Did Davy Refute Reitzes - Part 2
Jerry
many of Garrison's claims that have been long refuted:
>Then of course there's Davy's uncritical acceptance of such
discredited Garrison "evidence" ...
I'll take only two examples and examine them to see if indeed Davy
rebutted Reitzes "point by point" - as has been claimed - the cases of
Lou Ivon's supposed witnessing of a confession by Ferrie and Vernon
Bundy's truthfulness as a witness.
1) Lou Ivon's claim that Ferrie confessed to him (as in _JFK_):
This is a late appearing claim of Ivon's and is something he never told
Garrison or recorded in contemporaneous memos. Apparently he first
mentioned it over a decade late to Oliver Stone.
Reitzes makes a strong case against this claim:
"[Bill Davy claims] that Ferrie "confessed" to Lou Ivon that he knew
Oswald and Shaw, and that he and Shaw worked for the CIA (Davy, 66),
when there is not a single mention of this "confession" in Garrison's
files, when it contradicts Ferrie's denials of knowing Oswald and Shaw
which continued literally until just hours prior to his death, when it
was never mentioned at the Shaw trial or the 1971 hearing over Shaw's
perjury charges (one of which contended that Shaw knew Ferrie), which
Garrison did not mention in either of his two books about the
assassination, and though Ivon himself apparently never said a word
about it to a soul on Earth until he met Oliver Stone."
[All Reitze's quotes are from his review OF Bill Davy's Book LET
JUSTICE BE DONE, "Davy Disappoints"]
Here is Bill Davy's rebuttal:
"Lou Ivon’s recollection of Ferrie’s breakdown gets pooh-poohed by
Reitzes, despite the fact that Ivon confirmed this personally in my
interview with him. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many times have you
interviewed Ivon?"
Does Bill Davy "rebut Reitzes point-by-point"? Or is this mere bluster?
I'll let the reader decide.
2. Vernon Bundy's credibility
Dave Reitzes treats this subject briefly here:
"[Bill Davy presents] Vernon Bundy [as] a credible witness, despite the
fact that the man he later identified as Oswald (who he claimed he saw
with Shaw) was actually someone who looked like "a real junkie" and
who's name apparently was Pete (Davy, 123-8)"
The issue is this: Vernon Bundy's original statements to Garrison
investigators describe two men who in no way resembled Oswald or Shaw
and one of the men - a heroin addict - as known to Bundy as "Pete".
Does Davy refute Reitzes on this point by proving Bundy to be credible?
Davy> "He also claims I say Vernon Bundy was a credible witness. I
didn’t say it. William Gurvich and John Volz did! Neither of whom were
fans of Garrison’s. Volz confirmed his take on Bundy in an interview
with me. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many times have you interviewed John
Volz?"
Apparently Mr Davy can't bring himself to admit that in more than six
pages of his (slim) book he has indeed presented Bundy as a credible
witness!
Has Mr Davy refuted Dave Reitzes "point by point"?
Is Mr Davy correct when he suggests to the reader that the real problem
with Mr Reitzes is that he hasn't interviewed Lou Ivon or John Volk!
Presumeably if Mr Ivon told Davy the same story that he recalled for
Oliver Stone or Mr Volk extolled Bundy's credibility to him that
Reitzes would have written a rave review of of _Let Justice Be Done_!
Would even the most anti-Reitzes, pro-Davy member of this newsgroup
accept that conclusion?
And how many of the above believe Mr Davy when he assures us that
William Gurvitch's opinion of Bundy was a favorable one?
In conclusion, I reluctantly state that in his "refutation" of Dave
Reitze's points, indeed, Davy disappoints.
Jerry
as David Ferrie's allegedly unnatural death (Davy, 66-7), despite the
unequivocal findings of autopsy pathologist Ronald Welsh and coroner
Nicholas Chetta (see Lambert, 60-4, for a full discussion); Perry
Russo's testimony about an "assassination plot" involving a "Leon
Oswald," one "Clem Bertrand" and David Ferrie (Davy, 121-2; see part
three of "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"), a story which Russo fully
recanted in a 1971 series of tape-recorded interviews with Shaw's
defense lawyers (see Lambert, 173-4); the allegation that Shaw admitted
using the "Bertrand" alias to NOPD Officer Aloysius Habighorst (Davy,
123), an assertion destroyed at the Shaw trial (see part two of "Who
Speaks for Clay Shaw?"); that Oswald used Guy Banister's address on
some of his pro-Castro literature (Davy, 37), when the address in
question, 544 Camp Street, was actually around the corner from
Banister's 531 Lafayette Street office, which was technically in the
same building, but not accessible from 544 Camp (cf. the HSCA interview
with building owner Sam Newman); that Ferrie "confessed" to Lou Ivon
that he knew Oswald and Shaw, and that he and Shaw worked for the CIA
(Davy, 66), when there is not a single mention of this "confession" in
Garrison's files, when it contradicts Ferrie's denials of knowing
Oswald and Shaw which continued literally until just hours prior to his
death, when it was never mentioned at the Shaw trial or the 1971
hearing over Shaw's perjury charges (one of which contended that Shaw
knew Ferrie), which Garrison did not mention in either of his two books
about the assassination, and though Ivon himself apparently never said
a word about it to a soul on Earth until he met Oliver Stone (cf.
Lambert, False Witness, 327 fn.); that Vernon Bundy was a credible
witness, despite the fact that the man he later identified as Oswald
(who he claimed he saw with Shaw) was actually someone who looked
like "a real junkie" and who's name apparently was Pete (Davy, 123-8);
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Blackburst
>1) Lou Ivon's claim that Ferrie confessed to him (as in _JFK_):
>
>This is a late appearing claim of Ivon's and is something he never told
>Garrison or recorded in contemporaneous memos. Apparently he first
>mentioned it over a decade late to
>Oliver Stone.
And quoting Reitzes' review:
>Garrison did not mention in either of his two books about the
>assassination
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.
oo
David Blackburst
Jerry
In article <20000622110730...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
black...@aol.com (Blackburst) wrote:
> Jerry98 wrote:
> >1) Lou Ivon's claim that Ferrie confessed to him (as in _JFK_):
> >
> >This is a late appearing claim of Ivon's and is something he never
told
> >Garrison or recorded in contemporaneous memos. Apparently he first
> >mentioned it over a decade late to
> >Oliver Stone.
>
> And quoting Reitzes' review:
>
> >Garrison did not mention in either of his two books about the
> >assassination
>
> 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.
"Conceding" events of '60-'61 is not what Davy alleges. He claims that
Ferrie *broke down*, i.e.,admitted the facts of the case against him -
as portrayed in the movie, _JFK_.
Perhaps, though, Ferrie said *something* to Ivon that was not important
enough to be mentioned in office documents or presented in court,
something that grew and grew until it became the ludicrous account that
Ivon finally "remembered" and related to Oliver Stone.
Or do you think Ferrie told Ivon one thing and told Lardner something
entirely different - namely that he was completely innocent & being
persecuted by the DA & he was contemplating legal action against him?
Jerry
>
> oo
> David Blackburst
Dave Reitzes
Thank you for your posts. I've preferred not to respond to Mr. Davy's attack,
but I give in -- here is some of the response I prepared a while back, fully
expecting one of Davy's disciples to give me reason to post it. Alas, they are
even more closed-minded than I thought, and each and every one of them has
refused my challenge to read my Davy review for themselves. I apologize for
overestimating Garrison advocates yet again. It probably won't be the last
time, I confess.
Bill Davy writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reitzes . . . incorrectly claims that I "take on faith" that other Vieux Carre
denizens identified Shaw as "Bertrand" and that "these alleged witnesses would
not speak for the record." Wrong. I name two of the witnesses in my book,
William Morris and David Logan, both of whom were interviewed by the DA's
office for the record. William Morris is a name Reitzes should be more than
familiar with. For months, Reitzes hammered away on the Internet claiming that
William Morris never existed and that Garrison invented him out of whole cloth.
When confronted by Jim Hargrove's posting of the July 12, 1967 NODA interview
of Morris (an interview that has been available at the AARC or its precursor
for almost 30 years, by the way), Reitzes beat a hasty retreat, posting this
mea culpa on January 9th; "I did, of course, assert on this NG that Morris
never existed, a reckless statement I have fully retracted and for which I
apologize."
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The name "Bertrand," however, is not mentioned a single time in David Logan's
NODA interview.
Meanwhile, contrary to what Mr. Davy suggests, I discuss William Morris in my
review of Let Justice Be Done, and -- also contrary to what Davy suggests --
Jim Hargrove EXPLICITLY refused to post the NODA interview with William Morris.
Why would Jim refuse to post such an important document? Why has no one to this
day posted the document that Jim Garrison names in On the Trail of the
Assassins (1991 ed., p. 99) as his breakthrough to identifying Clay Shaw as the
mysterious "Clay Bertrand"?
Could it be because William Morris only claimed to have once met someone named
"Bertrand" in 1958 -- nine years earlier -- and that Mr. Morris only thought
that Clay Shaw "resembled" this person?
Davy neatly sidesteps these issues raised in my review:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davy regurgitates Garrison's claim that one William Morris was introduced to
Shaw/"Bertrand" by New Orleans resident Gene Davis (Davy, 120), though Davy
does not explain why Garrison did not call Morris to testify at the Shaw trial,
why Garrison claimed to have taken Morris' statement before Shaw was arrested
(Garrison, 99) when it actually wasn't taken until over four months later
(Davy, 302 fn.), why defense witness Gene Davis was not asked by the
prosecution to verify or refute Morris' statement at the Shaw trial, or why
DA's office records contain no indication that Morris' statement was ever
followed up in any way, not even with Gene Davis.
Nor does Davy mention even once that only weeks prior to the Morris statement,
Gene Davis was the individual named by attorney Dean Andrews as the person he
in fact was covering for when he came up with the name "Clay Bertrand" (see
part two of "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?").
Following Garrison's lead, Davy names one David Logan as another
Shaw-"Bertrand" witness (Davy, 120). Davy not only avoids the issue of why
Logan was not called to testify against Shaw, but does not mention that Jim
Garrison would later avoid making public the contents of Logan's story by
claiming -- falsely -- that Logan's statement was stolen from his office
(Patricia Lambert, False Witness, 218, 281). The document is now available at
the National Archives.
Davy makes much of a recently declassified FBI report that reads, "On February
24, 1967, we received information from two sources that Clay Shaw reportedly is
identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand . . ." (Davy, 193).
Davy notes that one of these informants had previously given this information
to Garrison investigator Lou Ivon, and that "Ivon would not confirm this
information" to the FBI (Davy, 120). Davy does not mention the memorandum that
Lou Ivon wrote to Jim Garrison the very next day, stating that despite Ivon's
best efforts, "I'm almost positive from my contacts that they would have known
or heard of a Clay Bertrand. The information I received was negative results"
(see part two of "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?").
In this memo, Ivon went on to relate a report from one informant, "Bubbie"
Pettingill, that the originator of the "Bertrand" story, Dean Andrews, had
confided to him that "Clay Bertrand" had never existed, confirming the later
statements of Andrews at the Shaw trial -- that he had thought up the name
simply to protect his friend Gene Davis, who would otherwise be in danger of
being falsely implicated by Andrews' fictitious story, in which "Bertrand"
purportedly called Andrews about representing Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. This
is also consistent with what Andrews told NBC, as well as author Edward J.
Epstein in June 1967 (see part two of "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?").
(Andrews explained at the trial that Davis had called him while he was in the
hospital for pneumonia about a bill of sale for an automobile, and that the two
had briefly discussed the fame that would await the lawyer who represented
Oswald. Soon enough, Andrews was telling people that he had been phoned in the
hospital by someone who asked him to represent Oswald in Dallas. Under the
influence of his pneumonia and heavy sedation, Andrews seems to have actually
believed this story for a time, recanted it once the FBI expressed a serious
interest, then revived it for the Warren Commission. Davy tries weakly to
discredit this story by claiming Andrews was not under sedation when he first
came up with the tale. Not only is this contrary to the December 1963 FBI
reports, but it also presumes a particular reconstruction of the day's events,
a presumption that is far from certain [Lambert, 32, 297]. It also presumes
that Andrews' pneumonia alone was not necessarily strong enough to warrant the
administration of sedatives, something about which the record is unequivocal.)
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
And not to forget . . .
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thus, we are forced to believe that Garrison would attempt the arrest of
witnesses and/or suspects in far-flung places like Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa and
California, but he would not subpoena a single one of the Shaw-"Bertrand"
witnesses in his own parish.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davy writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding a March 2, 1967 FBI memo which
Cartha DeLoach wrote to Clyde Tolson stating that "Shaw's name had come up
in our investigation in December, 1963, as a result of several parties
furnishing information concerning Shaw," Reitzes takes on the role of
apologist for the FBI asking, "DeLoach couldn't be mistakenly referring to
that FBI report of February 24, 1967, could he?" Let's see, the number 3
man at the FBI is writing a memo to the number 2 man, knowing full well it
will also be read by Hoover, and he gets something like that wrong? I don't
think so. Reitzes thinks he's really on to something as he writes,
"Unfortunately, Davy disdains hunting for primary sources to support his
theory when he can simply misquote the anonymous Justice Department
informant who told the New York Times that "Bertrand" and Shaw were "the
same guy" (Davy, 191)." It's interesting that Reitzes cites page 191 of my
book for the Justice Department "it's the same guy" quote, because nowhere
on page 191 or anywhere else in the book do I mention the "it's the same
guy" quote! Even though that quote is nowhere to be found in my book, that
doesn't stop Reitzes from his pathetic attempt at discrediting. He writes,
"What the Justice Department source actually said was, "We think it's the
same guy."" Reitzes cites the New York Times of March 3, 1967 as his
primary source and Lambert as his backup. A quick look at Lambert's book
shows she doesn't cite the New York Times at all, but rather the New
Orleans Time-Picayune of March 3, 1967 and a Washington Post article some
three months later. So, does Reitzes' main source, the New York Times of
March 3, 1967 mention the "We think it's the same guy" quote? Well, I
don't know what edition Mr. Reitzes has, but I have the New York Times,
March 3, 1967 article in front of me right now and the Justice Department
is quite unequivocal on the matter. I quote verbatim:
"A Justice Department official said tonight that his agency was
convinced that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man, and that this
was the basis for Mr. Clark's assertions this morning."
And this is precisely what I cite in my book, not the, "it's the same guy"
or "we think it's the same guy" quotes that Reitzes erroneously attributes
to the New York Times and me. Just who is misquoting the Justice Department
here, Mr. Reitzes? It is also interesting to note that in his "review"
Reitzes tries to downplay the Justice Department conclusion by saying I
misquote an anonymous Justice Department informant. As the reader can see,
the Times article (and my book) clearly states that it is a Justice
Department official making the statement.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davy's nailed me cold here -- I was citing Lambert's book, and I only assumed
she was quoting the same New York Times article Davy cites. Alas, she was not.
My mistake. I am a lowly sinner.
But Davy does not address even momentarily which account might be more
accurate, nor does he address the following points from my review of his book:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Falling back on "previous research," Davy dwells upon Ramsey Clark's faux pas
of March 1967, when he erroneously told the press that Shaw had been
investigated and cleared by the FBI in 1963 (Davy, 191, leading off Davy's
final chapter, "The Hidden [!] Record"). The Justice Department eventually
retracted the statement (Davy, 192), but that's not good enough for Davy, who
quotes an undated item from Clark reaffirming that Shaw had been investigated
by the FBI (Davy, 192). Davy seems to think that Clark -- who had not yet even
been sworn in as Attorney General -- was privy to what Davy no doubt believes
to be one of the federal government's most pernicious secrets.
But Davy knows this is not true. He himself reports on what would seem to be
the source of Clark's misunderstanding, a March 2, 1967, FBI memo from Cartha
DeLoach to Clyde Tolson: "The AG [sic] then asked whether the FBI knew anything
about Shaw [who'd been arrested the day before]. 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" (Davy, 192).
Where are the reports of this 1963 information from "several parties" to which
DeLoach refers? No one has ever found a single 1963 FBI report mentioning Shaw,
even an unconfirmed one. DeLoach couldn't be mistakenly referring to that FBI
report of February 24, 1967, could he?
[…]
Of course, no FBI or Justice Department employee would ever lend his name to an
unconfirmed tip like the one given to the Times; but then again, none did. (How
do Garrison advocates account for the fact that Clark was apparently
knowledgeable about the government's deep, dark secrets, but didn't seem to be
the slightest bit aware that they were secrets?)
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Such arguments are lost on Garrison advocates, who refuse to believe anything
any government official says unless it happens to support their pet theories,
and regardless of whether there are facts to back it up.
Davy also fails to address the issues raised here:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
One last gasp at making the Shaw-"Bertrand" connection is presented in the form
of "what appears to be a computer printout from the 1960's [sic] . . . written
in indecipherable 'CIA-ese,'" released from Shaw's CIA file in 1994. The
printout contains virtually no intelligible information, but does include a
line reading, "/A [presumably "alias"] Bertrand, Clay" (Davy, 196-7). The
implication is that this item substantiates the charge that Shaw was
"Bertrand," where it more likely only passes along information received from
the field, i.e., from press accounts of the Garrison investigation. This is
supported by recently declassified documents that Davy refers to in another
context (Davy, 177-8) but does not quote: internal CIA memoranda that
explicitly demonstrate that CIA officers in New Orleans and Washington, DC, had
no idea whether Shaw used any "Bertrand" alias or not. In fact, these memoranda
consist in part of the two offices asking if the other has any information that
would confirm the accusation (CIA memoranda of Lloyd A. Ray, November 15, 1967,
NO-406-67, and memoranda of Donald E. Pratt, November 24, 1967; newsgroup posts
of Jim Hargrove).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - -
And there are other notable issues Davy fails to address, but I can't expect
his devotees to know that, as they certainly haven't given my review any more
attention than Davy has.
Fortunately, I don't place too much importance on the views of people so
shameless they would attack an article they explicitly refuse to read for
themselves. Truly, this is yet another case of the blind leading the blind,
which is not far from what the Garrison case has always been.
Dave
"Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Perpetual Starlight
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Original fiction, articles, music and more
Blackburst
I'm not arguing the point. I'm pointing out that the conversation Garrison
mentions in HOS in fairly innocuous terms is probably the same conversation
Ivon is now relating in more dramatic terms. So the earliest mention of the
Ivon conversation is 1970.
oo
David Blackburst
Jerry
Version A of the conversation (the one you cite) is not identical to
Version B - the one told to Stone.
Therefore to speak of them as *the same* conversation is fallacious.
Thus, there is mention of *the innocuous version A* in HOS, but, with
the passage of time (and perhaps the excitement of meeting a celebrated
movie celebrity) version B transmogried the account into something it
was not - something we see in Stone's film with Joe Pesci saying wild
things that David Ferrie never said.
Indeed, these very statements were used in JFK's trailers and no doubt
had the unfortunate effect of seriously misleading innocent viewers who
expected that the film would be - in the main - historical.
You are somebody who never sees the forest, David. You see only trees.
Information you have; judgement you lack. Your fact-gathering is
needed, but, you can't be trusted to evaluate and apply the information.
Blackburst
>Version A of the conversation (the one you cite) is not identical to
>Version B - the one told to Stone.
>
>Therefore to speak of them as *the same* conversation is fallacious.
>
>You are somebody who never sees the forest, David. You see only trees.
>
>Information you have; judgement you lack. Your fact-gathering is
>needed, but, you can't be trusted to evaluate and apply the information.
>
What brought THIS on?
The conversation Garrison cites took place on February 19-20, 1967, which is
the night Ivon put-up Ferrie at the Fontainbleu.
The conversation Ivon refers to took place on February 19, 1967 at the
Fontainbleu Hotel.
It is true that the version in Garrison's book does not contain some of the
important details in Ivon's more recent version. The only point I'm making is
that it is two different versions of the SAME conversation, and that the
earliest account we have that such a conversation took place at all is in
Garrison's 1970 book. That's ALL I'm saying.
>You are somebody who never sees the forest, David. You see only trees.
>
>Information you have; judgement you lack. Your fact-gathering is
>needed, but, you can't be trusted to evaluate and apply the information.
>
Thanks, Jerry. Much appreciated.
Jerry
The conversation that Bill Davy talks about in his "rebuttal" to Dave
Reitzes never happened. The story that Lou Ivon told Oliver Stone is
untrue.
That is what's important and that is what you are oblivious to.
Jerry
Blackburst
>The conversation that Bill Davy talks about in his "rebuttal" to Dave
>Reitzes never happened. The story that Lou Ivon told Oliver Stone is
>untrue.
>
I, too, have my reservations about the depth of the conversation, whether or
not Ivon may have added a few details from other sources. Some kind of
encounter did take place between Ferrie and Ivon that evening. What was said is
open to question. The first time the conversation - real or not - was referred
to is in Garrison's 1970 book.
>That is what's important and that is what you are oblivious to.
>
Your judgement in this last sentence is wrong. You have continued to
misinterpret the simple point I made in my original post. I interpret the
matter in the same way you do in some respects, and differently in others. My
original point: The first time this story was floated was in 1970.
I'm not as oblivious to things as you think.
Bill Parker
>Dave Reitzes asserts (and supports his assertion) that Davies recycles
>many of Garrison's claims that have been long refuted:
[snip]
Who is this "Davies" guy you keep talking about, McNutley?
Bill
Bill Parker
>In article <20000622133718...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> black...@aol.com (Blackburst) wrote:
>> Jerry98
>>
>> I'm not arguing the point. I'm pointing out that the conversation
>Garrison mentions in HOS in fairly innocuous terms is probably the same
>conversation Ivon is now relating in more dramatic terms. So the
>earliest mention of the Ivon conversation is 1970.
>
>Version A of the conversation (the one you cite) is not identical to
>Version B - the one told to Stone.
>
>Therefore to speak of them as *the same* conversation is fallacious.
>
>Thus, there is mention of *the innocuous version A* in HOS, but, with
>the passage of time (and perhaps the excitement of meeting a celebrated
>movie celebrity) version B transmogried the account into something it
>was not - something we see in Stone's film with Joe Pesci saying wild
>things that David Ferrie never said.
>
>Indeed, these very statements were used in JFK's trailers and no doubt
>had the unfortunate effect of seriously misleading innocent viewers who
>expected that the film would be - in the main - historical.
>
>You are somebody who never sees the forest, David. You see only trees.
>
>Information you have; judgement you lack. Your fact-gathering is
>needed, but, you can't be trusted to evaluate and apply the information.
>
>Jerry [McNally]
Has anybody told you lately that you are a pompous and arrogant buffoon?
Bill Parker