Dean Andrews

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Although Judge Haggerty maintained that all these activities in no way affected his behavior on the bench, on November 23, 1970, the Louisiana Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, ruled that he was unfit to be a judge and ordered him removed from office without further delay.[/indent][/color]

From: http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/haggerty_box.htm

And what does all this tell us about Dean Andrews and how Garrison sadistically destroyed Dean's career and reputation, and his ability to support his many children?

I doubt if many researchers believe that Dean Andrews was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

Dean's crime, in Garrison's eyes, was his willingness to defend a man accused of a capital crime.

On the question of character, I think Dean Andrews comes out on top, even though he was obviously a very flawed human being, as we all are.

Edited September 29, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!?

One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias.

IMO this is one of the (many) absurdities in Garrison's case.

[Owen Parsons]

I doubt if many researchers believe that Dean Andrews was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

You are right, probably no researcher believes that. This is a straw man that you have built.

As for why Shaw was stupid enough to give his alias to Habighorst... The alias and Shaw's use of it (for which there is abundant evidence beyond the booking sheet, detailed by both Davy and Mellen) was primarily for his homosexual activities and Dean Andrews' story, buried as it was in the many volumes of Warren Commission exhibits, does not appear to have been common knowledge in New Orleans. Garrison only became aware of it by actually going through the 26 volumes. Shaw doesn't strike me as a particularly clever man, IMO, but who knows. In addition, there is the precedent of the VIP room incident (see here).

Beyond that, however, the theory of the Shaw defense team isn't credible. The theory was that Habighorst had supposedly copied the alias off the Arrest Register during Shaw's processing, as was sometimes done in the NOPD. The Arrest Register, in turn, typically uses information copied from the Field Arrest Report.

Now:

1. Lou Ivon testified that he had only filled out the papers, which included the Field Arrest Report, after turning Shaw over to Central Lockup. [1] After dropping Shaw off with Habighorst, Ivon filled out the paper work. [2] This agrees with Habighorst's statement that he only viewed the Report sometime after booking Shaw. Captain Louis Carole, consistent with this, testified that it is uncommon, but not unknown and unusual, for the Field Arrest Report to be filled out after the arrestee is turned over to Central Lockup. [3] Habighorst expedited the process by questioning Shaw and taking the information down because the Arrest Register had not yet arrived. [4]

2. In any case, the Arrest Register did not in fact include the alias, as the blue copy of the Arrest Register shows and as even Shaw's lawyer Wegmann [5] and Clay Shaw himself confirmed. [6] So, Habighorst, even if he did have the Register before filling out the booking sheet, would not have been able to obtain the alias from it, regardless of which time line is correct, Shaw's or Habighorst's. In addition the Field Arrest Report is not sent to the Fingerprinting Department (which would be where Habighorst was), so Habighorst could not somehow have obtained the alias from that. [7]

3. Shaw himself actually said that Habighorst (who, as Robert Charles-Dunne points out, received three letters of commendation a year for his work) asked him NO questions whatsoever [8], which contradicts even Sgt. Butzman's foggy and vague memories. [9]

4. Shaw signing a blank booking card, as alleged, would not have been standard procedure. "A police information officer said the directions in the Manual of Procedure 'indicate' by the order in which the words appear, that all cards should be typed first and then signed by the arrested. He said this is 'indicated' twice on page 227 of section 9 in the manual, and this is the procedure that has been followed by officers." [10]

Edited September 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Michael Hogan]

Antti and Owen: Great arguments but you will get nowhere with Mr Carroll. He detests Garrison and all your proof will not change his personal opinion.

Dawn knows.....

This, too, is inaccurate, as a bit of research would disclose.

Again, Robert Charles-Dunne exposes Carroll's total lack of comprehension of the facts.

You are right, probably no researcher believes that. This is a straw man that you have built.

Owen, in his customarily precise way, also destroys Carroll's silly arguments.

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.

When confronted that this statement about Garrison is demonstrably false, Carroll simply ignores explaining his own false claim. He proves that he is unfamiliar with the book that he referred to, as well as fundamental facts in the Garrison case. He repeatedly does this with virtually everything he says about Garrison and Marina Oswald; Carroll displays a total inability to grasp reality in these matters.

It's becoming almost comical to witness Carroll's futile attempts to rescue himself from the absurdities of his own fantasies.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see "people" questioning Habighorst's motives; I see one person, who has yet to provide any reason for suspecting Habighorst of fabricating anything. Not much of a case for the prosecution.

As for Shaw's admission to Habighorst that he used Bertrand as an alias, whatever one posits for a rationale would, obviously, be entirely speculative and beyond our ability to confirm.

However, we should at least consider that Shaw thought himself either above suspicion, or at least bulletproof and immune from prosecution.

If so, his hypothetical feeling of omnipotence was well-founded.

Immediately after his arrest, the Attorney General of the US, Ramsey Clark, announced that soon after the assassination, Shaw had been investigated by the FBI and cleared of all suspicions [wholly untrue, per the extant record].

For the duration of the trial, according to CIA's Victor Marchetti, Langley expressed daily solicitude over his plight and wondered if CIA was doing all it could to aid Shaw.

Even Judge Haggerty admitted to a journalist that he thought "Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trail, after it ended in Shaw's acquittal.

If Shaw thought that "somebody up there likes him," he certainly wasn't wrong.

If Shaw was Bertrand, he MUST have known how damaging an admission it would be. If he was Bertrand, he must have taken note that the name was discussed in the WC Report and Hearings/Exhibits.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The Report itself glossed over this detail, and Shaw would have had to either read the 26 volumes, or had it brought to his attention, in order to learn this detail. Since four years had elapsed, perhaps he felt that the situation had blown over.

Moreover, if it was Shaw who signed the American Airlines VIP lounge guest register as "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, he clearly felt there was no downside to doing so. One witness who ID'ed Shaw as that signator [former AA VIP room employee Mrs. Jessie Parker] testified to that fact, and another person present, CIA asset Alfred Moran, denied Shaw had been present when questioned by Garrison's staff, but admitted Shaw had been present when speaking with other CIA personnel, as Agency documents - subsequently declassified - clearly illustrated. If he was brazen enough to sign "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, why would he refrain from such an admission to Habighorst a few months later? Because he was inebriated or disoriented when arrested? Or because he thought it was immaterial to the DA's case? Who knows?

If he was Bertrand, he must have been alerted when one of Garrison's Assistant DAs mentioned the name to him. He must also have been alerted a few days earlier when Perry Russo showed up at his door, a man who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. And since Shaw subsequently denied that he was Bertrand, we can assume it was something he had no interest in admitting to.

Then why was Shaw stupid enough to casually tell Habighorst that this was his alias?!? This can't be blithely dismissed by Shaw doing it "absent-mindedly" or "playfully."

One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias.

And yet neither you, nor Mr. Carroll, nor any other advocate for Shaw whose prose I've read in the past 40 years has ever managed to lay a glove on Habighorst. How do you explain this?

As for Andrews, I don't know if we can ever know for sure. While he first brought up the name Bertrand, he later insisted and swore under oath that he was not Shaw. The Garrison-haters see it one way, the Shaw-haters see it another way. The only resolution is that Andrews' various statements cannot be taken as proving the matter either way.

Were Dean Andrews the only material witness, the issue would have long since died. He was not, as you are well aware. Please explain how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest, and you'll have done us all a massive favour. Mr. Carroll seems incapable. Perhaps you are.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Were Dean Andrews the only material witness, the issue would have long since died. He was not, as you are well aware. Please explain how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest, and you'll have done us all a massive favour. Mr. Carroll seems incapable. Perhaps you are.

I have been wrong before, and I am sure I will be wrong again, but is it not the case that Habighorst's testimony came two years after the preliminary hearing in which Garrison accused Clay Shaw of plotting the JFK assassination? Garrison's chief witness at the preliminary hearing was Perry Russo, who testified that Shaw used the alias Bertrand.

Habighorst's testimony did not hit the scene until two years after Garrison accused Shaw.

Just to do Mr. Charles-Dunne the favor he requests, the importance of the alias issue was known to every informed person in the U.S. for two years before the Clay Shaw trial. Can we not safely assume that the importance of this issue was known to Aloyisius Habighorst before he picked up the Bible to swear his oath at the trial of Clay Shaw?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Were Dean Andrews the only material witness, the issue would have long since died. He was not, as you are well aware. Please explain how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest, and you'll have done us all a massive favour. Mr. Carroll seems incapable. Perhaps you are.

I have been wrong before, and I am sure I will be wrong again, but is it not the case that Habighorst's testimony came two years after the preliminary hearing in which Garrison accused Clay Shaw of plotting the JFK assassination? Garrison's chief witness at the preliminary hearing was Perry Russo, who testified that Shaw used the alias Bertrand.

Habighorst's testimony did not hit the scene until two years after Garrison accused Shaw.

Just to do Mr. Charles-Dunne the favor he requests, the importance of the alias issue was known to every informed person in the U.S. for two years before the Clay Shaw trial. Can we not safely assume that the importance of this issue was known to Aloyisius Habighorst before he picked up the Bible to swear his oath at the trial of Clay Shaw?

Please do yourself a favour and re-read the portion of my prior post that you quoted: "... how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest..."

Since even Shaw's lawyers didn't question when the arrest sheet and fingerprint card were generated, we can safely assume they were created on the day of Shaw's arrest. Shaw's lawyers claimed, as did Shaw, that he had signed a blank fingerprint card, and that Habighorst inserted the alias information subsequent to Shaw providing his signature. This was of necessity, for what else could explain Shaw's apparent foolishness in admitting to the key bit of evidence against him? [The very point raised by Stephen Roy, which should have made it all the more clear to you.]

However, in order for Habighorst to have covertly and falsely inserted the "Bertrand" alias on that fingerprint card on that date, he must have known the importance of doing so when he did it. [What he knew at the time of his testimony is irrelevant, as I'm sure even you will acknowledge.] Can you demonstrate "how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest?"

Shaw had every reason to know the central importance of the alias issue at the time of his arrest; there is no evidence that Habighorst had such knowledge. As I've already pointed out, according to Habighorst's widow, that only became apparent to him on the following day, when he saw TV news footage of Garrison alleging that Shaw had used the alias "Bertrand."

You have suggested Garrison bribed Habighorst, and have called Habighorst a "crooked cop," all without a scintilla of proof for either assertion. If you have such proof, please offer it. If you do not have such proof, please acknowledge your unfortunate penchant for fabricating scurrilous nonsense from whole cloth as you require it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you do not have such proof, please acknowledge your unfortunate penchant for fabricating scurrilous nonsense from whole cloth as you require it.

[/color]

I have no need to fabricate anything. Habighorst did not testify at the preliminary hearing in 1967.

http://www.jfk-online.com/pre01hayward.html

As far as I know, he first came up with his story about the fingerprint card in 1969.

[Owen Parsons]

I have no need to fabricate anything. Habighorst did not testify at the preliminary hearing in 1967.

http://www.jfk-online.com/pre01hayward.html

As far as I know, he first came up with his story about the fingerprint card in 1969.

No, the story was first made public in 1968, whereupon it was verified by police chief Giarusso. Five copies of the card were made; one was kept by the NOPD, one was sent to the FBI, and one was sent to the state police. Officers Habighorst and Millet each kept a copy. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Antti Hynonen]

Stephen Roy Posted Yesterday, 03:02 PM

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!?

If Shaw was Bertrand, he MUST have known how damaging an admission it would be. If he was Bertrand, he must have taken note that the name was discussed in the WC Report and Hearings/Exhibits. If he was Bertrand, he must have been alerted when one of Garrison's Assistant DAs mentioned the name to him. He must also have been alerted a few days earlier when Perry Russo showed up at his door, a man who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. And since Shaw subsequently denied that he was Bertrand, we can assume it was something he had no interest in admitting to.

Then why was Shaw stupid enough to casually tell Habighorst that this was his alias?!? This can't be blithely dismissed by Shaw doing it "absent-mindedly" or "playfully."

One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias.

As for Andrews, I don't know if we can ever know for sure. While he first brought up the name Bertrand, he later insisted and swore under oath that he was not Shaw. The Garrison-haters see it one way, the Shaw-haters see it another way. The only resolution is that Andrews' various statements cannot be taken as proving the matter either way.

Mr. Roy,

This alias statement by Clay Shaw certainly wasn't something said playfully or absent mindedly.

Two other possibilities come to mind.

One.

Shaw revealed his alias to the officer because he thought it would be revealed by some manner sooner or later anyhow. It would be safer to be honest at this point, the CIA would sure to bail him out, would it not...???

Two.

It was a pure slip of the tongue, as he was startled and didn't expect to be arrested and must have thought that his alias would not be significant in terms of incriminating him in any way. Apparently he was debriefed later (by some friends....), after his arrest and found out his alias would be key in incriminating him in the case, after all the CIA had it's insiders within Garison's team.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

Well, I am not afraid of looking silly. If I am wrong then I am wrong, and so be it. But I will wait for someone to challenge Stephen Roy's comments in a convincing way. I have never met Stephen, and all I know about him is that he gives the impression of having seriously studied the New Orleans aspect of the case. In fact I think he is writing a book on the subject.

I agree with Stephen Roy that it is most improbable that Clay Shaw would reveal his alias if he really was Clay Bertrand. I know for certain that I woulld not.

So I would repeat the words of Judge Haggerty: "I dont care, the whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

Well, I am not afraid of looking silly.

Nor are you inclined to offer proof for your baseless assertions, apparently. Gut instincts are one thing; evidence rising to the level of legal requirements are another. Given the fact that both victims of your character assassination are now dead, you can malign them with impunity. But, appealing to your instincts as a gentleman, I say again:

"You have suggested Garrison bribed Habighorst, and have called Habighorst a "crooked cop," all without a scintilla of proof for either assertion. If you have such proof, please offer it. If you do not have such proof, please acknowledge your unfortunate penchant for fabricating scurrilous nonsense from whole cloth as you require it."

If I am wrong then I am wrong, and so be it.

Ego to one side for the moment, there is more riding on this matter than whether or not you look silly. Have you some precedent for accusing Garrison of bribery and Habighorst with being a "crooked cop" or not? It's a simple question and can be resolved with a simple answer: yes or no?

But I will wait for someone to challenge Stephen Roy's comments in a convincing way.

"Comments" is precisely what they are. There was no evidence to support the conjecture, merely the incredulity that Shaw could have been so stupid. Yet history is replete with examples of arrogant stupidity; why should Shaw be thought above being stupidly arrogant? Please, do provide some reason for your assertions, rather than rely upon Mr. Roy to pull your fat out of the fire for you.

I have never met Stephen, and all I know about him is that he gives the impression of having seriously studied the New Orleans aspect of the case. In fact I think he is writing a book on the subject.

It will be interesting to see whether the byline is Stephen Roy or "David Blackburst," his previous alias. Apparently "Mr. Blackburn" was about as pleased to be outed as "Mr. Bertrand" had been. Interesting that in Mr. Roy's worldview Mr. Shaw was too smart to use an alias, and admit it, while Mr. Roy also used an alias, and was forced to admit it, much to his chagrin.

I agree with Stephen Roy that it is most improbable that Clay Shaw would reveal his alias if he really was Clay Bertrand. I know for certain that I woulld not.

Yet Mr. Roy did use an alias, and was forced to admit same. I guess you're smarter than both of them.

So I would repeat the words of Judge Haggerty: "I dont care, the whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

Then bear in mind that, prior to his death, Judge Haggerty also claimed that "Clay Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trial and that Shaw "did a con job on the jury." Not exactly helpful to Shaw's apologists, is it?

Bear in mind, also, that the judge with whom you so uncritically agree was removed from the bench for professional misconduct; the very thing of which you have accused both Garrison and Habighorst without troubling yourself to provide the slightest evidence for your assertions.

Apparently you don't mind casting aspersions against the demonstrably innocent in your rush to agree with the demonstrably crooked. Given the company you keep, can you provide a single reason why we should care what you think?

[Stephen Roy]

This is one of the problems of trying to deal rationally with the Garrison case. If one concedes any sincerity to his case, the Garrison-haters get emotional. If one questions any point of his case, the Shaw-haters get emotional.

It is AS NECESSARY to question our own theorizing as it is to question the WC theorizing. We should be held to the same standards of logic.

I truly find it difficult to believe that Shaw, if he was the wily conspirator some believe him to have been, could have been so stupid as to incriminate himself repeatedly. This is a man who is believed to have successfully pulled off a presidential assassination. Yet:

He goes out of his way to be seen with Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton LA. He could have parked the car around the corner, used a different car, worn a disguise, not given his name when asked, even stayed at home. But no, he drew attention to his association with the man he presumably knew would soon be known as an assassin.

He incriminates himself by plotting the assassination in front of a total stranger, Perry Raymond Russo.

Any conspirator would presumably have shown some interest in checking to see if the Warren Commission mentioned their name, and in fact the WC did mention the mysterious Clay Bertrand. So he "playfully" signs the alias in the Eastern Air Lines guest book.

By the day of his arrest, he DOES know that the name Bertrand has meaning to Garrison, having heard it from several sources, including Layton Martens. He was visited just a short time previously by Perry Russo, who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. So Habighorst asked him if he had any aliases, and he "absent-mindedly" or arrogantly says "Clay Bertrand."

How stupid was this guy? Is it unfair of me to even ask the question?

. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

Well, I am not afraid of looking silly.

Nor are you inclined to offer proof for your baseless assertions, apparently. Gut instincts are one thing; evidence rising to the level of legal requirements are another. Given the fact that both victims of your character assassination are now dead, you can malign them with impunity. But, appealing to your instincts as a gentleman, I say again:

"You have suggested Garrison bribed Habighorst, and have called Habighorst a "crooked cop," all without a scintilla of proof for either assertion. If you have such proof, please offer it. If you do not have such proof, please acknowledge your unfortunate penchant for fabricating scurrilous nonsense from whole cloth as you require it."

If I am wrong then I am wrong, and so be it.

Ego to one side for the moment, there is more riding on this matter than whether or not you look silly. Have you some precedent for accusing Garrison of bribery and Habighorst with being a "crooked cop" or not? It's a simple question and can be resolved with a simple answer: yes or no?

But I will wait for someone to challenge Stephen Roy's comments in a convincing way.

"Comments" is precisely what they are. There was no evidence to support the conjecture, merely the incredulity that Shaw could have been so stupid.

No evidence to support WHAT conjecture?

Yet history is replete with examples of arrogant stupidity; why should Shaw be thought above being stupidly arrogant?

Shaw had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. What makes you think he was in an arrogant mood?

Please, do provide some reason for your assertions, rather than rely upon Mr. Roy to pull your fat out of the fire for you.

I have never met Stephen, and all I know about him is that he gives the impression of having seriously studied the New Orleans aspect of the case. In fact I think he is writing a book on the subject.

A biography of David Ferrie, not an assassination book.

It will be interesting to see whether the byline is Stephen Roy or "David Blackburst," his previous alias. Apparently "Mr. Blackburn" was about as pleased to be outed as "Mr. Bertrand" had been. Interesting that in Mr. Roy's worldview Mr. Shaw was too smart to use an alias, and admit it, while Mr. Roy also used an alias, and was forced to admit it, much to his chagrin.

Of what relevance is that? I came online under my own name and had an incident where somebody looked me up and visited my house when I wasn't home, so I used Blackburst (a word related to my job) at the insistence of my wife. Many people in this forum use aliases in the newsgroups. Dave Healy is one. A number of authors I helped knew who I was. When I spoke at Lancer in 2000 under my own name, my name tag listed both names. I was angry when I was outed because I had asked the person not to do it, and it was done unnecessarily. This is a cheap shot on your part.

I agree with Stephen Roy that it is most improbable that Clay Shaw would reveal his alias if he really was Clay Bertrand. I know for certain that I woulld not.

Yet Mr. Roy did use an alias, and was forced to admit same. I guess you're smarter than both of them.

Another truly relevant comment.

So I would repeat the words of Judge Haggerty: "I dont care, the whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

Then bear in mind that, prior to his death, Judge Haggerty also claimed that "Clay Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trial and that Shaw "did a con job on the jury." Not exactly helpful to Shaw's apologists, is it?

Bear in mind, also, that the judge with whom you so uncritically agree was removed from the bench for professional misconduct; the very thing of which you have accused both Garrison and Habighorst without troubling yourself to provide the slightest evidence for your assertions.

Apparently you don't mind casting aspersions against the demonstrably innocent in your rush to agree with the demonstrably crooked. Given the company you keep, can you provide a single reason why we should care what you think?

The goal of everyone here is to determine the truth related to the assassination. This is not a game of "for us or agin' us."

Shaw may well have been a conspirator, but he sure was a stupid one.

What are we to make of Dean Andrews? He claimed that he told a tale, then recanted it. How are we to know which of his statements to believe?

Stephen Roy Posted Yesterday, 03:02 PM

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!?

If Shaw was Bertrand, he MUST have known how damaging an admission it would be. If he was Bertrand, he must have taken note that the name was discussed in the WC Report and Hearings/Exhibits. If he was Bertrand, he must have been alerted when one of Garrison's Assistant DAs mentioned the name to him. He must also have been alerted a few days earlier when Perry Russo showed up at his door, a man who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. And since Shaw subsequently denied that he was Bertrand, we can assume it was something he had no interest in admitting to.

Then why was Shaw stupid enough to casually tell Habighorst that this was his alias?!? This can't be blithely dismissed by Shaw doing it "absent-mindedly" or "playfully."

One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias.

As for Andrews, I don't know if we can ever know for sure. While he first brought up the name Bertrand, he later insisted and swore under oath that he was not Shaw. The Garrison-haters see it one way, the Shaw-haters see it another way. The only resolution is that Andrews' various statements cannot be taken as proving the matter either way.

Mr. Roy,

This alias statement by Clay Shaw certainly wasn't something said playfully or absent mindedly.

Two other possibilities come to mind.

One.

Shaw revealed his alias to the officer because he thought it would be revealed by some manner sooner or later anyhow. It would be safer to be honest at this point, the CIA would sure to bail him out, would it not...???

But on what basis can we presume arrogance on his part? He had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. To read his diary and the accounts of lawyer Panzeca, he regarded it as a very serious matter. His alleged co-conspirator David Ferrie doesn't seem to have been bailed out by the CIA.

Two.

It was a pure slip of the tongue, as he was startled and didn't expect to be arrested and must have thought that his alias would not be significant in terms of incriminating him in any way. Apparently he was debriefed later (by some friends....), after his arrest and found out his alias would be key in incriminating him in the case, after all the CIA had it's insiders within Garison's team.

I find it hard to believe. See my other comments in this topic. If he was a conspirator, he must have known the FBI and WC had looked into a Clay Bertrand. According to his memoir, the name was mentioned to him by Garrison's men before his arrest, and Layton Martens also told him that Garrison was interested in Bertrand. And he had just received a "pretext visit" by Perry Russo, who allegedly knew him as Bertrand.

[Stephen Roy]

I see people here questioning Habighorst's possible motives for fabricating Shaw's admission of using the Bertrand alias. But here's what I don't understand: Why, in Heaven's name, would Shaw make such an admission?!?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see "people" questioning Habighorst's motives; I see one person, who has yet to provide any reason for suspecting Habighorst of fabricating anything. Not much of a case for the prosecution.

My point was that someone asked what motive Habighorst might have for fabricating.

As for Shaw's admission to Habighorst that he used Bertrand as an alias, whatever one posits for a rationale would, obviously, be entirely speculative and beyond our ability to confirm.

However, we should at least consider that Shaw thought himself either above suspicion, or at least bulletproof and immune from prosecution.

If so, his hypothetical feeling of omnipotence was well-founded.

Immediately after his arrest, the Attorney General of the US, Ramsey Clark, announced that soon after the assassination, Shaw had been investigated by the FBI and cleared of all suspicions [wholly untrue, per the extant record].

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.

For the duration of the trial, according to CIA's Victor Marchetti, Langley expressed daily solicitude over his plight and wondered if CIA was doing all it could to aid Shaw.

Even Judge Haggerty admitted to a journalist that he thought "Shaw lied through his teeth" during the trail, after it ended in Shaw's acquittal.

If Shaw thought that "somebody up there likes him," he certainly wasn't wrong.

That still doesn't explain him "handing the sword" to Garrison.

If Shaw was Bertrand, he MUST have known how damaging an admission it would be. If he was Bertrand, he must have taken note that the name was discussed in the WC Report and Hearings/Exhibits.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The Report itself glossed over this detail, and Shaw would have had to either read the 26 volumes, or had it brought to his attention, in order to learn this detail. Since four years had elapsed, perhaps he felt that the situation had blown over.

Look at it this way: It was Deano who originated the Clay Bertand story. By 12/14/66, Garrison had spoken with Andrews and subpoenaed Ferrie. Wouldn't that have alarmed Shaw a bit?

Moreover, if it was Shaw who signed the American Airlines VIP lounge guest register as "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, he clearly felt there was no downside to doing so.

Actually, it was Eastern Air Lines.

One witness who ID'ed Shaw as that signator [former AA VIP room employee Mrs. Jessie Parker] testified to that fact, and another person present, CIA asset Alfred Moran, denied Shaw had been present when questioned by Garrison's staff, but admitted Shaw had been present when speaking with other CIA personnel, as Agency documents - subsequently declassified - clearly illustrated. If he was brazen enough to sign "Clay Bertrand" on December 14, 1966, why would he refrain from such an admission to Habighorst a few months later? Because he was inebriated or disoriented when arrested? Or because he thought it was immaterial to the DA's case? Who knows?

With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.

If he was Bertrand, he must have been alerted when one of Garrison's Assistant DAs mentioned the name to him. He must also have been alerted a few days earlier when Perry Russo showed up at his door, a man who allegedly knew him as Bertrand. And since Shaw subsequently denied that he was Bertrand, we can assume it was something he had no interest in admitting to.

Then why was Shaw stupid enough to casually tell Habighorst that this was his alias?!? This can't be blithely dismissed by Shaw doing it "absent-mindedly" or "playfully."

One needs to ask this sort of question when trying to assess the whole Bertrand thing. It is hard for me to believe that Shaw was stupid enough to admit to Habighorst that he used this alias.

And yet neither you, nor Mr. Carroll, nor any other advocate for Shaw whose prose I've read in the past 40 years has ever managed to lay a glove on Habighorst. How do you explain this?

I'm not an advocate for Shaw. I'm trying to reason if the evidence against him is credible.

As for Andrews, I don't know if we can ever know for sure. While he first brought up the name Bertrand, he later insisted and swore under oath that he was not Shaw. The Garrison-haters see it one way, the Shaw-haters see it another way. The only resolution is that Andrews' various statements cannot be taken as proving the matter either way.

Were Dean Andrews the only material witness, the issue would have long since died. He was not, as you are well aware. Please explain how and why Habighorst concocted an alias, the importance of which was unknown to him at the time of the arrest, and you'll have done us all a massive favour. Mr. Carroll seems incapable. Perhaps you are.

Having studied many of Garrison's own documents, I wonder why there is no mention of the booking card during all the months his staff was looking for evidence that Shaw was Bertrand. Why even bother, if Shaw had already admitted it?

[Owen Parsons]

I truly find it difficult to believe that Shaw, if he was the wily conspirator some believe him to have been, could have been so stupid as to incriminate himself repeatedly. This is a man who is believed to have successfully pulled off a presidential assassination.

I don't think many people believe it was Shaw himself who "pulled off a presidential assassination," which would indeed require him to be a very clever person. He was just one player in a larger conspiracy.

He incriminates himself by plotting the assassination in front of a total stranger, Perry Raymond Russo.

This incident occurred very late in to the night (when peoples' judgements are perhaps not so good) in the context of a party that had mostly dispersed. Russo described the conversation as being like a "bull session" at the trial; not really a planning session, per se.

Any conspirator would presumably have shown some interest in checking to see if the Warren Commission mentioned their name, and in fact the WC did mention the mysterious Clay Bertrand. So he "playfully" signs the alias in the Eastern Air Lines guest book.

Clay Bertrand is only mentioned in one of the many, many, volumes of supporting evidence, not the main report. I do not know when or how Shaw would find the time or interest to dig through all the volumes just to make sure his alias doesn't pop up. The conspirators (I would not class Shaw as a major figure among these) were probably pretty confident that they were able to foist one on the American people with the WC, and the media was very active in supporting the WC conclusions. So, for these people, the case has been "closed" quite satisfactorily and there isn't much reason to worry anymore.

As for the guestbook, I will take the testimony of the two people who witnessed Shaw signing it or saw him in the VIP room that day (one of which denied knowledge to Garrison's people but told the real story to his CIA employers) and expert testimony of the documents analyst who wasn't involved in framing Bruno Hauptmann and wasn't a good buddy of J. Edgar Hoover (which apply to Team Shaw's expert) as pretty much definitive. Reasons can be offered as to why Shaw signed the book, but I don't think its needful since the weight of the evidence against Shaw is already so heavy.

Shaw had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. What makes you think he was in an arrogant mood?

Because these people think they're teflon, which, in view of the trial outcome and WC (among many other things), is probably close to the truth. Shaw most likely knew the CIA wouldn't let him out to dry, and they didn't.

What are we to make of Dean Andrews? He claimed that he told a tale, then recanted it. How are we to know which of his statements to believe?

Dean Andrews' original story is more accurate because there are independent witnesses (three of them) to confirm it. Dean Andrews wouldn't have called Eva Springer from the hospital in regards to representing Oswald on behalf of Bertrand at 4:00 on the 23rd if the call was something he made up. Dean Andrews had a good reason to change his story (namely, death threats from "Washington D.C." as he told Mark Lane).

But on what basis can we presume arrogance on his part? He had just been arrested and charged with a heinous crime. To read his diary and the accounts of lawyer Panzeca, he regarded it as a very serious matter. His alleged co-conspirator David Ferrie doesn't seem to have been bailed out by the CIA.

You're right. Ferrie wasn't bailed out by the CIA; in all probability he was murdered by them. However, Ferrie was probably not regarded as as much of a team player as Shaw, which is demonstrated by his confession to Ivon, although I am aware you won't credit that. Ferrie wasn't "one of the boys" and couldn't be relied upon. Besides that, the CIA would probably not risk another assassination so soon after Ferrie and in the context of Garrison's investigation. BTW, having read Shaw's diary, I don't regard it as a serious document. But that's just my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark later said that he had misunderstood the FBI, that they had investigated BERTRAND in 1963, not Shaw.

If Clark ever did say this, that would be incorrect, as the FBI's own memos, reprinted in Davy's book, show (i.e. that Shaw's name came up in connection to the assassination in 1963 and this is what Clark was told). However, Clark has come clean about this issue. See Mellen pg. 128-9.

With all due respect to my colleague Joe Biles, I find the EAL guest book matter inconclusive and open to question.

That's because you want to see it like that, but there is not a great deal of wiggle room, IMO. Mellen has only further solidified this (DiEugenio calls her work here "quite solid").

Having studied many of Garrison's own documents, I wonder why there is no mention of the booking card during all the months his staff was looking for evidence that Shaw was Bertrand. Why even bother, if Shaw had already admitted it?

Because Garrison's team wasn't aware of the booking card at the time and Habighorst wasn't aware of its significance. In any case, this is irrelevant, because it is conclusively not an ad hoc forgery.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Owen Parsons