Dean Andrews

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

When I was hospitalized for pneumonia I used the telephone also, but I cannot swear that I was able to make rational decisions at that time.

Of course we may disagree on whether I am able to make rational decisions now.

In summary, I just do not see anything sinister about Dean Andrews, unless we consider it sinister that he was willing to defend Lee Oswald, and I think that Garrison's persecution of Dean Andrews was an abuse of power.

Lord Acton said that all power tends to corrupt, and I believe that Garrison was corrupted by power. If that puts me in a minority in the research community, then so be it.

[Antti Hynonen]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 07:18 AM

QUOTE(Owen Parsons @ Sep 29 2006, 07:52 AM)

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.

Owen Parsons Posted Yesterday, 07:05 PM

QUOTE(J. Raymond Carroll @ Sep 28 2006, 10:29 AM)

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:

QUOTE

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."

Francesca Akhtar Posted Yesterday, 11:53 PM

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)

Thank you for your input everyone.

I think the bottom line are the questions; A. Did Andrews make that call and mention those names?

and

B. If so, was he coherent?

Judging by the evidence and statements from numerous parties (including Andrews' own admissions), he did make such calls and according to hospital records he did not receive a sedative medicine dose until after the call, also in case he had received a dose of sedatives almost 24 hours before, it would have mostly worn off. (Been there done that myself).

Antibiotics will not make you hallucinate and imagine things....

Whether such calls took place, could have been verified via phone company records, I believe. Since there are many witness statements regarding the call, perhaps it wasn't considered necessary.

Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???).

Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself?

Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

Edited September 29, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???).

Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself?

Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

The officer in question went by the salubrious name of Aloyisius Habighorst. The trial judge excluded his testimony on Constitutional grounds, but the judge knew Habighorst and his family well. Recall that Garrison had produced his case two years earlier at the preliminary hearing, so Habighorst had ample time to know what was going on. There is such a thing as a crooked cop (otherwise we would not be here), and the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could tell the prosecution and the world's press: " I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

I don't believe him either, not for a cotton-pickin' minute.

[Owen Parsons]

When I was hospitalized for pneumonia I used the telephone also, but I cannot swear that I was able to make rational decisions at that time.

Dean Andrews' doctor J.D. Andrews said that he did not believe it was possible for Dean Andrews to make phone calls with the level of sedation Andrews' was under (here). Therefore, it follows Andrews was not sedated at the time, consistent with the medical records. Dr. Andrews, btw, was the the one who authorized the hospital librarian to furnish the medical records for the 23rd.

In summary, I just do not see anything sinister about Dean Andrews, unless we consider it sinister that he was willing to defend Lee Oswald, and I think that Garrison's persecution of Dean Andrews was an abuse of power.

I don't think anyone has implied anything overtly "sinister" about Andrews. There was something sinister about the call he received, however. And Garrison didn't persecute Andrews; in fact, he signed the petition of remand for Andrews' perjury conviction (here).

Edited September 29, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Antti Hynonen]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 29 2006, 08:49 AM)

Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???).

Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself?

Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

The officer in question went by the salubrious name of Aloyisius Habighorst. The trial judge excluded his testimony on Constitutional grounds, but the judge knew Habighorst and his family well. Recall that Garrison had produced his case two years earlier at the preliminary hearing, so Habighorst had ample time to know what was going on. There is such a thing as a crooked cop (otherwise we would not be here), and the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could tell the prosecution and the world's press: " I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

I don't believe him either, not for a cotton-pickin' minute.

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record?

If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

. 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.

[Owen Parsons]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 29 2006, 08:49 AM)

Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???).

Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself?

Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

The officer in question went by the salubrious name of Aloyisius Habighorst. The trial judge excluded his testimony on Constitutional grounds, but the judge knew Habighorst and his family well. Recall that Garrison had produced his case two years earlier at the preliminary hearing, so Habighorst had ample time to know what was going on. There is such a thing as a crooked cop (otherwise we would not be here), and the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could tell the prosecution and the world's press: " I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

I don't believe him either, not for a cotton-pickin' minute.

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record?

If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

I've gone over this with Mr. Carroll before. I will just add that not even Shaw's defense time could argue, as Carroll seems to be doing now, that Habighorst had fabricated the booking sheet (just that he had obtained the information for the card from some source other than Shaw himself, and that Shaw had signed a blank booking sheet ). NOPD chief Giarrusso, a political opponent of Garrison, has verified it as authentic in 1968 (see here).

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record?

If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

I do not know the answer to your question, but Jim Garrison had private funding for his investigation in addition to the resouces of the DA's office. I assume that, like most of us, Aloyisius could use a few extra dollars. I have no doubt that Jim Garrison would know that.

[Owen Parsons]

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 I know Garrison won a perjury conviction against Andrews (because he had, in fact, committed perjury). The conviction was "thrown out" because Garrison was concerned about Andrews' health. The Supreme Court remanded the conviction to Garrison's office and Garrison himself threw it out. This is simply not "persecution."

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.

Garrison didn't "recognize the inevitable." Rather, it was Andrews' lawyers who did. The appeal of Andrews' conviction had already been lost in the lower courts, so they approached Garrison, who signed the remand out of the goodness of his heart (as corny as that sounds).

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Garrison didn't "recognize the inevitable." Rather, it was Andrews' lawyers who did. The appeal of Andrews' conviction had already been lost in the lower courts, so they approached Garrison, who signed the remand out of the goodness of his heart (as corny as that sounds).

The whole question of the Dean Andrews conviction and the many appeals that were involved - over many years -- would take me months of research, which I do not have the time to do. But I am certain that Jim Garrison destroyed the career of Dean Andrews, and that was his only accomplisment in regards to the assassination of JFK.

Not worth a movie, IMO.

[Antti Hynonen]

It may already be evident to the followers of this thread, that I do support the claims and evidence presented by Mr. Parsons. The fact that there is both physical evidence as well as (eye) witness statements supporting what took place in terms of Dean Andrews' calls, initial claims regarding Clay Bertrand etc. makes me think that the only one taking a bribe must have been the judge in the Shaw case.

As far as judging the character of Jim Garrison; based on what I have read about him, he seems to have been an honest man and therefore I do find it hard to believe that he would have approached Officer Habighorst with a bribe re: the alias issue on the Clay Shaw arrest record.

If there'd at least be evidence pointing to this type of bribery and it being a habit among either Garrison, Habighorst (receiving) or anyone else who was in the position to bribe Habighorts, it might make sense to consider, but thus far I haven't seen any.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record?

If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

I do not know the answer to your question, but Jim Garrison had private funding for his investigation in addition to the resouces of the DA's office. I assume that, like most of us, Aloyisius could use a few extra dollars. I have no doubt that Jim Garrison would know that.

Ray, you should have restricted your answer to Antti's question to the first nine words of your reply, to call the rest speculative, is to wildly understate the situation.

[Dawn Meredith]

It may already be evident to the followers of this thread, that I do support the claims and evidence presented by Mr. Parsons. The fact that there is both physical evidence as well as (eye) witness statements supporting what took place in terms of Dean Andrews' calls, initial claims regarding Clay Bertrand etc. makes me think that the only one taking a bribe must have been the judge in the Shaw case.

As far as judging the character of Jim Garrison; based on what I have read about him, he seems to have been an honest man and therefore I do find it hard to believe that he would have approached Officer Habighorst with a bribe re: the alias issue on the Clay Shaw arrest record.

If there'd at least be evidence pointing to this type of bribery and it being a habit among either Garrison, Habighorst (receiving) or anyone else who was in the position to bribe Habighorts, it might make sense to consider, but thus far I haven't seen any.

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

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The officer in question went by the salubrious name of Aloyisius Habighorst.

"The officer in question" went by the name give him at birth. Perhaps you'd find him more credible if he had used a nice Anglo-Saxon alias like Bertrand? I would note for the record that "Aloyisius" was also the middle name given to judge Haggerty at birth. Did he also go by a "salubrious" name?

By the way:

"sa*lu*bri*ous - adj. Conducive or favourable to health or well-being."

Huh? Care to explain the relevance?

The trial judge excluded his testimony on Constitutional grounds,

No, his stated rationale for the exclusion was based upon confusion, to put it charitably:

"Haggerty himself seemed confused by his decision. The day after he made it, when Alcock asked him to reconsider, he based his continued stance on Miranda, not Esobedo. Yet, the day before, when it was explained that Shaw had his rights read to him before Habighorst interviewed him, Haggerty seemed to base his ruling on Escobedo." From Destiny Betrayed, page 369

but the judge knew Habighorst and his family well.

This, too, is inaccurate, as a bit of research would disclose. From the very same book and page as above:

"When I asked William Wegmann about Judge Haggerty's hostility to Habighorst's testimony, he referred me to Irvin Dymond. When I took it up with Dymond, he told me Haggerty knew Habighorst because he grew up in the same neighbourhood as the judge's family. This is correct, but Haggerty may have made a grave error. Habighorst had two uncles who lived within two blocks of Haggerty. When they got in trouble, they asked Haggerty to bail them out. But Habighorst himself lived two miles from Haggerty and had no such history of run-ins with the law."

Recall that Garrison had produced his case two years earlier at the preliminary hearing, so Habighorst had ample time to know what was going on.

And yet the author of the book cited above, perhaps the first person to interview Habighorst's widow Elsie, learned from her that on the day following Shaw's arrest and booking, Habighorst saw on the TV news that Shaw was being accused by Garrison of using "Bertrand" as an alias. When he realized this, he immediately said that is what Shaw had told him on the prior night, and Habighorst showed her three copies of the booking card, which listed both the alias and Shaw's signature. Apparently, he didn't need two years to "know what was going on." It's only a pity that nearly 40 years later, some others haven't had "ample time to know what was going on."

There is such a thing as a crooked cop

So, now we resort to the ad hominem besmirching a dead man who, by the time of the Shaw booking, had been a veteran NOPD officer for more than a dozen years, and had received three letters of commendation annually for his work.

If Counsel Carroll has specific precedents for impugning Habighorst's character, perhaps he would like to enter them into evidence. And if he doesn't, perhaps he'd care to withdraw this baseless speculation and character assassination masquerading as "evidence."

(otherwise we would not be here), and the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could tell the prosecution and the world's press: " I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst."

I don't believe him either, not for a cotton-pickin' minute.

That is your prerogative, Mr. Carroll. If and when you choose to muster some actual evidence for your assertion, perhaps we'd be inclined to agree. As it stands, all we've seen is your uncritical acceptance of a judge's ruling that, as shown above, was reached on an untenable legal basis that even the judge didn't understand.

Having raised the possibility that Officer Habighorst was a "crooked cop," and that Garrison "may" have bribed him - all without an iota of actual proof - perhaps Mr. Carroll would care to reflect for a moment upon the character of the judge with whom he so uncritically agrees regarding Habighorst's credibility. Surely, Mr. Carroll is conversant with the fact that Judge Haggerty was removed from the bench for reasons of criminal malfeasance not longer thereafter? If not, this might serve to enlighten him about the sterling character of Judge Haggerty, who was demonstrably venal, unethical, unprofessional and immoral in a way that Habighorst was never demonstrated to be:

JUDGE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY

CHARLES R. ASHMAN

Criminal Court Judge Edward A. Haggerty presided at the Kennedy conspiracy trial of Clay L. Shaw in New Orleans in 1969. Jim Garrison, the controversial district attorney who has since faced problems of his own, had brought Shaw to trial on charges of conspiring to murder the president. On March 1, 1969, Shaw was fully acquitted.

Nine months later, Judge Haggerty was arrested along with thirteen others in a motel vice raid. Among the others was Malcolm Munday, Jr., who at one time was Garrison's assistant district attorney.

On January 9, 1970, the fifty-six-year-old Haggerty pleaded not guilty to charges of "organizing an assemblage for indecent purposes, procuring lewd films and photographs, and procuring prostitutes." The case was heard without a jury by Judge Haggerty's fellow judge, Matthew S. Braniff, who ruled that the gathering was a "private" party and found Haggerty not guilty.

But the Louisiana Judiciary Commission was not satisfied. After a preliminary investigation and a six-day hearing, the Commission determined that Judge Haggerty was guilty of charges that warranted his removal from the bench. The Commission submitted a forty-six-page report in support of its opinion, setting forth its conclusive evidence.

A bachelor party honoring one Kenneth Reeves was held at the DeVille Motel on Tulane Avenue in New Orleans on December 17, 1969. The local vice squad, which had been investigating illegal lewd parties, learned of the affair and planned a raid. The detectives never realized who would be there.

The police had tipped newsmen about the raid, and photographers were conveniently on hand to get pictures of Judge Haggerty as he struggled with police in an effort to escape the embarrassing scene.

Haggerty had attended and helped arrange the orgy. He contributed money before the party to assist in its arrangement and again after the party started. Testimony of those present established that Haggerty knew the party was to be held in the DeVille Motel and that he brought the obscene films to the party. The pornographic films were shown to those attending, including three prostitutes whom Judge Haggerty also brought to the party. The "hookers" put on a live show and then sold their wares.

Judge Haggerty admitted inviting the trio of ladies to the party and accompanying them across the street from the Rowntowner Motor Hotel to the DeVille Motel. He claimed the invitation was a joke and that he did not know the women were "working girls."

During the raid, Judge Haggerty's personal behavior was not exactly that of an innocent victim caught up in a raid. When the police arrived, Haggerty fled the room where the stag films were being shown, ignoring a police officer who informed him that he was under arrest. He next resisted two other officers who attempted to arrest him in the corridor — about forty feet from the room he had just left. Following a struggle, he was brought back to the room but again tried to break away, this time slugging one of the officers. He was finally subdued on the motel room floor and handcuffed. Unusual conduct for a respected member of the judiciary.

The Commission further noted that the judge regularly participated in illegal gambling activities. Haggerty had associated with Manuel Soto, a known "bookie" with a rather lengthy criminal record, and he placed bets with Soto in public on an almost daily basis.

Judge Haggerty also frequently associated with Frank Occhipinti, the manager and part owner of the Rowntowner Motor Hotel. Occhipinti, who admitted significant business dealings with certain underworld characters in the New Orleans area, permitted Haggerty to run up a bill at the hotel's bar and restaurant in excess of $1,700. No request or demand for payment was ever made.

Occhipinti had a brother, Roy, who had felony charges pending before the criminal district court. As chance would have it, in February of 1969 Roy's case was assigned to Judge Haggerty, who subsequently heard numerous motions in conjunction with its prosecution. The judge made no attempt to reassign the case, nor did he excuse himself. Roy was a frequent visitor to his brother Frank's Rowntowner Motor Hotel, where the judge often spent his off-the-bench hours.

Besides lewd sex parties, Judge Haggerty also engaged in other types of "indoor sports" at the DeVille Motel and was an avid fan of the games played there. Often, Haggerty was a big winner and was required to pay the rental fee for the room used for a game. The usual rate was $12 per night. Between June 24, 1969 and January 15, 1970, forty-two nights of room rentals had been charged to Haggerty.

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.

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

[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?!?

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.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Stephen Roy