CLAY SHAW, "CLAY BERTRAND", AND RAMSEY CLARK
David Von Pein
>>> "I suggest that WC defenders read the whole damn article. Even that reporter and many other reporters make the point that it's extremely curious that Clay Shaw should have been investigated about the Kennedy assassination back in Nov-Dec 1963. On what basis? What connection?" <<<
The FBI almost certainly did NOT investigate Clay Shaw in late 1963.
Ramsey Clark was undoubtedly confusing the name Clay Bertrand with
Clay Shaw.
Dean Andrews testified about the make-believe person named "Clay
Bertrand" in his Warren Commission testimony. And, as author Vincent
Bugliosi explains in his book "Reclaiming History", Ramsey Clark
probably thought that "Bertrand" and Shaw were the same person.
Here's the relevant passage from Bugliosi's book:
"The issue of whether Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw initially
confounded law enforcement to the point where Acting Attorney General
Ramsey Clark told the New York Times on March 2, 1967, that Shaw “was
involved in an FBI investigation in the New Orleans area in November
and December of 1963” concerning the Kennedy assassination, but the
FBI had found “no connection” between Shaw and the assassination (New
York Times, March 3, 1967, p.22).
"The reason Clark said what he did is that on the morning of
March 2, 1967, Cartha “Deke” DeLoach, the number-three man at the FBI,
had told him over the phone that “Shaw’s name had come up in our
investigation [of the assassination] in December, 1963.”
"DeLoach’s memo of the conversation says that “I stated [to
Clark] we had attempted to ascertain the identity of an individual by
the name of Clay Bertrand, but to no avail. I mentioned it had been
alleged that this was an alias used by Shaw. I stated also that we had
conducted considerable investigation regarding a man whose name was
[Dean] Andrews.”
"Since no evidence has ever surfaced (other than DeLoach’s
assertion), documentary or any other kind, that the FBI investigated
Shaw in 1963 for Kennedy’s assassination, and since no evidence has
ever surfaced that anyone (other than Perry Russo four years later in
1967) suspected Shaw in 1963 of being involved in the assassination,
it seems very clear that DeLoach was in error in what he told Clark.
"How did the error come about? An internal FBI memo of March 2,
1967, the same day DeLoach spoke to Clark, says that “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, who allegedly was in contact
with Dean Andrews”. .... (Andrews had told the FBI and Secret Service
this earlier, on November 25.)
"The New York Times said that “an examination of papers in the
archives...shows that the FBI did inquire into the activities of a man
named ‘Clay Bertrand.’”
"Since an unidentified Justice Department official told the New
York Times on the evening of March 2, 1967, that the FBI actually
believed Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw, and that this was the basis for
Clark’s statement to the paper earlier in the day, the Times concluded
that the FBI, when they were investigating Clay Bertrand, thought they
were “inquiring into the activities of Mr. Shaw.”
"The Times said that “usually well-informed Government
sources...said that to the best of their knowledge the FBI had not
conducted an investigation of Clay Shaw.” (New York Times, March 3,
1967, p.22)" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 875 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)
aeffects
no talking to yourself (and answering) above all, no fucking
advertising moron!