Dean Andrews

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Stephen Roy' date='Oct 3 2006, 05:28 PM' post='76706']

[

One of the weirdest things I ever experienced: I'm sitting in the living room of one of Ferrie's closest friends, who defends him to this day, watching the NBC White Paper and Garrison's response, and the friend says: You know, he was right. Who was right? Garrison. I thought you said Dave was innocent. He was, but I think Garrison was right about Shaw.

Ya never know.

OK I'll bite: Who's the close friend? Has he ever gone on record with this?

Thanx,

Dawn

[William O'Neil]

. And Garrison didn't persecute Andrews; in fact, he signed the petition of remand for Andrews' perjury conviction (here).

Wrong. Garrison prosecuted Dean Andrews and obtined a perjury conviction. Mark Lane bragged about it in his pro-Garrison book "A Citizen's Dissent". The conviction was eventually thrown out years later, but in the meantime Dean Andrew's career had been destroyed and along with it his ability to support his large family (I think Andrews had seven or eight kids).

Score one for Jim Garrison.

Of course Garrison eventually recognized the inevitable and eventually supported the overturning of Andrew's conviction. But that was too little and too late. Garrison had already abused his power to destroy the life of a good man.

If Garrison destroyed Andrews career, he did New Orleans a favor. Andrews was a bottom feeder who followed the money trail pretty much wherever it led. My friends in NO's told me he catered to mob types and prominant "Queens", who needed their favorite "trade" bailed out of jail. IMO, Andrews suddenly developed amnesia when given the word that he'd better shut his mouth, or he'd find himself in the next shrimp net.

-Bill

[Stephen Roy]

[quote name='Stephen Roy' date='Oct 3 2006, 05:28 PM' post='76706']

[

One of the weirdest things I ever experienced: I'm sitting in the living room of one of Ferrie's closest friends, who defends him to this day, watching the NBC White Paper and Garrison's response, and the friend says: You know, he was right. Who was right? Garrison. I thought you said Dave was innocent. He was, but I think Garrison was right about Shaw.

Ya never know.

OK I'll bite: Who's the close friend? Has he ever gone on record with this?

Thanx,

Dawn

Awww, Dawn...I have to hold SOMETHING back for the book.

He was well-known as one of Ferrie's boys, perceived as anti-Garrison, and quite adept at firearms. I don't want to play a guessing game, but you can probably surmise who it was.

I was just startled because he was so adamant about Garrison being wrong about Ferrie. He thought the shooting was too much for one man, that Garrison was on the right track with the "forces" he mentioned in his NBC rebuttal (minus Ferrie), and that he thought Shaw was probably guilty. No, he never went on record.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Stephen Roy

[Owen Parsons]

The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly.

There is a great deal of evidence of Novel's connections to the CIA. One example (among many) comes from Jim DiEugenio's article, "The Obstruction of Garrison," printed in The Assassinations. The following excerpt may be found on pg. 42:

One of the most curious comments made by Novel while he was ensconsed in Columbus evading Garrison's subpoena occured in February of 1968. He told a reporter in response to Garrison's subpoena that he would "wait and see what Mr. Dulles does." (Allen Dulles had been called by Garrison around the same time.) Most people could not fathom what this curious comment could mean; others had just cast it off as irresponsible drivel from the loquacious Novel. It now is revealed that Novel was telling the truth: Allen Dulles was in contact with Novel and was forwarding material from him to the CIA. [emphasis mine] When Miller came to Novel's aid and got an Ohio court to reject Garrison's subpoena, Novel forwarded a press clipping on the victory to the former CIA Director, and noted that Dulles himself could take advantage of the legal precedent to avoid Garrison's subpoena. This is what probably was meant by Novel's "wait and see" comment, quoted above. Dulles then forwarded Novel's cover letter to Lawrence Houston, keeping the enclosed clippings for himself.

Do you have a print source on this?

On what? What he told to Weisberg? Weisberg recounted this to Dave Reitzes (here) and Joan Mellen (see pg. 197 of her book and the accompanying footnote).

What do we make of the autopsist who was certain it was a stroke, and saw evidence of prior bleeds?

Our own Greg Parker made a great deal of very interesting posts on Ferrie's death in alt.conspiracy.jfk advancing a very credible and persuasive case for the Proloid theory a few years back. Here are some of the things he writes:

And what about those "symptoms" described by Lambert? "Physically ill"; "feeble steps"; "barely audible speech"; "unsteady breathing"; "severe headaches". Are any of these associated with a "bleed" from a berry aneurysm? Yes...or at least vomiting, weakness and headaches... with those headaches, typically described "as the worst headache of my life". It it just about inconceivable that Ferrie... if these bleeds occurred, did not seek treatment. The most widely used clinical method for grading the clinical severity is the Hunt and Hess scale: Grade 0 - Unruptured aneurysm; Grade 1 - Asymptomatic or minimal headache and slight nuchal rigidity (stiff neck); Grade 1A - No acute meningeal or brain reaction but with fixed neurologic deficit; Grade 2 - Moderate-to-severe headache, nuchal rigidity, no neurologic deficit other than cranial nerve palsy; Grade 3 - Drowsiness, confusion, or mild focal deficit; Grade 4 - Stupor, moderate-to-severe hemiparesis (weakness), possible early decerebrate rigidity and vegetative disturbances; Grade 5 - Deep coma, decerebrate rigidity, and moribund appearance. It seems then that ***if*** Snyder was correct, then Ferrie had to be in Grade 3 or 4.... BUT... again I ask... how does that square with the description given by those "others", including Lardner? Apart from anything else... Ferrie would have had great difficulty staying awake untill 4:00am... Could it be that Ferrie was well or near death as needed by certain researchers?

So how accurate is this? Again referring to Dr Soliman at www.emedicine.com/med/topic3468.htm "Ruptured aneurysms that are not operated on have a very high risk of rebleeding after the initial hemorrhage has occurred. The risk is estimated at 20-50% in the first 2 weeks, and such rebleeding carries a mortality rate of nearly 85%." So... I accept Welsh here as being accurate. The problem with the Lambert/Reitzes scenario is Lardner and those "others". If, as stated, Ferrie was "feeble" and suffering debilitating headaches in the days leading up his death, it is unlikely in the extreme he could have recovered to the extent of being in a "combative mood"... let alone be able to keep talking until 4:00am without interim medical intervention. This is because the weakness (feebleness) would be the result of the aneurysm being compressed against a nerve, or a clot blocking the supply of blood. But what about that scar tissue described by Dr Welsh... isn't that proof? Yes... proof that Ferrie had one small bleed... the fact that a scar was present though, actually shows this small bleed healed over, and therefore this particular one could have been much older than two weeks. Moreover, such small bleeds are not uncommon, and can result from hypertension, trauma, tumour or infection, as well as a berry aneurysm - though a berry aneurysm will more often cause massive bleeding...

If Ferrie had been having severe headaches for much of his life, and these were being caused by bleeds in the brain, he would have been dead long before 1967. It is also unlikely in the extreme that he would not have sought medical attention for them, given that all the evidence suggest these types of headaches (from bleeds) are excruciating beyond belief. Had he sought such medical attention... it is again unlikely a proper diagnosis would not have been made, given his known hypertension, stressful lifestyle, and location of the ache. The second assertion is difficult to comment on without access to the full Coroner's report. It is unclear from the comments made by Welsh to Lambert regarding a prior bleed ("Welsh told her that microscopic slides of Ferrie's brain tissue indicated that in addition to blood vessel perforating, there was "scar tissue indicating that Ferrie had had another bleed, a small one, previously . . . at least one or two of them at least two weeks before he died.") came from the autopsy, or much later examination of the brain. If it came from the autopsy... why would Lambert need to be told about by Welsh when she could read it and quote direct from that report? If it was NOT in the report (ie... examination of the brain tissue as described above was NOT done at autopsy)... then any claims of a thorough examination of Ferrie's corpse go out the window.

But the nature of the alleged comments was sensational, and could have "made" his case. It was tantamount to a deathbed confession to a cop. The fact that this didn't come out until so much later, and that there is not trace of it in the files makes me wonder. So many other things are recorded in memos. But this is just my opinion.

I don't think it would have "made" his case at all. Rather, it would look awfully convenient (for Garrison) if Garrison trotted out Ivon to recount the self-incriminating things he said that Ferrie had said to him. Ivon may have been a cop, but he was still on Garrison's team.

When you look at the Ivon conversation in chronological context, Ferrie 1) denied all, 2) told all to Ivon, and 3) denied all again. On the 20th, he was planning a lawsuit against Garrison and Martin, telling Bringuier he was not involved in the assasination, visiting the FBI and denying all. On the 21st, he said much the same to Pena, Snyder and Lardner. It just seems odd that this happened in between all his denials. Hey, we have his NODA interview from the 18th (with Ivon and Sciambra) and he was denying all then, too. It just seems anomalous.

It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In the NODA interview, Ferrie pretty strongly hints at a broader conspiracy and he actually asked Garrison's people for protection because he feared for his life. Ferrie only started up on his previous spiel of Garrison trying to frame him after he had fled from the very protection (at the Fontainbleu Motel) that Garrison had given him. It seems to me like he was trying to send a strong message with this, namely that he'd be holding to the line from here on out.

But even his wording quoted here shows that he saw it as some horrible thing that came out of left field. Thus, I can't see him being too casual about dropping the alias.

The alias primarily centered around Shaw's homosexual identity. Even the Andrews call uses this persona, as it was under the alias Clay Bertrand that he sent the "gay kids" over to Andrews for legal aid. It does not center primarily around his assassination activities and he probably didn't associate it much with the assassination.

I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there?

Released records no, but then there are lots of records the government chooses not to release. I think the FBI knows who it investigated and when.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

DOUBLE POST (again) Sorry.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Stephen Roy]

The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly.

There is a great deal of evidence of Novel's connections to the CIA. One example (among many) comes from Jim DiEugenio's article, "The Obstruction of Garrison," printed in The Assassinations. The following excerpt may be found on pg. 42:

One of the most curious comments made by Novel while he was ensconsed in Columbus evading Garrison's subpoena occured in February of 1968. He told a reporter in response to Garrison's subpoena that he would "wait and see what Mr. Dulles does." (Allen Dulles had been called by Garrison around the same time.) Most people could not fathom what this curious comment could mean; others had just cast it off as irresponsible drivel from the loquacious Novel. It now is revealed that Novel was telling the truth: Allen Dulles was in contact with Novel and was forwarding material from him to the CIA. [emphasis mine] When Miller came to Novel's aid and got an Ohio court to reject Garrison's subpoena, Novel forwarded a press clipping on the victory to the former CIA Director, and noted that Dulles himself could take advantage of the legal precedent to avoid Garrison's subpoena. This is what probably was meant by Novel's "wait and see" comment, quoted above. Dulles then forwarded Novel's cover letter to Lawrence Houston, keeping the enclosed clippings for himself.

One could interpret this as a friendly contact between Novel and Dulles, but one could not rule out the possibility that Novel was trying to create a smokescreen that he was "CIA connected" to eventually use it to intimidate Garrison.

I had correspondence and meetings with Novel, as well as people who knew him, and I came away with some strong impressions. To avoid liability, shoot me an e-mail (blackburst@aol.com) and I'll try to fill you in.

Do you have a print source on this?

On what? What he told to Weisberg? Weisberg recounted this to Dave Reitzes (here) and Joan Mellen (see pg. 197 of her book and the accompanying footnote).

But the nature of the alleged comments was sensational, and could have "made" his case. It was tantamount to a deathbed confession to a cop. The fact that this didn't come out until so much later, and that there is not trace of it in the files makes me wonder. So many other things are recorded in memos. But this is just my opinion.

I don't think it would have "made" his case at all. Rather, it would look awfully convenient (for Garrison) if Garrison trotted out Ivon to recount the self-incriminating things he said that Ferrie had said to him. Ivon may have been a cop, but he was still on Garrison's team.

Ferrie allegedly said that he was acquainted with Shaw and Oswald, and that they were all CIA. How could that NOT have helped Garrison's case? The issues of Ferrie being acquainted with Shaw and Ferrie, at least, were central to the case.

My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession. I asked the head of my County Bar Association, omitting all names and identifying characteristics, and he said this would be something a prosecutor would almost certainly use under Louisiana law.

When you look at the Ivon conversation in chronological context, Ferrie 1) denied all, 2) told all to Ivon, and 3) denied all again. On the 20th, he was planning a lawsuit against Garrison and Martin, telling Bringuier he was not involved in the assasination, visiting the FBI and denying all. On the 21st, he said much the same to Pena, Snyder and Lardner. It just seems odd that this happened in between all his denials. Hey, we have his NODA interview from the 18th (with Ivon and Sciambra) and he was denying all then, too. It just seems anomalous.

It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In the NODA interview, Ferrie pretty strongly hints at a broader conspiracy and he actually asked Garrison's people for protection because he feared for his life. Ferrie only started up on his previous spiel of Garrison trying to frame him after he had fled from the very protection (at the Fontainbleu Motel) that Garrison had given him. It seems to me like he was trying to send a strong message with this, namely that he'd be holding to the line from here on out.

The February 18 interview? Can you cite a passage? He denies knowing Oswald and indicates Shaw is unfamiliar.

(Joking reference to Ferrie in "JFK": "Really? What part?")

I'm also factoring in some unpublished interviews with people Ferrie interacted with in this period.

But even his wording quoted here shows that he saw it as some horrible thing that came out of left field. Thus, I can't see him being too casual about dropping the alias.

The alias primarily centered around Shaw's homosexual identity. Even the Andrews call uses this persona, as it was under the alias Clay Bertrand that he sent the "gay kids" over to Andrews for legal aid. It does not center primarily around his assassination activities and he probably didn't associate it much with the assassination.

Speculative, I'm sure you'd agree. If Shaw was not a conspirator, I can see him being casual about it. If he was a conspirator, I can't understand not being ahead of the curve. But we may disagree on this.

I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there?

Released records no, but then there are lots of records the government chooses not to release. I think the FBI knows who it investigated and when.

But on the face of it, we have evidence that Bertrand was investigated, not Shaw (in 1963). So that only leaves us to speculate.

We may just have different global views on this whole matter. I went into this convinced that Garrison was right. When I the documents from his investigation were released, I re-evaluated my position, and decided to take nothing for granted without challenge. Then when I did interviews (some who supported his case and some who did not), I was again convinced that one had to be cautious in this case. Maybe he was right, but "his" evidence needs to be challenged in the same way the WC evidence is.

I suppose it's always dicely tring to categorize things, but I see research in this field polarized into the following groups:

1) Those who think Garrison was totally wrong, evil, crazy, what-have-you.

2) Those who think Garrison may have been made mistakes in his pursuit of Shaw, but who uncovered some valuable stuff.

3) Those who think Garrison was sincere in pursuing a conspiracy, but didn't uncover "the" right conspiracy. The right ta-ta but the wrong ho-ho.

4) Those who think Garrison was totally right, even prescient. Some in this group equate dissent with cover-up.

Groups 1 and 4 will never make progress with each other. It sometimes makes it hard for those of us in the middle: In my case, wanting to have damn solid proof before making charges.

What's your overall take?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Andrews was a bottom feeder who followed the money trail pretty much wherever it led. My friends in NO's told me he catered to mob types and prominant "Queens", who needed their favorite "trade" bailed out of jail.

-Bill

THis sounds like a combination of Gay-bashing ("Queens") and Argument from Authority, a well-recognized fallacy. Besides. It is impossible to tell from your post who your friends are or whether they had any personal or professional qualifications to pass judgement on Dean Andrews.

As for defending Gays, it seems Andrews was ahead of his time. It is doubtful that these Gays could pay the kind of fees paid by large corporations, so it seems that lawyers who defend the poor and the outcast--as opposed to lawyers who defend the rich --are "bottom-feeders." Quite the elitist, ain't you?

As for defending mobsters, do you know of any (alleged) mobster Andrews defended, apart from Carlos Marcello? Your hero Garrison, by the way, did not consider Marcello a mobster at all.

In America we have a system called Due Process, under which every accused person (gays, mobsters and even rich people) is entitled to legal representation. Does that really bother you so much?

[Dawn Meredith]

As for defending mobsters, do you know of any (alleged) mobster Andrews defended, apart from Carlos Marcello? Your hero Garrison, by the way, did not consider Marcello a mobster at all.

Garrison is certainly my hero! How would you know what he thought of Marcello?

Dawn

[Owen Parsons]

One could interpret this as a friendly contact between Novel and Dulles, but one could not rule out the possibility that Novel was trying to create a smokescreen that he was "CIA connected" to eventually use it to intimidate Garrison.

I confess I do not really understand your point. Smoke screen or not (and I'm not clear on how this "smoke screen" would work), it remains a "friendly contact" with Dulles and I don't see how this can be spun any other way. And this was during a time when Novel's lawyer Herbert Miller was acting as a courier between Novel and the CIA's Richard Lansdale (who was Lawrence Houston's assistant council.) See same article, same page.

I had correspondence and meetings with Novel, as well as people who knew him, and I came away with some strong impressions. To avoid liability, shoot me an e-mail (blackburst@aol.com) and I'll try to fill you in.

Just send me a private message through the forum.

Ferrie allegedly said that he was acquainted with Shaw and Oswald, and that they were all CIA. How could that NOT have helped Garrison's case? The issues of Ferrie being acquainted with Shaw and Ferrie, at least, were central to the case.

My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession. I asked the head of my County Bar Association, omitting all names and identifying characteristics, and he said this would be something a prosecutor would almost certainly use under Louisiana law.

Yes, it would be useful if the deathbed confession (assuming you are accurate here about what qualifies as a death bed confession under Louisiana law; its certainly not what I would think of as a deathbed confession, since Ferrie wasn't on his deathbed literally or figuratively; I'd appreciate it if you'd post some specifics about this) came from outside Garrison's own circle. If the Clinton witnesses couldn't do the job, I don't think the jury is going to be swayed by the "deathbed confession" given to one of Garrison's men.

The February 18 interview? Can you cite a passage? He denies knowing Oswald and indicates Shaw is unfamiliar.

(Joking reference to Ferrie in "JFK": "Really? What part?")

I'm also factoring in some unpublished interviews with people Ferrie interacted with in this period.

I am not talking about what he says about Oswald and Shaw in the interview, I am speaking of what he is saying about the mechanics of the assassination. In the interview, he debunks the single bullet theory, which contrasts very much with his later statements after fleeing the hotel. My point is that Ferrie's various interviews are not uniform and they can be divided into pre- and post-Fontainbleu Motel. To my mind, Ferrie's sudden turn to the lone assassin line indicates that he felt he'd said too much.

Speculative, I'm sure you'd agree. If Shaw was not a conspirator, I can see him being casual about it. If he was a conspirator, I can't understand not being ahead of the curve. But we may disagree on this.

Yes, I agree, but your query can only be answered with speculation by its very nature.

But on the face of it, we have evidence that Bertrand was investigated, not Shaw (in 1963). So that only leaves us to speculate.

We do have evidence that Shaw was investigated (and one can assume connected with the Bertrand alias) in 1963; the aforementioned memo. In the memos following Clark's disclosure to the press, quoted briefly in Mellen, Hoover is only complaining that Shaw made the disclosure in the first place (as he worried he would in the first memo), not that any of his facts are wrong. These memos circulated at the upper echelons of the FBI and I don't think they would be operating under such an easily dispelled illusion.

We may just have different global views on this whole matter. I went into this convinced that Garrison was right. When I the documents from his investigation were released, I re-evaluated my position, and decided to take nothing for granted without challenge. Then when I did interviews (some who supported his case and some who did not), I was again convinced that one had to be cautious in this case. Maybe he was right, but "his" evidence needs to be challenged in the same way the WC evidence is.

I suppose it's always dicely tring to categorize things, but I see research in this field polarized into the following groups:

1) Those who think Garrison was totally wrong, evil, crazy, what-have-you.

2) Those who think Garrison may have been made mistakes in his pursuit of Shaw, but who uncovered some valuable stuff.

3) Those who think Garrison was sincere in pursuing a conspiracy, but didn't uncover "the" right conspiracy. The right ta-ta but the wrong ho-ho.

4) Those who think Garrison was totally right, even prescient. Some in this group equate dissent with cover-up.

Groups 1 and 4 will never make progress with each other. It sometimes makes it hard for those of us in the middle: In my case, wanting to have damn solid proof before making charges.

What's your overall take?

I pretty much agree with the Probe magazine crew's take, which I suppose puts me close to 4, but I don't think Garrison was totally right, just correct in all the essentials.

Carroll: I've dealt with this Marcello stuff before, do a search.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Greg Parker]

My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession.

Yes, but it is only one exception to a (growing) list of exceptions.

There has been debate here about whether or not certain people would be "dumb" enough to act against self-interest. That leads into another exception - spontaneous or excited utterences. This is defined as "statements made to a startling event or condition while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." This exception has existed for a long, long time as part of Common Law. Although not applicable as a hearsay exception to what has been discussed in the thread, it does show that there are legal concepts regarding admissible utterences made against self-interest (whether or not they are hearsay).

With regard to Shaw, what really went more against self-interest - giving Habighorst an alias he used in matters unrelated to any conspiracy to assassinate anyone, or signing a blank booking sheet (as his lawyers wanted to have it)?

Indeed, what savvy businessman would ever sign a blank document?

[Stephen Roy]

One could interpret this as a friendly contact between Novel and Dulles, but one could not rule out the possibility that Novel was trying to create a smokescreen that he was "CIA connected" to eventually use it to intimidate Garrison.

I confess I do not really understand your point. Smoke screen or not (and I'm not clear on how this "smoke screen" would work), it remains a "friendly contact" with Dulles and I don't see how this can be spun any other way. And this was during a time when Novel's lawyer Herbert Miller was acting as a courier between Novel and the CIA's Richard Lansdale (who was Lawrence Houston's assistant council.) See same article, same page.

If one reads the CIA stuff carefully, they are denying that they ever had contact with Novel and that Novel was trying to imply that he had CIA connections in a (futile) attempt to scare Garrison into calling off the pursuit. Novel himself has gone back and forth in claiming that he had CIA connections, and I've come into contact with other evidence that buttresses that one cannot be sure which of his claims are true. So this one goes in the undecided column for me.

I had correspondence and meetings with Novel, as well as people who knew him, and I came away with some strong impressions. To avoid liability, shoot me an e-mail (blackburst@aol.com) and I'll try to fill you in.

Just send me a private message through the forum.

Ferrie allegedly said that he was acquainted with Shaw and Oswald, and that they were all CIA. How could that NOT have helped Garrison's case? The issues of Ferrie being acquainted with Shaw and Ferrie, at least, were central to the case.

My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession. I asked the head of my County Bar Association, omitting all names and identifying characteristics, and he said this would be something a prosecutor would almost certainly use under Louisiana law.

Yes, it would be useful if the deathbed confession (assuming you are accurate here about what qualifies as a death bed confession under Louisiana law; its certainly not what I would think of as a deathbed confession, since Ferrie wasn't on his deathbed literally or figuratively; I'd appreciate it if you'd post some specifics about this) came from outside Garrison's own circle. If the Clinton witnesses couldn't do the job, I don't think the jury is going to be swayed by the "deathbed confession" given to one of Garrison's men.

On the deathbed confession definition, I have only my lawyer friend's opinion. Paraphrased: The suspect gave a statement to the DA's investigator that essentially proves a substantial portion of the the DA's case. The statement was made two days before the suspect's possibly mysterious death. That would qualify it as a deathbed confession. It would be up to the judge to accept it or not.

The February 18 interview? Can you cite a passage? He denies knowing Oswald and indicates Shaw is unfamiliar.

(Joking reference to Ferrie in "JFK": "Really? What part?")

I'm also factoring in some unpublished interviews with people Ferrie interacted with in this period.

I am not talking about what he says about Oswald and Shaw in the interview, I am speaking of what he is saying about the mechanics of the assassination. In the interview, he debunks the single bullet theory, which contrasts very much with his later statements after fleeing the hotel. My point is that Ferrie's various interviews are not uniform and they can be divided into pre- and post-Fontainbleu Motel. To my mind, Ferrie's sudden turn to the lone assassin line indicates that he felt he'd said too much.

Oh, THAT part. First, I see his pre/post statements as consistent. Second, Ferrie claimed to have been studying some books and articles about the case to see if the DA was right, that there was a conspiracy. There are hints of this in statements Ferrie made to other people at this time. I lay it out chronologcally in my book.

Speculative, I'm sure you'd agree. If Shaw was not a conspirator, I can see him being casual about it. If he was a conspirator, I can't understand not being ahead of the curve. But we may disagree on this.

Yes, I agree, but your query can only be answered with speculation by its very nature.

But on the face of it, we have evidence that Bertrand was investigated, not Shaw (in 1963). So that only leaves us to speculate.

We do have evidence that Shaw was investigated (and one can assume connected with the Bertrand alias) in 1963; the aforementioned memo. In the memos following Clark's disclosure to the press, quoted briefly in Mellen, Hoover is only complaining that Shaw made the disclosure in the first place (as he worried he would in the first memo), not that any of his facts are wrong. These memos circulated at the upper echelons of the FBI and I don't think they would be operating under such an easily dispelled illusion.

I'm not sure I understand. Is there any contemporaneous record that Shaw was investigated in 1963?

We may just have different global views on this whole matter. I went into this convinced that Garrison was right. When I the documents from his investigation were released, I re-evaluated my position, and decided to take nothing for granted without challenge. Then when I did interviews (some who supported his case and some who did not), I was again convinced that one had to be cautious in this case. Maybe he was right, but "his" evidence needs to be challenged in the same way the WC evidence is.

I suppose it's always dicely tring to categorize things, but I see research in this field polarized into the following groups:

1) Those who think Garrison was totally wrong, evil, crazy, what-have-you.

2) Those who think Garrison may have been made mistakes in his pursuit of Shaw, but who uncovered some valuable stuff.

3) Those who think Garrison was sincere in pursuing a conspiracy, but didn't uncover "the" right conspiracy. The right ta-ta but the wrong ho-ho.

4) Those who think Garrison was totally right, even prescient. Some in this group equate dissent with cover-up.

Groups 1 and 4 will never make progress with each other. It sometimes makes it hard for those of us in the middle: In my case, wanting to have damn solid proof before making charges.

What's your overall take?

I pretty much agree with the Probe magazine crew's take, which I suppose puts me close to 4, but I don't think Garrison was totally right, just correct in all the essentials.

I think the Probers have made the best possible case for Garrison being right, Davy especially. But there are still quite a few holes in the Probe theories, and a few clear mistakes. Pease, with whom I've sparred in the past, is a good researcher, but occasionally overstates her case. But I credit the Probe stuff with keeping me in the middle on this.

Carroll: I've dealt with this Marcello stuff before, do a search.

[Owen Parsons]

If one reads the CIA stuff carefully, they are denying that they ever had contact with Novel and that Novel was trying to imply that he had CIA connections in a (futile) attempt to scare Garrison into calling off the pursuit. Novel himself has gone back and forth in claiming that he had CIA connections, and I've come into contact with other evidence that buttresses that one cannot be sure which of his claims are true. So this one goes in the undecided column for me.

I've read the memo (here for those interested). Things are quite highly compartmentalized in the CIA and can't always (or often) be taken at face value, especially memos "for the record" such as this one. The proof of the sheer bogusness of this note in the aforementioned memo follows: it was to Lawrence Houston (the writer of the memo denying Novel's CIA links) that Allen Dulles was forwarding material on behalf of Novel and to Houston's assistant counsel, Lansdale, that Novel's lawyer, Miller, forwarded material on the Novel case. It is quite a bit more than just Novel's "claim" that he is CIA. Novel has at various times schizophrenically said that he does not have anything to do with the CIA (and that he never said he did) and that talk of this nature is libelous. The evidence does not support the later assertion.

On the deathbed confession definition, I have only my lawyer friend's opinion. Paraphrased: The suspect gave a statement to the DA's investigator that essentially proves a substantial portion of the the DA's case. The statement was made two days before the suspect's possibly mysterious death. That would qualify it as a deathbed confession. It would be up to the judge to accept it or not.

Well, I have no way to judge the accuracy of this, so I will simply fall back on my previous comments in this regard on why I believe it to be unlikely for Garrison to use this evidence (the perceived conflict of interest and not wanting to draw the CIA into the trial).

Oh, THAT part. First, I see his pre/post statements as consistent. Second, Ferrie claimed to have been studying some books and articles about the case to see if the DA was right, that there was a conspiracy. There are hints of this in statements Ferrie made to other people at this time. I lay it out chronologcally in my book.

They do not appear to me at all consistent, but I suppose I will just have to wait for you to put your cards on the table.

I'm not sure I understand. Is there any contemporaneous record that Shaw was investigated in 1963?

You missed my point. I am saying that there is no contrary evidence that Shaw was investigated in 1963 and some rather strong affirmative evidence (the FBI memos of DeLoach and Hoover). The only reason one would say that Shaw might not be investigated in 1963, that I can see, is because one is uncomfortable with what that might entail. Pleading to the lack of a "contemporaneous record" that in all probability exists but hasn't been declassified won't do.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

With regard to Shaw, what really went more against self-interest - giving Habighorst an alias he used in matters unrelated to any conspiracy to assassinate anyone, or signing a blank booking sheet (as his lawyers wanted to have it)?

Indeed, what savvy businessman would ever sign a blank document?

I agree, Shaw's story about signing a blank card has always struck me as nonsense and far more unbelievable than him goofing and giving Habighorst his alias.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Antti Hynonen]

Owen Parsons Posted Yesterday, 09:13 PM

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Oct 5 2006, 12:30 AM)

With regard to Shaw, what really went more against self-interest - giving Habighorst an alias he used in matters unrelated to any conspiracy to assassinate anyone, or signing a blank booking sheet (as his lawyers wanted to have it)?

Indeed, what savvy businessman would ever sign a blank document?

I agree, Shaw's story about signing a blank card has always struck me as nonsense and far more unbelievable than him goofing and giving Habighorst his alias.

Absolutely. In fact (IMO) that would be the only sensible explanation. Too bad the judge didn't allow the evidence... it might have turned the case around.... and forced Shaw to disclose.

[Stephen Roy]

If one reads the CIA stuff carefully, they are denying that they ever had contact with Novel and that Novel was trying to imply that he had CIA connections in a (futile) attempt to scare Garrison into calling off the pursuit. Novel himself has gone back and forth in claiming that he had CIA connections, and I've come into contact with other evidence that buttresses that one cannot be sure which of his claims are true. So this one goes in the undecided column for me.

I've read the memo (here for those interested). Things are quite highly compartmentalized in the CIA and can't always (or often) be taken at face value, especially memos "for the record" such as this one. The proof of the sheer bogusness of this note in the aforementioned memo follows: it was to Lawrence Houston (the writer of the memo denying Novel's CIA links) that Allen Dulles was forwarding material on behalf of Novel and to Houston's assistant counsel, Lansdale, that Novel's lawyer, Miller, forwarded material on the Novel case. It is quite a bit more than just Novel's "claim" that he is CIA. Novel has at various times schizophrenically said that he does not have anything to do with the CIA (and that he never said he did) and that talk of this nature is libelous. The evidence does not support the later assertion.

Just as one example, CIA sent back info from Jane Roman through Sam Papich of the FBI that Novel was never of operational interest to CIA. One could argue that CIA was lying to protect Novel, but they also admitted that Shaw had a DCS contact at one time. Why admit to Shaw, who was alleged to have a connection with the JFK assassination, and Novel, who had no apparent connection with CIA. All we have for sources on Novel as CIA agent are his own claims. Novel later forwarded stuff to CIA, but there is no way to tell if it was because he had a CIA connection, or he was bluffing. I reiterate that my own contacts with Novel and his former associates did not tent to inspire confidence in his claims to be CIA.

On the deathbed confession definition, I have only my lawyer friend's opinion. Paraphrased: The suspect gave a statement to the DA's investigator that essentially proves a substantial portion of the the DA's case. The statement was made two days before the suspect's possibly mysterious death. That would qualify it as a deathbed confession. It would be up to the judge to accept it or not.

Well, I have no way to judge the accuracy of this, so I will simply fall back on my previous comments in this regard on why I believe it to be unlikely for Garrison to use this evidence (the perceived conflict of interest and not wanting to draw the CIA into the trial).

And risk a chance of losing the case? Look, the absence of ANY contemporaneous trace of the Ivon conversation does create a glimmer of doubt. And you, yourself, suggest that the fact that it involved one of Garrison's own investigators creates a "perceived conflict of interest." Can we rule out the possibility that Ivon might have exaggerated something Ferrie really said? The absence of any contemporaneous record, the anomalousness to Ferrie's other actions in that period, and the lack of consideration of using it to prove a relationship between Ferrie and Shaw (not to mention Oswald) at least raises that possibility. Maybe it happened, maybe not, but the circumstances are fuzzy enough not to take it as absolute gospel.

Oh, THAT part. First, I see his pre/post statements as consistent. Second, Ferrie claimed to have been studying some books and articles about the case to see if the DA was right, that there was a conspiracy. There are hints of this in statements Ferrie made to other people at this time. I lay it out chronologcally in my book.

They do not appear to me at all consistent, but I suppose I will just have to wait for you to put your cards on the table.

To Dave Snyder and his wife, for example, he denied everything and wanted to sue Garrison, then came the Ivon confession, then he was back to denying everything and wanting to sue Garrison. Why sue Garrison if he had just admitted that his case was solid? As for Ferrie's opinions, from the time he was questioned in December until mid-February 1967, he, too, thought that the criticisms of the WCR were vaild, that there may hev been more than one assassin. On Sunday February 19, he resolved his doubts by concluding that the in/out points of the bullets had been distorted while JFK lay on a slab at Bethesda. This was just Ferrie being Ferrie, the expert on everything, fancying himself a medical expert.

I'm not sure I understand. Is there any contemporaneous record that Shaw was investigated in 1963?

You missed my point. I am saying that there is no contrary evidence that Shaw was investigated in 1963 and some rather strong affirmative evidence (the FBI memos of DeLoach and Hoover). The only reason one would say that Shaw might not be investigated in 1963, that I can see, is because one is uncomfortable with what that might entail. Pleading to the lack of a "contemporaneous record" that in all probability exists but hasn't been declassified won't do.

Not only is ther no contemporaneous record of Shaw being investigated in 1963; the DoJ specifically called it an error on Clark's part: "Justice Admits Error in Shaw-Bertrand Tie", June 3, 1967, Washington Post. Why are we to surmise otherwise?

Owen Parsons Posted Yesterday, 09:13 PM

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Oct 5 2006, 12:30 AM)

With regard to Shaw, what really went more against self-interest - giving Habighorst an alias he used in matters unrelated to any conspiracy to assassinate anyone, or signing a blank booking sheet (as his lawyers wanted to have it)?

Indeed, what savvy businessman would ever sign a blank document?

I agree, Shaw's story about signing a blank card has always struck me as nonsense and far more unbelievable than him goofing and giving Habighorst his alias.

Absolutely. In fact (IMO) that would be the only sensible explanation. Too bad the judge didn't allow the evidence... it might have turned the case around.... and forced Shaw to disclose.

I just disagree. As nonsensical as it it to believe that Habighorst or someone else added it to the card later, it is at least as nonsensical that Shaw would admit using the alias which he KNEW one of the consprators used.

But this touches on one of my other issues about the Garrison case: The central charge was conspiracy to kill, not perjury. The conspiracy charge revolves around Russo and Spiesel. The perjury charge is a secondary matter. Assuming arguendo that Shaw knew Ferrie and Oswald, denying this still does not constitute evidence of conspiracy to kill. One of my research associates thinks Shaw knew them both but was concealing a homosexual relationship. Some books seem to dwell more on the alleged perjury and opposition to Garrison than the conspiracy charge. Not denying that it happened - I just wish we had some solid new evidence on the latter.