Jump to content

Dean Andrews


Antti Hynonen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I looked for a thread on Dean Andrews, but could not find one. I apologize in advance, if one exists, and I missed it.

Dean Andrews is the New Orleans lawyer who claimed he received a call from Clay Bertrand in the hospital asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 23rd 1963, I believe.

It is a debated issue whether Dean knew the true identity of Clay Bertrand. At one time Dean admitted he knew David Ferrie and that he had done some parole work for a friend of Ferrie's.

Dean later denied knowing Clay Bertrand and that everything he said regarding Oswald and Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination.

Why did Dean initially provide information about a phone call and later deny everything? Surely he must have had a motive to discuss this information at first and particulary when he denied everything Garrison claimed he had said?

What was going on?

As presented in the movie JFK (I know this may be a stretch) did the lunch and conversation between Dean Andrews and Jim Garrison take place?

I wonder whether Dean actually knew the name of the "big Enchillada" or any other details, which he did not divulge?

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean Andrews is the New Orleans lawyer who claimed he received a call from Clay Bertrand in the hospital asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 23rd 1963, I believe.

It is a debated issue whether Dean knew the true identity of Clay Bertrand..

Dean later denied knowing Clay Bertrand and that everything he said regarding Oswald and Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination.

Why did Dean initially provide information about a phone call and later deny everything? Surely he must have had a motive to discuss this information at first and particulary when he denied everything Garrison claimed he had said?

What was going on?

My theory: Dean Andrews heard Lee Oswald on television asking for SOMEONE to come forward to give him legal assistance. Dean decided that he wanted the job, but his problem was that he had not been retained. In those days advertizing by lawyers was forbidden, as was soliciting clients. Dean was afraid he could get in trouble with the state bar so he invented the retainer from Clay Bertrand in an attempt to show that he was not an ambulance-chaser.

In his book On the Trail of The Assassins, Jim Garrison claimed that Dean Andrews plotted to murder Garrison. I don't think anyone who knew Dean Andrews could believe such a thing.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked for a thread on Dean Andrews, but could not find one. I apologize in advance, if one exists, and I missed it.

Dean Andrews is the New Orleans lawyer who claimed he received a call from Clay Bertrand in the hospital asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 23rd 1963, I believe.

It is a debated issue whether Dean knew the true identity of Clay Bertrand. At one time Dean admitted he knew David Ferrie and that he had done some parole work for a friend of Ferrie's.

Dean later denied knowing Clay Bertrand and that everything he said regarding Oswald and Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination.

Why did Dean initially provide information about a phone call and later deny everything? Surely he must have had a motive to discuss this information at first and particulary when he denied everything Garrison claimed he had said?

What was going on?

As presented in the movie JFK (I know this may be a stretch) did the lunch and conversation between Dean Andrews and Jim Garrison take place?

I wonder whether Dean actually knew the name of the "big Enchillada" or any other details, which he did not divulge?

I think the story that Dean told Garrison was credible. Dean later became very afraid and denied all. The lunch in the film is presented just as Garrison recounts it in the book.

Now for those who call Garrison a xxxx, that's another matter.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 11:34 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 28 2006, 08:51 AM)

Dean Andrews is the New Orleans lawyer who claimed he received a call from Clay Bertrand in the hospital asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 23rd 1963, I believe.

It is a debated issue whether Dean knew the true identity of Clay Bertrand..

Dean later denied knowing Clay Bertrand and that everything he said regarding Oswald and Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination.

Why did Dean initially provide information about a phone call and later deny everything? Surely he must have had a motive to discuss this information at first and particulary when he denied everything Garrison claimed he had said?

What was going on?

My theory: Dean Andrews heard Lee Oswald on television asking for SOMEONE to come forward to give him legal assistance. Dean decided that he wanted the job, but his problem was that he had not been retained. In those days advertizing by lawyers was forbidden, as was soliciting clients. Dean was afraid he could get in trouble with the state bar so he invented the retainer from Clay Bertrand in an attempt to show that he was not an ambulance-chaser.

In his book On the Trail of The Assassins, Jim Garrison claimed that Dean Andrews plotted to murder Garrison. I don't think anyone who knew Dean Andrews could believe such a thing.

If this were the case, it would seem to me that "Deano" would be quite stupid.

Why would he claim that "someone" had called him about this very high profile case asking him to defend the suspect. Didn't he think he might have to explain "who" had called him and retained him, if the case were to go to court?

He should have also known that Lee would be, or was offered legal assistance locally through the DBA if I recall correctly.

So it's pure coincidence that it just happened to be Dean Andrews who was the lawyer who came up with this wild idea, when it could have been a lawyer from anywhere in the USA?

He just happened to be from New Orleans where Lee had spent the summer doing a bit of this and that and possibly associated with some characters, who would later be implicted in the Garrison case.

A bit too juicy a coincidence for me to swallow.

I still think Garrison was on to something. Consider the untimely deaths of David Ferrie, Eladio Del Valle, Guy Banister etc.

All just coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were the case, it would seem to me that "Deano" would be quite stupid.

Why would he claim that "someone" had called him about this very high profile case asking him to defend the suspect. Didn't he think he might have to explain "who" had called him and retained him, if the case were to go to court?

Agreed that Dean was stupid to come up with the Clay Bertrand story. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he was in hospital and presumably was medicated at the time.

So it's pure coincidence that it just happened to be Dean Andrews who was the lawyer who came up with this wild idea, when it could have been a lawyer from anywhere in the USA?

At the Lancer NID conference in '99 a met a San Francisco attorney named Hal McKay. Hal told me that he was seriously considering flying to Dallas that weekend to offer his services to Lee Oswald. He considered it scandalous that Lee was still unrepresented. I also heard, from researcher Carol Hewitt, that an attorney in Chicago (can't recall his name) was also planning to offer his services to Lee Oswald before Jack Ruby intervened. It would not surprise me if a great many other criminal defense lawyers had the same idea as Dean Andrews. As Dean Andrews said, "I'd like to be famous too, but not as a perjurer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed that Dean was stupid to come up with the Clay Bertrand story. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he was in hospital and presumably was medicated at the time.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the FBI reports of December 1963, using information from the hospital, show that Dean Andrews was not "medicated" at the time of the call. In addition, Andrews told three other people in his law office about the call before any of this was public, thus invalidating Carroll's theory. Andrews called his secretary Eva Springer at 4 pm on the 23rd, the day of the call and before he was medicated at 8 pm. He would also tell Sam "Monk" Zelden and Sergeant R.M. Davis about the call on the 24th.

As for why Andrews recanted his story, variously saying he had either made it up or that Eugene Davis was "Clay Bertrand," I will quote Davy and DiEugenio:

When Mark Lane wanted to interview him, Andrews begged off, saying he had been warned by "Washington, D.C." that he would "have a hole blown in his head if he talked." Many years later when Anthony Summers interviewed Andrews, the normally loquacious lawyer was still reticent on the subject of Bertrand. Summers wrote, "he [Andrews] has since said that to reveal the truth about his caller would endanger his life, and my own brief contact with Andrews confirmed that the fear is still with him today." (link)

Later, Andrews would tell Harold Weisberg that the call was real and that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Weisberg recounted this to both anti-Garrison "researcher" Dave Reitzes and Joan Mellen. Dean apparently did know the name of the "big enchillada."

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Owen, I agree with what you say.

Also there is a document that was found by the author William Davy who discovered it in Shaw's CIA file. It was only released in 1994 and is a computer printout. It reads:

"/N SHAW, CLAY SR S332959

/A BERTRAND, CLAY /YM

/D SER 1951

/R IW R402897-A 2088478 67" (84)

It appears that the "/N Shaw, Clay" refers to his name obviously and the "/A Bertrand. Clay" is an alias.

"/D SER 1951" is possibly 'date of service "? Maybe it refers to the date Shaw first started using this alias? His first offical contact with the agency is in 1948 according to the records.

No idea what the last line refers to though.

Another interesting point is that there appears to be another link to Dean Andrews and Clay Shaw. At Shaw's trial, he testified that Gordon Novel had visited him several times at the Trade Mart because he wanted to rent the concession at the top of the Trade Mart. Shaw further said that on one such visit when Novel brought him a formal proposal to acquire the concession, that Novel:

"........may at that time have said it was drawn by his attorney Dean Andrews, or Mr Andrew's name appeared on the documents." (from Shaw trial testimony, Feb 27th 1969)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are unaware, but the FBI reports of December 1963, using information from the hospital, show that Dean Andrews was not "medicated" at the time of the call.

I have not gone back to cjheck the primary sources, but according to Dave Reitzes website:

"Attorney Dean Andrews spent much of the weekend of the Kennedy assassination in a state of delirium induced by pneumonia, fever, medication, and oxygen. His physician told the FBI that Andrews had spent the entire weekend "under heavy sedation," so much so that he had trouble believing the patient had even been "capable of using the telephone during that time."(24)

24. FBI report of interview with J. D. Andrews, December 5, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2899, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 355."

I am not sure if J.D. Andrews was the doctor in question or if this is a misspelling of Dean Andrews name.

One of the symptoms of pneumonia is a high fever. It is a very serious illness and was a leading cause of death among adult males until the discovery of antibiotics. It would be very surprising, and probably malpractice by the doctors/hospital, if a patient hospitalized with pneumonia was not receiving medication.

Later, Andrews would tell Harold Weisberg that the call was real and that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Weisberg recounted this to both anti-Garrison "researcher" Dave Reitzes and Joan Mellen. Dean apparently did know the name of the "big enchillada."

Did Weisberg mention this in any of his books? Where does Dave Reitzes make this claim?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not gone back to cjheck the primary sources, but according to Dave Reitzes website:

"Attorney Dean Andrews spent much of the weekend of the Kennedy assassination in a state of delirium induced by pneumonia, fever, medication, and oxygen. His physician told the FBI that Andrews had spent the entire weekend "under heavy sedation," so much so that he had trouble believing the patient had even been "capable of using the telephone during that time."(24)

24. FBI report of interview with J. D. Andrews, December 5, 1963, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2899, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XXVI, p. 355."

What bothers me about this is that Reitzes cites Andrews as quoting his own doctor, so it looks like hearsay. On the other hand, Andrews should know if it is true. Did the doctor himself testify to investigators?

One of the symptoms of pneumonia is a high fever. It is a very serious illness and was a leading cause of death among adult males until the discovery of antibiotics. It would be very surprising, and probably malpractice by the doctors/hospital, if a patient hospitalized with pneumonia was not receiving medication.

He DID receive medication, but it was at a later time than when he recieved the phone call and informed his secretary Eva Springer about it at 4:00. All of this should have been clear from reading my post. The information about his medication comes from "Commission Document 126 - FBI Reynolds Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Oswald" p. 27, which I will excerpt below:

Mrs. THELMA MASSARINI, Medical Records Librarian, Hotel Dieu Hospital, advised that hospital records of Mr. DEAN ANDREWS show he was there from November 20, 1963 to November 29, 1963, and on November 23, 1963, at 6:00 PM was treated with nose drops and cough medicine. At 8:00 PM he received sedation in the form of phenobarbitol and also at that time Mr. ANDREWS complained of pains in the chest. At 9:00 PM he was given anti-biotics. At 10:00 PM, the chart shows he was quiet again. (link)
Where does Dave Reitzes make this claim?

Reitzes mentions this in his magnum opus "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?".

And last but not least, Dean Andrews told researcher Harold Weisberg some years later that "Bertrand" had been Clay Shaw after all. "You understand," Weisberg cautions, "Andrews was the biggest xxxx that ever lived" (Author's interview with Harold Weisberg, December 3, 1998). (link)

I would note that Weisberg's opinion of Andrews is just that. Its his information that's valuable.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He DID recieve medication, but it was at a later time than when he recieved the phone call and informed his secretary Eva Springer about it at 4:00. All this should have been clear from reading my post. The information about his medication comes from "Commission Document 126 - FBI Reynolds Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Oswald" p. 27, which I will excerpt below:
Mrs. THELMA MASSARINI, Medical Records Librarian, Hotel Dieu Hospital, advised that hospital records of Mr. DEAN ANDREWS show he was there from November 20, 1963 to November 29, 1963, and on November 23, 1963, at 6:00 PM was treated with nose drops and cough medicine. At 8:00 PM he received sedation in the form of phenobarbitol and also at that time Mr. ANDREWS complained of pains in the chest. At 9:00 PM he was given anti-biotics. At 10:00 PM, the chart shows he was quiet again. (link)

If Dean Andrews was hospilized for nine days then he must have had a very serious bout of pneumonia. While it may be true that the hospital records cited in your post only refer to medication administered after 6 P.M, does that neccessarily mean that the hospital neglected to medicate him earlier in the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dean Andrews was hospilized for nine days then he must have had a very serious bout of pneumonia. While it may be true that the hospital records cited in your post only refer to medication administered after 6 P.M, does that neccessarily mean that the hospital neglected to medicate him earlier in the day?

If this was the case, this would have been reflected in the hospital records cited by the F.B.I. report. As should be obvious from the report itself, the records pertain to all medication "on November 23, 1963" and not to any specific and limited time period of that day (which in any case, would be an odd thing for the F.B.I to request; of course they are interested in ALL the medication Andrews had received that day).

Besides that, the very fact that Andrews was even able to pick up the phone and call Eva Springer about Clay Bertrand at 4:00 (as confirmed by both of them) indicates that he was not sedated at the time, consistent with the hospital records.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was the case, this would have been reflected in the hospital records cited by the F.B.I. report. As should be obvious from the report itself, the records pertain to all medication "on November 23, 1963" and not to any specific and limited time period of that day (which in any case, would be an odd thing for the F.B.I to request; of course they are interested in ALL the medication Andrews had received that day).

Sorry, Owen, but I am not convinced. Having been hospitalized for pneumonia myself (I don't recommend it to anyone) I can testify that I was continously medicated, i.e regularly throughout the day. Your last post seems to suggest that the FBI is infallible, and I can only say that their investigation of the JFK asssination does not encourage this assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Owen, but I am not convinced. Having been hospitalized for pneumonia myself (I don't recommend it to anyone) I can testify that I was continously medicated, i.e regularly throughout the day. Your last post seems to suggest that the FBI is infallible, and I can only say that their investigation of the JFK asssination does not encourage this assumption.

I'm not saying they're infallible (by no means!), I am saying that the context and wording of the information in the report show this to be the case and that the the FBI would have no incentive or logical reason to arbitrarily limit the time period of the medical information covered. AND the fact that Andrews was able to use the telephone indicate that he wasn't sedated at the time. You seem to have left that last part out. :P

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...