William O'Neil Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Does anyone have info on one Frank H. Langridge of New Orleans, who was the Jefferson Parish DA in 67' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Does anyone have info on one Frank H. Langridge of New Orleans, who was the Jefferson Parish DA in 67' ? Just some sketchy bits. Langridge was the Jefferson Parish DA from the late 50s to the late 60s. He was reputed to be Carlos Marcello's man. When David Ferrie was arrested on morals charges in 1961, it was Langridge's office that processed the charges. Ferrie also charged that he was being "shaken down" for payoffs alleged to go to Langridge. When the complaining witness against Ferrie retracted his charges in September 1962, Langridge non prossed the cases. Langridge then went with the complaining witness and his father to Eastern Air Lines to plead for Ferrie's reinstatement from suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Does anyone have info on one Frank H. Langridge of New Orleans, who was the Jefferson Parish DA in 67' ? Just some sketchy bits. Langridge was the Jefferson Parish DA from the late 50s to the late 60s. He was reputed to be Carlos Marcello's man. When David Ferrie was arrested on morals charges in 1961, it was Langridge's office that processed the charges. Ferrie also charged that he was being "shaken down" for payoffs alleged to go to Langridge. When the complaining witness against Ferrie retracted his charges in September 1962, Langridge non prossed the cases. Langridge then went with the complaining witness and his father to Eastern Air Lines to plead for Ferrie's reinstatement from suspension. THANKS STEVE! -Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 It's just a passing connection but when one of Ferrie's friends Alvin Beauboeuf claimed that two of Garrison's investigators tried to bribe him to testify favourably for Garrison and supposedly had a tape recording of it, (which was later discovered to be a fabrication) Beauboeuf's lawyer Hugh Exnicios first offered to give the tape to Langridge who refused it. Subsequently the tape wound up with Shaw's lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 It's just a passing connection but when one of Ferrie's friends Alvin Beauboeuf claimed that two of Garrison's investigators tried to bribe him to testify favourably for Garrison and supposedly had a tape recording of it, (which was later discovered to be a fabrication) Beauboeuf's lawyer Hugh Exnicios first offered to give the tape to Langridge who refused it. Subsequently the tape wound up with Shaw's lawyers. Hold on, a couple of observations: I am acquainted with two people who were involved in matters related to that tape. First, there WAS a tape of a conversation between Loisel/Ivon and Beaubouef/Exnicios. The transcript utilized by the NOPD, who investigated it, was an accurate representation of what was on the tape. But there were two issues: Loisel and Ivon said that there was conversation that took place before (or after) the main body of conversation. Exnicios agreed that he started the recorder after the conversation began and the tape ran out just before the conversation ended. What was said before or after, we don't know. The second issue is the interpreation of what was said in the body of the conversation. There was clearly conversation about Beaubouef (correct spelling) changing his statements, and there was also conversation about in-kind rewards for this. Loisel and Ivon later said they wanted Beaubouef to stop lying and tell the truth, and he would be rewarded for this. Beaubouef and Exnicios said that Loisel and Ivon wanted Beaubouef to tell untruths in return for a reward. The transcript is too ambiguous to clearly establish which was the case. I beleive the matter was referred to Langridge for two reasons: First, it was representatives of the Orleans Parish DA who were being charged with impropriety. Second, the conversation took place in Ex's office in Jefferson Parish. Hope this clarifies a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I should have made myself clearer in that I meant Beauboef's story of being ofered a bribe was a fabrication not the tape. According to William Davy in Let Justice Be Done: "Beauboef himself retracted the charges saying in a sworn statement that Exnicios had persuaded him that the "bribery tape" would be an excellent opportunity to make some money. Beauboef's wife the only witness to the purported threat swore she had never heard any such threat being made. The bribe tape was misrepresented. After reading the transcript of the tape provided by Exnicious, both Beauboef and his new attorney Burton Klein stated that several parts of the conversation were edited out that would have disproved the offer of a bribe. (Both Beauboef and Klein had heard the tape prior to examining the transcript). When asked to produce the tape for the New Orleans Police investigation, Exnicios refused." Davy's source for this is the NOPD report. According to the report, both Loisel and Ivon were cleared of any wrongdoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now