” Blakey argues that Garrison approached the assassination, in the words of Carl Oglesby in Playboy (which proves that I only read that mag for the articles), as “a stooge of Carlos Marcello.” I don’t think I ever had an opinion on the possible role of Marcello in the assassination, or on any desire on Garrison’s part to cover it up, and as far as I know I still don’t.

 

[Greg Doudna]

14 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I just wanted to point out, on the subject of Garrison, that one of the usual suspects (credibly or not) in the assassination was a Mob boss right there in Garrison’s back yard of New Orleans. The only books on the subject I remember looking at are “Fatal Hour” and “Mafia Kingfish.” I don’t remember if I read the whole things or not. But in “Fatal Hour,” Blakey argues that Garrison approached the assassination, in the words of Carl Oglesby in Playboy (which proves that I only read that mag for the articles), as “a stooge of Carlos Marcello.” I don’t think I ever had an opinion on the possible role of Marcello in the assassination, or on any desire on Garrison’s part to cover it up, and as far as I know I still don’t.

No FBI agents allowed to look into Marcello post-Nov 22. Marcello not mentioned in the Warren Report. 

Marcello named as one of the top three leading suspects for doing the JFK assassination by the HSCA which concluded there was a conspiracy and that Marcello (and Trafficante) had means, motive, and opportunity (but the HSCA did not claim to have found evidence), which HSCA recommended be further investigated.

The FBI, which did not further investigate these figures HSCA recommended, kept on paper the investigation opened until Marcello was reported to have confessed--literally confessed. At that point the FBI Dallas office informed FBI hq that that report of a confession of the leading suspect logically was grounds to close down the on-paper-still-open investigation of the JFK assassination altogether, without investigating the person who made the confession further.

FBI Dallas explained that they had interviewed Marcello and he had denied making the confession. FBI Dallas did not believe that denial was true. FBI Dallas believed Marcello had confessed, yet at the same time FBI Dallas did not believe that confession, which the FBI accepted had happened, was true, i.e. to be believed, on the grounds that Marcello was: sometimes not in his right mind; sometimes in his right mind but pretended not to be in his right mind; and sometimes in his right mind. Therefore on the grounds that no confirming evidence had come forth in their past years of non-investigation of Marcello to substantiate the new news of the confession, FBI Dallas concluded Marcello's confession should be classified as one of those times Marcello was not in his right mind.

And FBI Dallas reasoned that a confession of someone not in their right mind did not merit further investigation any more than any other "excited utterance" not said intentionally by a person. 

I do not know of any direct evidence that Marcello did or was involved with the assassination any more than any of the people Garrison went after, other than Marcello's confession and some confessions of mobsters who knew Marcello.

But there is reason to suspect Ruby of Dallas had some connection to the JFK assassination and, if one accepts that Ruby was not acting alone in killing Oswald, he had to have been answering to or working for either Giancana or Marcello, it about comes down to one of those two. He had contacts with both that would make either plausible. With Marcello, Ruby was in Marcello's #2 sub-mob boss of Dallas who had direct contact with Marcello, Campisi's, restaurant the night before the assassination. Ruby had recent trips to New Orleans, had hired Jada who was heavily tied into the New Orleans Marcello mob scene, etc. and etc. Lots of smoke to connect Ruby to Marcello.

And when Marcello confessed, the FBI Dallas office with hq approval responded by declaring Marcello no longer a suspect because the investigation is ended, as direct cause and effect.

Then Marcello confessed some more, to a credible FBI informant, and the tapes of Marcello being wired in weeks of jailhouse conversations with the informant are not released to the present day. (Almost as if there is something someone doesn't want to come out, there.)

Unless one takes the position that the killers of JFK are known in a closed case, Marcello would seem to be a non-excluded suspect--a leading suspect according to the HSCA, and that was before the confessions, plural, credibly reported coming from Marcello himself.

Why didn't Garrison go after Marcello? 

I believe Garrison's explanation was he saw no evidence Marcello was involved in organized crime in any serious way. Denied Marcello was a significant mobster. Denied what the Justice Department, Robert Kennedy, and everybody in New Orleans knew.

Edited March 16 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Ecker]

53 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No FBI agents allowed to look into Marcello post-Nov 22. Marcello not mentioned in the Warren Report. 

Marcello named as one of the top three leading suspects for doing the JFK assassination by the HSCA which concluded there was a conspiracy and that Marcello (and Trafficante) had means, motive, and opportunity (but the HSCA did not claim to have found evidence), which HSCA recommended be further investigated.

The FBI, which did not further investigate these figures HSCA recommended, kept on paper the investigation opened until Marcello was reported to have confessed--literally confessed. At that point the FBI Dallas office informed FBI hq that that report of a confession of the leading suspect logically was grounds to close down the on-paper-still-open investigation of the JFK assassination altogether, without investigating the person who made the confession further.

FBI Dallas explained that they had interviewed Marcello and he had denied making the confession. FBI Dallas did not believe that denial was true. FBI Dallas believed Marcello had confessed, yet at the same time FBI Dallas did not believe that confession, which the FBI accepted had happened, was true, i.e. to be believed, on the grounds that Marcello was: sometimes not in his right mind; sometimes in his right mind but pretended not to be in his right mind; and sometimes in his right mind. Therefore on the grounds that no confirming evidence had come forth in their past years of non-investigation of Marcello to substantiate the new news of the confession, FBI Dallas concluded Marcello's confession should be classified as one of those times Marcello was not in his right mind.

And FBI Dallas reasoned that a confession of someone not in their right mind did not merit further investigation any more than any other "excited utterance" not said intentionally by a person. 

I do not know of any direct evidence that Marcello did or was involved with the assassination any more than any of the people Garrison went after, other than Marcello's confession and some confessions of mobsters who knew Marcello.

But there is reason to suspect Ruby of Dallas had some connection to the JFK assassination and, if one accepts that Ruby was not acting alone in killing Oswald, he had to have been answering to or working for either Giancana or Marcello, it about comes down to one of those two. He had contacts with both that would make either plausible. With Marcello, Ruby was in Marcello's #2 sub-mob boss of Dallas who had direct contact with Marcello, Campisi's, restaurant the night before the assassination. Ruby had recent trips to New Orleans, had hired Jada who was heavily tied into the New Orleans Marcello mob scene, etc. and etc. Lots of smoke to connect Ruby to Marcello.

And when Marcello confessed, the FBI Dallas office with hq approval responded by declaring Marcello no longer a suspect because the investigation is ended, as direct cause and effect.

Then Marcello confessed some more, to a credible FBI informant, and the tapes of Marcello being wired in weeks of jailhouse conversations with the informant are not released to the present day. (Almost as if there is something someone doesn't want to come out, there.)

Unless one takes the position that the killers of JFK are known in a closed case, Marcello would seem to be a non-excluded suspect--a leading suspect according to the HSCA, and that was before the confessions, plural, credibly reported coming from Marcello himself.

Why didn't Garrison go after Marcello? 

I believe Garrison's explanation was he saw no evidence Marcello was involved in organized crime in any serious way. Denied Marcello was a significant mobster. Denied what the Justice Department, Robert Kennedy, and everybody in New Orleans knew.

 

Well, this is the kind of thing that makes you want to beat your head against the wall.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

18 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Well, this is the kind of thing that makes you want to beat your head against the wall.

My reaction too. And what is even more bizarre about Garrison’s complete lack of interest, in having his office conduct even a single known interview or inquiry of Marcello, is that two of the key figures said by Garrison to be in his headlights among the dozens all over the map, directly went to Marcello although one never heard that from Garrison.

David Ferrie was said publicly by Garrison to have been a leading suspect, after a suspicious death of Ferrie that immediately followed a debriefing of Ferrie by Garrison’s office of what Ferrie knew. Ferrie, who had certain past contact with Oswald and, in one of the Marcello confessions, more recent contact in 1963, was directly working for Marcello’s attorney on a Marcello court case, and Ferrie was WITH Marcello in a courtroom in New Orleans on the day of the assassination. Then in 1967 he is debriefed by Garrison’s office expressing terror and fear for his life, following which he is dead within hours, ruled natural causes by the coroner. Garrison said the Ferrie death was suspicious but never apparently thought to suspect Marcello in that death. 

And attorney Dean Andrews Jr, who did legal work for Oswald in New Orleans, worked for Marcello, was an attorney for Marcello. Garrison prosecuted him on a perjury charge. On the day of the assassination Andrews was in a hospital which Dean Andrews III, Dean Andrews’s son, has said in a recent book (a) his father was in that hospital because of an attempt on his life; and (b) that Marcello had befriended his father because there was a mob contract out on the life of his father but Marcello saw to it that it would not be carried out (in Jeffries and Law, Pipe the Bimbo in Red [2023]).

What are mob friends for, if not to stop something terrible from happening to one, such a shame if it did. Another interpretation of that is Dean Andrews was under threat of his life and knew it with every word he said, under complete control of Marcello. Hence Andrews’ dissembling re the source of the “request” to him to go to Dallas immediately and take control of Lee Harvey Oswald’s legal representation in Dallas, including under oath, would have been under duress and not objective at all, from start to finish, and the truth of who actually asked him (from someone Andrews could not say no to) would go back to the man himself, the one who could lift his finger up or down on Andrews’ life and Andrews knew it.

But Garrison knew and saw nothing of Andrews’ connection to Marcello, as Andrews said every crazy thing and threw smoke around the identity of the source who had wanted him to go control Oswald’s legal representation in Dallas, with Garrison attempting to convince the world that came from non-Marcello related Clay Shaw. That could not have been more serving of Marcello’s interest if district attorney Garrison had himself been in Marcello’s hip pocket, as word on the street in New Orleans said Garrison was (Vaccara, Carlos Marcello: The Man Behind the Assassination [2013]). 

Edited March 17 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Again, I don’t know whether Marcello had actual involvement in the JFK assassination or, if he did have foreknowledge or played a role, how exactly that may have worked (although Marcello’s jailhouse conversations with the FBI informant, who said Marcello was in his right mind when he told him these things—some conversations said to be in the cell on tape and others in the prison yard by Marcello—had Marcello claiming control and actual hidden ownership of the Carousel Club in Dallas; that Ruby owed Marcello big financially; that Marcello knew of Oswald and had contacts of his people with Oswald not disclosed to authorities, and that Marcello claimed he had had JFK killed). 

(The FBI had those tapes and planted the informant on Marcello in pursuit of an unrelated investigation, and apparently on that grounds did not feel a confession by Marcello of the JFK assassination, that came about incidentally to the informant in the course of that, qualified as JFK assassination records which Congress’s intent was should fully be disclosed, which I believe is the FBI’s present logic and position. It certainly was not considered by the FBI as cause to reopen any investigation of the JFK assassination, or disclose to the public or other investigators or to Congress that extended confession reports had been obtained from a man considered by Congress one of the three leading suspects in America in the assassination, i.e. reports that someone “had talked” after all.) 

Whatever truth there may or may not be underlying the Marcello “smoke”, one point is always raised as a supposed argument there is nothing there: that Marcello could not control the autopsy. But neither could the CIA, but that is rarely cited as an argument for exoneration of the CIA. There is some kind of logical disconnect in how the autopsy argument is wielded to logically fallacious conclusions argued in backward reasoning to the possible identity of who carried out the hypothesized hit on the ground. 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ferrie, who had certain past contact with Oswald and, in one of the Marcello confessions, more recent contact in 1963, was directly working for Marcello’s attorney on a Marcello court case, and Ferrie was WITH Marcello in a courtroom in New Orleans on the day of the assassination.

 

According to Ferrie, he (Ferrie) was in Dallas on 11/22/63 investigating the possibility of putting an ice skating rink in New Orleans... right? If so, how could he be in New Orleans with Marcello?

Marcello was apparently lying. Maybe that's the reason Garrison didn't take him seriously.

 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But Garrison knew and saw nothing of Andrews’ connection to Marcello, as Andrews said every crazy thing and threw smoke around the identity of the source who had wanted him to go control Oswald’s legal representation in Dallas, with Garrison attempting to convince the world that came from non-Marcello related Clay Shaw. That could not have been more serving of Marcello’s interest if district attorney Garrison had himself been in Marcello’s hip pocket, as word on the street in New Orleans said Garrison was (Vaccara, Carlos Marcello: The Man Behind the Assassination [2013]). 

 

I'm inclined to believe what Andrews said early on, Nov. 25, 1963, to the FBI. He said it was Clay Shaw who asked him to represent Oswald.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Whatever truth there may or may not be underlying the Marcello “smoke”, one point is always raised as a supposed argument there is nothing there: that Marcello could not control the autopsy. But neither could the CIA, but that is rarely cited as an argument for exoneration of the CIA. There is some kind of logical disconnect in how the autopsy argument is wielded to logically fallacious conclusions argued in backward reasoning to the possible identity of who carried out the hypothesized hit on the ground. 

 

Some of us believe the JCS (generals) instigated the CIA into planning and carrying out the assassination. It was a military coup, in that sense. Some of the generals were reportedly at the autopsy, and it's likely CIA officers were there as well.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Agree with Sandy. The military was in position at the autopsy, and were completely infiltrated into the Dallas Police and Dealey Plaza. 
I can make no sense out the continued secrecy surrounding the JFK assassination if it was simply a mafia hit. And even looking at the kingpin mafiosi, I’m more tempted to view Trafficante and Lansky with suspicion because they were never prosecuted. Marcello making statements in custody taking the blame could just as well be covering for the real kingpins.

[Joe Bauer]

Kinda disagree that Marcello was a "2nd tier" Mafia leader. 

I don't see RFK going to the rare extreme measure of forcibly flying Marcello out of the U.S. and air dropping him into the jungles of Guatamala if he ( RFK ) was not convinced Marcello was as dangerously influential and powerful as the other 12 to 15 main Mafia Godfathers.

Actually deporting Mafia Godfathers was the most extreme punitive action ( outside of imprisonment ) reserved for the most dangerous and powerful Mafiosi. Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky, etc.

Marcello was the top Godfather of the Texas, Louisiana and probably neighboring states fiefdom. That's a HUGE area of organized crime domain.

Ruby took trips to New Orleans often enough to suspect he had some dealings with Marcello connected characters. And everyone knows how well acquainted for years Ruby was with Marcello's Dallas under-boss Joe Campisi.

You just don't go down to Marcello owned New Orleans and grab one of the hottest strippers in the nation ( JADA ) who was dancing in a Marcello joint named the Sho-Bar without permission from the top. And didn't Ruby also get L.A.'s top gangster Mickey Cohen's main squeeze girlfriend Candy Barr to do her thing at his tacky Carousel Club as well? Some of the hottest strippers in the country and who's services were controlled to some degree by the mob.

The Mob of course was also heavy into pornography. I suspect Jada did some work in that area besides stripping after seeing her in some really graphic smut pics.

I do feel Garrison was fully aware of Marcello's huge organized crime presence, position and power. I suspect he knew he could be rubbed out quickly if he ventured too far into investigating Marcello too seriously. 

Edited March 17 by Joe Bauer

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

According to Ferrie, he (Ferrie) was in Dallas on 11/22/63 investigating the possibility of putting an ice skating rink in New Orleans... right? If so, how could he be in New Orleans with Marcello?

Ferrie left for his trip to Galveston or Houston later that day. There is no dispute over Ferrie’s being with Marcello in court on Nov 22, 1963, or denial from Ferrie on that. 

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm inclined to believe what Andrews said early on, Nov. 25, 1963, to the FBI. He said it was Clay Shaw who asked him to represent Oswald.

No he didn’t. Andrews told his secretary, according to the secretary, it was “Bertrand”, Clem or Clay “Bertrand”. Andrews first tried to deny the call ever happened (in which he had been asked and had agreed to go to Dallas and represent Oswald). It was Garrison who made the case that Bertrand was Clay Shaw. 

The name the secretary gave sounds a lot like the head of the Secret Service’s Houston office, Lane Bertram, or the first name of the lawyer who likely actually made the call, Marcello connected and old friend of Marguerite Oswald who sought his help on Nov 23 for her son, Clem Sehrt. 

Marguerite in Dallas was desperate for an attorney for her son on Sat Nov 23 and was in custody of the Secret Service by mid-day that day. And it is known that some kind of inquiry from or on behalf of Marguerite came in to Marcello circles in New Orleans that weekend seeking a lawyer for Lee. Whether the mechanism of that contact involved any use of the name of Secret Service agent Lane Bertram I do not know but the similar sound of the names is curious.

The secretary, meanwhile, would not have known what “Bertrand” meant, only that is the answer Andrews (despite Andrews denials) gave her and she told, which then put that phone contact to Andrews into a position that had to be explained. If the contact did come from Clem Sehrt, it would not be admitted to have come from Sehrt because that would go to Marcello. There would be a motive to frame Clay Shaw with that alias claim.

Just another way to look at that case. If you don’t think Clay Shaw could possibly have been framed in that charge of using a Clay Bertrand alias and you are certain that would or did not happen in this case, then the Marguerite appeal and Clem Sehrt contact need to be explained in some other way.

Edited March 18 by Greg Doudna