Dean Andrews

[Owen Parsons]

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.

Alright, lets look at this again. Novel had FOUR lawyers to defend him at a time when he had no visible means of support. One of these lawyers, Herbert Miller ("Miller the Killer" as Novel called him in his note to Dulles) was also Walter Sheridan's lawyer and, in 1963, "[a]ccording to both Seth Kantor and William Manchester, within about 72 hours of Kennedy's murder, Miller was Washington's man on the scene in Dallas coordinating the FBI, Justice Department and Texas investigations" (The Assassinations, pg. 36). Miller was also involved as a go-between with Sheridan and the CIA. On May 12th, 1968, "Lansdale wrote that Miller had called him on May 11th and said that Sheridan would be willing to meet with CIA 'under any terms we propose.' Sheridan would be willing to make the CIA's view of Garrison 'a part of the background in the forthcoming NBC show.' Lansdale goes on to write that Miller was selected by the CIA to be part of an unrelated litigation matter they were involved in and that he had worked closely with him on that matter and was 'quite favorably impressed with him.'" (The Assassinations, pg. 39)

In March, Miller wrote the following to Lansdale:

Dear Dick:

Enclosed is the transcript you requested, in the Gordon Novel case. [Emphasis is DiEugenio's]

Miller then began serving as a courier between Shaw's lawyers and the CIA. Here is what he wrote to Lansdale on May 31st:

Dear Dick:

Enclosed are the decuments I recieved from Clay Shaw's attorney, Ed Wegmann.

Best regards

He went on to make two more such deliveries. As for Novel and Lawrence Houston, the fact that Allen Dulles was the go between says it all. Case closed.

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.

The absence of any contemporaneous record is explicable when one understands that Ivon delivered the handwritten notes to Garrison directly to avoid the risk of a leak.

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 find it very odd Ferrie would make such a dubious turnaround on the 19th (what's your source?). See, the 19th is the day that Ferrie requested protection from Garrison. Mellen recounts the scene as follows:

The following afternoon [after the NODA interview we have been talking about], just as Ivon was sitting down to Sunday dinner, his telephone rang. "My life is being threatened," Ferrie said. "They're going to kill me!" He pleaded for protection. (Mellen pg. 104)

Ivon got in touch with Garrison and Garrison got Ferrie a room in the Fontainebleau. Under an alias. It is here, according to Ivon, that Ferrie made his partial confession. In context, this makes much more sense than a conversion to the single bullet theory. Ferrie did start supporting the SBT AFTER fleeing from the Fontainebleau.

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?

But... Stephen... the Justice Department statement is provably wrong. Ramsey Clark didn't mishear the FBI and the FBI didn't admit any mistake. The FBI memos and Ramsey Clark's interview with Mellen show as much. The FBI (and Hoover specifically) were fuming that Clark leaked the data and gave him a lashing for it, which is why the Justice Department later issued a (phony) retraction.

And you know what? I was actually wrong, there is a meager, though surving, record of Shaw's investigation in December 1963 by the FBI (There's so much new material in Mellen's book, its hard to keep track of it all). So, now not even this objection of yours stands.

Shaw's name came up in our investigation in December 1963, "Deke" told Clark. Few documents survive of this early FBI interest in Shaw, but for a suggestive fragment signed by Hoover from the "Latent Fingerprint Section" (Identification Division). Addressed to the SAC in San Francisco and dated December 5, 1963, it requests an examination of "five train tickets" from Southern Pacific. That this document was conected with an investigation of Clay Shaw is reflected in the fact that a copy went not only to Dallas, but also to New Orleans. (Mellen pg. 128)

For those who are unaware, this relates to Shaw's trip to San Francisco to speak at J. Monroe Sullivan's San Francisco World Trade Center on November 22. Shaw travelled from Los Angeles to San Francisco on November 20. In his words, "I took the overnight train, the Lark, on the evening of the 20th, arriving in San Francisco[.]" (link) The Lark, of course, was a Southern Pacific train (link).

Speaking of Shaw's trip to San Francisco, this has much bearing on the honesty and character of Clay Shaw. I quote Davy here:

Two days before Christmas in 1966, Sciambra interviewed Shaw in the D.A.'s office. Garrison found Shaw's answers evasive and in conflict with other information they had acquired. For example, when Shaw was asked where he was at the time of the assassination, he said he was travelling by train, on his way to San Francisco. With the exception of E. Howard Hunt, just about every American who was alive at the time of the assassination can remember where they were on that fateful day. It was ascertained later that Shaw was already in San Francisco at the time of the assassination, in the company of San Francisco Trade Mart Director, J. Monroe Sullivan. After his arrest, Shaw related another version to the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he was at the St. Francis Hotel at the time of the assassination. Later, under oath at his own trial, Shaw said he was invited to make a speech at the request of Sullivan. Sullivan, to this day, disputes this. (Davy pg. 63)

What did J. Monroe Sullivan dispute? Let's hear it from Bill Turner:

I spoke with J. Monroe Sullivan, director of the San Francisco World Trade Center, which in 1963 was the only sister organization to the New Orleans Trade Mart. Sullivan recalled that some three weeks before the assassination, Clay Shaw, whom he had never met, phoned to ask him to put on a luncheon for that date because he had a program to obtain tenants for the International House in New Orleans, an affiliate of the Trade Mart. Shaw would send out the invitations and pay for everything. According to Sullivan, Shaw arrived at the San Francisco World Trade Center around mid-morning on November 22. As they were conversing, there was a bulletin that Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. Sullivan was stunned, but Shaw exhibited no reaction. A few minutes later, when the news arrived that the president was dead, Sullivan asked Shaw if he wanted to continue wtih the luncheon. He did. Sullivan called for a moment of silence, then introduced Shaw, who made his pitch for the International House. Sullivan was struck by Shaw's seeming indifference to the president's death. (link)

That about says it all, doesn't it?

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.

Its not just the idea that Habighorst added the alias that is found to be nonsensical, but Shaw's story that he signed a blank card.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

DOUBLE POST (again) Sorry.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[William O'Neil]

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?

First off, I'm not presenting a judgement on gay people, this is why I put the word "Queens" in quotations. This is what I was told by some long time residents of New Orleans, who lived through this era and had some knowledge of Andrews, and his reputation. Perhaps I could have explained it better . My point about Andrews clientel was related to why "Bertrand" may have called him in the first place, after all, Andrews remembered that Oswald came to his office "three or four times" subsequent to the first visit, seeking info on his discharge. Andrews also claimed that "Bertrand had regularly called Andrews on behalf of gay kids normally", so he could bond out or help when they got in trouble. Perhaps this was why "Bertrand" may have sought out Andrews legal assistance, at this time (11-22).

Oh, and believe me, Garrison is not my hero by any stretch. Yes there was mobsters in La. Marcello was the Godfather, and Andrews was running in that circle. I definately wouldn't make him out to be some altruistic progresive either. Please don't let your hatred for Garrison, cloud your ability to discern who some of his victims/ targets actually were.

-Bill

[Owen Parsons]

More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").

One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly

"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an

interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu

interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with

the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a

few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)

As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation

Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)

Now, Shaw isn't mentioned in this reference, but there's a reason: Garrison had perjury charges pending against Clay Shaw at the time and so was not legally allowed to include his name in the book (Mellen pg. 323).

Edited October 6, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").

One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly

"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an

interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu

interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with

the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a

few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)

As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation

Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)

"Ferrie's association with the CIA began at least as far back as that agency's support of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's insurgents against Batista. He made flights into their mountain stronghold with munitions and supplies. Later, when Castro developed his relationship with Russia and the CIA began to launch guerrilla raids against Castro's Cuba, no one hated Castro more heartily than Ferrie. Ferrie spoke frequently of ways in which Castro could be assassinated, Havana harbor blown up or Cuba invaded. When the CIA trained Cubans in Guatemala for the Bay of Pigs invasion, Ferrie acted as a flying instructor at the Retalhuleu air strip in Guatemala. (48) Shortly before the assassination, he once again flew to Guatemala for a purpose still unknown. (49)"

SOURCE: A Heritage of Stone

Footnotes:

(48) Interview of David W. Ferrie with New Orleans District Attorney's Office on Feb. 20, 1967

(49) Ibid. Feb., 19-20, 1967

[Owen Parsons]

Thanks for the full reference, Robert.

[Shanet Clark]

related question for Owen and Antti:

was Oswald with Ferrie in a Tulane / New Orleans MK ultra type experiment?

[Antti Hynonen]

Shanet Clark Posted Oct 6 2006, 11:36 PM

related question for Owen and Antti:

was Oswald with Ferrie in a Tulane / New Orleans MK ultra type experiment?

Shanet,

I don't know. However, considering the other weird aspects of the case, I wouldn't be too surprised if that was the case.

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Alright, lets look at this again. Novel had FOUR lawyers to defend him at a time when he had no visible means of support. One of these lawyers, Herbert Miller ("Miller the Killer" as Novel called him in his note to Dulles) was also Walter Sheridan's lawyer and, in 1963, "[a]ccording to both Seth Kantor and William Manchester, within about 72 hours of Kennedy's murder, Miller was Washington's man on the scene in Dallas coordinating the FBI, Justice Department and Texas investigations" (The Assassinations, pg. 36). Miller was also involved as a go-between with Sheridan and the CIA. On May 12th, 1968, "Lansdale wrote that Miller had called him on May 11th and said that Sheridan would be willing to meet with CIA 'under any terms we propose.' Sheridan would be willing to make the CIA's view of Garrison 'a part of the background in the forthcoming NBC show.' Lansdale goes on to write that Miller was selected by the CIA to be part of an unrelated litigation matter they were involved in and that he had worked closely with him on that matter and was 'quite favorably impressed with him.'" (The Assassinations, pg. 39)

In March, Miller wrote the following to Lansdale:

Dear Dick:

Enclosed is the transcript you requested, in the Gordon Novel case. [Emphasis is DiEugenio's]

Miller then began serving as a courier between Shaw's lawyers and the CIA. Here is what he wrote to Lansdale on May 31st:

Dear Dick:

Enclosed are the decuments I recieved from Clay Shaw's attorney, Ed Wegmann.

Best regards

He went on to make two more such deliveries. As for Novel and Lawrence Houston, the fact that Allen Dulles was the go between says it all. Case closed.

I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Novel being CIA-connected BEFORE the Garrison probe. I acknowledge that Novel tried to contact CIA AFTER the probe began, and that they were receptive. (I also note that CIA generally made common-cause with those opposing Garrison's probe.

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.

The absence of any contemporaneous record is explicable when one understands that Ivon delivered the handwritten notes to Garrison directly to avoid the risk of a leak.

In 1967, sure. But why did the notes not turn up later, and why was there no reference to them in other documents?

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 find it very odd Ferrie would make such a dubious turnaround on the 19th (what's your source?).

Lardner's notes: "He said he resolved the problem in his own mind only last Sunday when he realized that the position of the bullets indicated..." etc.

See, the 19th is the day that Ferrie requested protection from Garrison. Mellen recounts the scene as follows:

The following afternoon [after the NODA interview we have been talking about], just as Ivon was sitting down to Sunday dinner, his telephone rang. "My life is being threatened," Ferrie said. "They're going to kill me!" He pleaded for protection. (Mellen pg. 104)

Ivon got in touch with Garrison and Garrison got Ferrie a room in the Fontainebleau. Under an alias. It is here, according to Ivon, that Ferrie made his partial confession. In context, this makes much more sense than a conversion to the single bullet theory. Ferrie did start supporting the SBT AFTER fleeing from the Fontainebleau.

Why would a conversion to the SBT make more sense afrer the Ivon conversation?

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?

But... Stephen... the Justice Department statement is provably wrong. Ramsey Clark didn't mishear the FBI and the FBI didn't admit any mistake. The FBI memos and Ramsey Clark's interview with Mellen show as much. The FBI (and Hoover specifically) were fuming that Clark leaked the data and gave him a lashing for it, which is why the Justice Department later issued a (phony) retraction.

Can you quote the actual language you think indicates that Shaw was investigated in 1963? And why do you think the retraction was phony?

And you know what? I was actually wrong, there is a meager, though surving, record of Shaw's investigation in December 1963 by the FBI (There's so much new material in Mellen's book, its hard to keep track of it all). So, now not even this objection of yours stands.

Shaw's name came up in our investigation in December 1963, "Deke" told Clark. Few documents survive of this early FBI interest in Shaw, but for a suggestive fragment signed by Hoover from the "Latent Fingerprint Section" (Identification Division). Addressed to the SAC in San Francisco and dated December 5, 1963, it requests an examination of "five train tickets" from Southern Pacific. That this document was conected with an investigation of Clay Shaw is reflected in the fact that a copy went not only to Dallas, but also to New Orleans. (Mellen pg. 128)

OK. Hoover asks the SAC in San Francisco for an examination of 5 tickets, and copies went to Dallas and NO, both offices of origin for the Oswald investigation. How do we know this relates to Shaw?

For those who are unaware, this relates to Shaw's trip to San Francisco to speak at J. Monroe Sullivan's San Francisco World Trade Center on November 22. Shaw travelled from Los Angeles to San Francisco on November 20. In his words, "I took the overnight train, the Lark, on the evening of the 20th, arriving in San Francisco[.]" (link) The Lark, of course, was a Southern Pacific train (link).

How do we know it relates to Shaw's trip? Why 5 tickets instead of one? Isn't this presuming a link where none is warranted?

Speaking of Shaw's trip to San Francisco, this has much bearing on the honesty and character of Clay Shaw. I quote Davy here:

Two days before Christmas in 1966, Sciambra interviewed Shaw in the D.A.'s office. Garrison found Shaw's answers evasive and in conflict with other information they had acquired. For example, when Shaw was asked where he was at the time of the assassination, he said he was travelling by train, on his way to San Francisco. With the exception of E. Howard Hunt, just about every American who was alive at the time of the assassination can remember where they were on that fateful day. It was ascertained later that Shaw was already in San Francisco at the time of the assassination, in the company of San Francisco Trade Mart Director, J. Monroe Sullivan. After his arrest, Shaw related another version to the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he was at the St. Francis Hotel at the time of the assassination. Later, under oath at his own trial, Shaw said he was invited to make a speech at the request of Sullivan. Sullivan, to this day, disputes this. (Davy pg. 63)

What did J. Monroe Sullivan dispute? Let's hear it from Bill Turner:

I spoke with J. Monroe Sullivan, director of the San Francisco World Trade Center, which in 1963 was the only sister organization to the New Orleans Trade Mart. Sullivan recalled that some three weeks before the assassination, Clay Shaw, whom he had never met, phoned to ask him to put on a luncheon for that date because he had a program to obtain tenants for the International House in New Orleans, an affiliate of the Trade Mart. Shaw would send out the invitations and pay for everything. According to Sullivan, Shaw arrived at the San Francisco World Trade Center around mid-morning on November 22. As they were conversing, there was a bulletin that Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. Sullivan was stunned, but Shaw exhibited no reaction. A few minutes later, when the news arrived that the president was dead, Sullivan asked Shaw if he wanted to continue wtih the luncheon. He did. Sullivan called for a moment of silence, then introduced Shaw, who made his pitch for the International House. Sullivan was struck by Shaw's seeming indifference to the president's death. (link)

That about says it all, doesn't it?

No.

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.

Its not just the idea that Habighorst added the alias that is found to be nonsensical, but Shaw's story that he signed a blank card.

And, as I noted, that Shaw would provide information he knew was self-incriminating.

More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").

One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly

"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an

interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu

interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with

the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a

few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)

As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation

Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)

That's what mystified me. Garrison wrote as if he had some document in his posession, and he listed it in his notes. When I searched through documents at NARA, from AARC, from ARRB, at Georgetown, the Connick materials and other places, no such document emerged. Through an intermediary, I asked Ivon about this. Later, he tells Mellen that the whole thing went through back channels and there was no document.

Now, Shaw isn't mentioned in this reference, but there's a reason: Garrison had perjury charges pending against Clay Shaw at the time and so was not legally allowed to include his name in the book (Mellen pg. 323).

[Stephen Roy]

More on Ferrie's confession to Ivon: Garrison refers to it as early as 1970 in his book A Heritage of Stone. I don't have access to it currently, but I have an excellent source: Stephen Roy in 2000 (as "David Blackburst").

One minor update on this: In Garrison's 1970 "Heritage of Stone" (and possibly

"On The Trail...", I'll check), Garrison does refer a couple of times to an

interview with Ferrie on February 19-20, 1967 (presumably the Ivon Fontainbleu

interview) in which Ferrie is said to have conceded that he was affiliated with

the CIA during his 1960-61 anti-Castro period (something Ferrie admitted to a

few others, and which is probably true to some extent.)

As far as I can tell, this is the first written reference to the conversation

Ivon says he had with Ferrie. (link)

"Ferrie's association with the CIA began at least as far back as that agency's support of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's insurgents against Batista. He made flights into their mountain stronghold with munitions and supplies. Later, when Castro developed his relationship with Russia and the CIA began to launch guerrilla raids against Castro's Cuba, no one hated Castro more heartily than Ferrie. Ferrie spoke frequently of ways in which Castro could be assassinated, Havana harbor blown up or Cuba invaded. When the CIA trained Cubans in Guatemala for the Bay of Pigs invasion, Ferrie acted as a flying instructor at the Retalhuleu air strip in Guatemala. (48) Shortly before the assassination, he once again flew to Guatemala for a purpose still unknown. (49)"

SOURCE: A Heritage of Stone

Footnotes:

(48) Interview of David W. Ferrie with New Orleans District Attorney's Office on Feb. 20, 1967

(49) Ibid. Feb., 19-20, 1967

And parts of this account, if Ferrie actually said it to Ivon, appear to be impossible. Ferrie did support Castro prior to the revolution, but in a 1961 letter, did not indicate any actions on his behalf.

The idea of him training Cubans for the Bay of Pigs in Retalhuleu makes no sense. First, by Ferrie's own account, he was not accepted by the Cubans until after the BoP. Second, the training at TRAX would have to have been sometime between late 1960 and April 1961, but Ferrie continued to make his Flights 573/6 and 572/9 from and to Houston three times a week, including two overnights. His co-pilots (Shedden and Rosasco) tell me he didn't disappear for any length of time. The log books for his Stinson indicate he didn't use that plane for such trips, and his passport shows no indication that he traveled there commercially.

The pre-assassination trips to Guatemala (there were two) were in reference to his work with Marcello attorney Wasserman to prove that Carl I. Noll did some hanky-panky with Marcello's birth certificate. I have Ferrie's letters from Guatemala recounting this. But so did Garrison: They were seized on 11/24/63 by Raymond Comstock.

By 1969 (even by 1960) it was known that CIA had trained exiles at Retalhuleu. It had been published in several books and newspapers.

[Owen Parsons]

I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Novel being CIA-connected BEFORE the Garrison probe. I acknowledge that Novel tried to contact CIA AFTER the probe began, and that they were receptive. (I also note that CIA generally made common-cause with those opposing Garrison's probe.

I recounted that to show that the CIA actually requested information (contrary to what you had typed previously) and that Novel was a very connected man. Also, I'd imagine it would take some doing for a character like Novel to become so friendly with Dulles if he wasn't a company man.

Or then there is the Hoover sex picture that Novel says that James Jesus Angleton had him use to blackmail Hoover with. The existance of said picture was later independently corroborated. Or, for instance,

In 1967, sure. But why did the notes not turn up later, and why was there no reference to them in other documents?

1. Let's see, I think the investigation of Ferrie pretty much came to a halt after Ferrie died.

2. The confession does not give any new leads, it just confirms stuff that Garrison's office had uncovered previously.

3. Garrison and Ivon may have kept it to themselves. Who knows?

4. Garrison references the interview quite specifically in A Heritage of Stone in 1967.

Why would a conversion to the SBT make more sense afrer the Ivon conversation?

Because Ferrie would have no reason to fear for his life if he really felt that there was any validity to the SBT, obviously.

Can you quote the actual language you think indicates that Shaw was investigated in 1963? And why do you think the retraction was phony?

I'm pretty sure I've posted this before, but here goes again:

I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967:

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw.

[Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H.

This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book.

As for why the retraction is phony; this is obvious. It contradicts the FBI's own account of the meeting and subsequent FBI memos voice great displeasure with Clark's disclosure; not his facts.

OK. Hoover asks the SAC in San Francisco for an examination of 5 tickets, and copies went to Dallas and NO, both offices of origin for the Oswald investigation.

Or the Kennedy assassination investigation in general. I'm pretty sure Oswald himself never took ANY trip to San Francisco on any train, let alone a Southern Pacific one.

How do we know this relates to Shaw?

How do we know this relates to Shaw? Deduction and process of elimination:

1. The FBI says it investigated Shaw in December 1963 in relation to the assassination.

2. Hoover's request is from December 1963.

3. The request obviously relates to the assassination (Dallas) and the New Orleans aspect specifically.

4. It relates to a train ride from L.A. to San Francisco via a Southern Pacific train.

5. Its obviously recent, as the tickets are extant and the FBI has five of them.

6. Shaw took a Southern Pacific train from L.A. to San Francisco on November 20.

How do we know it relates to Shaw's trip? Why 5 tickets instead of one? Isn't this presuming a link where none is warranted?

Why five tickets? Just a guess, but I assume to check them to see which, if any, bore Shaw's fingerprint.

No.

People don't usually tell blatant lies for no reason. And Sullivan's account of Shaw's reaction to Kennedy's death tells a great deal about Shaw's professed love for Kennedy.

And, as I noted, that Shaw would provide information he knew was self-incriminating.

My point was that you left out our key objection. But anyway, I think at this point, the reader can decide who is more credible (Shaw or Habighorst) and who's story makes more sense (Shaw's or Habighorst).

That's what mystified me. Garrison wrote as if he had some document in his posession, and he listed it in his notes. When I searched through documents at NARA, from AARC, from ARRB, at Georgetown, the Connick materials and other places, no such document emerged. Through an intermediary, I asked Ivon about this. Later, he tells Mellen that the whole thing went through back channels and there was no document.

From memory, Garrison also utilizes another interview in his book, this one from Jimmy Johnson about Ferrie and his unusual financial situation. Garrison utilizes this interview again in OTTA with the caveat that this interview was stolen. I can easily imagine that a similiar befell the Ivon interview notes.

Also, you made two errors.

1. Ivon did not use a back channel, he delivered the memo directly to Garrison.

2. Ivon never told Mellen there was no document.

And parts of this account, if Ferrie actually said it to Ivon, appear to be impossible.

This appears to be an overstatement.

Ferrie did support Castro prior to the revolution, but in a 1961 letter, did not indicate any actions on his behalf.

So wait, Ferrie didn't indicate any actions on his behalf in this 1961 letter? That's not evidence one way or the other.

The idea of him training Cubans for the Bay of Pigs in Retalhuleu makes no sense. First, by Ferrie's own account, he was not accepted by the Cubans until after the BoP.

I'm pretty sure what Ferrie is referring to here (not knowing your reference) is the cubans of Sergio Arcacha Smith's Cuban Revolutionary Front. And indeed, Ferrie's involvement in this circle after the Bay of Pigs very much intensified (indeed, there is what I would call very strong evidence pre-Bay of Pigs activity on the part of Arcacha and Ferrie). In any case, the standard "conspiracy" narrative has Ferrie in the employ of Eladio del Valle prior to this. The Ferrie-del Valle connection has been confirmed recently by Gen. Escalante. Ferrie's involvement with the Bay of Pigs is also confirmed by Victor Marchetti.

Second, the training at TRAX would have to have been sometime between late 1960 and April 1961, but Ferrie continued to make his Flights 573/6 and 572/9 from and to Houston three times a week, including two overnights. His co-pilots (Shedden and Rosasco) tell me he didn't disappear for any length of time.

So, according to you, Ferrie's day job kept him busy for three days a week (was this the maximum? Did the schedule fluctuate?). That leaves about four days in the week, presumably including the weekend. I don't find this to be a compelling objection.

The log books for his Stinson indicate he didn't use that plane for such trips, and his passport shows no indication that he traveled there commercially.

I don't think Ferrie would be flying to Guatemala for commercial purposes.

Anyway, as to the Stinson objection:

1. As you have made clear before, Ferrie had other planes.

2. In fact, he had ready access to a friend's plane.

3. Ferrie may not have included certain things in his log books (such as CIA missions, one would presume), assuming he used the Stinson.

4. Mellen writes that Ferrie "flew for South Central Air Lines, a CIA proprietary." (pg. 33) This is unsourced, which is why I include it last. Perhaps this issue will be fixed in the new edition.

The pre-assassination trips to Guatemala (there were two) were in reference to his work with Marcello attorney Wasserman to prove that Carl I. Noll did some hanky-panky with Marcello's birth certificate. I have Ferrie's letters from Guatemala recounting this. But so did Garrison: They were seized on 11/24/63 by Raymond Comstock.

How do you know Ferrie made only two pre-assassination trips to Guatemala? Are these just the ones he wrote letters about?

By 1969 (even by 1960) it was known that CIA had trained exiles at Retalhuleu. It had been published in several books and newspapers.

This would be irrelevant even if the date of the memo wasn't 1967.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Stephen Roy]

I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Novel being CIA-connected BEFORE the Garrison probe. I acknowledge that Novel tried to contact CIA AFTER the probe began, and that they were receptive. (I also note that CIA generally made common-cause with those opposing Garrison's probe.

I recounted that to show that the CIA actually requested information (contrary to what you had typed previously) and that Novel was a very connected man. Also, I'd imagine it would take some doing for a character like Novel to become so friendly with Dulles if he wasn't a company man.

Somehow we're not communicating on this. I stipulate that the anti-Garrison parties did join forces after early 1967. But on the Dulles matter, Novel sent him some material. Di Dulles ever reciprocate the friendliness?

Or then there is the Hoover sex picture that Novel says that James Jesus Angleton had him use to blackmail Hoover with. The existance of said picture was later independently corroborated. Or, for instance,

Owen, I've met Novel and people who knew him, and it goes to the issue of his credibility. I'll discuss it by email or you can read it in my book. There are reasons to be less than certain about his claims.

In 1967, sure. But why did the [ivon] notes not turn up later, and why was there no reference to them in other documents?

1. Let's see, I think the investigation of Ferrie pretty much came to a halt after Ferrie died.

Not true. There was much investigation of Ferrie by NODA after his death, as shown by NODA files.

2. The confession does not give any new leads, it just confirms stuff that Garrison's office had uncovered previously.

By February 20, 1967? No. Garrison suspected Ferrie had CIA connections, but had no other evidence of it by February 20. This would be considered hard evidence.

3. Garrison and Ivon may have kept it to themselves. Who knows?

Look at it in context. I find no other instance of any such thing being kept in confidence. Garrison shared amny things with many people - why not this? What about it was so secretive? And if it was important enough to be kept secret 1967-9, it was important enough to be revealed at the trial. At one point, Bethell said he didn't see much in the files connecting Ferrie to Oswald, but nobody suggested that that there was any secret material that satified this deficiency. From a historical point of view, the absence of any reference to this material until Heritage should raise questions. This is not a case of advocating for Garrison or attacking him: It is a matter of trying to determine if this genuinely happened.

4. Garrison references the interview quite specifically in A Heritage of Stone in 1967.

But as I noted, there are problems with its content. And Ivon's later account adds more detail missing from Garrison's account in Heritage.

Why would a conversion to the SBT make more sense afrer the Ivon conversation?

Because Ferrie would have no reason to fear for his life if he really felt that there was any validity to the SBT, obviously.

I can't follow the logic of that. Ivon says Ferrie is fearful for his life. Then Ferrie confesses to Ivon. Shouldn't he then have been MORE fearful of his life??? What you suggest only makes sense if Ferrie truly believed he was innocent.

Can you quote the actual language you think indicates that Shaw was investigated in 1963? And why do you think the retraction was phony?

I'm pretty sure I've posted this before, but here goes again:

I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967:

The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw.

[Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H.

This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book.

Thanks. After I asked this question, I looked it up in Biles's book and found it (I can't find Davy right now). I stipulate that I was wrong. deLoach did say this. So we are faced with two FBI statements, one saying he was investigated, and another saying he wasn't.

As for why the retraction is phony; this is obvious. It contradicts the FBI's own account of the meeting and subsequent FBI memos voice great displeasure with Clark's disclosure; not his facts.

One personal aside: One of the worst things Garrison did when confronted with challenges was to declare that something is "obvious". This word does not represent real argument; It is an attempt to dismiss challenges as stupid, or lacking the ability to see the obvious. What is obvious to one (especially one who ADVOCATES a case) is not always obvious to others.

We have two FBI statements. He was investigated, he wasn't investigated. They contradict. Despite mountains of FBI documents released, there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was investigated. How is it it obvious which FBI statement is accurate and which is not? It seems to me that we have to obtain some contemporaneous evidence to be sure.

OK. Hoover asks the SAC in San Francisco for an examination of 5 tickets, and copies went to Dallas and NO, both offices of origin for the Oswald investigation.

Or the Kennedy assassination investigation in general. I'm pretty sure Oswald himself never took ANY trip to San Francisco on any train, let alone a Southern Pacific one.

How do we know this relates to Shaw?

How do we know this relates to Shaw? Deduction and process of elimination:

I profoundly disagree that one can make a declarative finding with such methodology.

1. The FBI says it investigated Shaw in December 1963 in relation to the assassination.

And also denies it. And who would have been the SOURCE of any 1963 allegation relating to Shaw? Andrews? Russo?

2. Hoover's request is from December 1963.

3. The request obviously relates to the assassination (Dallas) and the New Orleans aspect specifically.

"Obviously"? How many many names appear in FBI files related to the assassination? Can we rule them all out?

4. It relates to a train ride from L.A. to San Francisco via a Southern Pacific train.

5. Its obviously recent, as the tickets are extant and the FBI has five of them.

"Obviously"? Why would Shaw need five tickets?

6. Shaw took a Southern Pacific train from L.A. to San Francisco on November 20.

How do we know it relates to Shaw's trip? Why 5 tickets instead of one? Isn't this presuming a link where none is warranted?

Why five tickets? Just a guess, but I assume to check them to see which, if any, bore Shaw's fingerprint.

So it's speculation, not an established fact. I think Joan Mellen was wrong to declare that this related to Shaw.

No.

People don't usually tell blatant lies for no reason. And Sullivan's account of Shaw's reaction to Kennedy's death tells a great deal about Shaw's professed love for Kennedy.

In contrast to Shaw's own statements about Kennedy, and the statements of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter. Were they all lying?

And, as I noted, that Shaw would provide information he knew was self-incriminating.

My point was that you left out our key objection. But anyway, I think at this point, the reader can decide who is more credible (Shaw or Habighorst) and who's story makes more sense (Shaw's or Habighorst).

I agree. I find it incredible that Shaw admitted using an alias that he knew was under investigation by Garrison.

That's what mystified me. Garrison wrote as if he had some document in his posession, and he listed it in his notes. When I searched through documents at NARA, from AARC, from ARRB, at Georgetown, the Connick materials and other places, no such document emerged. Through an intermediary, I asked Ivon about this. Later, he tells Mellen that the whole thing went through back channels and there was no document.

From memory, Garrison also utilizes another interview in his book, this one from Jimmy Johnson about Ferrie and his unusual financial situation. Garrison utilizes this interview again in OTTA with the caveat that this interview was stolen. I can easily imagine that a similiar befell the Ivon interview notes.

But your speculation doesn't answer my question. The Jimmy Johnson interviews DID surface later. The Ivon interview did not.

Also, you made two errors.

1. Ivon did not use a back channel, he delivered the memo directly to Garrison.

Not an error. The "front channel" was for memos to go into the files. This one did not go into the files. it was my characterization of this as a back channel.

2. Ivon never told Mellen there was no document.

Actually, he said it was not typed as a report, just handwritten notes.

And parts of this account, if Ferrie actually said it to Ivon, appear to be impossible.

This appears to be an overstatement.

Ferrie did support Castro prior to the revolution, but in a 1961 letter, did not indicate any actions on his behalf.

So wait, Ferrie didn't indicate any actions on his behalf in this 1961 letter? That's not evidence one way or the other.

He indicated that he first became active in 1960.

The idea of him training Cubans for the Bay of Pigs in Retalhuleu makes no sense. First, by Ferrie's own account, he was not accepted by the Cubans until after the BoP.

I'm pretty sure what Ferrie is referring to here (not knowing your reference) is the cubans of Sergio Arcacha Smith's Cuban Revolutionary Front. And indeed, Ferrie's involvement in this circle after the Bay of Pigs very much intensified (indeed, there is what I would call very strong evidence pre-Bay of Pigs activity on the part of Arcacha and Ferrie).

I'd like to know what that is. My information is to the contrary.

In any case, the standard "conspiracy" narrative has Ferrie in the employ of Eladio del Valle prior to this. The Ferrie-del Valle connection has been confirmed recently by Gen. Escalante.

The delValle material is wrong. It all stems from a Diego Gonzales Tendedera article which has Ferrie and delValle together nearly every day IN MIAMI in late 1960. Not likely, according to Ferrie's flight records. And Escalante is relying on the Tendedera article.

Ferrie's involvement with the Bay of Pigs is also confirmed by Victor Marchetti.

Who was not involved with Ferrie, only repeating what somebody told him in 1969.

Second, the training at TRAX would have to have been sometime between late 1960 and April 1961, but Ferrie continued to make his Flights 573/6 and 572/9 from and to Houston three times a week, including two overnights. His co-pilots (Shedden and Rosasco) tell me he didn't disappear for any length of time.

So, according to you, Ferrie's day job kept him busy for three days a week (was this the maximum? Did the schedule fluctuate?). That leaves about four days in the week, presumably including the weekend. I don't find this to be a compelling objection.

Sun-Mon, Tue-Wed, Friday. But those were his main scheduled trips. He also made other runs in between.

The log books for his Stinson indicate he didn't use that plane for such trips, and his passport shows no indication that he traveled there commercially.

I don't think Ferrie would be flying to Guatemala for commercial purposes.

Anyway, as to the Stinson objection:

1. As you have made clear before, Ferrie had other planes.

Yes, a Taylorcraft L-2, for which I also have a log book. (No such flights listed.)

2. In fact, he had ready access to a friend's plane.

He had access to several plane, but which one do you reference?

3. Ferrie may not have included certain things in his log books (such as CIA missions, one would presume), assuming he used the Stinson.

But the mileage indicator would cause problems. And there would be fuel receipts and takeoff/landing clearances.

4. Mellen writes that Ferrie "flew for South Central Air Lines, a CIA proprietary." (pg. 33) This is unsourced, which is why I include it last. Perhaps this issue will be fixed in the new edition.

First of all, Ferrie's connection with Southcentral was in 1966, not pre-Bay of Pigs. Second, Joan Mellen is wrong about the airline. Southcentral Air Lines was originally Space Air Freight, chartered by Charles Wendorf and Jacob Nastasi. It was changed to Southcentral Air Lines on June 22, 1966, but had trouble being accepted by the FAA. Ferrie was dismissed on July 23, 1966 (interestingly, the date Ferrie hand-wrote his last will). There is NO EVIDENCE that Southcentral had anything to do with the CIA, much less being a proprietary. Mellen was wrong to make this claim.

Training pilots for combat was not something one could do by spending a few hours here, a few hours there commuting from New Orleans to Guatemala. Ferrie would have to have made some kind of time commitment, but the evidence suggests that he didn't. And there is other evidence to support this. So I have difficulty accepting that what Ferrie allegedly told Ivon was true, or accurately reported. Much more in my book.

The pre-assassination trips to Guatemala (there were two) were in reference to his work with Marcello attorney Wasserman to prove that Carl I. Noll did some hanky-panky with Marcello's birth certificate. I have Ferrie's letters from Guatemala recounting this. But so did Garrison: They were seized on 11/24/63 by Raymond Comstock.

How do you know Ferrie made only two pre-assassination trips to Guatemala? Are these just the ones he wrote letters about?

There are records of two, and he claimed to have made two.

By 1969 (even by 1960) it was known that CIA had trained exiles at Retalhuleu. It had been published in several books and newspapers.

This would be irrelevant even if the date of the memo wasn't 1967.

I was citing it as a worst case scenario: if Ivon had been working from memory, he might have mis-remembered this. I even think Retalhuleu was mentioned in an early NODA memo, sourced from the Wise-Ross book.

There are enough problems with Ivon's recollection of the Ferrie conversation to have reservations about it. Again, when you see it in the context of what Ferrie did before and after 2/20/67, you'll see what I mean.

[Owen Parsons]

Somehow we're not communicating on this. I stipulate that the anti-Garrison parties did join forces after early 1967. But on the Dulles matter, Novel sent him some material. Di Dulles ever reciprocate the friendliness?

Dulles kept the news clippings to himself and forwarded the cover letter to Houston. I would classify this as "positive," a rather "friendly" reaction.

Owen, I've met Novel and people who knew him, and it goes to the issue of his credibility. I'll discuss it by email or you can read it in my book. There are reasons to be less than certain about his claims.

I'm aware that Novel is a nut (or at least acts like one, I should say). But he has many connections to certain characters and he has demonstrated knowledge of certain *things* that he shouldn't have, such as the Hoover sex pictures, which you waved off by referring to your opinion and your various interviews, without specifying details.

Not true. There was much investigation of Ferrie by NODA after his death, as shown by NODA files.

I don't have access to the NODA files, but I assume that, while Ferrie was still investigated, most of the attention shifted to Shaw.

By February 20, 1967? No. Garrison suspected Ferrie had CIA connections, but had no other evidence of it by February 20. This would be considered hard evidence.

"Hard evidence" yes, but not really a new lead.

Look at it in context. I find no other instance of any such thing being kept in confidence. Garrison shared amny things with many people - why not this? What about it was so secretive? And if it was important enough to be kept secret 1967-9, it was important enough to be revealed at the trial. At one point, Bethell said he didn't see much in the files connecting Ferrie to Oswald, but nobody suggested that that there was any secret material that satified this deficiency. From a historical point of view, the absence of any reference to this material until Heritage should raise questions. This is not a case of advocating for Garrison or attacking him: It is a matter of trying to determine if this genuinely happened.

While it does not give many new leads, it is still an important memo, which Garrison and Ivon would want to keep under wraps. And there were many leakers and crooks (*cough* Bethell *cough*).

And again, about the trial, I am not convinced that this death bed thing is being presented accurately. It still looks like hearsay evidence that is being stretched to fit the definition of a "deathbed confession." Garrison did want to keep mention of the CIA to a minimum in the trial. There probably would be a "percieved conflict of interest."

I can't follow the logic of that. Ivon says Ferrie is fearful for his life. Then Ferrie confesses to Ivon. Shouldn't he then have been MORE fearful of his life??? What you suggest only makes sense if Ferrie truly believed he was innocent.

Yes, he should be more fearful of his life. Which is why a loud and public shift to the SBT could be interpreted as a "signal" he was trying to send ("See? I'm safe, don't kill me!").

Thanks. After I asked this question, I looked it up in Biles's book and found it (I can't find Davy right now). I stipulate that I was wrong. deLoach did say this. So we are faced with two FBI statements, one saying he was investigated, and another saying he wasn't.

Which one saying he wasn't investigated? I'd like you to quote this. Are you talking about *public* statements? The FBI did make a *public statement* that it didn't investigate Shaw after Clark's disclosure. If this is what you refer to, in my considered opinion, this is worthless. As a rule, the internal statements of government agencies are always more reliable than the public ones.

We have two FBI statements. He was investigated, he wasn't investigated. They contradict. Despite mountains of FBI documents released, there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was investigated. How is it it obvious which FBI statement is accurate and which is not? It seems to me that we have to obtain some contemporaneous evidence to be sure.

Again, where and what is this denial statement?

And also denies it.

When, where, what?

And who would have been the SOURCE of any 1963 allegation relating to Shaw? Andrews? Russo?

It couldn't have been Andrews because he never told the FBI WHO Bertrand was. Nor could it have been Russo, because he only came forward much latter by his own account. DeLoach says it is "as a result of several parties furnishing information."

"Obviously"? How many many names appear in FBI files related to the assassination? Can we rule them all out?

I don't know how many names appear, honestly, I'm not keeping track, but I don't imagine it would be too many after only about two weeks into the investigation. And the list needs to be narrowed down to those named who hail from New Orleans. And those who took a Southern Pacific train to San Francisco in the recent past. Can you offer a candidate who better fits the data?

So it's speculation, not an established fact.

Of course its speculation, but an entirely reasonable one that does not require any sort of strained logic.

I think Joan Mellen was wrong to declare that this related to Shaw.

In light of everything, Mellen's declaration makes perfect sense.

In contrast to Shaw's own statements about Kennedy, and the statements of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter. Were they all lying?

Since Shaw also seemed to have trouble remembering when and where he first heard about Kennedy's assassination I would have to say yes, he is lying. I've also heard about statements "of those who said he was a Kennedy supporter" but have not seen them, aside from casual acquaintances and people he did business with. Maybe you could help.

There is the information from Carroll Thomas, funeral home director who did the arrangements for the funeral of Shaw's father and close personal friend of Shaw, however. He told the FBI (not Garrison) that Shaw knew Ferrie but that he could not imagine why Shaw would hang around with a communist like Oswald, since "Shaw was always politically conservative."

But your speculation doesn't answer my question. The Jimmy Johnson interviews DID surface later. The Ivon interview did not.

Yes, but these interviews specifically? Mellen does use the Johnson material, but it is different from the document Garrison refers to.

To me, all this is irrelevant, Garrison, as you point out, refers to a specific interview at a specific time as if it where something he had in his possession. I have no reason to believe Garrison is a xxxx who fabricates documents.

Not an error. The "front channel" was for memos to go into the files. This one did not go into the files. it was my characterization of this as a back channel.

Fair enough.

Actually, he said it was not typed as a report, just handwritten notes.

I believe this still qualifies as a NODA interview with a date. And it is certainly still a document.

He indicated that he first became active in 1960.

Could you quote from this letter?

I'd like to know what that is. My information is to the contrary.

From DiEugenio's Rose Cheramie article:

Smith was also close to Garrison's prime suspect, David Ferrie. In a polygraph test taken in Dallas on March 8, 1967, Smith admitted that Ferrie walked into his office and asked to train Cubans in advance of the Bay of Pigs. In the notes of reporter Dick Billings, dated 2/21/67, he writes that Ferrie and Smith helped train the Bay of Pigs invasion force with M-1 rifles and they masked the training as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol. But just in case, they were ready to produce an official who would testify that it was CIA sponsored.

Furthermore, Arcacha and Ferrie were organizing some kind of military training at Belle Chasse prior to the Bay of Pigs, according to Irion. Davy says Irion says it was training of Cubans, you say it was the elite of Ferrie's CAP. Might this not be the training "masked...as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol?" Either way, this says a lot.

In any case, the relationship of Ferrie and Arcacha certainly wasn't cold prior to the Bay of Pigs.

The delValle material is wrong. It all stems from a Diego Gonzales Tendedera article which has Ferrie and delValle together nearly every day IN MIAMI in late 1960. Not likely, according to Ferrie's flight records. And Escalante is relying on the Tendedera article.

I am not relying on the Tendedera article (which, while reflecting a certain level of truth, seems to be exagerated). Escalante bases his information on intelligence from the infiltration of del Valle's Anti-Communist Cuban Liberation Movement. He does NOT base his information on Tendedera. He has Ferrie only making "some flights" for del Valle.

Who was not involved with Ferrie, only repeating what somebody told him in 1969.

Yeah, a CIA somebody.

Sun-Mon, Tue-Wed, Friday. But those were his main scheduled trips. He also made other runs in between.

So, that would presumably leave him Thursdays and Saturdays (and perhaps much of Sunday). It would be helpful also if you gave the hours Ferrie worked for Eastern.

He had access to several plane, but which one do you reference?

You had earlier mentioned that he had access to a friend's plane. But now that you say he had access to several, I'll answer "any one of them, take your pick."

But the mileage indicator would cause problems. And there would be fuel receipts and takeoff/landing clearances.

1. Do you have access to Ferrie's plane to check the mileage indicator?

2. Who even keeps fuel receipts around anyway?

3. Who says these were authorized takeoffs/landings? And where would one find record of said clearances assuming this to be the case?

Alternatively, Ferrie could have covered for real CIA-related flights with fake flights in his log book.

First of all, Ferrie's connection with Southcentral was in 1966, not pre-Bay of Pigs. Second, Joan Mellen is wrong about the airline. Southcentral Air Lines was originally Space Air Freight, chartered by Charles Wendorf and Jacob Nastasi. It was changed to Southcentral Air Lines on June 22, 1966, but had trouble being accepted by the FAA. Ferrie was dismissed on July 23, 1966 (interestingly, the date Ferrie hand-wrote his last will). There is NO EVIDENCE that Southcentral had anything to do with the CIA, much less being a proprietary. Mellen was wrong to make this claim.

That was just my confusion. Mellen includes this in a list of Ferrie's CIA links, but doesn't say it was pre-Bay of Pigs. She may well have evidence of the CIA ties of Southcentral/Space Air, but who knows. Anyway...

There are records of two, and he claimed to have made two.

So this is really neutral evidence, then. Ferrie claimed to have made two. Did he rule out others? And if he did, might not he have reason not to mention what is presumably CIA activity in written letters?

Edited October 10, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

Double post.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Stephen Roy]

Furthermore, Arcacha and Ferrie were organizing some kind of military training at Belle Chasse prior to the Bay of Pigs, according to Irion. Davy says Irion says it was training of Cubans, you say it was the elite of Ferrie's CAP. Might this not be the training "masked...as being sponsored by the Civil Air Patrol?" Either way, this says a lot.

I'm on my way home and will respond more tomorrow, but Davy is wrong about Irion. In that 10-18-78 interview, Irion says: "Irion stated that the training camps he went to were arranged by Ferrie and Smith but they were with North Americans at these camps, not Cubans except for the one man he described from Miami."