A groundbreaking chapter of Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* examines the
Clay L. Shaw v. Jim Garrison court case of 1971, wherein Garrison's perjury
charges against Shaw were dismissed by Judge Herbert J. Christenberry. Garrison
apologists like to claim that this procedure was unprecedented and outrageous;
it was neither.

"Questioned by William Wegmann for more than two hours, Garrison made
statements that were glaringly erroneous. Others were self-serving. Most were
both. To Wegmann's more sensitive questions Garrison stated he didn't recall,
or he simply refused to answer, claiming privileged information under
Louisiana's Public Records Act" (Lambert, 165).

In *False Witness" (pp. 165-79), Lambert points out some of Garrison's more
interesting statements and non-statements:

Garrison said Shaw had been questioned three times before being arrested and
only became a suspect after the second interrogation; Shaw was only questioned
once by Garrison's office prior to his arrest.

Garrison claimed he had been against using witness Charles Spiesel; everyone
else remembered Garrison being the one who made the decision to use Spiesel.

Garrison claimed that David Ferrie was still alive at the time of Shaw's
arrest; Ferrie died on February 22, 1967; it was Ferrie's death that brought
forth witness Perry Russo who was Garrison's sole justification in arresting
Shaw on March 1, 1967.

Garrison claimed that Ferrie was about to be indicted at the time of his death;
there were NO plans to arrest Ferrie at that time, as James Alcock confirmed.

Garrison was asked how many witnesses against Shaw he had at the time of Shaw's
arrest; Garrison refused to answer. (James Alcock testified that Russo was the
only one.)

Garrison was asked if he hadn't put Bundy on the stand knowing his story had
undergone severe changes. Hadn't Garrison stated to a staff member, "We did not
tell him to lie; put him on the stand," or words to that effect? Garrison
refused to answer.

Garrison was asked if anything came out of his investigation aside from the
Shaw prosecution; Garrison said yes. Garrison was asked to elaborate; Garrison
refused.

Garrison was asked if a report had been made detailing his investigation.
Garrison said that a "public report" would indeed be forthcoming "to the
citizens of New Orleans." (It never arrived.)

Garrison did have one witness to vouch for his credibility: Perry Raymond
Russo. Except that when Russo was subpoenaed, Russo cited his Fifth Amendment
rights and refused to say a word on Garrison's behalf. Why? Because Russo was
about to confess to Shaw's lawyers -- in a tape-recorded interview -- that Clay
Shaw had "absolutely not" been in Dave Ferrie's apartment as he'd previously
testified; Russo was terrified of being charged with perjury by Garrison, as
Garrison had warned him repeatedly he *would* be if he ever changed his story
about Shaw.

See Lambert's *False Witness* for much more on Garrison and Russo.

Dave Reitzes

"Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm