Clay Shaw and David Ferrie
Lisa Pease
This began as a reponse to Locke, but I added a bunch of new info at the
end - so bear with this...
John Locke (jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil) wrote:
: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: > John Locke (jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil) wrote:
: > : lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: > : > John Mcadams (jmca...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > We don't love it - we don't even need to! :) There's so little real LHOLN
: > : > evidence to begin with.
: >
: > : So little evidence? Now who's lying? You know very well that Oswald's
: > : rifle was ballistically linked to the crime. You know that Oswald's
: > : prints were on that rifle. You know that rifle was proven to belong to
: > : Oswald. You know that Oswald had no alibi. Why are you trying to
: > : pretend there's not much against him?
: >
: > Why do you characterizing what I say as pretending? :)
: >
: > 1. Oswald cannot be placed by anyone on the 6th floor at the time of the
: > shooting.
: Not true, dipshit. His gun is linked to the shooting. His prints are
: on the gun. He has no alibi for another location. In the real world,
: that puts him on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
The fragments found in no way conclusively link the gun to the crime.
His prints are on the gun because he owned the gun. The print Day found
was an OLD print - not fresh from that day. Ask Turner, you buddy
Hinckle's writing partner.
He has people who he saw and who saw him within minutes of the assassination.
And his best alibi is Truly - seeing him a mere 90 seconds after the
assassination several flights below where he would have had to be.
: > 2. The gun cannot be ballistically linked to the assassination via CE 399
: > - even the autopsists denied this. I have this quote with me from Humes
: > (would provide more but it's in another location):
: >
: > WC V2, P. 376:
: >
: > SPECTER: Dr. Humes...this bullet, 399, could [it] have been the
: > one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?
: >
: > HUMES: I think it is extremely unlikely. The reports, again
: > exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on
: > the lower midthigh of the Governor, and x-rays taken
: > there are described as showing metallic fragments by this
: > report were not removed and are still present in Governor
: > Connally's thigh. I can't conceive of where they came from
: > this missile.
: >
: > FORD: The missile identified as Exhibit 399.
: >
: > HUMES: 399, Sir.
: Why are you quoting an autopsist on ballistic issues? The buff-oons have
: whined for years that Humes had no experience with gunshot wounds (actually
: not true), now the Peaseanoid wants to use him as a ballistic expert.
: Sorry, can't prove your case that way!
Would you like to hear Boswell and Finck on this topic as well? All three
deny the sbt as a possibility for explaining the observed wounds.
: > And then there's Tomlinson's testimony of how CE 399 did not even come
: > from Connally's stretcher.
: >
: > Like I said, when you look at it seriously, there is little evidence
: > ballistically or otherwise to link Oswald to the crime.
: You haven't looked at it seriously. That requires consulting ballistic
: experts on ballistic issues.
Ballistics experts have disregarded their own findings to tout the
official line. More honest people admit there is no ballistic evidence
proving Oswald did it.
[snip]
: Shaw has never been proven to have committed perjury. Hell, Garrison's
: stooges didn't even ask him under oath whether he conspired to assassinate
: JFK. Why not? You (so you claim) are in law school. Tell us why you charge
: a man with a crime and then don't ask him whether he did it.
Btw - I never ever claimed to be in law school. It is a continuing source
of amusement to me, however, how one comment has been persistently
misconstrued.
As for the perjury charge -
1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
Statement of Mrs. June A. Rolfe in the Office of the District Attorney on
Thursday, March, 1969, released by the JFK act Feb 7, 1992:
In the early 60's, I will have to check some rent receipts for the dates
on this, I saw Clay Shaw in a light-colored Thuderbird with the top down
in the Frenc h Quarter in New Orleans. There were two young men in the
front seat, Shaw was in the middle and had an arm around each of them. A
man that looked exactly like David Ferrie sat in the back seat. The
reason I remember his is because of his kooky hair color. It looked
almost like it had been powdered in color -- looked like a make-up job.
Signed: Mrs. June A. Rolfe
How about an FBI report?
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY,
DALLAS,TEXAS, 11/22/63
FBI Report - 3/21/67:
Carroll S. Thomas, owner, Thomas Funeral Homes, Inc., 300 South Cherry
Street, Hammond, Louisiana, was interviewed in connection with another
investigative matter on March 15, 1967, and volunteered the following
information:
Thomas advised that he was under the impression that he was being
contacted at the outset of the interview in connection with another
matter and related that he was a close personal friend of Clay Shaw.
Thomas stated that he also knew David Ferrie THROUGH SHAW [my emphasis].
He stated that Shaw had been at his home a few days before District
Attorney James Garrison had Shaw arrested and that in addition,
investigators of District Attorney Garrison had called him concerning
peole who were present at Shaw's father's wake which was held at his
funeral home.
Thomas adivsed that he did not feel that Clay Shaw had been involved in a
plot to kill President Kennedy, based on his knowledge of him. Thomas
stated that Shaw HAD ALWAYS BEEN POLITICALL CONSERVATIVE, while Oswald
appeared to be "left wing" and he could not see these two individuals
becoming involved in any such plot.
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the
FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and
its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
NO 89-69-1781
-----
Here is the decoded copy of a teletype, sent 12:01 AM CST URGENT 3-5-67 OLP
TO DIRECTOR (62-109060) AND DALLAS
FROM NEW ORLEANS 050445
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, DALLAS, TEXAS,
NOVEMBER 22, 1963, MISC. INFO CONCERNING.
RENOTEL TO BUREAU FEBRUARY 25, 1967, 2:02 PM CST. [CENSORED] ADVISED
THIS DATE THAT AURA LEE (LNU), CLAY SHAW'S FORMER SECRETARY AT THE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE MART, NEW ORLEANS, WHO IS EMPLYED BY THE HEART FUND
AT OCHSNER CLINIC, STATED IN FRONT OF DR. CHARLES B. MOORE AND OTHERS AT
OCHSNER HOSPITAL 31 LAST, AFTER SHAW'S PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE HE ADVISED
HE NEVER MET DAVID FERRIE, THAT SHE HAD SEEN FERRIE GO INTO SHAW'S OFFICE
IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE MART BUILDING ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, AND
BELIEVED FERRIE HAD PRIVILEGED ENTRY INTO SHAW'S OFFICE.
INFORMANT FUNISHED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE STRICTIST CONFIDENCE
SINCE IT WAS FURNISHED TO HIM BY [CENSORED] A CAMERAMAN FOR CHANNEL
[CENSORED], WHO SOWRE INFORMANT TO SECRECY BEFORE FURNISHING THE
INFORMATION. INFORMANT ADVISED THAT ACCORDING TO [CENSORED] HE HAD TALKED
TO THE JUDGE WHO HAD HANDLED THE MATTER INVOLVING CLAY SHAW AND THIS
JUDGE STATED THAT AFTER HE HAD SEEN THE EVIDENCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
GARRISON HAS, HE STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT IF THE CASE AGAINST CLAY SHAW
GOES TO A JURY, THE JURY WILL VOTE ELEVEN TO ONE IN FAVOR OF A CONVICTION.
[...]
BUREAU WILL BE KEPT ADVISED OF ANY PERTINENT DEVELOPMENTS.
RECEIVED: 1:13 AM REY
----
And okay - what the hell, since I have more here let's get it out there...
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF NEW ORLEANS
October 10, 1967
STATEMENT OF: JULES RICCO KIMBLE, w/m 24
RESIDING AT: 4839 Babylon Street
New Orleans, Louisiana
S T A T E M E N T
I met DAVID FERRIE in early 1960 in a barroom named The Golden Lantern in
the French Quarter. I would see DAVE from time to time in the same bar
and I flew with him in his airplane on several occasions.
One night while drinking in the Golden Lantern, DAVE introduced me to CLAY
SHAW. I was with CLAY SHAW and DAVE for several hours that night which
was in Late 1960 or early 1961. From that time on I use [sic] to see CLAY
SHAW on different occaions, you know drin king and so forth. One day in
late '61 or early '62 I received a phone call from DAVE and he asked me
if I would like to take an overnight plane trip with him. I said, all
right, and then met FERRIE at the airport at which time I found out that
CLAY SHAW was coming with us. At this time I also found out that we were
going to Canada to pick someone up. No other explanation was given. While
on the trip, CLAY SHAW sat in the back of the airplane reading books and
slept. SHAW also had a brown brief case with him. On the flight we
stopped at different places to gas up and stretch our legs. We stopped in
Nashville, Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, and Toranado [sic, Canada.
Our finaal stop was in Montreal, Canada. FERRIE and myself stayed in a
hotel overnight. I believe it might have been the Hilton Air or something
like that. The hotel was located in Dovral which was right ouside of
Montreal. CLAY SHAW disappeared after we landed and I did not see him
until the next morning which was about 8 o'clock when we were ready to
leave and come back to New Orelans. When SHAW arrive at the plane, he had
this Mexican or Cuban with him. This guy was kind of heavy set, dark
complexion, balding in the front, in his early 30's or middle 30's. he
sat in the back of the airplane with SHAW and spoke only to SHAW in
broken English. The airplane that we used was a Cessna 172 which I
believed belonged to a friend of FERRIE's. We bought our gas with a Gulf
creidt card which FERRIE had. When we got back to the Lakefront Airport,
I got into my automobile and FERRIE and SHAW and the other guy got into
another automobile and left.
About a month or two later I got another phone call from FERRIE asking me
if I wnated to make the return trip with him to Canada, but I told him no.
I have seen SHAW on different occasions in barrooms and at the
Internation Trade Mart up until the time that the District Attorney's
office started their investigation. I have heard other people introduce
CLAY SHAW as CLAY BERTRAND, but he has never been introduced to me as
CLAY BERTRAND.
I would also like to state that about two or three weeks after DAVE
FERRIE died I got a phone call from JACK HELMS who was formerly with the
Federal Government and later connected with the Klu Klux Klan asking me
if I would take a ride with him by FERRIE's house to pick up some papers.
I said, yes, and a short while later he picked me up at my house in a
1966 white chevrolet. We drove to FERRIE's house and parked a little way
down the block..[sic]JACK got out of the automobile with a flashlight and
it appeared that he went around the back of the house or into the back
yard. A short while later he came back with a black briefcase and got
into the automobile at which time we drove off. Later I believe that the
contents of this briefcase were put into a safety deposit box in the Bank
of Louisiana. Later I believe that these papers were removed from the
Bank of Louisiana and put into a big black box in St. Bernard Parish
which belonged to the Klan. The fellow hwo kept this box is called OTTO.
I do not know him by any other name. I believe that these papers were
then removed from this black box, but I don't know where they were
removed to. I did manage to get some papers from this black box, but they
pertained to the Klan, and I turned these papers to CLEMENT HOOD, and FBI
Agent I was working for. I also had contact with CIA Agents. Their names
being STEINMEYER, who has since been transferred to Texas, and NAT BROWN
who is still in New Orleans and another guy by the name of RED, last name
unkonw. I used to have meetings with the Agents in different motel rooms
where I would give them reports, pcitures, recordings, etc., and would
also receive my pay check or cash which I would sign a voucher for and
would also receive further instructions. They would mail different things
to me at my post offic e box number which is 701-30252, Lafayette Street
Branch.
Several months ago RICK TOWNLEY with WDSU called me and told me that he
had information that I had tape recordings that someone wanted to buy
from me. I asked him how he had found out that I had them and he said
that didn't matter. He asked me if I would meet him some place and I told
him yes, to come over to my house. He siad, no, he wouldn't do that, that
it would have to be some public place. So I met him in the Kopper Kitchen
on Tulane Avenue. After we talked for a while I went home and put on a
suit and we wnet down to WDSU. When we got to WDSU, TOWNLEY called
WALTHER SHERIDAY in New York and I sat there while TOWNLEY talked to
SHERIDAN. After TOWNLEY hung up he siad that SHERIDAN would be in town
the following moring. TOWNLEY asked me what I wanted for the tapes that I
had, and I told him $500. The next morning they gave me the $500 for the
tapes and asked me if I would do a film for WDSU consisting of what I
know about the Cubans, FERRIE, SHAW, etc. The tape that I sold them
contained some information about the Klan and other information about the
papers that were picked up at FERRIE's house. WALTER SHERIDAN is the one
who gave me the $500 for the tapes. This $500 was in a sealed envelope
and was all one hundred dollar bills. This was given to me in an office
in WDSU which was located by their newsroom. We then went upstairs and
they locked the doors and placed a guard on the door and started asking
questions and taking pictures of me. I even remember that there was a man
from Sweden who was talking to the cameramen and they asked him to leave.
They asked me questions such as, Do I know CLAY SHAW; Did I ever fly with
CLAY SHAW and DAVID FERRIE; If I knew GENE DAVIS, which I told them that
I knew GENE DAVIS very well because he was a personal friend of mine; If
I knew GORDON NOVEL; If I ever worked for the FBI, CIA, to which
questions i said, yes of which questions WALTER SHERIDAN said he had
already known that I would say yes to. I was then told to say that I
didn't know anything that would help Garrison in his investigation and
this was also put on film. I don't remember everything that he told me to
say but he did tell me to go to Canada. He also said that he would edit
and cut the films after I was gone. He also said that they would get me
an attorney if I needed one. I told SHERIDAN and TOWNLEY not to release
this film if they were going to cut any part of it. They said that when I
got to Canada they would call me and ask if it could be released. They
called my wife later and asked her if she would let them release it and
she also told them no. I understand that this film has been cut and released.
MR. HOOD told me not to get involved with the District Attorney's Office
and if the District Attorney's office tried to subpoena me, that he would
take care of it. MR. HOOD told me to give all the cooperation necessary
that WALTER SHERIDAN required. SHERIDAN and TOWNLEY also told me not to
talk withe the District Attorney's Office and to call them right away so
they could get an attorney for me. That is about all I can remember at
this time.
Signed JULES RICCO KIMBLE
-
Oh tell me again how innocent Clay Shaw was. Tell me how he never pejured
himself. Tell me of how he was persucted by Garrison. Tell me how
Garrison's case was not obstructed by the FBI and the CIA channelling
their efforts through Walther Sheridan.
Tell me more lies.
--
Lisa Pease
----------
"Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that - he said, "Who is in charge here?"
and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am."
You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law
enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have
to co-ordinate the operation according to directions."
- Dr. Pierre Finck, talking about the autopsy of JFK
in his sworn testimony in the Clay Shaw trial,
from the transcript.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp to my conspiracy file site at ftp.netcom.com. Login as "anonymous"
and whatever password you want. Type "cd /ftp/pub/lpease" and then type
"dir" or "ls" to see the directory listing. Type "get xxx" where xxx is
the file you wish. Please help yourselves! :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris
wrote:
> In article <lpeaseCy...@netcom.com>,
> lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
>
> >
> >This began as a reponse to Locke, but I added a bunch of new info at the
> >end - so bear with this...
> >
> >
> >
> >As for the perjury charge -
> >
> >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
> >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
> >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
> >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
> >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
> >
>
> Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
> different things.
>
> And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
> his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
>
>
>
> >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
> >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
> >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
> >
>
>
> The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
> people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
> mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
>
> Hell, they used the testimony of Perry Raymond Russo, and Charles
> Speisel.
>
> Why didn't any of *this* stuff pass muster?
>
> .John
It did. The problem was that there was no hard evidence proving that Shaw
paricipated in the conspiracy - even if the jury accepted the Russo
testimony. IOW, they couldn't prove that Shaw took any actions.
OTOH, there is little doubt that Shaw, Ferrie, and LHO were connected -
the Clinton witnesses established that. Also, we know that Shaw did
repeatedly perjure himself in court.
To assume that the results of the Shaw trial indicated there was no
conspiracy is a bit like thinking that the only crime Al Capone ever did
was tax evasion.
Robert Harris
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
>Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>> For your information....
>> A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together at
>> a gay party in New Orleans. It is reproduced in
>> DiEugenio's book.
>
>Prove the photo is of Shaw.
>
>> Further, Shaw was part of a British homosexual
>> network that included individuals involved with
>> the Burgess/Philby espionage case.
>
>Prove it. Can you cite one book on the espoinage cases that prove
>Shaw's connection?
>
The only proof we need is the fact that Locke and company still pine
for that big lovely man, Clay Shaw. Not only was he gay, he was into the same
kinky S&M stuff that Locke is always verbally blushing about here.
> john
>--
> main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- Kelly said the survey had been given to determine, "if we would
follow the orders of commanding officers without question."
"If you wish to find out how I answered," Kelly continued, " I
said YES, I WOULD FIRE AND KILL ALL PERSONS ATTEMPTING TO RESIST.
WE AREN'T AROUND TO BE THE GOOD GUYS".
January 22 {1994} from SEAL Team Six Petty Officer 2nd Class,
W.Kelly to a D.Hankins. (Would you shoot American civilians?)
Lisa Pease
: For your information....
: A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together at
: a gay party in New Orleans. It is reproduced in
: DiEugenio's book.
: Further, Shaw was part of a British homosexual
: network that included individuals involved with
: the Burgess/Philby espionage case.
: This doesn't prove he shot Jack, merely that he
: was armpit-deep with the spooks.
:
wow Nick! Tell us more! Tell us more!! :)
: --
: Nick Frewin
--
Lisa Pease
----------
"Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that - he said, "Who is in charge here?"
and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am."
You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law
enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have
to co-ordinate the operation according to directions."
- Dr. Pierre Finck, talking about the autopsy of JFK
in his sworn testimony in the Clay Shaw trial,
from the transcript.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp to my conspiracy file site at ftp.netcom.com. Login as "anonymous"
and whatever password you want. Type "cd pub/lpease" and then type
uk.politics Returning Officer
In article <1994Nov6.1...@blaze.trentu.ca>, fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
writes:
>In article <CytpF...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John
Locke) writes:
>>Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>>> For your information....
>>> A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together at
>>> a gay party in New Orleans. It is reproduced in
>>> DiEugenio's book.
>>
>>Prove the photo is of Shaw.
>>
>>> Further, Shaw was part of a British homosexual
>>> network that included individuals involved with
>>> the Burgess/Philby espionage case.
>>
>>Prove it. Can you cite one book on the espoinage cases that prove
>>Shaw's connection?
>>
>The only proof we need is the fact that Locke and company still pine
>for that big lovely man, Clay Shaw. Not only was he gay, he was into the same
>kinky S&M stuff that Locke is always verbally blushing about here.
>
- David, part of the British homosexual network
--
\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd. PGP 2.3+. I wish I were in North Dakota
British Elections URLs: ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/doc/British_Politics/*
http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html|Con Lab L Dem Oth |C maj|
All British MPs: use URL above (nyx) or mail me|330 269 23 28 | 14 |
Jim Garrison
>In article <784038...@beardo.demon.co.uk>, Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk
>(Nick Frewin) writes:"A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together..."
>A photo exists of Mark Lane and John F. Kennedy together. As if Lane knew
>JFK personally. Get real.
Indeed a photo was taken of JFK and Lane to assist Lane in a local election.
The key element though is that JFK agreed to the photo and thus his
association with Lane as a valid candidate. It is then fair to extrapilate
Shaw and Ferrie accepted association via their photo, per your silly example.
p.s.
Your comment about the comparison of the two photo's is childish,
meaningless, moronic, and simply...well....
Disregarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Henry, the Secret Service told me that they had taken care of everything..."
-John Kennedy to Henry Gonzalez, Nov 21 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Chomko
> Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > For your information....
> > A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together at
> > a gay party in New Orleans. It is reproduced in
> > DiEugenio's book.
>
> Prove the photo is of Shaw.
Hey man, it either exists or it doesn't.
>
> > Further, Shaw was part of a British homosexual
> > network that included individuals involved with
> > the Burgess/Philby espionage case.
>
> Prove it. Can you cite one book on the espoinage cases that prove
> Shaw's connection?
>
Yeah, and so what if I do? What the fu*k you going to do about it?
Boiyah, you aRe outtta youR league.
DCStager
Nick Frewin
Philby/Burgess espionage case, see my father's
article "Late Breaking News on Clay Shaw's Uk Contacts"
that appeared in Lobster magazine a couple of years ago.
This is currently available in an expanded version put out
by the Last Hurrah Bookshop, Williamsport, PA. tel: (717) 327 9338.
Speak to Andy.
I will speak to my father who has the expanded version on
disk, so if anyone would like a copy via the net then please
email me.
--
Nick Frewin
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
>
>In article <1994Nov6.1...@blaze.trentu.ca>, fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
>writes:
>>In article <CytpF...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John
>Locke) writes:
>>>Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk writes:
>>>
>>>> For your information....
>>>> A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together at
>>>> a gay party in New Orleans. It is reproduced in
>>>> DiEugenio's book.
>>>
>>>Prove the photo is of Shaw.
>>>
>>>> Further, Shaw was part of a British homosexual
>>>> network that included individuals involved with
>>>> the Burgess/Philby espionage case.
>>>
>>>Prove it. Can you cite one book on the espoinage cases that prove
>>>Shaw's connection?
>>>
>>The only proof we need is the fact that Locke and company still pine
>>for that big lovely man, Clay Shaw. Not only was he gay, he was into the same
>>kinky S&M stuff that Locke is always verbally blushing about here.
>>
>What a crime! Lock that man up immediately. He's kinky so he must be guilty.
>
> - David, part of the British homosexual network
>
Now if Locke and company fess up it'll all be out in the open.
Bob E.
>--
>\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd. PGP 2.3+. I wish I were in North Dakota
>British Elections URLs: ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/doc/British_Politics/*
>http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html|Con Lab L Dem Oth |C maj|
>All British MPs: use URL above (nyx) or mail me|330 269 23 28 | 14 |
rharris@rt66
Nick,
That's a very kind offer. Would your father be willing to let you post the
file at an FTP site?
Robert Harris
Michael Kelly
: In article <seeker.16...@io.org>, see...@io.org (Jim Garrison) writes:
: |> In article <39keec$8...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> dcst...@aol.com (DCStager) writes:
: |>
: |> >In article <784038...@beardo.demon.co.uk>, Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk
: |> >(Nick Frewin) writes:"A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together..."
: |>
: |> >A photo exists of Mark Lane and John F. Kennedy together. As if Lane knew
: |> >JFK personally. Get real.
: |>
: It certainly shows that they had the opportunity to know one another and
: had met. Surely JFK knew of Lane.
: Paul Collacchi
Lane said he campaigned for JFK in New York, which is probably
why JFK returned the favor. Looks like they met on more than
one occasion.
Mike
Paul Collacchi
|>
|> >In article <784038...@beardo.demon.co.uk>, Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk
|> >(Nick Frewin) writes:"A photo exists of Ferrie and Shaw together..."
|>
|> >A photo exists of Mark Lane and John F. Kennedy together. As if Lane knew
|> >JFK personally. Get real.
|>
It certainly shows that they had the opportunity to know one another and
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
Hey, why not just post it right here?
Bob E.
Nick Frewin
on disk, i will be able to post it to this newsgroup, sometime
this weekend.
--
Nick Frewin
DCStager
"Your comment about the comparison of the two photo's is childish,
meaningless, moronic, and simply...well....
Disregarded."
My sentiments exactly concerning your example of the alleged Ferrie/Shaw
photo. (Which is known as the "Councilor Photo").
Joe Knapp
>Paul Collacchi (pco...@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com) wrote:
>>Rachiro wrote:
>>>A photo exists of Mark Lane and John F. Kennedy together. As if Lane knew
>>>JFK personally. Get real.
>>
>> It certainly shows that they had the opportunity to know one another and
>> had met. Surely JFK knew of Lane.
>
>why JFK returned the favor. Looks like they met on more than
>one occasion.
Why argue known facts that are tangent to any issue? Never ever pay any
heed to Rachiro.
It is one hell of a picture, with JFK, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Mark Lane
lined up in a row. But if you look closely the angle of the shadow
under Lane's nose is completely wrong!
---
Joe Knapp
Lisa Pease
: >From: rharris@rt66,com (Robert Harris)
: >>Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk wrote:
: >Nick,
: >Robert Harris
: Yes, many a.c.jfk readers would be interested in any information your father
: discovered about Shaw's activities in England. Lisa Pease maintains an
: assassination FTP site. If you were to mail your dad's article to her, she
: could put it on her machine.
In a hot second!!
: Thank you.
Good idea, Jim!!
: --Jim Hargrove
:
Jim Hargrove
>From: Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk (Nick Frewin)
>Subject: Re: Clay Shaw and David Ferrie
>Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:00:35 +0000
>I have spoken to my father, and he has promised me the article
>on disk, i will be able to post it to this newsgroup, sometime
>this weekend.
That's great news. Thanks. Many of us will look forward to reading it.
--Jim Hargrove
Jim Hargrove
>>Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk wrote:
>Nick,
>Robert Harris
Yes, many a.c.jfk readers would be interested in any information your father
discovered about Shaw's activities in England. Lisa Pease maintains an
assassination FTP site. If you were to mail your dad's article to her, she
could put it on her machine.
Thank you.
--Jim Hargrove
Nick Frewin
LATE-BREAKING NEWS ON CLAY SHAW'S UNITED KINGDOM CONTACTS
By Anthony Frewin
INTRODUCTION TO 1992 EDITION
The following article orginally appeared in a slightly abbreviated
form under my pseudonym of Anthony Edward Weeks in the November 1990
issue of Lobster magazine.
Back in 1990 the Jim Garrison case was widely regarded within the
critical community as a dead and embarrassing issue and Clay Shaw, if
indeed anyone could remember him, as some minor footnote to the biog-
raphy of David Ferrie. 1990 was, of course, prior to Oliver Stone's
film JFK and prior to James DiEugenio's reassessment of the New
Orleans District Attorney's prosecution.
I had always felt that Shaw was not involved in the assassination
of Kennedy (though he knew people who probably were) yet there was
something to him that did not ring true. There was more to this man,
politically, than met the eye. It was just a hunch. The opportunity to
do something about it came in early 1990 when Jim Houghan on a visit
to London provided me with a copy of Shaw's address book that had been
seized by Garrison when he made the arrest. I wandered through the
names and addresses many times and eventually decided there was really
only one contribution I could make to a Shaw investigation. And that
was look into his UK contacts. Thus the article that now follows,
which details some surprising intelligence contacts of Shaw's.
Since completing the article and re-studying the Garrison case I
have shifted my ground and I now believe that it is likely that Shaw
was involved in the planning of the assassination.
I have let the article stand as it was written. There are many
tantalizing leads to be followed that must wait another day. In the
meantime I hope some members of the US critical community start dig-
ging into Shaw's past and coming up with new information. It is now
some 25 years since Shaw hit the headlines and in that quarter of a
century our knowledge of Shaw has increased by less than 1%. Shame on
the community!
There is one name discussed below who has intelligence connections
that I did not know about when I wrote the piece. This is Angus Wil-
son, the distinguished British novelist, who died in 1991. He spent
most of the Second World War working at the ultra-secret Government
Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park where the German ENIGMA code
was cracked. Wilson would have had very high security clearance for
such a position. Did Shaw know Wilson from this time? Was Shaw
involved in sensitive work that gave him access to ENIGMA intelli-
gence?
We must await Margaret Drabble's forthcoming (1993) biography of
Angus Wilson to learn more about him during the war and, possibly, his
involvment with Shaw.
At the end of the article I say that the investigation has pro-
duced one significant name that merits further research and attention:
Peter Montgomery. On reflection I would now add the names of Sir
Michael Duff, Sir Stephen Runciman and Angus Wilson, all three of whom
have intelligence connections. Much work still needs to be done on
Clay Shaw during the Second World War and his London activities.
Lastly, I have subjoined here the interview with Clay Shaw that
appeared in Bob Guccione's Penthouse magazine, Vol. 4, No. 8, pub-
lished in London in 1969. [The interview is only available in printed
versions of Late-Breaking News...]. This interview is little known and
it is, as far as I am aware, the only such extended piece that allows
Shaw to talk in his own words. The interviewer was James Phelan, no
less, and his questioning was friendly and sympathetic. This is Shaw
presenting himself as he wished to be seen, and telling untruths on
the way ('I have never had any connections with the CIA.'). Phelan's
role in denigrating Garrison is charted in DiEugenio's study of the
case.
I hope (again) this piece kick-starts some further research. The
full story of Clay Shaw has yet to be written. We need to be out there
knocking on coffins.
Anthony Frewin
August 1992
REFERENCES:
DiEugenio, James. Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case.
New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1992.
A major reassesment of the Garrison case. A diligent and compre-
hesive work containing much information not available elsewhere.
Reproduces the two photographs from the May 1967 issue of
The Councillor (New Orleans) showing Ferrie and Shaw together.
Hodges, Andrew. Alan Turing: The Enigma. London: Vintage, 1992.
A richly detailed biography of the mathematical genius who was
one of the architects of the breaking of ENIGMA. Much of interest
relating to Bletchley Park and a couple of mentions of Angus Wil-
son. Turing, a homosexual, died in odd circumstances in 1954.
Many people believe he was murdered by British intelligence in
order to prevent another gay security scandal (see the notes fol-
lowing Lord Edward Montagu below).
Stone, Oliver, and Sklar, Zachary. JFK: The Book of the Film. New
York: Applause Books, 1992.
Jane Rusconi's glossed notes for the screenplay are a mine of
information on the Garrison investigation and the Shaw trial.
LATE BREAKING NEWS ON CLAY SHAW'S UNITED
KINGDOM CONTACTS
After completing the 'street' research for this article I felt a few
paragraphs of background needed to be written to put the subject in
context. Time passes, memory diminishes, and it would be unfair to
expect the average reader to be as familiar with certain areas as I now
was. Hence the following introductory matter. Yet even at this length
there are many important and tantalizing points I have had to leave out
and I hope the reader will remember this. Some opening suggestions for
further reading have been given at the end.
OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS
Lee Harvey Oswald, like his mother, Marguerite Oswald (maiden name
Claverie), was born in New Orleans: on 18 October 1939 - fittingly,
perhaps, a birthday shared with Choderlos de Laclos, the author of Les
Liaisons Dangereuses. Oswald's first five years were spent in the
Crescent City.
In early 1944 Mrs Oswald moved to Dallas with Lee and his half-
brother, John Pic. She changed addresses frequently and after periods
in Fort Worth and New York returned to New Orleans with her children in
January 1954. In late 1954 Oswald became a member of a Civil Air Patrol
unit that was run by David Ferrie.
Mrs Oswald left New Orleans in July 1956 and returned to Fort
Worth. On 24 October Oswald enlisted in the Marines.
When Oswald returned from Russia in June 1962 with Marina, his
Russian wife, they went to stay with his half-brother in Fort Worth.
Oswald obtained a number of jobs that proved unsatisfactory and unable
to find further employment locally, Marina suggested he go to New
Orleans and look for work as that was his birthplace. On 24 April 1963
Oswald returned to New Orleans for the last time.
He stayed with his aunt, Lillian Murret, and looked for work. At
the beginning of May he secured employment with the William B. Reily
Co., coffee grinders and packagers, as a machinery greaser. Marina and
his daughter joined him and the family lived in a small apartment on
Magazine Street.
On 19 July Oswald was dismissed by the Reily Co. for 'poor working
habits.' He then spent a considerable amount of time and energy orga-
nizing the New Orleans 'chapter' of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
and getting some 'Hands Off Cuba' leaflets printed.
While engaged in this essentially pro-Castro activity he visited
Carlos Bringuier, a Cuban refugee and prominent anti-Castro activist,
told him he was experienced in guerilla warfare and offered his ser-
vices in the armed struggle against Castro.
Oswald claimed some 35 members for his chapter of the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee. In fact he was the only one; and, moreover, his chapter
had never been chartered by the National Fair Play for Cuba Committee
in New York.
When on 9 August Bringuier saw Oswald giving out 'Hands Off Cuba'
leaflets on Canal Street a rumpus developed and Oswald (along with
Bringuier and two other Cubans) was arrested. He was held in jail
overnight and released after paying a $10.00 fine.
Exactly a week later Oswald was distributing the leaflets again -
this time outside the New Orleans International Trade Mart (of which
Clay Shaw was the director).
Marina and her daughter returned to Dallas on 23 September. Two
days later Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico City to visit the Cuban
and Russian Embassies.
He re-entered the United States from Nuevo Laredo into Texas on 3
October and headed for Dallas and 22 November 1963. Two days after that
he was shot dead by Jack Ruby.
Before leaving the subject of Oswald and New Orleans mention should
be made of the address he used for his one-man FPCC: 544 Camp Street.
The room he rented there was in a three-storey building that had
entrances on two bordering streets, thus it justifiably had two
addresses: 531 Lafayette Street and 544 Camp Street. The building was
part-rented by a William Guy Bannister - an extreme racist, anti-
segregationist and violent anti-communist who was also an active member
of the John Birch Society, and somebody with strong intelligence
connections.
Bannister served for a long time in the FBI and had risen to be
Special Agent-in-Charge of the Bureau's Chicago office. After retiring
from the Feds he had been appointed assistant superintendent of the New
Orleans Police Department, a position he lost after pulling a gun on a
waiter in a local bar. He then formed Guy Bannister Associates, a
private detective-agency-cum-political-front that reflected his own
extremism: one of the first people he employed was a character who
reflected exactly his own beliefs - David Ferrie.
Bannister had earlier persuaded the owner of the building to let
space to the CIA-sponsored Cuban Revolutionary Council, an organization
headed by Sergio Arcacha Smith, a Cuban much favoured by the CIA as a
front-man in the war against Castro.
Bannister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, told the writer Henry Hurt
that Oswald had often come in to see Bannister, and this has been
confirmed elsewhere. Further, she has said that Bannister was well
aware of Oswald keeping the FPCC placards and leaflets in the room he
rented, and that Bannister was only upset when Lee brought the stuff
into his office. As one cannot doubt Bannister's zealously-held beliefs
one can only speculate as to what intelligence game he and Oswald were
playing.
CLAY SHAW AND JIM GARRISON (AND OTHERS)
In mid-February 1967, nearly three and a half years after the assassi-
nation of John F. Kennedy, news reports emanating from New Orleans
claimed that the local District Attorney, Jim Garrison, was investigat-
ing the President's murder. Within a week Garrison was holding a press
conference and claiming he had 'positively solved the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.'
What would be revealed?
Was it possible that a local duly-elected official had managed to
do what Chief Justice Earl Warren and a juggernaut of attorneys,
advisers, aides and time-servers, amongst whom Mr. Allen W. Dulles and
Representative Gerald R. Ford, together with the resources of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency,
had failed to do? (A juggernaut, by the way, that took nine months,
cost fifteen million dollars, and produced 300 cubic feet of paper, now
stored in the National Archives, Washington DC.)
On the day that news of the Garrison investigation first broke in
the local New Orleans States-Item, David Ferrie contacted the newspaper
claiming he was targeted in the District Attorney's investigation.
Garrison was claiming he, Ferrie, was the getaway pilot for the Dealey
Plaza assassins - an allegation Ferrie strongly denied.
This alleged conspirator, Ferrie, was a bizarre hairless individual
who glued on false hair and eyelashes - in shocking red, yet. He was a
homosexual who had been dismissed as a commercial pilot by Eastern
Airlines in September 1963 for sodomizing a young boy. He was also a
rabid and violent anti-communist with good connections amongst the
exiled anti-Castro Cubans who were then as plentiful in New Orleans as
they were in Florida. He had probably worked for the CIA in some covert
capacity, and on 22 November 1963, the day of Kennedy's assassination,
he had been in a New Orleans courtroom with Carlos Marcello, the
Louisiana mafia boss, for whom he was working as a private investiga-
tor. (It was widely believed that Ferrie had flown Marcello back from
Mexico after Bobby Kennedy had had him kidnapped and illegally
deported.) Ferrie, as already has been noted, also worked for Guy
Bannister and, earlier, had run the Civil Air Patrol unit the young Lee
Harvey Oswald had joined.
On 22 February 1967 Ferrie's naked body was discovered in his
apartment. The coroner later ruled that death was from natural causes -
a brain haemorrhage. Garrison would have none of it and claimed he had
committed suicide because of the tightening net of his investigation
and he pointed to the two notes Ferrie had left - one to an ex-lover
named Al, and one that read in its entirety: 'To leave this life is,
for me, a sweet prospect. I find nothing in it that is desirable, and
on the other hand everything that is loathsome.' Whether these unsigned
notes had been hanging around the apartment for a while or whether they
were 'suicide' notes - who knows? Now, nearly twenty-five years later,
the argument is still unresolved as to whether Ferrie's final exit was
natural or un-natural.
Meanwhile in Washington the Powers That Be were showing an abiding
concern and interest in the Garrison investigation. President Johnson
called Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and spoke to him about
Ferrie's death. LBJ was 'very concerned about this matter' and wanted
full details.
Ferrie was buried on 1 March and on the same day Garrison announced
the arrest of Clay L. Shaw for 'participation in a conspiracy to murder
John F. Kennedy.' Shaw was a prominent social and business figure in
New Orleans, well liked and respected who nearly two years earlier had
received New Orleans' highest honor, the medal of the International
Order of Merit.
He was also the director of the New Orleans International Trade
Mart (where Oswald had distributed FPCC leaflets) which promoted the
commercial merits of the city around the world. Garrison would claim
that Shaw was also intimate with Ferrie - politically, sexually,
conspiratorially.
The keystone of Garrison's case was the contention that Clay Shaw
used the alias of Clay or Clem Bertrand. The DA would prove that
Bertrand was involved in the assassination conspiracy and then show
that he and Shaw were one and the same.
Shortly after the arrest Ramsey Clark surprised everyone by announ-
cing in Washington that immediately after the assassination Shaw had
been investigated by the FBI and had come up as clean as a whistle.
This was news to the Feds - there had been no investigation. A Justice
Department official subsequently tried to clear up the confusion and
limit the Acting Attorney General's damage by saying Clay Bertrand and
Clay Shaw were the same man, but this was what Garrison was saying
anyway and it only succeeded in moving the confusion into fourth gear.
Later the Justice Department would declare that Clay Bertrand was not a
real person and no evidence had ever been found suggesting Clay Shaw
had used the name.
Garrison had been led to Bertrand through the testimony given to
the Warren Commission by a jive-talking New Orleans 'hip pocket'
attorney, Dean Andrews, who had claimed that shortly after the assassi-
nation Bertrand had telephoned him requesting that he go to Dallas and
represent Oswald who was Bertrand's friend.
Andrews gave conflicting accounts and descriptions of Bertrand and
later even claimed he was a figment of his imagination. He would also
say that Bertrand was definitely not Shaw, though by this time so much
pressure had been put on him he was only opening his mouth to change
feet. He would also say in front of a grand jury under oath when asked
whether Bertrand and Shaw were the same person, 'I can't say that he is
and I can't say that he ain't.'
Garrison marshalled a group of witnesses to support his case that
spanned the whole spectrum of testimony - from the completely believ-
able to the completely unbelievable: from the credible postman, James
Hardiman, who said that he delivered mail to 'Clay Bertrand' addressed
to Clay Shaw's house and that it was never returned, through to Charles
I. Spiesel who freely told how malevolent strangers were forever
hypnotizing him and that whenever his daughter returned from college he
regularly finger-printed her to ensure an impostor had not been substi-
tuted. There was also Perry Raymond Russo who had attended a party at
Ferrie's apartment - there he had met an older man named Bertrand and
Ferrie's room-mate, Leon [sic] Oswald. Oswald and Bertrand were dis-
cussing an assassination plot. Bertrand was Shaw. Oswald was Oswald.
Another witness, a drug addict, Vernon Bundy, was on the shores of Lake
Pontchartrain early one morning giving himself a fix - he saw 'Shaw'
give something to 'Oswald.'
If Garrison was putting Shaw on trial he was also putting the
Warren Commission on trial and the broadsides he fired into the Chief
Justice's Report greatly hastened its demise in the eyes of the public.
This would be Garrison's great contribution to the JFK mystery. The
Zapruder film was shown some ten times during the course of the trial
to demonstrate the 'triangulation of cross-fire' that Garrison claimed
killed Kennedy. There was a new skepticism abroad and it was not
limited to the Critics. Clay Shaw may not have been Clay Bertrand but
the issue of whose fingers were on the triggers that day in Dallas was
at the forefront of the nation's mind.
On l March 1969, two years to the day after his arrest, Clay Shaw
was found innocent of the charges laid against him. Five years later he
was dead of cancer at the age of sixty-one.
The question that must now be asked is: who was Clay Shaw?
James Kirkwood, for instance, spent a considerable amount of time
with Shaw throughout the trial and wrote a 600-page account of the
action with a pronounced pro-Shaw bias, yet reading it is like watching
Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. We see Shaw as Defendant and
nothing else - no other facet of his character is shown. A curiously
one dimensional portrait is given that leaves Shaw the man well alone.
Kirkwood always appears to be on the brink of saying something but he
pulls back at the last moment. One of the reasons for this may well
have to do with Shaw's homosexuality, but there may be others that were
not apparent to this Boswell of the defense.
Harold Weisberg discovered a 1954 FBI report from a New Orleans
informant that said he 'had relations of a homosexual nature with Clay
Shaw,' that Shaw was 'given to sadism and masochism in his homosexual
activities.' Ferrie seems to have inhabited a similar gay milieu and it
is not far-fetched to believe they may have known each other in the
French Quarter's sexual underworld (they certainly had friends in
common). The argument runs that 'Clay Bertrand' was Shaw's nom de
guerre when cruising the bars looking for 'trade,' domestic or interna-
tional.
When Garrison arrested Shaw in March 1967 he had discovered a
chain, five whips, a black hood and cape, and a gown in Shaw's bedroom
where hooks had been screwed into the ceiling. The DA would later say
that what appeared to be dried blood was found on the whips. Shaw's
friends at the time said this paraphernalia was part of a Mardi Gras
costume and, indeed, when Kirkwood was present at a dinner in Shaw's
house and the subject came up in conversation, Shaw's mother repeated
the explanation. Kirkwood duly recorded it without comment as gospel.
In the light of the FBI report we now know Shaw had other agendas.
I have been told by a woman who knew Shaw very well throughout the
1950s and 1960s that Shaw's homosexuality was no secret in his social
circle. This may be so. A man chooses his friends for the needs they
meet and in Shaw's case one of the qualities he would look for was
discretion. His best friends might know that he was gay but New Orleans
as a town did not. If I underscore his homosexuality it is to emphasize
the compartmentalization of his life - he kept aspects of his life
apart and separate, and such a trait would be very valuable for anyone
connected with intelligence operations.
In 1977 a CIA memo surfaced dated 28 September 1967 and headed
'Garrison Investigation: Queries from Justice Department.' This said
that the Agency had received reports from Shaw concerning international
trade and political activities in countries ranging from Peru to East
Germany and from Argentina to Nicaragua. In the seven years from 1949
to 1956 the CIA had received some thirty reports from him. Henry Hurt
has noted that while the reported contacts ceased in 1956 Shaw conti-
nued to enjoy a good relationship with Langley and it is possible that
Shaw's work became more sensitive and was not recorded in the general
files. This is common practice in the intelligence community.
Further evidence of Shaw's involvement with the CIA would come in
1975 from Victor Marchetti who had resigned from the Agency in 1969. At
the time of the Garrison investigation he was executive assistant to
the CIA Deputy Director and it was then that the case was discussed, so
Marchetti says, at the highest levels in terms of what help Shaw could
be given.
It may be argued that the CIA would naturally be interested in the
Garrison case in so much as it was concerned with the death of a
president but it hard to see why this concern was reflected at director
level, unless of course there was a hidden agenda. And help? What help
could be given, and why?
In 1979 Richard Helms, who at the time of Kennedy's assassination
had been the Agency's Deputy Director for Plans (Covert Operations),
admitted under oath in a trial that he knew of Shaw. He said: 'The only
recollection I have of Clay Shaw and the Agency is that I believe that
at one time as a businessman he was one of the part-time contacts of
the Domestic Contact Division, the people that talked to businessmen,
professors and so forth, and who traveled in and out of the country.'
Helms had earlier publicly denied that there was any connection. Was he
now telling the truth? Why had he not spoken up for Shaw in 1967 who by
his own account was merely doing his patriotic duty in reporting to the
Agency what he had heard and seen? Allen W. Dulles astonished fellow
members of the Warren Commission by telling them in a secret session
that members of the intelligence community would lie if need be under
oath, that the truth in some regards would never be known. Helms may
have been telling the truth in 1979 but the sin may be that of omission
rather than commission: in the phrase much loved by English lawyers we
need 'further and better particulars,' as of now we are still stumbling
about in a badly lit room unsure as to what we are seeing is shadow or
substance. It was this uneasy feeling that prompted the foray into
investigation you are now reading. Shaw was probably not involved in
the assassination of Kennedy though he may well have known individuals
who were, and if his interest here diminishes elsewhere it now
increases. Could this quiet American be another 'cold war warrior'?
What do we know about him? What could we find out?
THE ADDRESS BOOK
When Clay Shaw was arrested on 1 March 1967 his house in the French
Quarter was searched and amongst the items taken way by the district
attorney was a personal address book. A photocopy of this was
subsequently deposited with the Committee to Investigate Assassinations
in Washington and it was from a copy of this that I worked.
The photocopy shows the book to be a spring-backed ring-binder with
six rings, in two groups of three, rather like a Filofax, with a
trimmed page size of 175mm by 98mm. The loose pages are rounded on all
four corners. The index tabs are in twos, that is A and B, C and D, and
so on, which frequently results in alphabetical displacement within a
section. In the following transcript I have silently corrected the
sequence. In all there are some 56 pages of names and addresses. Most
of the entries are typewritten but corrections and additions have been
done in Shaw's hand.
The book is almost wholly composed of home addresses and phone
numbers and it is only very occasionally that a company address or
phone is given. It was obviously Shaw's social and private address book
as opposed to any 'work' address book he may have kept at the Trade
Mart.
There are approximately 216 names in the book, many with more than
one address and with earlier addresses crossed out. Shaw had used it
for a number of years and it may well date back to the late 1950s.
The vast majority of addresses are in North America (that is the
USA, Canada and Mexico), and aside from the United Kingdom ones dealt
with here, the other overseas entries break down as follows: Belgium 3,
Colombia 1, France 6, Germany 1, Holland 2, Italy 4, Norway 1, and
Spain 4.
Garrison describes the address book in On the Trail of the
Assassins (1988; see Further Reading, below, for full details) as
'probably the most interesting single item seized in the course of
Shaw's arrest' and goes on to discuss it, pps146-7. He says that it
'offered some insight into his proclivity for developing casual friend-
ships at lofty levels of European aristocracy' which is certainly true
and he listed several titled individuals who appear in its pages. He
then rather sours his point by claiming that the CIA has a 'romantic
infatuation with fading regimes' which seems to suggest he thinks
Langley is preparing for the comeback of the ancien regime.
One very intriguing entry amongst the addresses that Garrison
alighted upon back in 1967 needs to be mentioned:
Lee Odom
P O Box 19106
DALLAS, Tex
(Garrison on p146 of On the Trail transcribes it incorrectly -
which makes one wonder when he last looked at the address book him-
self).
In Lee Harvey Oswald's address book appears the citation '* *
19106'(the asterisks here are intended to represent two Cyrillic
characters not available in this font). Garrison claims they say P O,
either way there is an odd coincidence abroad here. Who and what was
this? Shaw's attorney at the time of the trial produced a Lee Odom who
said that he had a PO Box number in Irving, a Dallas suburb, and that
PO Box 19106 in Dallas had been used for a while by some barbecue
company he was associated with, though it had never been in his name,
and that he had met Shaw once to discuss promoting bloodless bullfights
in New Orleans! This was at the very least a suspicious coincidence and
one that has yet to be explained. Oswald had written the notation in
his address book no later than 1963, and yet the Dallas Post Office in
that year had not yet acquired a Box with such as high number. What
this all means has yet to be explained.
In his book Garrison fails to mention that it was bloodless bull-
fights that Odom was promoting and he also neglects to say that the two
characters preceding the number in Oswald's address book were in
Cyrillic. Such omissions point to a highly selective presentation of
facts. What else is he not telling us?
The United Kingdom names and addresses are here transcribed
verbatim and presented in alphabetical order and set off from the text.
The bracketed [T] and [H] tells whether the entry was typewritten or
handwritten. Proper names rendered in caps in these notes indicate that
an entry exists for them also.
Perhaps a few words here on address book methodology [sic] would
not be out of place. On the table in front of me as I write this is my
own address book: a fat red-leather Filofax which has been with me for
fifteen years or so and which, at a rough guess, contains a thousand or
so names with addresses and telephone numbers. It contains the names of
quite a few people who know quite a bit about me, but the vast majority
know little or nothing. There are people I have met once many years ago
and even people I have never met or communicated with in any way (and I
would be hard put to explain why they are there). I've taken the names
and addresses of people at parties and never seen them again, and so
on. The point I wish to underscore is that because a person appears in
an address book it must not be assumed They Know Something, that they
are In on It. Clay Shaw by all accounts was a witty, charming and
courteous individual. He liked socializing. He met hundreds of people.
He had many legitimate business interests...and naturally people would
end up in his address book, but that does not mean they were out there
plotting the assassination of Kennedy, or that they were, for example,
also intimate friends of David Ferrie. One cannot assume that there is
automatically something sinister because they are there. I reiterate
this point because much otherwise good research in these areas is
dogged with this guilt-by-association.
THE UNITED KINGDOM CONTACTS
Before continuing I think it would be appropriate to tip my cap to two
fellow English JFK buffs who have each made a foray into this neck of
the woods.
Michael Eddowes told me some years ago that in the early 1970s he
went through Shaw's UK contacts: 'there was nothing much of interest -
a couple of old ladies in Mayfair and so on.' This is a reference to
Lady D'Arcy and Lady Hulse who are noted below. Of much greater signif-
icance to Eddowes was a discovery he made in Toronto when he knocked on
the door of an apartment owned by one of Shaw's boyfriends: it was
opened by a fellow named Robin Drury.
Drury, a homosexual, had been the 'agent' of Christine Keeler
during the time of the British sex scandal known as the Profumo Affair
back in 1963. Like Eddowes I had often wondered whether Shaw knew
Stephen Ward, the osteopath at the center of the affair. This discovery
inches the contention forward but is hardly conclusive.
Stephen Dorril is the other pioneer of UK Shaw studies (and,
incidentally, the co-author, with Anthony Summers, of the best book on
the Profumo Affair: Honeytrap: The Secret World of Stephen Ward [Lon-
don: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987]). He had spoken to Olwen Janson (see
below) several times in the mid-1970s after reading about the interview
she gave with the London Daily Mail in Joesten's book on Garrison. The
interview is mentioned under Sir Michael DUFF below and details of
Joesten's book will be found in the Further Reading section at the end.
The first thing that struck me when I looked through the addresses
was that Shaw's London contacts all lived in the best and most expen-
sive areas: Belgravia, Mayfair, Kensington, St John's Wood, and White-
hall. Who ever Shaw was he did not seem to know anyone in the low rent
zones...
***********************************************************************
Frith Banbury
4 St. James Terrace
Prince Albert Road,
London NW 8
[T]
(Frederick Harold) Frith Banbury was born on 4 May 1912, the son of
Rear-Admiral Frith Banbury. He was educated at Stowe School and Hert-
ford College, Oxford, and later studied at the Royal Academy of Dra-
matic Art. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s he was an actor and appeared
in many West End productions and several films, including Michael
Powell's The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943). Since 1947 he has
been a successful theatrical producer and director - his two most
recent productions in London were The Corn is Green at the Old Vic in
1985 and The Admirable Crichton at the Haymarket in 1988.
4 St. James Terrace was demolished quite recently along with a
couple of its neighbors and on the site of these houses was built a
very fine modern apartment block that goes under the name of Park St.
James, commanding fine views across Regents Park. Interestingly,
Banbury now lives in the block.
Banbury told me that he had met Shaw while visiting New Orleans in
1952. He was introduced by a mutual friend, an actress. It was during
Mardi Gras and Banbury was staying in a hotel running up a high bill.
Shaw suggested he stay with him at his house for a few days and Banbury
accepted. He said Shaw was a generous and attentive host.
In the late 1950s or early 1960s Shaw telephoned Banbury while in
London and they had lunch together. This was the last time they met.
When Banbury read about the Garrison investigation he sent Shaw a
letter of support.
Frith Banbury could not believe Shaw was in anyway involved with
the JFK assassination yet, like Olwen JANSON below, he could well
imagine him involved with the CIA as an agent.
***********************************************************************
Lady Margaret D'Arcy,
109 Earls Court Road
London W8
[T]
Lady Margaret Florence Grace D'Arcy was born on 2 October 1907, the
youngest daughter of the (13th) Earl of Kinnoull (1855-1916). In 1929
she married a Norman D'Arcy and had several children. While raising her
family she wrote four novels, all published by John Murray in London:
Down the Sky (1935), Sir Monckton Requests (1936), Malignant Star
(1939), and Racket (1940). She was divorced from D'Arcy in 1942.
Lady Margaret's daughter, Philippa, who now lives in Monaco, told
me that her mother was a great traveller and also very active on the
lecture tour circuit in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s
through an organization she believed was called British American
Associates (see John William HUGHES). Both Philippa and her mother knew
Sir Steven RUNCIMAN and Lord MONTAGU: 'but then my mother was always
very active and knew hundreds of people.'
Lady Margaret was a devout Christian. Her last published work was A
Book of Modern Prayers (Aldington, Kent: Hand & Flower Press, 1951).
109 Earls Court Road and its neighbor, 107, part of a terrace of
modest Victorian stucco villas, were demolished in the late 1960s and
replaced by a pleasing block of flats. Lady Margaret then went to live
in Mayfair with Lady HULSE who had sometimes accompanied her on trips
to the United States as unpaid secretary and companion. There was a
rift between the two titled ladies around 1974 and Lady Margaret moved
out. She died in 1976. She was 68 years old.
***********************************************************************
Alan Davis
23 Ennismore Gardens
London SW 7
[T]
Ennismore Gardens is one of the most attractive squares in London and
is situated behind the Victoria and Albert Museum roughly mid-way
between Kensington to the west and Knightsbridge to the east. The high,
elegantly designed, almost Italianate Victorian apartment houses
surround a square (the gardens) full of mature plane trees.
Clay Shaw mis-spelt his friend's Christian name - it is Allan Davis
and under this the following entry appears in the 1973-4 British Film
and Television Year Book (London: Cinema TV Today, 1974), p104:
DAVIS, ALLAN. Director (films, TV and plays). Born 30th
August, 1913, London. Entered films in 1951, after several
years as a director on the stage. He went to Hollywood under
contract to M.G.M., and directed Rogue's March (M.G.M.) in
1953, etc. Back in Britain he has directed many TV films in
the following series: Rendezvous, Dick and the Duchess,
O.S.S., etc. 1960: Directed feature films, Clue of the Twisted
Candle, Clue of the New Pin. 1961-2: Directed Square Mile Murder,
Wings of Death, The Fourth Square, etc. Since 1962: Directing
on West End and Broadway stage. 1971-3: No Sex Please - We're
British (stage).
Address: 23 Ennismore Gardens, London, S.W.7.
Davis told me that in 1960 he was touring the United States lectur-
ing on theater and drama at various universities through the Rockefel-
ler Foundation. He spent a few days in New Orleans while at Tulane
University and met Shaw a couple of times through people he knew on the
faculty. He said Shaw was very interested in the theatre and very good
company. Davis gave Shaw his address and said he must look him up if
ever he came to London: they never met or communicated again. In 1967
Davis was startled to read about Shaw's arrest in Time magazine and
could not believe that Shaw was in any way involved.
Davis moved out of Ennismore Gardens some years ago and now lives
in Belgravia.
***********************************************************************
Sir Michael Duff,
Vaynol,
Bangor, Wales
[T; handwritten underneath '82 Cadogan Place.']
Sir Charles Michael Robert Vivian Duff was born on 3 May 1907. He seems
to have spent the greater part of his life in socializing and not much
else, aside, that is, from a brief spell in the RAF during the last
war.
Sir Michael was a well-known bisexual who, according to one source,
liked to dress up in drag as the late Queen Mary. Cecil Beaton, the
photographer, latched on to Sir Michael in the 1920s and it seems they
had a long and passionate affair. They certainly remained close friends
throughout their lives and Sir Michael features prominently in Hugo
Vickers' Cecil Beaton: The Authorized Biography (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1985).
He married the eldest daughter of the Marquess of Anglesey in 1949.
His death on 3 March 1980 from cancer was what the Victorians would
have called a merciful release. He had suffered greatly.
Sir Michael is chiefly remembered today as being the god-father of
Tony Armstrong-Jones, the photographer who married the Queen's sister,
Princess Margaret (and later divorced her), and who now sails under the
title of the Earl of Snowdon.
Olwen JANSON told me that Shaw always spoke fondly of Sir Michael.
They had met during the war when Shaw was stationed in London. I also
learnt from another source that they were lovers and, indeed, that Sir
Michael may have been one of the two greatest loves of Shaw's life (the
other was William Formyduval with whom he lived). The implications of
this need to be carefully considered. Certainly Sir Michael introduced
Shaw to London society and even introduced him to Winston Churchill -
he may even have introduced him to Peter MONTGOMERY, Anthony Blunt's
lover.
As to Sir Michael's two addresses: Vaynol was his country estate
near the town of Bangor on the north coast of Wales some 250 miles
north-west of London, while Cadogan Place was his London address in
Belgravia, interestingly, only a couple of doors away from G. R.
SPENCER (and Mike Leach).
Bangor is situated on the Menai Straits which separate mainland
Wales from the Isle of Anglesey and there, no more than ten miles away,
lived John William HUGHES. A relative of Hughes' told me that she
thought it very unlikely he knew Sir Michael. However, Sir Steven
RUNCIMAN did know Sir Michael though he was unaware that Shaw did as
well.
In the interview that Olwen JANSON gave with Charles Greville, the
society columnist of the London Daily Mail, 17 March 1967, she said
that one of Shaw's friends was a Member of Parliament. The MP was not
identified in the piece but Mrs Janson tells me she was referring to
Sir Michael. In fact he was never an MP.
***********************************************************************
Andrew Gillan
6 Bryce Avenue
Edinburgh 7
Scotland
U.K.
[H]
Shaw mis-spelt this name - it should be Gillon.
Bryce Avenue is in the western Edinburgh suburb of Craigentinny
near the popular resort of Portobello on the Firth of Forth, about two
miles from the central city area. The road was built in the 1920s and
comprises bungalows built largely of stone. It is a spacious and
pleasant middle class neighborhood.
Mr and Mrs Thomson who now live at no. 7 brought the house seven
and a half years ago after Alec Gillon died - he was the father of
Andrew Gillon. Alec's wife had died some years earlier. Mr and Mrs
Gillon had three sons.
Andrew Gillon is now in his early fifties and is a successful
businessman running his own computer company in Edinburgh. At the time
he met Shaw he was working for IBM who had flown him to London for
training at their Wigmore Street HQ. Gillon told me he met Clay Shaw
'once and once only - on a bus going out from the Cromwell Road airline
terminal [London] to Heathrow. It was either 1964 or 1965. I was
returning to Edinburgh and Shaw was flying to Dublin. He told me he
was a retired businessman, but he had something to do with exhibitions.
We were going to meet the following week when I was back in London but
I came down with flu and did not return to London for awhile. I never
saw or spoke to him again. Then, a couple of years later I was listen-
ing to the radio over breakfast and I heard that he had been arrested
by the New Orleans district attorney. I could not believe what I was
hearing. It came as a great shock meeting someone then hearing that
they had been arrested on such a charge.'
***********************************************************************
John William Hughes
Marianglas
Isle of Anglesey
Wales G.B.
Moelfre-392
[H]
The Isle of Anglesey is the island off the coast of north Wales that is
separated from the mainland by the Menai Straits. Marian-glas [sic] is
a small village on the north-east coast.
Moelfre is the telephone exchange that takes its name from a nearby
town.
I eventually tracked down a relative of Hughes', Ellen Roger-Jones,
who lives on the island. She is the sister of the actor Hugh Griffiths.
She told me that Hughes was born on Anglesey just before the First
World War and grew up there. He was a great traveller and widely
respected in his time as a journalist. He fought as a volunteer in the
Spanish Civil War but she could not recall on what side. He was a very
powerful public speaker and orator and had once stood as a Liberal
candidate in a general election.
The name Clay Shaw meant nothing to Roger-Jones.
Hughes was very active in the English Speaking Union and frequently
went on lecture tours in the United States for an organization called
something like the American-English Association (this may well have
been the same outfit Lady Margaret D'ARCY was involved with).
In about 1970 he married a woman from New York who had 'aristo-
cratic' connections - she was a widow with children and her aunt was
very famous in New York theatrical circles. Hughes returned with his
wife to Anglesey. The woman did not like provincial Welsh life and
returned home within a year.
Hughes died of cancer in Bangor Hospital circa 1970.
Bangor was the home of Sir Michael DUFF. Roger-Jones does not
believe that Hughes knew him.
***********************************************************************
Lady Hulse,
7 Culross St.,
London W1
[T]
Lady Hulse still lives in Culross Street, Mayfair, in a very fine mews
house, immediately behind the American Embassy. She could not recall
ever meeting Clay Shaw or hearing the name, and neither could her
house-keeper/companion who has been with her for fifty years. As Lady
Hulse worked as an unpaid secretary to Lady Margaret D'ARCY on her
American lecture tours it seems entirely likely that Shaw may have met
her through Lady Margaret, perhaps just the once and there would be no
particular reason for Lady Hulse to remember it. Certainly Shaw never
visited Culross Street.
Lady Dorothy Hulse was formerly married to Sir Westrow Hulse, the
barrister.
***********************************************************************
Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Janson
26 Laxford House
Cundy Street, London
The Boat House, Queens Rd.
Cowes, Isle of Wight
Cowes 3849
[T]
Cundy Street is in the SW1 postal district of London on the edge of
Belgravia, not far away from Victoria Station. Laxford House is one of
four apartment blocks built around a quadrant and dating from, I would
guess, the early 1930s. When the Jansons sold their apartment in the
late 1960s it was purchased from them by Alec Douglas-Home, the former
Tory Prime Minister.
The Jansons also sold their house in Cowes and they now live in the
west of England.
Olwen Janson told me the following.
She was born in England in 1928 (she is the niece of Lord Oranmore
and Browne). In the early 1950s she married Wayne Harriss in New York.
He was the son of an ex-President of the New York Stock Exchange whose
vast wealth came from oil, real estate and other business holdings. The
Harriss' were also close to the Kennedys at this time.
In 1953 Olwen was travelling through New Orleans with her husband
when they discovered a house at 613 Dumaine Street that was for sale.
They promptly bought it from the then owner, the novelist William March
(author of The Bad Seed). Olwen discovered a very fine local antique
shop from which she furnished her new home. The shop was run by a Carol
Lewis (not in the address book), a homosexual Vet who had served as a
sergeant in the US Army in France under Clay Shaw and it was through
him Olwen met Shaw - 'one of the most charming and engaging men I have
ever met.' They became close friends and confidants almost immediately
and they remained so throughout the three years Olwen lived in New
Orleans. When Wayne Harriess died in 1956 Shaw gave Olwen considerable
help and she believes that without him she would never have survived.
After she left New Orleans in 1956 and returned to London they remained
in regular contact right up until Shaw's death in 1974. They corre-
sponded regularly and Olwen was always the first person Shaw looked up
when he arrived in London.
Olwen says that there was no secrecy in New Orleans about Shaw's
homosexuality - he openly lived with a life-long lover, William Formy-
duval, and never attempted to hide his inclinations. Local cab drivers
may not have known of his sexual habits but his friends and associates
certainly did. If this is so, and there is no reason to doubt Olwen's
testimony, then it seems unlikely that he would need an alias, and if
he did it may have been for political and/or special sexual reasons.
Shaw was always talking about London and he said that after New
Orleans it was his favorite city. He had first visited London during
the war when he was in the Army and he would spend lengthy periods
there up until 1945. It was at this time he met Sir Michael DUFF of
whom he always spoke with the very greatest fondness, and as we have
already learned. They became lovers. Sir Michael introduced Shaw to
London society and the two of them frequently had dinner with Winston
Churchill. Was it Sir Michael who introduced Shaw to Peter MONTGOMERY?
During the invasion of France Shaw was shot in the leg and the
resulting wound caused a permanent limp. He was awarded the Croix de
Guerre by the French but Olwen does not know why. She believes he rose
to be a colonel in the US Army (Harold Weisberg thinks a major).
Shaw was passionately interested in the theatre and wrote a number
of plays himself. One of them, about life in a submarine (did he see
service underwater?), was made into a film but Olwen cannot remember
the details. Tennessee Williams was a very close friend of Shaw's but,
curiously, he is absent from the address book.
Olwen still thinks very fondly of Shaw. His death was a sad blow to
her. She cannot believe he had anything to do with the assassination of
Kennedy yet she can believe that he may have played footsie and
intrigued with the CIA.
Olwen loaned me a copy of the 13 July 1968 New Yorker that con-
tained a lengthy piece by Edward Jay Epstein on the Garrison investiga-
tion. Clay had sent it to her at the time and on the front cover, at
the bottom, in felt tip pen he had written:
Olwyn [sic] darling -
See page 35 for the
incredible tale of the
century. Thanks for your
letter. I'll answer soon!
Much love to you and Hugh
Clay
[Hugh is Hugh Janson who Olwen married after returning to London].
***********************************************************************
Larry Lawrence
Yewtree Cottage
Benhams Lane
Fawley Green
Hensley[sic]-on-Thames
[T; '4025' handwritten to the right - phone?]
Hensley should be Henley-on-Thames, a delightful town on the river
situated some forty miles west of London and the home of the famous
yearly boating Regatta, an important date in the English social calen-
dar.
Fawley Green is an extended hamlet of a place high in the hills
above Henley and somewhere that today still seems remote and arcadian.
The houses here are hidden in a well wooded landscape that tumbles down
to the Thames.
The present occupants of Yewtree Cottage only recently purchased
the property and they told me it had passed through many hands in the
1970s and 1980s. The Cottage seems originally to have been a remote
early nineteenth century labourer's house but additions and modifica-
tions have turned it into a picturesque exercise in gentrification.
An informant who had lived in the village for many years told me:
'Larry Lawrence worked as a chef in Henley and in London. He was very
handsome, and also sweet and polite. He lived in the cottage with his
boyfriend who was an officer in the United States Air Force at High
Wycombe. The boyfriend was quite senior - he may have been a major.
Larry moved out in the late 1960s and I don't know where you would find
him now.'
A boyfriend in the USAF? A major? I wondered if this person was
originally Shaw's friend and that through him Shaw met Lawrence? I
checked through the address book and found only one entry with USAF
connections. This is an individual shown at various bases: Lowry AFB,
Colorado, Amarillo AFB, Texas, George AFB, California, and one near
Tuscon, Arizona, the name of which I cannot decipher. He is also shown
at onetime as being in Brussels. Whether this person is Lawrence's
friend I do not know and it would, of course, be unwise to assume he
was, and improper to print his name without first talking to him.
High Wycombe is not just any USAF base but a crucially important
and sensitive installation. From 1951 until 1965 it was the USAF's
Strategic Air Command nerve center and the Seventh Air Division's HQ.
It was from here that any Allied air offensive (or defensive!) in
Europe would be controlled - scrambled radio GO signals would be sent
to airborne bomber crews and from here the nuclear arsenal would be
deployed.
Though SAC moved out detachments have remained there and today High
Wycombe houses the top-secret US European Command War Headquarters and
the Cruise Missile Programming Centre.
***********************************************************************
Lord Edward Montagu
15 Mount St.
London W1
[T]
This is Edward John Barrington Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron of
Beaulieu, popularly known as Lord Montagu. He was born on 20 October
1926 and was educated at Eton and Oxford. He served in the Grenadier
Guards.
Lord Montagu's large country estate, Beaulieu in Hampshire, some
seventy miles south-west of London, houses the National Motor Museum
which he founded in 1952. It is probably the largest collection of
vintage cars in England and attracts a considerable number of visitors
each year. His Lordship is active in many committees and organizations
relating to museums, transport history, tourism and similar.
Lord Montagu has been married twice.
In 1954 occurred what has come to be known as the Montagu Case.
Lord Montagu together with Peter Wildeblood, the diplomatic correspon-
dent of the London Daily Mail, and Michael Pitt-Rivers were arrested
and charged with specific acts of indecency (homosexuality) involving
two serving members of the Royal Air Force, Edward McNally and John
Reynolds, both in their early twenties. The defendants were also
charged with conspiracy to commit the acts, the conspiracy charge being
a double-whammy to ensure that no one got off. At this time in England
homosexuality was a criminal offence. The police and the prosecution
showed much prejudice and malice at the trial and the success of the
Crown's case was due in no small measure to frightening McNally and
Reynolds in to turning Queen's Evidence. As it was, the two RAF chaps
got off scott-free and Wildeblood and Pitt-Rivers were gaoled for
eighteen months while Montagu ended up with a year in the slammer.
Wildeblood wrote a good first-hand account of the case, Against the
Law (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1955) which details the unscrupu-
lousness and severity with which the police and the Crown pursued the
case. He also offers up some explanation as to why this was so on
pps45-6. He writes that on 25 October 1953 the Sydney Morning Telegraph
published a cable from its London correspondent, Donald Horne, about a
police and Home Office plan to 'smash homosexuality in London.' The
details presented to the Australian readers were rather fuller than
what the British public were told, they had merely heard from Sir David
Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary, that a 'new drive against male vice'
was needed, and it is worth quoting here from Horne's piece:
The plan originated under strong United States advice
to Britain to weed out homosexuals - as hopeless security
risks - from important Government jobs.
One of the Yard's top-rankers, Commander E. A. Cole,
recently spent three months in America consulting with
FBI officials in putting finishing touches to the plan....
The Special Branch began compiling a 'Black Book' of
known perverts in influential government jobs after the
disappearance of the diplomats Donald Maclean and Guy
Burgess, who were known to have pervert associates [not
least of whom was Sir Anthony Blunt, then the Surveyor
of the Queen's Pictures]. Now comes the difficult task
of side-tracking these men into less important jobs - or
of putting them behind bars.
This article certainly explains why Special Branch were involved
with the investigation of the case, though at the time no spectre of
espionage was ever raised. It may be argued that the Branch came in as
a matter of routine because two of those involved were in the RAF but
as they were both in the lowest ranks their security clearance was less
than zero.
As for the 'Black Book' one wonders who was in it? It certainly
would not have included Sir Anthony Blunt and it is obvious that
William Vassall, the homosexual spy for Russia in the Admiralty, did
not get a listing, or if and when he did it was too late - he had
already passed on to the Soviets a considerable amount of material.
A cursory examination of this case does seem to suggest that these
three unfortunate defendants were victims of some Cold War politicking
by the British government intent on showing the United States that they
could and would Do Something About It. They went after easy pickings.
Sic transit.
I wondered if any gay historian had examined the way the Cold War
had impinged on homosexuality in Britain during the 1950s and I was
told the book to read was Jeffrey Weeks' Coming Out: Homosexual
Politics in Britain, from the Nineteenth Century to the Present (Lon-
don: Quartet Books, 1977). Weeks merely repeats Wildeblood and adds
nothing new. The field is ready for a penetrating study by an historian
so inclined. Early on in Wildeblood's book he is describing the events
that led up to the Crown's case and the following appears, p39:
In the meantime I had mentioned the plan [for a holiday] to
Edward [Montagu], and as McNally was with me at the time he
invited us both to have a drink with him at his flat in Mount
Street. The flat was, as usual, full of people - Americans, I
think - and we only stayed about half an hour, discussing the
arrangements for the holiday.
One wonders if amongst those Americans was Clay Shaw...
Lord Montagu's very busy schedule has prevented me from talking to
him so far.
***********************************************************************
Peter Montgomery
Blessingbourne
Fivemiletown, NI Ireland
Phone Fivemiletown 221
[T]
Captain Peter Stephen Montgomery of Blessingbourne, to use the styling
favoured by the subject, was born 13 August 1909. He was educated at
Wellington College School and Trinity College, Cambridge. From 1931 to
1947 he was employed by the British Broadcasting Company in Northern
Ireland in various capacities including Assistant Musical Director and
Conductor of the BBC Northern Ireland Symphony Orchestra (1933-8). From
1952-71 Montgomery was a Member of the BBC Northern Ireland Advisory
Council, and from 1963-71 on the BBC General Advisory Council. He was
the Honorary ADC to the Governor of Northern Ireland, Lord Wakehurst,
from 1954-64, and later Vice-Lieutenant of County Tyrone in Ulster
where the family estate, Blessingbourne, was situated.
Montgomery was the son of Major-General Hugh Maude de Fellenberg
Montgomery. His uncle became Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and
his second cousin was Bernard Montgomery, that is Field Marshall
Montgomery of Alamein, the distinguished commander of the Eighth Army.
These are the bare biographical facts regarding Montgomery and,
needs be, do not betray the keen interest he has for students of
twentieth century intelligence and espionage.
While Montgomery was at Trinity he became the lover of Anthony
Blunt - the Russian spy and friend of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, and
Donald Maclean - known popularly as the Fourth Man. In the words of
Barrie Penrose and Simon Freeman in their Conspiracy of Silence (Lon-
don: Grafton Books, 1986), p48, 'Most of their mutual gay friends
assumed that they had begun as lovers and then, in the parlance of the
homosexual world, become sisters.'
At the end of 1940 the lease that Lord Rothschild had on a three-
story maisonette in Bentinck Street in the heart of London ran out:
Blunt moved in with Teresa Mayor (who was Rothschild's secretary at MI5
and later became his wife), Patricia Rawdon-Smith (who later married a
friend of Blunt's), and Guy Burgess. They were soon joined by a sailor
boyfriend of Burgess' who very quickly switched his allegiances to
Blunt - this was Jackie Hewit who told Peter Costello that during all
the time at the flat Blunt had only one person ever come to stay with
him: Peter Montgomery (see Costello's Mask of Treachery [New York:
William Morrow, 1988], p391). This was a kindness that was reciprocated
- in 1942 after exhausting intelligence duties in London and in Germany
Blunt went to recuperate at Blessingbourne, Montgomery's estate.
Robert Harbinson who knew Montgomery and Blunt well after the war
has said that 'Anthony had an uncanny hold over Peter. They were in
love, at least for a time' (quoted in Penrose and Freeman, op. cit.,
p48).
The secret of Montgomery's relationship with Blunt never came out
during their lifetime. Had it done so Montgomery would have been ruined
in Northern Ireland where many of his friends and relatives were in the
Protestant Orange Order. Ulster would not have been as tolerant as
Cambridge or London.
At the beginning of the war Montgomery joined the Intelligence
Corps and rose to the rank of Captain. After 1945 he remained in the
army and later went on to become ADC to the Viceroy of India, Lord
Wavell.
Blunt was always very insistent that Montgomery knew nothing of his
espionage activities and he went to great lengths right up until the
end of his life to protect his friend. But their friendship always
remained close: Blunt had in his London apartment up until his death a
bedroom reserved for Montgomery who used it whenever he was visiting
London from Ulster. It is difficult to believe that Montgomery had no
knowledge of Blunt's perfidy.
In 1980 the London Sunday Times interviewed Montgomery in connec-
tion with the un-masking of Blunt and he said that 'I knew Anthony had
been interrogated in 1964 by the security service and I feared that my
name would come up. There were other occasions when I thought it would
come out and I would get the chop.'
Montgomery died in February 1988.
Clay Shaw, in other words, had one-stop access to Blunt, Philby,
Burgess, and their milieu. Whether he did meet any of them is, of
course, another matter and at this stage we do not know. It is even
possible that he visited Bentinck Street during the war as we know from
Olwen JANSON and others that he spent a considerable amount of time in
London during the war (and according to her he 'made all his major
contacts during those years'). We have plenty of questions but no
answers. Montgomery is the one parapolitically significant name in the
address book worthy of more research.
Andrew GILLON said that when he met Shaw he told him he was going
to Dublin. Perhaps Shaw went on to Ulster? Could he have gone to see
Montgomery? Could...well, the coulds can be multiplied endlessly.
A final intriguing footnote. Sir Stephen RUNCIMAN told me that he
was an old friend of Montgomery's. When I told him that Montgomery was
in Shaw's address book he was highly startled and said he did not know
that they knew each other. Shortly after this he ended the conversation
abruptly.
(Sir Stephen had known Blunt since Cambridge days: 'To be perfectly
honest I never rightfully liked Anthony. He was always very supercili-
ous and I rather disliked being patronized when I was a young don....He
was always, I think, rather pleased with himself.' Source: Penrose and
Freeman, op. cit., p45).
***********************************************************************
Robert Roper
208 Great Portland St.,
London
[T; following, handwritten, on a separate page]
Robert Roper
Hamilton House
7 Royal Terrace
Southend Essex
4 Tilney Street
Park Lane W-1
GRO 623[?]8
Robert St. John Roper was a noted theatrical costume and dress designer
who was born in 1913 in Southend-on-Sea where his father was a cobbler
(Southend can be regarded as London's Coney Island - brash and vulgar
and very popular). Roper worked for the Markova-Dolin Ballet in the
early 1940s and later designed for many important West End stage
productions. He was at the London Palladium for some seventeen years
and also designed for shows like the Black and White Minstrels. Amongst
the films he worked on were Tony Richardson's Charge of the Light
Brigade (1968). He was also a close friend of the late Sir Norman
Hartnell, dressmaker by appointment to the Queen and the Queen Mother.
Roper lived in Great Portland Street in the West End of London in
the 1950s. Around 1960 he moved to Tilney Street in Mayfair, a house
now demolished, and then bought Hamilton House in Southend in 1966, one
of the houses in the very beautiful Royal Terrace which dates back to
the 1790s, an oasis of elegance in this brash seaside resort. Roper
lovingly restored the house to its period grandeur and the present
owner, Mrs Powell, has preserved it exactly as he left it.
One Saturday evening in May 1977 Roper told Mrs Powell, who was
then living next door, that he was just going down the road to buy some
cigarettes. He never returned. The following day his body was discov-
ered in the public toilets at the end of Royal Terrace - he had died of
a heart attack, aged 64. One informant told me that Roper was beaten up
by an American sailor and this brought on the heart attack but as the
source was not present it is hard to gauge the story's reliability.
Certainly no suggestion of this appeared in the local papers. Roper's
obituary appeared in the London Daily Telegraph in the following week.
Bill Barrell lived with Roper for the last thirteen years of his
life and can only remember him mentioning Clay Shaw's name once, and
this was at the time of Garrison's investigation. Roper might have said
something like 'I have met him' but that was all. There is no reason to
doubt Barrell's word, but it is odd that from the evidence of the
address book Shaw appeared to have known Roper for at least fifteen
years. Another curious point is that Roper was always known as St. John
Roper, never Robert, yet this is how he is listed.
Barrell did not recognize any of the other names in he address
book.
GRO in the Park Lane address is an abbreviation of GROSVENOR, one
of the old named London exchanges.
***********************************************************************
Sir Stephen Runciman
18 Elmtree Road
St. Johns Wood
London W8
Phone- Cunningham 0010
[Following, after another name]
Sir Steven Runciman
Elshieshields,
Lockerbie,
Dumfriesshire,
Scotland
Tel: Lochmaben 280
66 Whitehall Court,
London SW 1
WHITEHALL 3160 EXT 68
[T]
Shaw, as can be seen, spells the first name two ways. The correct form
is Steven.
The Honourable Sir Steven Runciman was born on 7 July 1903, the
second son of Viscount Runciman of Doxford. He was educated at Eton (at
the same time as George Orwell whom he knew) and Trinity College,
Cambridge. From 1927-38 he was a Fellow of Trinity, and from 1942-5 he
was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at the University of Istan-
bul.
Sir Steven is a very distinguished academic specializing in the
history of the Middle East and Byzantium and he has been awarded
honorary doctorates by nearly every major university in England and
America in recognition of his research and scholarship. He has written
many books since 1929 and is chiefly known outside of his special area
of scholarship for his three volume A History of the Crusades (1951-4).
His most recent book, Mistra, was published in 1980.
Here is a description of him at Trinity in the 1930s when Anthony
Blunt was a student:
The elegant Steven Runciman, however, remained as Trinity
College's resident aesthete, cutting elegant poses with a
parakeet perched on his heavily ringed fingers and his hair
cropped in an Italianate fringe.
This is Peter Costello in his Mask of Treachery (New York: William
Morrow, 1988), p121, quoting Cecil Beaton's The Wandering Years (1961).
Beaton, it will be remembered was very close to Sir Michael DUFF.
The three addresses listed here represent Sir Steven's homes over a
period of fifteen years. The St. John's Wood house was leased from the
MCC (the Marylebone Cricket Club - Lord's is nearby) throughout the
1950s, then he moved for a couple of years to Whitehall Court, a block
of service apartments near the Houses of Parliament, finally going to
Lockerbie in the early 1960s where he still lives.
The first time I spoke to Sir Steven he told me that he had met
Clay Shaw a couple of times in New Orleans, the last occasion being
about 1965, and that he knew little if nothing about him except that
'he enjoyed teasing the authorities.' I asked him how often he met Shaw
in England and Sir Steven said he was not aware that Shaw had ever
visited England.
I pointed out to Sir Steven that there were three addresses for him
covering some fifteen years and could he be mistaken in his recollec-
tions? He cut short the conversation and I did not have an opportunity
of asking him to explain what he had meant by Shaw liking to tease the
authorities.
The second time I spoke to him I asked whether he knew Peter
MONTGOMERY. At this stage of my research this was a shot in the dark.
Sir Steven said he knew him well. I then asked him if he knew that
Montgomery was in Shaw's address book? Sir Steven seemed very shocked
by this, there was a lengthy silence and he then said in a measured
manner, 'I did not know he knew him.' Sir Steven told me that he knew
Sir Michael DUFF and was equally surprised that Duff too was in the
address book. The conversation then ended abruptly by Sir Steven saying
he had to go.
Lady D'ARCY, above, knew both Sir Steven and Lord Montagu.
***********************************************************************
G. R. Spencer
Mike Leach
86 Cadogan Pl
London SW1
[H]
86 Cadogan Place is a very fine double-fronted eighteenth-century house
on the edge of Belgravia just to the north of Sloane Square. When I
visited the house in August 1990 there was an estate agent's board at
the front announcing that it had been renovated into luxury apartments
which were now being offered for sale.
I have not been able to trace either Spencer or Leach and none of
Shaw's friends know anything about them except for Olwen JANSON who
just remembers that Shaw invariably stayed with them when he was in
London.
Sir Michael DUFF's London house was only a couple of doors away.
***********************************************************************
Peter Watling
Roland Gardens
London SW7 FRE 0305
[T; a wavy line through this entry - Shaw's? Signifying a deletion?]
Roland Gardens is off the Old Brompton Road roughly mid-way between the
affluence of South Kensington and the turmoil of Earl's Court. Both
sides of the street are lined with a Victorian development of ugly
five-storied houses built of undressed brick that now appear to be
given over to multi-occupancy. On the corner of Old Brompton Road is
Roland House, probably the most hideous pre-war brick-built apartment
block in the whole of London, a hideousness increased by the addition
of a 1970s entrance 'canopy.'
There is no Peter Watling now living in the street and I have not
been able to trace him. None of the other English friends of Clay Shaw
I have spoken to knew his name.
FRE is short for FREEMANTLE - one of the old named London telephone
exchanges.
Interestingly, Peter Wildeblood in his book on the Lord MONTAGU
case, Against the Law (1955), p37, writes: 'At this time I was living
in a small flat in Roland Gardens, South Kensington. It consisted of a
sitting-room, bedroom, and combined kitchen-bathroom. The electric
stove was in the entrance hall and the same sink did duty for both
ablutions and washing up.'
***********************************************************************
Marcus Wickham[-]Boynton
4 Green St. W1,
London GR 8451
(Vincent Arroyo)
[T]
Green Street is in the heart of Mayfair near the American Embassy. No.
4 is situated in an elegant Victorian apartment block on the north
side.
GR is short for GROSVENOR, an old telephone exchange, as noted
above.
Marcus was one of the two sons of Captain Thomas Wickham-Boynton
(1869-1942), a wealthy Yorkshire landowner.
Wickham-Boynton inherited much of his father's wealth and lived a
leisured existence, chiefly indulging his twin interests of travel and
horse racing. He died in his late forties on 19 December 1989.
I spoke to Vincent Arroyo who had lived with him in Green Street.
The two of them were travelling on an extended holiday through the
United States in the early 1960s and they stayed for five days in New
Orleans where they met Clay Shaw. He was a very hospitable host and
invited them to a number of parties and also showed them around New
Orleans. He took them to the races in the company of a tobacco heiress
who was a close friend of Shaw's. Arroyo cannot recall her name.
The only other time they met Shaw was a couple of years later when
he was in London. Later when they read of his arrest by Jim Garrison
they sent him a telegram offering their support and sympathy - they
could not believe he was guilty.
Wickham-Boynton and Arroyo were friends of Lord MONTAGU.
***********************************************************************
Angus Wilson
(Tony Garrett)
Felsham Woodside
Bradfield St. George
Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk
Tel Rattlesden 200
[T]
This is Sir Angus Wilson, the distinguished novelist, who was born on
11 August 1913. He was educated at Westminster School and Merton
College, Oxford, and worked in the Foreign Office from 1942 until 1946.
He then worked in the British Museum Library until 1955 after which he
wrote and lectured full time.
His principal works are The Wrong Set (1949), Hemlock and After
(1952), Anglo Saxon Attitudes (1956), and The Old Men at the Zoo
(1961).
Bradfield St. George is a small village in Suffolk about sixty
miles north west of London. Sir Angus went to live there in the
mid-1950s with Tony Garrett, a schoolmaster who was sacked from his job
when the nature of his relationship with Sir Angus was discovered by
the school's governors.
Garrett co-edited a book with Sir Angus, East Anglia in Verse
(1982).
Sometime in the 1970s the house at Bradfield St. George was sold
and Sir Angus and Tony moved to St. Remy Cedex in France. Alas, after
some years Sir Angus developed Alzheimer's Disease and Garrett was
forced to return with him to England where he was placed in a nursing
home thanks to the beneficence of P. D. James the novelist.
IN CONCLUSION
This enquiry has produced at least one significant name that merits
further research and attention and which may help us to understand more
fully the political and intelligence face of Clay Shaw: Peter Montgom-
ery.
When I spoke to Harold Weisberg recently I thought he would be able
to put me in touch with some keen student of Clay Shaw, somebody
playing Seth Kantor to Shaw's Jack Ruby. Weisberg told me there was no
one he knew of, all he could do was put me in touch with Louis Ivon who
was Garrison's 'best and most reliable investigator, though I doubt
that he's done anything new on the case since he worked for the DA.' I
was disappointed to find I was the only person driving down this
highway, and doubly disappointed because I was just about to take the
off-ramp. I hope this piece prompts some other researchers to hit the
road: who knows where it may lead?
FURTHER READING
Researching this article prompted my first major reading of the Warren
Report in about fifteen years, and it is quite startling to find what
is included, even if none of the parapolitically significant stuff is
never followed up. It is even more startling to find what is excluded
but that, as we know, is another story. Appendix XIII, 'Biography of
Lee Harvey Oswald,' is very useful for dates and non-controversial
facts. The edition of the Report I used was that 'prepared' by Double-
day and Company, New York, 1964. This is the gentleman's edition, in
hardcover, with 'An Analysis and Commentary by Louis Nizer' and 'A
Historical Afterword by Bruce Catton.' And with extra illustrations,
yet!
I do not know whether Nizer is still around enriching the Republic
with his sage reflections but this from his opening essay should make
him wince:
The Commission has taken note of rumors in books, newspaper
columns, radio or television programs, and lectures. It has
set forth the facts and permitted the hobgoblins to vanish
in their presence. Certain it is that those who have preened
themselves on imaginative "revelations," and even made a
career of spreading them, will no longer be in business. A
fact colliding with a theory, may produce tragedy. The report
will be a tragedy for gossips and irresponsible experts.
I am not quoting this to ridicule Nizer, but...no, come to think of
it I am quoting this to ridicule Nizer. We may all have been young and
innocent in those days but not that naive. Remember, the first book
ringing a warning bell about the official investigation was written
even before Warren's Report was published and was based on the Washing-
ton 'line' that was being leached out to trusty establishment-oriented
newspapers. This was, of course, Thomas G. Buchanan's Who Killed
Kennedy? (New York: Putnam, 1964) which is still worth reading and is
the only JFK book I know that demonstrates in a discussion of earlier
US presidential assassinations that the 'lone mad assassin' was a tried
and trusted formula for preventing light from being shed on what was
really happening.
In the opening section I rely heavily upon Henry Hurt's Reasonable
Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985) which on pps261-89 contains one
of the best and most balanced accounts of the Garrison-Shaw episode.
Hurt is also very good on Oswald and the New Orleans milieu generally.
Highly recommended.
Also useful was Edward Jay Epstein's lengthy 'Garrison' that took
up nearly the whole of the 13 July 1968 issue of The New Yorker under
the 'Reporter at Large' department. I understand that this piece was
the basis for Epstein's book Counterplot (New York: Viking Press, 1969)
but I have not seen this.
James Kirkwood's American Grotesque: An Account of the Clay
Shaw-Jim Garrison Affair in the City of New Orleans (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1970) is the best day-to-day account of the trial and
events down in New Orleans. Kirkwood is unashamedly pro-Shaw but
reports Garrison's case and the courtroom events with something
approaching dispassion and presents his own views as that and nothing
else. I may have a few other reservations about Kirkwood but no student
of Garrison can afford to be without this account.
Kirkwood had met Clay Shaw at a dinner given by the author James
Leo Herlihy. Herlihy was an old friend of Kirkwood's, but where did the
novelist meet Shaw? Kirkwood died in April 1989 according to a recent
issue of The New York Times Book Review.
Garrison's own two books, A Heritage of Stone (New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1970) and On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investiga-
tion and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy (New York:
Sheridan Square Press, 1988) tell us more about the district attorney
than they do about Shaw. The latter book is the more relevant of the
two.
Harold Weisberg admits that his Oswald in New Orleans: Case of
Conspiracy with the C.I.A. (New York: Canyon Books, 1967) was hurriedly
written and needs some surgery but nonetheless it remains a valuable,
comprehensive work that can stand still hold its head high. Garrison
contributes a Foreword.
Joachim Joesten's The Garrison Enquiry: Truth and Consequences
(London: Peter Dawnay in association with Tandem Books, 1967) is a
breathless scissors-and-paste job by the veteran German journalist (was
it the CIA who leaked a Gestapo [yes, Gestapo] memo to the Warren
Commission dated something like 1938 that said Joesten was an active
communist? Someone did).
For a full bibliography of Garrison-Shaw books and articles up to
1979 see pps188-97 of DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone's The Assassi-
nation of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibli-
ography, 1963-1979 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980): a
volume worth its weight in gold and one that badly needs up-dating.
Guth and Wrone also detail every relevant article in The New York Times
relating to the Garrison inquiry.
For more up-to-date accounts of Oswald and New Orleans see Anthony
Summers' Conspiracy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981) and John H. Davis'
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F.
Kennedy (New YorK: McGraw-Hill, 1989). Davis makes a valiant attempt to
stick the assassination on Marcello but his argument relies too heavily
on selective evidence and special pleading. Nevertheless a provocative
and useful book.
The published sources I relied upon for researching the biographi-
cal details of the UK contacts aside from any books mentioned within
each of the articles were those standard works of reference that sit so
heavily on the library shelves: Who's Who, Who Was Who, Burke's Peer-
age, and so on.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aside from those people mentioned or alluded to in the foregoing I
would also like to thank the following for their help with this
article: Timothy D'Arch-Smith, Allen Daviau, Stephen Dorril, Nick
Frewin, Mysha Frost, Robert Harbinson, Jim Houghan, Marthe Kurtyanek,
Angie Leigh, Michael Mordaunt-Smith, Charles Peltz, Robin Ramsay, and
Chris Rushman.
L'ENVOI
After finishing this article I was fanning through the pages of Kirk-
wood's American Grotesque when a name caught my eye which I must have
seen before without it registering. An intriguing name. It occurs on
p282 when Shaw's attorney, Irvin Dymond, is cross-examining Perry Russo
in an attempt to find out whether he, Russo, had ever discussed the
case with a Layton Martens who was then under indictment for perjury
for refusing to cooperate with Garrison's investigation. Layton Mar-
tens. The name rang a bell. I checked through Shaw's address book and
found the following:
Layton Martens
Box 544
U. S. L.
Lafayette, La.
Then I remembered a cross-examination much later in the book. It
comes on p407 when James Alcock, an Assistant District Attorney, has
Clay Shaw on the witness stand:
ALCOCK: Did you know a Mr. Layton Martens?
SHAW: Yes, sir, I did.
ALCOCK: Did you know he was [David] Ferrie's roommate?
SHAW: No, sir, I did not.
ALCOCK: Do you know a James Lewallen?
SHAW: Yes.
ALCOCK: Did you know he knew David Ferrie?
SHAW: I did not.
Lewallen is not in the address book. But then who else is not who
should be...?
***********************************************************************
--
Nick Frewin
Jim Hargrove
>Article as promised
>LATE-BREAKING NEWS ON CLAY SHAW'S UNITED KINGDOM CONTACTS
>By Anthony Frewin
Just a quick thank you to Nick Frewin for posting his father's story on Clay
Shaw in the UK. Can't wait to read it offline. Thanks again, Nick.
--Jim Hargrove
John Mcadams
lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
Ferrie knew each other.
Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
credible witnesses!
>
>: >
>: >This began as a reponse to Locke, but I added a bunch of new info at the
>: >end - so bear with this...
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >As for the perjury charge -
>: >
>: >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
>: >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
>: >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
>: >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
>: >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
>: >
>
>: Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
>: different things.
>
>: And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
>: his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
>
>
>I have. He had covert security for the operation QK ENCHANT. QK ACTIVE
>was a program involved with placing people undercover in the Soviet
>Union. The mind boggles with how QK ENCHANT was related.
IOW, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT QK ENCHANT WAS!
Apparently, it was the CIA's program of getting shipping statistics from
various American ports.
>This guy was an
>operative, not just an asset, McAdams. Sorry - I can't show you the
>employee list during those years - it's not exactly published.
>
>Civilians with covert security clearance most of us would call "agents".
>If you don't that's your peragotive. But I think it is most apt, in this
>case.
>
>Prove otherwise!
>
This is Bruce logic!
"I say it's true. I don't need evidence. You prove it's untrue!"
>
>: >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
>: >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
>: >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
>: >
>
>
>: The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
>: people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
>: mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
>
>He didn't use affadavits from people he couldn't GET, McAdams. Most of
>these people were spirited away with the help of Walter Sheridan. Heck -
>Sandra Moffet was sent to Iowa, I think - one of the only states to have
>no extradition agreements at all.
>
Given the trouble people got into if they failed to give Garrison the
testimony he wanted, anybody in his right mind would get out of Louisiana
with that man running amock.
>And if they were so harmless, why did you delete them? :)
>
For bankwidth.
>Here's a rerun, for those with an honest curiousity!
>
>To people who say Shaw never committed perjury...
>
>
>1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
>
>Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
>case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
>Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
>his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
Shaw passed along to the CIA statistics regarding shipping through the
port of New Orleans, as apparently did his cohort running the SF Trade Mart.
>
>2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie.
>
>What a joke! So many people in New Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's
>own secretary said these two knew each other. How about a couple of
>affidavits presented to Garrison?
>
>Statement of Mrs. June A. Rolfe in the Office of the District Attorney on
>Thursday, March, 1969, released by the JFK act Feb 7, 1992:
>
>In the early 60's, I will have to check some rent receipts for the dates
>on this, I saw Clay Shaw in a light-colored Thuderbird with the top down
>in the Frenc h Quarter in New Orleans. There were two young men in the
>front seat, Shaw was in the middle and had an arm around each of them. A
>man that looked exactly like David Ferrie sat in the back seat. The
>reason I remember his is because of his kooky hair color. It looked
>almost like it had been powdered in color -- looked like a make-up job.
>
>Signed: Mrs. June A. Rolfe
>
Why didn't the Garrison people put Mrs. Rolfe on the stand to say this?
She (and her husband) were certainly in town!
Why are you using the witnesses that Garrison *didn't* put on the stand?
Could it be that the ones he *did* were thoroughly discredited?
Again, why didn't the Garrison people use this?
They were willing to use Charles Speisel and Perry Raymond Russo!
This is obviously a third-hand rumor. Shaw's *real* secretary testified
for him at the trial. But you don't want to quote that. You prefer a
third-hand rumor that made its way to the FBI.
DiEngenio has already told you more than enough lies, Lisa.
.John
Lisa Pease
: >From: Ni...@beardo.demon.co.uk (Nick Frewin)
: >Article as promised
: >By Anthony Frewin
: --Jim Hargrove
:
I thanked Nick privately, but let me second this publically!! Good work
by all. Very interesting, and shows the shoddiness of the official
investigations not to pursue certain leads.
In the FBI's own files, they have a curious statement about knowing Clay
Shaw was Clay Bertrand from "several" sources, and then a page later they
say well MAYBE they can link Shaw to Bertrand and maybe they can't. Kind
of sounds like Andrews, come to think of it....
At any rate - John Rudd and you other UK'ers - anyone want to pursue more
of these leads?? :)
Lisa Pease
: In article <lpeaseCy...@netcom.com>
: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
: Ferrie knew each other.
: Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
: Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
: prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
Garrison wanted to make his case with people with entirely clean
backgrounds, and people not from the gay community. Naturally, that left
him few who could know the extent of Shaw's involvement, since most of
his doings happened with shady and/or gay people!
: Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
: Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
: children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
: Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
: drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
: whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
I will always think that Speisel was two things - telling the truth but a
plant nonetheless designed to discredit Garrison's investigaton.
Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
Does McAdams tell you this? NO.
Does McAdams tell you how Russo ASKED to be hypnotized in order to
remember more specifics of the event? No. Does McAdams tell you that
Russo's story is consistent over time? No. Does McAdams show you the
hypnosis text itself so you can see just how little he WAS led the first
time he came out with the entire assassination party story? Nope. But
then, what ARE you thinking, if you believe anything he says? :)
Most of us here have come to see him as a disinformationist. He has more
time and energy for putdowns than any real person I've ever encountered.
Personally I think this is his job. You may come to believe the same, if
you read enough here over time.
McAdams also lies directly by omission by saying Mrs. Jessie Parker was
"discredited by a hand writing expert" without telling you that both
sides hired their own expert, and the prosecution's expert found the hand
writing (Shaw's signature and Bertrand's signature on an Eastern Airlines
hospitality room guest book) to be indeed that of Shaw's, signing as
Bertrand. It was, no surprise, the hired gun of the defense that found
the signatures didn't match, but then we all know how 'experts' are
bought daily for trials. I'm sure we'll see some of that in the OJ
defense as well.
McAdams also neglects to tell you this woman had actually SEEN Shaw at
the airport, signing the register, and was of course puzzled why the man
she saw sign the sheet had the name of Clay Bertrand when to her the man
doing the signing was clearly Clay Shaw. In fact, she was a pretty damn
good witness - but notice how McAdams doesn't tell you that.
: And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
: credible witnesses!
Right. Garrison's most damning info came from people with shady
backgrounds or from the homosexual underground. Naturally, Garrison did
not want to have to try to make his case with THESE people.
Btw - the trial testimony goes on for 4000 pages. McAdams would have you
believe only a handful of people testifed against Shaw. Au Contraire. In
fact, some of the best witnesses were at the beginning - the Clinton
witnesses, who have unanimously placed Shaw in the black cadillac in
their neighborhood with Oswald and Ferrie late in 1963. Some of the best
witnesses too were the last - Mr. and Mrs. Tadin - citizens of New
Orleans who had met Clay Shaw as he came away from a plane with Dave
Ferrie, who was instructing their child, and who introduced them to his
"friend" Clay Shaw. The Tadin's were surprised to see Shaw in the company
of someone as extreme as Ferrie, but it left an indelible impression on them.
Why was Shaw acquitted? The jury told Mark Lane, when he interviewed them
afterwards, that, although they were convinced Garrison's side had proved
conspiracy, they were bothered by a lack of motive for Shaw to be engaged
in a conspiracy to kill the President. Lack of motive is not a
legal reuqirement to prove conspiracy, but it's just human nature to want
to try to assign a motive to an irrational act. Indeed - that is one of
the many reasons 80% of the people believe there was a conspiracy -
Oswald really never had a clear motive.
And too, during Shaw's trial Garrison was besieged by a press that,
wonder of wonders, was doubly function as intelligence informants,
telling the FBI the status of Garrison's case, passing them his files,
and CIA man Bill Boxley/William Wood stole a huge number of Garrison's
best affidavits and interview notes. Gurvich and Bethell, two working
ostensibly for Garrison, stole Garrison's case against Shaw and passed
files over to the defense. Gurvich was an early and loud defector,
claiming for example that Garrison wanted to raid the FBI with red pepper
guns (to make them sneeze, I suppose!) Gurvich wasn't very convincing to
anyone who knew Garrison. Even Rosemary James, who has more of an
adversarial than friendly relationship with Garrison, wrote off such
comments as typical Garrison humor - something both Posner and McAdams
here are incapable of doing. And Bethell claims to have TOLD Garrison he
stole his files, but that is disingenuous, as Bethell was basically
caught and confessed when the evidence was already against him.
Let's look at the press people Garrison was up against. Rosemary James
was the first to write a full story on Garrison's investigation, a sotry
that directly led to Ferrie's death as even she conceded in her book PLOT
OR POLITICS, written before the trial and not very complimentary to
Garrison, in 1967.
James Phelan, Saturday Evening Post writer, wrote the first really nasty
piece on Garrison's investigation, and was the first to make a brouhaha
out of the "Sciambra Memo" that didn't mention Shaw's presence at
Ferrie's and talk of the assassination. But we know now, from Sciambra's
notes, his trial testimony and even Phelan's trial testimony, that
Sciambra wrote two SEPERATE memos - one about the assassination party
part of Russo's story, one about everything else, and he even finished
the Party part FIRST, and finished the one Phelan wanted to make a big
deal of - the one never INTENDED to carry the info - second, after both
the sodium pentathol session where Russo confirmed that he had seen Shaw
at Ferrie's during the talk of the assassination, and even after the
first of two hypnosis sessions, where Russo gave a detailed account of
Shaw's planning with Ferrie the getaway after, the assassination, the
setup, etc. Phelan was exposed on the stand for having made a mountain
out of a molehill. And recently released files show why. Phelan was not
only a journalist, but working for the federal bureau of investigation -
passing them files from Garrison's office for the FBI to use to discredit
Garrison. Phelan passed the FBI, btw - only a portion of the text from
the SECOND HALF of the SECOND SESSION of hypnosis - the now-famous scene
with the white haired man talking on tv about the assassination. Phelan
most dishonestly never acknowledged the transcript of the first session
in which Russo clearly comes up with Shaw, the date, the place, the
participants, and the talk without leading.
If any of you haven't seen this yet, grab the files SciambraMemo1,
RussoHyp1 and RussoHyp2 for the testimony relating to Shaw and judge for
yourselves. A few people have really had their eyes opened by comparing
what was ACTUALLY said to how Phelan, Kirkwood, Posner, and now McAdams
have chosen to misrepresent the facts of this.
Another journalist vehemently anti-Garrison during the trial was Hugh
Aynesworth. In just another of those many COINCIDENCES (I think not) in
this case, Hugh Aynesworth was working for the Dallas Morning News - the
paper that mispublished the actual motorcade route to exclude the turn
onto Elm street, and the paper that also provided Ruby's alibi that
morning during Ruby sightings by witnesses elsewhere. Hugh Aynesworth
told the press that his magazine during the Shaw trial, Newsweek, was
"representing Shaw" in the trial. How's that for objective journalism?
But it's more than that - Aynesworth was also, like Phelan, informing to
the FBI and the Whitehouse, telling them the details of Garrison's case
in advance.
Then there is Walter Sheridan. Walter Sheridan was actively bribing
witnesses, and charged with such by Garrison after the trial. Sheridan
fled the state at that point and never did have to stand for the charges.
Sheridan had a loooong history in the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence),
NSA (National Security Agency - the most secretive of the intelligence
services at the time) and like Phelan and Aynesworth, the FBI. Sheridan
hired convicts to lie on TV about Garrison. Sheridan made much of strange
allegations against Garrison - like people on Garrison's staff shoving
a gun down a witness's throat - something the accuser later recanted in a
signed statement, but one which nevertheless Sheridan chose to exploit.
And then of course, there was Gordon Novel, electronic
surveillance/eavesdropping expert, who early on offered his services for
a short time in Garrison's office, than skipped town telling the press he
had "tapes" that "proved" Garrison's office was doing illegalities. Of
course, none of these "tapes" ever surfaced - but the allegations were
all that mattered in the ongoing smear campaign.
And btw - should these tapes somehow surface NOW, nearly 30 years later,
I will not believe that if they are real, they were not played ad
infinitum on the air by all of Garrison's foes.
Novel was also on the fringe of the conspiracy case Garrison was pursuing,
and Garrison ran into new government obstacles when he tried to get Novel
extradited. He had similar trouble attempting to extradite Eugene Bradley
and Sergio Arcacha Smith - all key witnesses to the conspiracy Garrison
was working to prove. And Sandra Moffat - one woman who could have
confirmed the party story Russo told as she was there up until just
before the talk of the assassination, moved first to Nebraska and then
fled to Iowa when Nebraska was about to extradite her. Iowa has no
extradition agreement with Louisiana.
McAdams and others would like you to think Garrison never had a case, and
that he browbeated the people he COULD get his hands on to try to make a
case. The facts are otherwise. But don't look to the press to tell THAT
story. Do your homework. Or don't, at your peril.
And btw - notice once again McAdams disinforms about who is talking
below. Locke is also in this thread.
: >: >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
: >: >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
: >: >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
: >: >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
: >: >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
: >: >
: >
: >: Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
: >: different things.
: >
: >: And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
: >: his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
: >
: >
: >I have. He had covert security for the operation QK ENCHANT. QK ACTIVE
: >was a program involved with placing people undercover in the Soviet
: >Union. The mind boggles with how QK ENCHANT was related.
: IOW, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT QK ENCHANT WAS!
Yes. Unlike you, I do not make up answers to that of which I am ignorant.
But that seems to be your special penchant. But be sure I WILL find out
what it was, and from a non-involved source. I wouldn't believe a thing
you or your CIA buddy on Compuserve Dolan would have to say about this.
Maybe someday one of the few honest people I believe still populate parts
of the CIA will come forward and make this clear for us.
: Apparently, it was the CIA's program of getting shipping statistics from
: various American ports.
Bullshit, McAdams! You don't get "covert security clearance" for
reporting statistics! Sheez how you underestimate the audience here! No
one is stupid enough to fall for THAT crap!
You are such a liar, McAdams - but then that's just your CIA training
showing up. Where did you get that - Ed Dolan - CIA liar on Compuserve? :)
I'm more interested in what John Newman would have to say - he seems far
more honest than you, and he is in a position to know. If you ARE in a
position to know (you are CIA), then I'd also assume you were in a
position to lie about it.
You would have done better to ignore this, because to do otherwise is
clearly to spout disinformation. And by your need to provide an answer
you only give weight to the significance of this. Thanks for being
stupid, and aiding my case.
: >This guy was an
: >operative, not just an asset, McAdams. Sorry - I can't show you the
: >employee list during those years - it's not exactly published.
: >
: >Civilians with covert security clearance most of us would call "agents".
: >If you don't that's your peragotive. But I think it is most apt, in this
: >case.
: >
: >Prove otherwise!
: >
: This is Bruce logic!
: "I say it's true. I don't need evidence. You prove it's untrue!"
in other words - he can't.
: >
: >: >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
: >: >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
: >: >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
: >: people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
: >: mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
: >
: >He didn't use affadavits from people he couldn't GET, McAdams. Most of
: >these people were spirited away with the help of Walter Sheridan. Heck -
: >Sandra Moffet was sent to Iowa, I think - one of the only states to have
: >no extradition agreements at all.
: >
: Given the trouble people got into if they failed to give Garrison the
: testimony he wanted, anybody in his right mind would get out of Louisiana
: with that man running amock.
People only got into trouble with Garrison when they lied. And a few of
them did, and were appropriately charged with perjury.
Oh but I forgot - you take that personally since you are a congenital liar.
: >And if they were so harmless, why did you delete them? :)
: >
: For bankwidth.
Bullshit again, McAdams - you don't have to pay for this service - you
post on taxpayers money from Marquette University. More's the pity.
: >Here's a rerun, for those with an honest curiousity!
: >
: >To people who say Shaw never committed perjury...
: >
: >
: >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
: >
: >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
: >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
: >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
: >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
: Shaw passed along to the CIA statistics regarding shipping through the
: port of New Orleans, as apparently did his cohort running the SF Trade Mart.
Covert security clearance for that, eh? Yeah - and if anyone believes
that - I still have that real estate deal.... :)
Sorry McAdams. You're going to have to do better than that. Actually,
you're going to have to let someone ELSE do better than that, as you have
zero credibility on anything relating to this case.
Look. It goes like this.
McAdams doesn't want us to believe the sun exists.
We all see a sun in the sky. But he tells us that's just a cornial
reaction - and Dr. Bob jumps in to give medical confirmation of such.
When enough doctors come forward to say, appropriately, this is hogwash,
the story changes. Okay - it's not a cornial reaction - it's an
atmospheric anomoly. It just LOOKS like a sun, but really it's a
conflusion of plasmoid gases colliding with our atmosphere blah blah
blah. No matter what the truth is, an alternate explanation will always
be found. Alternate, but not true.
So keep at it McAdams. You are at least a source of amusement - actually,
that should read "at most" a source of amusement.
: > : >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie.
: >
: >What a joke! So many people in New Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's
: >own secretary said these two knew each other. How about a couple of
: >affidavits presented to Garrison?
: >
: >Statement of Mrs. June A. Rolfe in the Office of the District Attorney on
: >Thursday, March, 1969, released by the JFK act Feb 7, 1992:
: >
: >In the early 60's, I will have to check some rent receipts for the dates
: >on this, I saw Clay Shaw in a light-colored Thuderbird with the top down
: >in the Frenc h Quarter in New Orleans. There were two young men in the
: >front seat, Shaw was in the middle and had an arm around each of them. A
: >man that looked exactly like David Ferrie sat in the back seat. The
: >reason I remember his is because of his kooky hair color. It looked
: >almost like it had been powdered in color -- looked like a make-up job.
: >
: >Signed: Mrs. June A. Rolfe
: >
: Why didn't the Garrison people put Mrs. Rolfe on the stand to say this?
: She (and her husband) were certainly in town!
Probably because she didn't dare testify. Many people told Garrison
they'd only talk to him on background, but didn't want to go up on the stand.
It takes a braver person than most to say "you helped kill the
president." If they can kill a president, how easy to kill a witness!
This was a genuine fear for many.
: >How about an FBI report?
: >
: >ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
: >JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY,
: >DALLAS,TEXAS, 11/22/63
: >
: >FBI Report - 3/21/67:
: >
: >Carroll S. Thomas, owner, Thomas Funeral Homes, Inc., 300 South Cherry
: >Street, Hammond, Louisiana, was interviewed in connection with another
: >investigative matter on March 15, 1967, and volunteered the following
: >information:
: >
: >Thomas advised that he was under the impression that he was being
: >contacted at the outset of the interview in connection with another
: >matter and related that he was a close personal friend of Clay Shaw.
: >Thomas stated that he also knew David Ferrie THROUGH SHAW [my emphasis].
: >He stated that Shaw had been at his home a few days before District
: >Attorney James Garrison had Shaw arrested and that in addition,
: >investigators of District Attorney Garrison had called him concerning
: >peole who were present at Shaw's father's wake which was held at his
: >funeral home.
: >
: >Thomas adivsed that he did not feel that Clay Shaw had been involved in a
: >plot to kill President Kennedy, based on his knowledge of him. Thomas
: >stated that Shaw HAD ALWAYS BEEN POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE, while Oswald
: >appeared to be "left wing" and he could not see these two individuals
: >becoming involved in any such plot.
: >
: >This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the
: >FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and
: >its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
: >
: >NO 89-69-1781
[ged]
: >-----
Nope. She was Shaw's former secretary. But lie away, McAdams. Maybe some
newbie will believe you for a few days. What a horrible way to live though.
Garrison couldn't FIND her. One of the disappearing/out of
state/unreachable many who could have helped him make his case.
: >----
: >
: >
: >
--
Lisa Pease
----------
"Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that - he said, "Who is in charge here?"
and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am."
You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law
enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have
to co-ordinate the operation according to directions."
- Dr. Pierre Finck, talking about the autopsy of JFK
in his sworn testimony in the Clay Shaw trial,
from the transcript.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp to my conspiracy file site at ftp.netcom.com. Login as "anonymous"
and whatever password you want. Type "cd pub/lpease" and then type
John Locke
> Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
> Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
> moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
> Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
> and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
More proof that Garrison was a weasel. He blames his underlings for
his own bad decisions. What Garrison knew is that he could make any
rationalization of his bad case because true believers like the
peaseanoid will accept any opportunity--no matter how transparently
lame--to believe him. Peaseanoid, Garrison's got you wrapped around
his dead little finger.
John McAdams
lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
>John Mcadams (jmca...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <lpeaseCy...@netcom.com>
>: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
>
>: In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
>: Ferrie knew each other.
>
>: Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
>: Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
>: prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
>
>Garrison wanted to make his case with people with entirely clean
>backgrounds, and people not from the gay community. Naturally, that left
>him few who could know the extent of Shaw's involvement, since most of
>his doings happened with shady and/or gay people!
>
And that's why he put drug addict Vernon Bundy on the stand!
>: Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
>: Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
>: children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
>: Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
>: drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
>: whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
>
>I will always think that Speisel was two things - telling the truth but a
>plant nonetheless designed to discredit Garrison's investigaton.
>
Interesting. Garrison puts a crazy man on the stand, and you can't
accept that Garrison was irresponsible. You think The Conspiracy must
have tricked him into doing this.
>Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
>Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
>moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
>Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
>and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
>
>Does McAdams tell you this? NO.
>
I don't know it to be true.
I'm certainly not going to take Garrison's word for it!
>Does McAdams tell you how Russo ASKED to be hypnotized in order to
>remember more specifics of the event? No. Does McAdams tell you that
>Russo's story is consistent over time? No. Does McAdams show you the
>hypnosis text itself so you can see just how little he WAS led the first
>time he came out with the entire assassination party story? Nope. But
>then, what ARE you thinking, if you believe anything he says? :)
>
Did Russo asked to be hypnotized? What's your source on that?
I'm aware that he didn't resist being hypnotized, I just want to know
what your source is.
>Most of us here have come to see him as a disinformationist. He has more
>time and energy for putdowns than any real person I've ever encountered.
>Personally I think this is his job. You may come to believe the same, if
>you read enough here over time.
>
Same old Lisa. Calls everybody who disagrees with her a
disinformationist.
>McAdams also lies directly by omission by saying Mrs. Jessie Parker was
>"discredited by a hand writing expert" without telling you that both
>sides hired their own expert, and the prosecution's expert found the hand
>writing (Shaw's signature and Bertrand's signature on an Eastern Airlines
>hospitality room guest book) to be indeed that of Shaw's, signing as
>Bertrand. It was, no surprise, the hired gun of the defense that found
>the signatures didn't match, but then we all know how 'experts' are
>bought daily for trials. I'm sure we'll see some of that in the OJ
>defense as well.
>
The prosecutions "expert" was a ditz. The defense clearly won on this
issue.
>McAdams also neglects to tell you this woman had actually SEEN Shaw at
>the airport, signing the register, and was of course puzzled why the man
>she saw sign the sheet had the name of Clay Bertrand when to her the man
>doing the signing was clearly Clay Shaw. In fact, she was a pretty damn
>good witness - but notice how McAdams doesn't tell you that.
>
If it wasn't really Shaw's signature, then it wasn't really Shaw.
Just ask yourself what the Garrison people would have you believe.
They would have you believe that Shaw (using the alias "Bertrand")
participated in the Kennedy assassination.
Dean Andrews brought the name "Clay Bertrand" to the attention of the
FBI and then the WC, and FBI agents were all over the French Quarter
trying to find "Bertrand."
But then Shaw just waltzed into the New Orleans airport in December
1966 and signed the register with a name that ties him to the Kennedy
assassination!
Do you really believe that, Lisa?
>: And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
>: credible witnesses!
>
>Right. Garrison's most damning info came from people with shady
>backgrounds or from the homosexual underground. Naturally, Garrison did
>not want to have to try to make his case with THESE people.
>
But he used Charles Speisel and Vernon Bundy!
>Btw - the trial testimony goes on for 4000 pages. McAdams would have you
>believe only a handful of people testifed against Shaw. Au Contraire. In
>fact, some of the best witnesses were at the beginning - the Clinton
>witnesses, who have unanimously placed Shaw in the black cadillac in
>their neighborhood with Oswald and Ferrie late in 1963. Some of the best
>witnesses too were the last - Mr. and Mrs. Tadin - citizens of New
>Orleans who had met Clay Shaw as he came away from a plane with Dave
>Ferrie, who was instructing their child, and who introduced them to his
>"friend" Clay Shaw. The Tadin's were surprised to see Shaw in the company
>of someone as extreme as Ferrie, but it left an indelible impression on them.
>
>Why was Shaw acquitted? The jury told Mark Lane, when he interviewed them
>afterwards, that, although they were convinced Garrison's side had proved
>conspiracy, they were bothered by a lack of motive for Shaw to be engaged
>in a conspiracy to kill the President. Lack of motive is not a
>legal reuqirement to prove conspiracy, but it's just human nature to want
>to try to assign a motive to an irrational act. Indeed - that is one of
>the many reasons 80% of the people believe there was a conspiracy -
>Oswald really never had a clear motive.
>
Interesting to compare what Lane says the jury told him with what
Kirkwood was told when *he* talked to the jury members.
It wasn't just a "lack of motive." It was the lack of a case!
>And too, during Shaw's trial Garrison was besieged by a press that,
>wonder of wonders, was doubly function as intelligence informants,
You have presented no evidence that anybody joined the Garrison
investigation as an agent or informant.
It's clear that many people defected from the investigation when they
discovered what a sham it was.
That's a story that Sciambra later concocted to cover his ass.
>the sodium pentathol session where Russo confirmed that he had seen Shaw
>at Ferrie's during the talk of the assassination, and even after the
Had seen Shaw at Ferrie's with *Ferrie* and *not* Shaw talking about
the assassination.
It took hypnosis to get Russo's story around to the point of
implicating Shaw.
>first of two hypnosis sessions, where Russo gave a detailed account of
>Shaw's planning with Ferrie the getaway after, the assassination, the
>setup, etc. Phelan was exposed on the stand for having made a mountain
>out of a molehill.
Plelan was explosed as not having believe Sciambra's silly lie.
>And recently released files show why. Phelan was not
>only a journalist, but working for the federal bureau of investigation -
>passing them files from Garrison's office for the FBI to use to discredit
>Garrison.
Plelan passed this material along to *everybody* who wanted a copy,
including the FBI.
Saying he was "working for the FBI" is simply a lie.
>Phelan passed the FBI, btw - only a portion of the text from
>the SECOND HALF of the SECOND SESSION of hypnosis - the now-famous scene
>with the white haired man talking on tv about the assassination. Phelan
>most dishonestly never acknowledged the transcript of the first session
>in which Russo clearly comes up with Shaw, the date, the place, the
>participants, and the talk without leading.
>
Kindly prove this!
My impression is that the passed the entire transcript along to
everybody. If that's not true, then post a citation showing it isn't!
>If any of you haven't seen this yet, grab the files SciambraMemo1,
>RussoHyp1 and RussoHyp2 for the testimony relating to Shaw and judge for
>yourselves. A few people have really had their eyes opened by comparing
>what was ACTUALLY said to how Phelan, Kirkwood, Posner, and now McAdams
>have chosen to misrepresent the facts of this.
>
>Another journalist vehemently anti-Garrison during the trial was Hugh
>Aynesworth. In just another of those many COINCIDENCES (I think not) in
>this case, Hugh Aynesworth was working for the Dallas Morning News - the
>paper that mispublished the actual motorcade route to exclude the turn
>onto Elm street,
My God, the whole paper was a nest of assassins!
>and the paper that also provided Ruby's alibi that
>morning during Ruby sightings by witnesses elsewhere.
Yea, a vertible *nest* of assassins!
>Hugh Aynesworth
>told the press that his magazine during the Shaw trial, Newsweek, was
>"representing Shaw" in the trial. How's that for objective journalism?
>But it's more than that - Aynesworth was also, like Phelan, informing to
>the FBI and the Whitehouse, telling them the details of Garrison's case
>in advance.
>
They were telling people in Washington that Garrison had no case.
Which was true.
>Then there is Walter Sheridan. Walter Sheridan was actively bribing
>witnesses, and charged with such by Garrison after the trial. Sheridan
>fled the state at that point and never did have to stand for the charges.
>Sheridan had a loooong history in the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence),
>NSA (National Security Agency - the most secretive of the intelligence
>services at the time) and like Phelan and Aynesworth, the FBI. Sheridan
>hired convicts to lie on TV about Garrison. Sheridan made much of strange
>allegations against Garrison - like people on Garrison's staff shoving
>a gun down a witness's throat - something the accuser later recanted in a
>signed statement, but one which nevertheless Sheridan chose to exploit.
>
You've never proved any of your reckless charges against Sheridan.
If you have evidence, *post it.*
>And then of course, there was Gordon Novel, electronic
>surveillance/eavesdropping expert, who early on offered his services for
>a short time in Garrison's office, than skipped town telling the press he
>had "tapes" that "proved" Garrison's office was doing illegalities. Of
>course, none of these "tapes" ever surfaced - but the allegations were
>all that mattered in the ongoing smear campaign.
>
That a flake like Novel suckered Garrison says a lot about Garrison.
>And btw - should these tapes somehow surface NOW, nearly 30 years later,
>I will not believe that if they are real, they were not played ad
>infinitum on the air by all of Garrison's foes.
>
>Novel was also on the fringe of the conspiracy case Garrison was pursuing,
>and Garrison ran into new government obstacles when he tried to get Novel
>extradited. He had similar trouble attempting to extradite Eugene Bradley
>and Sergio Arcacha Smith - all key witnesses to the conspiracy Garrison
>was working to prove. And Sandra Moffat - one woman who could have
>confirmed the party story Russo told as she was there up until just
>before the talk of the assassination, moved first to Nebraska and then
>fled to Iowa when Nebraska was about to extradite her. Iowa has no
>extradition agreement with Louisiana.
>
>McAdams and others would like you to think Garrison never had a case, and
>that he browbeated the people he COULD get his hands on to try to make a
>case. The facts are otherwise. But don't look to the press to tell THAT
>story. Do your homework. Or don't, at your peril.
>
>
Look at how Garrison pressured Dean Andrews to identify Shaw as
"Bertrand."
>And btw - notice once again McAdams disinforms about who is talking
>below. Locke is also in this thread.
>: >: >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
>: >: >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
>: >: >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
>: >: >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
>: >: >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
>: >: >
>: >
>: >: Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
>: >: different things.
>: >
>: >: And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
>: >: his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
>: >
>: >
>: >I have. He had covert security for the operation QK ENCHANT. QK ACTIVE
>: >was a program involved with placing people undercover in the Soviet
>: >Union. The mind boggles with how QK ENCHANT was related.
>
>: IOW, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT QK ENCHANT WAS!
>
>
>Yes. Unlike you, I do not make up answers to that of which I am ignorant.
>But that seems to be your special penchant. But be sure I WILL find out
>what it was, and from a non-involved source. I wouldn't believe a thing
>you or your CIA buddy on Compuserve Dolan would have to say about this.
>Maybe someday one of the few honest people I believe still populate parts
>of the CIA will come forward and make this clear for us.
>
>
IOW, you're not going to believe anything that runs counter to your
biases.
>: Apparently, it was the CIA's program of getting shipping statistics from
>: various American ports.
>
>
>Bullshit, McAdams! You don't get "covert security clearance" for
>reporting statistics! Sheez how you underestimate the audience here! No
>one is stupid enough to fall for THAT crap!
>
You're not intelligent enough to know the truth when you see it.
>You are such a liar, McAdams - but then that's just your CIA training
>showing up. Where did you get that - Ed Dolan - CIA liar on Compuserve? :)
>
Lisa goes ballistic. Par for her.
>I'm more interested in what John Newman would have to say - he seems far
>more honest than you, and he is in a position to know. If you ARE in a
>position to know (you are CIA), then I'd also assume you were in a
>position to lie about it.
>
>You would have done better to ignore this, because to do otherwise is
>clearly to spout disinformation. And by your need to provide an answer
>you only give weight to the significance of this. Thanks for being
>stupid, and aiding my case.
>
>
Thinks for being the stupid bitch you usually are!
>: >This guy was an
>: >operative, not just an asset, McAdams. Sorry - I can't show you the
>: >employee list during those years - it's not exactly published.
>: >
>: >Civilians with covert security clearance most of us would call "agents".
>: >If you don't that's your peragotive. But I think it is most apt, in this
>: >case.
>: >
>: >Prove otherwise!
>: >
>
>
>: This is Bruce logic!
>
>: "I say it's true. I don't need evidence. You prove it's untrue!"
>
>in other words - he can't.
>
>
You've just admitted that one cannot *in principle* prove that
somebody wasn't an agent.
An internal CIA memo, written to discuss possible CIA reaction to the
Garrison investigation, says that Shaw was no agent, but merely gave
information to the Domestic Contacts Division.
Of course, you don't want to believe it.
>: >
>: >: >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
>: >: >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
>: >: >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
>: >: >
>: >
>: >
>: >: The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
>: >: people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
>: >: mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
>: >
>: >He didn't use affadavits from people he couldn't GET, McAdams. Most of
>: >these people were spirited away with the help of Walter Sheridan. Heck -
>: >Sandra Moffet was sent to Iowa, I think - one of the only states to have
>: >no extradition agreements at all.
>: >
>
>: Given the trouble people got into if they failed to give Garrison the
>: testimony he wanted, anybody in his right mind would get out of Louisiana
>: with that man running amock.
>
>People only got into trouble with Garrison when they lied. And a few of
>them did, and were appropriately charged with perjury.
>
>Oh but I forgot - you take that personally since you are a congenital liar.
>
Typical Lisa!
She can't help herself. She is out of control.
.John
John Mcadams
>> >
>> >This began as a reponse to Locke, but I added a bunch of new info at the
>> >end - so bear with this...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >As for the perjury charge -
>> >
>> >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
>> >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
>> >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
>> >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
>> >
>>
>> Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
>> different things.
>>
>> And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
>> his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
>> >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
>> >
>>
>>
>> The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
>> people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
>> mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
>>
>> Speisel.
>>
>> Why didn't any of *this* stuff pass muster?
>>
>> .John
>
>It did. The problem was that there was no hard evidence proving that Shaw
>paricipated in the conspiracy - even if the jury accepted the Russo
>testimony. IOW, they couldn't prove that Shaw took any actions.
>
Please pay attention.
Lisa is posting stuff that Garrison *didn't* introduce.
The stuff he introduced wasn't very convincing. Why is the stuff that
didn't pass muster supposed to be any better?
>OTOH, there is little doubt that Shaw, Ferrie, and LHO were connected -
>the Clinton witnesses established that.
No, they didn't.
You really ought to read Posner, who compares the Clinton witnesses
*original* statements with what they said in court.
Perry Raymond Russo wasn't the only witness who had his testimony
"improve" over time.
>Also, we know that Shaw did
>repeatedly perjure himself in court.
>
Kindly post some evidence of that.
>To assume that the results of the Shaw trial indicated there was no
>conspiracy is a bit like thinking that the only crime Al Capone ever did
>was tax evasion.
>
The results of the Shaw trial tell us a lot of about what happens when
ordinary citizens (and not conspiracy buffs) get to look at the evidence
against Shaw.
.John
Michael Kelly
: In article <rharris-0511...@rharris.rt66.com>
: Please pay attention.
: No, they didn't.
If you have that much confidence in the citizenry, then open up
his 201 file and let the "ordinary citizens get to look at the
evidence against Shaw."
Mike
: .John
Lisa Pease
: In article <lpeaseCz...@netcom.com>,
: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: >John Mcadams (jmca...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In article <lpeaseCy...@netcom.com>
: >: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: >
: >: In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
: >: Ferrie knew each other.
: >
: >: Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
: >: Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
: >: prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
: >
: >Garrison wanted to make his case with people with entirely clean
: >backgrounds, and people not from the gay community. Naturally, that left
: >him few who could know the extent of Shaw's involvement, since most of
: >his doings happened with shady and/or gay people!
: >
: And that's why he put drug addict Vernon Bundy on the stand!
Calling Bundy a "drug addict" is not accurate - but more on that in a
separate post. Someone's been doing some good research on Bundy and I'll
post it here when I get permission.
: >: Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
: >: Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
: >: children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
: >: Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
: >: drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
: >: whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
: >
: >I will always think that Speisel was two things - telling the truth but a
: >plant nonetheless designed to discredit Garrison's investigaton.
: >
: Interesting. Garrison puts a crazy man on the stand, and you can't
: accept that Garrison was irresponsible. You think The Conspiracy must
: have tricked him into doing this.
You can't accept that Garrison was NOT the one to put him on the stand -
Alcock was, over Garrison's voiced objection.
And don't you think it's a tad suspicious that Speisel's father was FBI?
I do. I think there's less than coincidence at work there... Planning on
doing a little research there....
: >Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
: >Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
: >moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
: >Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
: >and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
: >
: >Does McAdams tell you this? NO.
: >
: I don't know it to be true.
: I'm certainly not going to take Garrison's word for it!
You could take the word of the others in Garrison's office as well. But
you won't. You can't - won't fit your smear case will it?
: >Does McAdams tell you how Russo ASKED to be hypnotized in order to
: >remember more specifics of the event? No. Does McAdams tell you that
: >Russo's story is consistent over time? No. Does McAdams show you the
: >hypnosis text itself so you can see just how little he WAS led the first
: >time he came out with the entire assassination party story? Nope. But
: >then, what ARE you thinking, if you believe anything he says? :)
: >
: Did Russo asked to be hypnotized? What's your source on that?
Russo (still and on the stand), Sciambra, Dr. Fatter, Garrison - how many do
you want?
: I'm aware that he didn't resist being hypnotized, I just want to know
: what your source is.
If you're aware that he didn't resist, why do you continue to waste my
time by asking? Never mind - just answered my own question.
: >Most of us here have come to see him as a disinformationist. He has more
: >time and energy for putdowns than any real person I've ever encountered.
: >Personally I think this is his job. You may come to believe the same, if
: >you read enough here over time.
: >
: Same old Lisa. Calls everybody who disagrees with her a
: disinformationist.
You love to reduce things to a false sentence, don't you?
I don't call anyone who disagrees with ME a disinformationist. I do call
anyone who disagrees with on-the-record EVIDENCE a disinformationist.
Very simple.
: >McAdams also lies directly by omission by saying Mrs. Jessie Parker was
: >"discredited by a hand writing expert" without telling you that both
: >sides hired their own expert, and the prosecution's expert found the hand
: >writing (Shaw's signature and Bertrand's signature on an Eastern Airlines
: >hospitality room guest book) to be indeed that of Shaw's, signing as
: >Bertrand. It was, no surprise, the hired gun of the defense that found
: >the signatures didn't match, but then we all know how 'experts' are
: >bought daily for trials. I'm sure we'll see some of that in the OJ
: >defense as well.
: >
: The prosecutions "expert" was a ditz. The defense clearly won on this
: issue.
Not true! She used binoculars to examine the minute details, in much the
same way a scientist would use a microscope.
The defense won because they were up last. Had the situation been
reversed I've no doubt the opposite would be true. All you ever have to
do in a trial is not disprove the other person, just call anything about
them into question and poof - out the window. Now that has nothing to do
with truth, sadly, and is one of the great failings of our legal system.
It's not about the truth, it's about winners and losers, with truth being
the biggest loser of all.
It's all about perception management, I think that's what the CIA calls
it - and I'll talk more on that later in the week.
: >McAdams also neglects to tell you this woman had actually SEEN Shaw at
: >the airport, signing the register, and was of course puzzled why the man
: >she saw sign the sheet had the name of Clay Bertrand when to her the man
: >doing the signing was clearly Clay Shaw. In fact, she was a pretty damn
: >good witness - but notice how McAdams doesn't tell you that.
: >
: If it wasn't really Shaw's signature, then it wasn't really Shaw.
I believe it WAS Shaw's signature, because of the eye witness who SAW him
sign it. I can sign my name so no expert would say I had signed it - does
that mean I didn't sign it? How ridiculous!! :)
: Just ask yourself what the Garrison people would have you believe.
: They would have you believe that Shaw (using the alias "Bertrand")
: participated in the Kennedy assassination.
: Dean Andrews brought the name "Clay Bertrand" to the attention of the
: FBI and then the WC, and FBI agents were all over the French Quarter
: trying to find "Bertrand."
Yep. I have Dean Andrews original pre-intimidation statement on the
Bertrand call in my FTP site, too, for any interested! :)
: But then Shaw just waltzed into the New Orleans airport in December
: 1966 and signed the register with a name that ties him to the Kennedy
: assassination!
: Do you really believe that, Lisa?
Yep. It's called arrogance. The CIA is full of it. When did he sign the
aiport register, McAdams? This is key. Tell me. :)
If you don't know, that explains your comment.
: >: And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
: >: credible witnesses!
: >
: >Right. Garrison's most damning info came from people with shady
: >backgrounds or from the homosexual underground. Naturally, Garrison did
: >not want to have to try to make his case with THESE people.
: >
: But he used Charles Speisel and Vernon Bundy!
Speisel was used against Garrison's wishes. Garrison told Alcock he found
his story just a bit too 'pat' - too suspicious. But Alcock was so
eager to have backup he decided to go with him. Vernon Bundy was
not the drug addict he's been pictured as, but again - more on that later.
Now, just for the sake of argument, how many upper class, credible people
do you think there WERE that would have had knowledge of Shaw's
underworld dealings?
The sad reality is that when someone commits a crime, they are usually
doing it in the presence of other criminals, prostitutes, low-lifes -
people who they don't need to hide their actions from because who's gonna
believe them anyway. This is why it's so hard to get to the white collar
criminals in ANY kind of underworld conspiracy.
: >Btw - the trial testimony goes on for 4000 pages. McAdams would have you
: >believe only a handful of people testifed against Shaw. Au Contraire. In
: >fact, some of the best witnesses were at the beginning - the Clinton
: >witnesses, who have unanimously placed Shaw in the black cadillac in
: >their neighborhood with Oswald and Ferrie late in 1963. Some of the best
: >witnesses too were the last - Mr. and Mrs. Tadin - citizens of New
: >Orleans who had met Clay Shaw as he came away from a plane with Dave
: >Ferrie, who was instructing their child, and who introduced them to his
: >"friend" Clay Shaw. The Tadin's were surprised to see Shaw in the company
: >of someone as extreme as Ferrie, but it left an indelible impression on them.
: >
: >Why was Shaw acquitted? The jury told Mark Lane, when he interviewed them
: >afterwards, that, although they were convinced Garrison's side had proved
: >conspiracy, they were bothered by a lack of motive for Shaw to be engaged
: >in a conspiracy to kill the President. Lack of motive is not a
: >legal reuqirement to prove conspiracy, but it's just human nature to want
: >to try to assign a motive to an irrational act. Indeed - that is one of
: >the many reasons 80% of the people believe there was a conspiracy -
: >Oswald really never had a clear motive.
: >
: Interesting to compare what Lane says the jury told him with what
: Kirkwood was told when *he* talked to the jury members.
: It wasn't just a "lack of motive." It was the lack of a case!
Kirkwood did tell you that the jury was convinced of conspiracy. Kirkwood
did tell you even Judge Haggerty came to respect Garrison's case, and
didn't throw it out halfway through for a directed verdict, as he legally
could have done if he felt Garrison really hadn't brought a strong case.
And the jury did say the Clinton witnesses were most compelling. Too bad
they weren't the last witnesses maybe, instead of the first...
: >And too, during Shaw's trial Garrison was besieged by a press that,
: >wonder of wonders, was doubly function as intelligence informants,
: You have presented no evidence that anybody joined the Garrison
: investigation as an agent or informant.
The honest thing to say is you don't personally believe it. The dishonest
thing to say is there is 'no evidence'.
See what I typed below. Others already have.
: It's clear that many people defected from the investigation when they
: discovered what a sham it was.
Not one of Garrison's original staff defected. Not one. Even Rosemary
James, hardly a fan of Garrison's, found that compelling.
: >telling the FBI the status of Garrison's case, passing them his files,
Not only is there no evidence of that, not one person at the time made
that lie, McAdams. Now, almost thirty years later, you want to say he
made it up. Not true. No one contested that when he said it under oath in
the trial. And he was cross examined. No one challenged that.
: >the sodium pentathol session where Russo confirmed that he had seen Shaw
: >at Ferrie's during the talk of the assassination, and even after the
: >first of two hypnosis sessions, where Russo gave a detailed account of
: >Shaw's planning with Ferrie the getaway after, the assassination, the
: >setup, etc. Phelan was exposed on the stand for having made a mountain
: >out of a molehill.
: Plelan was explosed as not having believe Sciambra's silly lie.
Phelan was exposed as a liar - saying he didn't know Russo was egging him
on (on the stand) when he did (says his book), or saying he knew Russo WAS
egging him on (in his book) while perjuring himself on the stand (saying
he DIDN'T know.)
I find it entirely revealing that you choose to believe a quite easily
proveable liar, while not believing Russo who no one has ever proven to
be a liar. You can choose not to believe him - that's at least honest.
But you can't call him a liar because you have no proof at all.
: >And recently released files show why. Phelan was not
: >only a journalist, but working for the federal bureau of investigation -
: >passing them files from Garrison's office for the FBI to use to discredit
: >Garrison.
: Plelan passed this material along to *everybody* who wanted a copy,
: including the FBI.
: Saying he was "working for the FBI" is simply a lie.
Then why is his name redacted in all but one of the Airtels? Why do the
airtels say how important it was to protect his identity? He was an
intelligence asset - paid no doubt by Saturday Evening Post - but then,
that IS how it's done.
: >Phelan passed the FBI, btw - only a portion of the text from
: >the SECOND HALF of the SECOND SESSION of hypnosis - the now-famous scene
: >with the white haired man talking on tv about the assassination. Phelan
: >most dishonestly never acknowledged the transcript of the first session
: >in which Russo clearly comes up with Shaw, the date, the place, the
: >participants, and the talk without leading.
: >
: Kindly prove this!
Want a copy of the airtel, with a copy of Dr. Fatter's second session
attached? :)
FOIA it yourself.
: My impression is that the passed the entire transcript along to
: everybody. If that's not true, then post a citation showing it isn't!
They copied the two pieces he gave them - and it's easy to tell the two
hypnosis sessions apart because the second one is "Dr F" where Fatter
talks and the first is just "Q" for questioner.
I can't prove whether he gave them both and they only chose to copy the
one or not. It kind of makes my point either way - either they went along
with Phelan's misrepresentation because that's all they had (they meaning
the FBI) OR - they were as guilty as he was, KNOWING Russo had not been
led but allowing Phelan to continue to make this misrepresentation! :) So
take your pick - either way Phelan is guilty and a proven liar, and the
FBI is either willing to go with that without further investigation, or
is doing the same misrepresentation.
: >If any of you haven't seen this yet, grab the files SciambraMemo1,
: >RussoHyp1 and RussoHyp2 for the testimony relating to Shaw and judge for
: >yourselves. A few people have really had their eyes opened by comparing
: >what was ACTUALLY said to how Phelan, Kirkwood, Posner, and now McAdams
: >have chosen to misrepresent the facts of this.
: >
: >Another journalist vehemently anti-Garrison during the trial was Hugh
: >Aynesworth. In just another of those many COINCIDENCES (I think not) in
: >this case, Hugh Aynesworth was working for the Dallas Morning News - the
: >paper that mispublished the actual motorcade route to exclude the turn
: >onto Elm street,
: My God, the whole paper was a nest of assassins!
I've never called Aynesworth an assassin. If you do, you better be ready
to back that up!!
: >and the paper that also provided Ruby's alibi that
: >morning during Ruby sightings by witnesses elsewhere.
: Yea, a vertible *nest* of assassins!
Wait - are you saying Ruby was NOT an assassin? Hahahah THIS is rich! :)
Or maybe you are trying to implicate other reporters - seeing how
careless you are with the truth this would hardly surprise me. So McAdams
is a conspiracy believer after all!!! :)
: >Hugh Aynesworth
: >told the press that his magazine during the Shaw trial, Newsweek, was
: >"representing Shaw" in the trial. How's that for objective journalism?
: >But it's more than that - Aynesworth was also, like Phelan, informing to
: >the FBI and the Whitehouse, telling them the details of Garrison's case
: >in advance.
: >
: They were telling people in Washington that Garrison had no case.
: Which was true.
They were quoting from fake witnesses, bribed witnesses, tapes that
didn't exist, etc. I love how that's good enough for "truth" for you -
exposes you completely.
: >Then there is Walter Sheridan. Walter Sheridan was actively bribing
: >witnesses, and charged with such by Garrison after the trial. Sheridan
: >fled the state at that point and never did have to stand for the charges.
: >Sheridan had a loooong history in the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence),
: >NSA (National Security Agency - the most secretive of the intelligence
: >services at the time) and like Phelan and Aynesworth, the FBI. Sheridan
: >hired convicts to lie on TV about Garrison. Sheridan made much of strange
: >allegations against Garrison - like people on Garrison's staff shoving
: >a gun down a witness's throat - something the accuser later recanted in a
: >signed statement, but one which nevertheless Sheridan chose to exploit.
: >
: You've never proved any of your reckless charges against Sheridan.
: If you have evidence, *post it.*
I have, over and over. You just ignore it - but then, that's what you're
paid to do.
It's your turn, McAdams. If you have any evidence that Sheridan was a
humble servant of the American people, *post it.*
: >And then of course, there was Gordon Novel, electronic
: >surveillance/eavesdropping expert, who early on offered his services for
: >a short time in Garrison's office, than skipped town telling the press he
: >had "tapes" that "proved" Garrison's office was doing illegalities. Of
: >course, none of these "tapes" ever surfaced - but the allegations were
: >all that mattered in the ongoing smear campaign.
: >
: That a flake like Novel suckered Garrison says a lot about Garrison.
Are you calling Novel a flake, McAdams? I hear he has a penchant for
death threats.... Hear that Gordon? McAdams just called you a flake! :)
Garrison was too nice a person to believe there was so much evil in the
world. Took him a few hard knocks to realize just how far this thing
went. He had no idea the top levels of the CIA were involved when he
first started, and was careless in a way he would live to regret. Like
many of us, I think he honestly thought people had just missed the
evidence of conspiracy through ineptness, not through conscious dismissal
of such. When he saw what was happening to him, it quickly became clear.
And the mob did not have the power to control the press the way the CIA
did - he didn't need it spelled out for him. He was, after all, a very
bright man.
: >And btw - should these tapes somehow surface NOW, nearly 30 years later,
: >I will not believe that if they are real, they were not played ad
: >infinitum on the air by all of Garrison's foes.
: >
: >Novel was also on the fringe of the conspiracy case Garrison was pursuing,
: >and Garrison ran into new government obstacles when he tried to get Novel
: >extradited. He had similar trouble attempting to extradite Eugene Bradley
: >and Sergio Arcacha Smith - all key witnesses to the conspiracy Garrison
: >was working to prove. And Sandra Moffat - one woman who could have
: >confirmed the party story Russo told as she was there up until just
: >before the talk of the assassination, moved first to Nebraska and then
: >fled to Iowa when Nebraska was about to extradite her. Iowa has no
: >extradition agreement with Louisiana.
: >
: >McAdams and others would like you to think Garrison never had a case, and
: >that he browbeated the people he COULD get his hands on to try to make a
: >case. The facts are otherwise. But don't look to the press to tell THAT
: >story. Do your homework. Or don't, at your peril.
: >
: >
: Look at how Garrison pressured Dean Andrews to identify Shaw as
: "Bertrand."
Look how Dean Andrews made up bunches of people and never could identify
him as anyone BUT Bertrand!! He originally described him as a tall (over
6') homosexual who sent him homosexual kids in trouble. And as Posner
said (but didn't do), early testimony is better than later. He had a
motive to protect Shaw. He had a motive to make it anyone other than
Shaw, and tried to point it at Eugene Davis who was as surprised and
upset as anyone. It was a standing joke in the quarter too, because so
many knew Shaw WAS Bertrand, and that Garrison was having a hard time
proving it.
: >And btw - notice once again McAdams disinforms about who is talking
: >below. Locke is also in this thread.
: >: >: >1. Shaw said he NEVER did work for the CIA.
: >: >: >Helms tells us (as do his myriad Contact reports) that this is not the
: >: >: >case. And now we know from the recently released files that Shaw had
: >: >: >Covert Security clearance for QK ENCHANT - an operation involving also
: >: >: >his alibi for the day of the assassination - the head of the SF Trade Mart.
: >: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: Working *for* the CIA and passing along information *to* the CIA are
: >: >: different things.
: >: >
: >: >: And passing along information is all he did. If you have evidence of
: >: >: his doing any more for the CIA, please post it.
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >I have. He had covert security for the operation QK ENCHANT. QK ACTIVE
: >: >was a program involved with placing people undercover in the Soviet
: >: >Union. The mind boggles with how QK ENCHANT was related.
: >
: >: IOW, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT QK ENCHANT WAS!
: >
: >
: >Yes. Unlike you, I do not make up answers to that of which I am ignorant.
: >But that seems to be your special penchant. But be sure I WILL find out
: >what it was, and from a non-involved source. I wouldn't believe a thing
: >you or your CIA buddy on Compuserve Dolan would have to say about this.
: >Maybe someday one of the few honest people I believe still populate parts
: >of the CIA will come forward and make this clear for us.
: >
: >
: IOW, you're not going to believe anything that runs counter to your
: biases.
LOL! I wouldn't believe you if you were the last man on earth!!
In fact, as soon as you say something, I can nearly be CERTAIN it is not
true, such is your credibilty here.
Source. McAdams. What is your source?
: >: Apparently, it was the CIA's program of getting shipping statistics from
: >: various American ports.
: >
: >
: >Bullshit, McAdams! You don't get "covert security clearance" for
: >reporting statistics! Sheez how you underestimate the audience here! No
: >one is stupid enough to fall for THAT crap!
: >
: You're not intelligent enough to know the truth when you see it.
hahahaha! Still no source, no backup - nothing but ad hominems, showing
the world you know nothing about this!! :)
: >You are such a liar, McAdams - but then that's just your CIA training
: >showing up. Where did you get that - Ed Dolan - CIA liar on Compuserve? :)
: >
: Lisa goes ballistic. Par for her.
I'm calling you a liar because you are. You make up things right and left
and try to make them pass for truth. Not gonna happen.
: >I'm more interested in what John Newman would have to say - he seems far
: >more honest than you, and he is in a position to know. If you ARE in a
: >position to know (you are CIA), then I'd also assume you were in a
: >position to lie about it.
: >
: >You would have done better to ignore this, because to do otherwise is
: >clearly to spout disinformation. And by your need to provide an answer
: >you only give weight to the significance of this. Thanks for being
: >stupid, and aiding my case.
: >
: >
: Thinks for being the stupid bitch you usually are!
more attacks. Good. Still no information - no backup for his source about
QK ENCHANT. More proof he doesn't know and was caught red handed in a
bluff.
: >: >This guy was an
: >: >operative, not just an asset, McAdams. Sorry - I can't show you the
: >: >employee list during those years - it's not exactly published.
: >: >
: >: >Civilians with covert security clearance most of us would call "agents".
: >: >If you don't that's your peragotive. But I think it is most apt, in this
: >: >case.
: >: >
: >: >Prove otherwise!
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: This is Bruce logic!
: >
: >: "I say it's true. I don't need evidence. You prove it's untrue!"
: >
: >in other words - he can't.
: >
: >
: You've just admitted that one cannot *in principle* prove that
: somebody wasn't an agent.
Yep.
: An internal CIA memo, written to discuss possible CIA reaction to the
: Garrison investigation, says that Shaw was no agent, but merely gave
: information to the Domestic Contacts Division.
: Of course, you don't want to believe it.
Nope.
What. You don't think the CIA makes up cover stories in their own
interoffice memos? Sheez! Give me a break!
: >: >
: >: >: >2. Shaw says he never knew Ferrie. What a joke! So many people in New
: >: >: >Orleans, Clinton, Jackson and Shaw's own secretary said these two knew
: >: >: >each other. How about a couple of affidavits presented to Garrison?
: >: >: >
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: The problem with all these affidavits, Lisa, is that the Garrison
: >: >: people didn't see fit to use any of this at the trial. And they tried
: >: >: mightly to link Ferrie to Shaw.
: >: >
: >: >He didn't use affadavits from people he couldn't GET, McAdams. Most of
: >: >these people were spirited away with the help of Walter Sheridan. Heck -
: >: >Sandra Moffet was sent to Iowa, I think - one of the only states to have
: >: >no extradition agreements at all.
: >: >
: >
: >: Given the trouble people got into if they failed to give Garrison the
: >: testimony he wanted, anybody in his right mind would get out of Louisiana
: >: with that man running amock.
: >
: >People only got into trouble with Garrison when they lied. And a few of
: >them did, and were appropriately charged with perjury.
: >
: >Oh but I forgot - you take that personally since you are a congenital liar.
: >
: Typical Lisa!
: She can't help herself. She is out of control.
Wonderfully revealing to see his disinformation peal away from his walls
of lies when you go at them, reducing him to no more than ad hominems.
I take such attacks as a great compliment that I am indeed doing my job
well to be worthy of no less. :)
: .John
Lisa Pease
: In article <rharris-0511...@rharris.rt66.com>
: Please pay attention.
hahaha that old "pay attention" line again. Sheez, McAdams - take a
creativity course - this is getting quite boring.
: Lisa is posting stuff that Garrison *didn't* introduce.
Garrison threw in the hat when the judge wouldn't allow Habighorst to
prove that Shaw admitted his alias was Bertrand. He had more witnesses he
could call, but he could smell which way the wind was blowing and there
was no point in prolonging the inevitable. His case hinged on connecting
Bertrand and Shaw - something Habighorst was prevented from doing.
: The stuff he introduced wasn't very convincing. Why is the stuff that
: didn't pass muster supposed to be any better?
Keep you ground, Robert. Don't let our leading disinformationist
intimidate you. I'm serious - he's had training. But don't let it get to
you - take it as the compliment it is that he feels the need to work on you.
: >OTOH, there is little doubt that Shaw, Ferrie, and LHO were connected -
: >the Clinton witnesses established that.
: No, they didn't.
They did in spades.
: You really ought to read Posner, who compares the Clinton witnesses
: *original* statements with what they said in court.
And YOU should see the interviews on tape with these witnesses in the
video Rough Side of Midnight, a video I saw, in which more than just the
witnesses Garrison used said the same story - independently of each other.
And not ONE of them ever said it was Banister. One of them even knew
Banister and said it was definitely not him. Of the ones that expressed
an opinion on who it was, they all said Shaw. Bill Davy did a great piece
on this recently, and DiEugenio expanded on that for us at COPA, based
also on his recent trip to Clinton and Jackson.
: Perry Raymond Russo wasn't the only witness who had his
testimony : "improve" over time.
Have you ever been at a court case where witnesses had their testimony
deterioated over time? Of course it improved - they honed it down to the
most salient elements, rather than the rambling story he first told.
: >Also, we know that Shaw did
: >repeatedly perjure himself in court.
: >
: Kindly post some evidence of that.
I've posted it. You ignore it and then ask someone else to prove it.
He said he didn't know David Ferrie. Many people tell us this is an
outright lie.
He said he'd never worked for the CIA, when we know he filed many contact
reports and was given covert security clearance. How many people do you
know are given covert security clearance NOT to work with the CIA?
hahahahhaahhaaah!
: >To assume that the results of the Shaw trial indicated there was no
: >conspiracy is a bit like thinking that the only crime Al Capone ever did
: >was tax evasion.
: >
: The results of the Shaw trial tell us a lot of about what happens when
: ordinary citizens (and not conspiracy buffs) get to look at the evidence
: against Shaw.
As presented under the duress and without all we know now.
John Locke
>
> Calling Bundy a "drug addict" is not accurate - but more on that in a
> separate post. Someone's been doing some good research on Bundy and I'll
> post it here when I get permission.
Ha ha! Another classic! Leave no turn unstoned. Poor Vernon, about to
be made immortal again.
John Mcadams
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca writes:
Yea, this is the fellow who believes that all of us here who think Clay
Shaw was innocent must be homosexual.
Certainly deserves a rerun!
>>Prove it. Can you cite one book on the espoinage cases that prove
>>Shaw's connection?
>>
>The only proof we need is the fact that Locke and company still pine
>for that big lovely man, Clay Shaw. Not only was he gay, he was into the same
>kinky S&M stuff that Locke is always verbally blushing about here.
>
John McAdams
rharris@rt66,com (Robert Harris) writes:
>>
>>
>> >OTOH, there is little doubt that Shaw, Ferrie, and LHO were connected -
>> >the Clinton witnesses established that.
>>
>> No, they didn't.
>>
>> You really ought to read Posner, who compares the Clinton witnesses
>> *original* statements with what they said in court.
>
>I did - cover to cover. Posner claimed that some witnesses, recalling back
>4 years, didn't remember the correct temperature. Therefore, he concluded
>that all of them were wrong. CC is full of demonstrable and obviously
>deliberate lies.
>
>The HSCA concluded that all the Clinton witnesses which included the town
>marshall and the registrar of voters were totally credible and honest.
>Even Kirkwood admitted that he couldn't shake their testimony. Two of them
>saw LHO's identification.
>
Posner talks about *much* more than the failure to remember the
correct temperature. But let's put this in context:
The second piece of evidence for an Oswald-Ferrie relationship is
the testimony of witnesses from Clinton, Louisiana. The witnesses
were found by Jim Garrison's investigators, in 1967, when they
interviewed more than three hundred people in Clinton and the
neighboring town of Jackson, some 20 percent of the local
population. From this enormous dragnet they produced six
witnesses.
Since Garrison's investigators uncovered the Clinton witnesses,
evidently no researcher has gained access to the witnesses'
original statements. . . . Their original statements reveal
substantial confusion, and only after extensive coaching by the
Garrison staff did the witnesses tell a cohesive and consistent
story. (CASE CLOSED, pp. 143-145).
For example:
1. McGehee said it was "kind of cool" when "Oswald" visited him.
This is inconsistent with the possibility of a visit in August or
September 1963, and raises the liklihood that it was somebody else
entirely.
2. Corey Colling said the car was a big, black, expensive-looking
car. Yet Edward McGehee described it as a old, dark-colored, beat-up
car, probably a Nash or Kaiser.
3. At the trial, all the witnesses identified Shaw as the driver of
the car. Yet in the original statements, Corey Collins said the
driver of the car wore a light hat that prevented him from seeing his
hair. John Manchester said the driver did not have a hat and his hair
was grey. Henry Clark said the man had no hat, and McGehee said a
young woman may have been the driver.
4. Witnesses were all over the place on *who* was in the car.
McGehee said that only Oswald and a young woman were in the car.
Andrew Dunn said there were four men and that one of them was Estes
Morgan, whom he knew personally. John Manchester said there were only
two men in the car, and Corey Collins also originally remembered only
two men. Henry Brunell Clark said there was only one man in the car.
At the trial, all the witnesses put three men in the car.
5. Several of the witnesses linked the "outsiders" in town with a
local resident, Estes Morgan in their original statements. By the
time of the trial, all references to Morgan had been dropped.
All this from CASE CLOSED, pp. 146-148.
What we have here is the pattern, familiar from the case of Russo, of
"improving" testimony under prodding and coaching from the DA's
office.
>>
>> Perry Raymond Russo wasn't the only witness who had his testimony
>> "improve" over time.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Also, we know that Shaw did
>> >repeatedly perjure himself in court.
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Kindly post some evidence of that.
>
>I just did. Shaw claimed he didn't know Ferrie or Oswald. The Clinton
>witnesses and others proved that he lied. If you look back a few
>paragraphs, Lisa talks about documents that prove he did work for the CIA.
>He lied about that too.
>
On the Clinton witnesses, see above.
BTW, you might just ask yourself what in the hell Shaw, Oswald, and
Ferrie would have been doing in Clinton, LA. If Shaw was really
plotting to kill Kennedy, what purpose was served by driving Oswald
out to a rural area and making a scene?
As for "working for the CIA": it really is frustrating dealing with
conspiratorialists who try to make arguments through *equivocation.*
Describe something *very carefully* and you can make it sound
sinister.
What the documents show is that Shaw gave information to the CIA's
Domestic Contacts Division.
Do you have any evidence that he did more than this? If so, post it.
Now tell us: what did he say at the trial? Did he ever deny any
*contact* with the CIA? Or did he deny ever working for the CIA?
You do understand these distinctions, don't you?
.John
John Mcadams
Yea. It's Bob E. again, claiming that people who don't view the Garrison
investigation the way he does are homosexuals.
I guess "disinformationist" isn't emotionally satisifying anymore, so we
have to come up with a more personal insult, don't we?
In article <1994Nov9.0...@blaze.trentu.ca>
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
>In article <1994Nov6.1...@blaze.trentu.ca>
>fe...@ivory.trentu.ca writes:
>
>Yea, this is the fellow who believes that all of us here who think Clay
>Shaw was innocent must be homosexual.
Oh, are you admitting to being involved with Locke and company. The "us"
useage puts you in there with them, voluntarily.
So tell us then how you feel about Shaw.
rharris@rt66
wrote:
> In article <rharris-1611...@rharris.rt66.com>,
> rharris@rt66,com (Robert Harris) writes:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >OTOH, there is little doubt that Shaw, Ferrie, and LHO were connected -
> >> >the Clinton witnesses established that.
> >>
> >> No, they didn't.
> >>
> >> You really ought to read Posner, who compares the Clinton witnesses
> >> *original* statements with what they said in court.
> >
> >I did - cover to cover. Posner claimed that some witnesses, recalling back
> >4 years, didn't remember the correct temperature. Therefore, he concluded
> >that all of them were wrong. CC is full of demonstrable and obviously
> >deliberate lies.
> >
> >The HSCA concluded that all the Clinton witnesses which included the town
> >marshall and the registrar of voters were totally credible and honest.
> >Even Kirkwood admitted that he couldn't shake their testimony. Two of them
> >saw LHO's identification.
> >
>
> Posner talks about *much* more than the failure to remember the
> correct temperature. But let's put this in context:
>
> The second piece of evidence for an Oswald-Ferrie relationship is
> the testimony of witnesses from Clinton, Louisiana. The witnesses
> were found by Jim Garrison's investigators, in 1967, when they
> interviewed more than three hundred people in Clinton and the
> neighboring town of Jackson, some 20 percent of the local
> population. From this enormous dragnet they produced six
> witnesses.
According to DiEugenio, there were many others, but they chose people such
as the town marshall, the registrar of voters, and the town barber who
were known to be reliable.
>
> Since Garrison's investigators uncovered the Clinton witnesses,
> evidently no researcher has gained access to the witnesses'
> original statements. . . . Their original statements reveal
> substantial confusion, and only after extensive coaching by the
> Garrison staff did the witnesses tell a cohesive and consistent
> story. (CASE CLOSED, pp. 143-145).
>
> For example:
>
> 1. McGehee said it was "kind of cool" when "Oswald" visited him.
> This is inconsistent with the possibility of a visit in August or
> September 1963, and raises the liklihood that it was somebody else
> entirely.
What - he thought it was kind of cool? Guess we can ignore those Marine
discharge papers with Oswald's name on them, huh? Either that, or
testifying 4 years later, maybe McGehee didn't remember the temperature
correctly.
>
> 2. Corey Colling said the car was a big, black, expensive-looking
> car. Yet Edward McGehee described it as a old, dark-colored, beat-up
> car, probably a Nash or Kaiser.
McGehee testified that he met LHO in his barber shop. I doubt if he got a
good look at the car, or who was inside. He probably thought LHO arrived
in a different car.
>
> 3. At the trial, all the witnesses identified Shaw as the driver of
> the car. Yet in the original statements, Corey Collins said the
> driver of the car wore a light hat that prevented him from seeing his
> hair. John Manchester said the driver did not have a hat and his hair
> was grey. Henry Clark said the man had no hat, and McGehee said a
> young woman may have been the driver.
John - who did you see with a hat on in 1990 (whom you had never seen
before)? What color was the hat - and the guy's hair? Did you see any cars
parked along the curb somewhere with people in it that you had never seen
before in that same year? Can you describe what color their hair was, and
if they were wearing hats?
>
> 4. Witnesses were all over the place on *who* was in the car.
> McGehee said that only Oswald and a young woman were in the car.
> Andrew Dunn said there were four men and that one of them was Estes
> Morgan, whom he knew personally. John Manchester said there were only
> two men in the car, and Corey Collins also originally remembered only
> two men. Henry Brunell Clark said there was only one man in the car.
The car was there for a long time - probably with people getting in and
out throughout the day. (also - see above).
>
> At the trial, all the witnesses put three men in the car.
>
> 5. Several of the witnesses linked the "outsiders" in town with a
> local resident, Estes Morgan in their original statements. By the
> time of the trial, all references to Morgan had been dropped.
>
> All this from CASE CLOSED, pp. 146-148.
Case Closed is full of lies and distortions. Posner's attempt to attack
witnesses who were found to be totally credible and honest by the HSCA
reflects his desperation to prove the unproveable. The small descrepancies
he talks about do not even come close to refuting the critical point which
is that Ferrie, Oswald and possible Shaw (I wouldn't deny the possibility
that Bannister was the white-haired guy) were there together.
>
> What we have here is the pattern, familiar from the case of Russo, of
> "improving" testimony under prodding and coaching from the DA's
> office.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Perry Raymond Russo wasn't the only witness who had his testimony
> >> "improve" over time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Also, we know that Shaw did
> >> >repeatedly perjure himself in court.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Kindly post some evidence of that.
> >
> >I just did. Shaw claimed he didn't know Ferrie or Oswald. The Clinton
> >witnesses and others proved that he lied. If you look back a few
> >paragraphs, Lisa talks about documents that prove he did work for the CIA.
> >He lied about that too.
> >
>
> On the Clinton witnesses, see above.
>
> BTW, you might just ask yourself what in the hell Shaw, Oswald, and
> Ferrie would have been doing in Clinton, LA. If Shaw was really
> plotting to kill Kennedy, what purpose was served by driving Oswald
> out to a rural area and making a scene?
Who knows? - they were certainly racists, though and it's hardly
surprising that they might have wanted to check up on the activities of
CORE.
>
> As for "working for the CIA": it really is frustrating dealing with
> conspiratorialists who try to make arguments through *equivocation.*
> Describe something *very carefully* and you can make it sound
> sinister.
>
> What the documents show is that Shaw gave information to the CIA's
> Domestic Contacts Division.
>
> Do you have any evidence that he did more than this? If so, post it.
John - you have never cited a piece of evidence to me about ANYTHING -
EVER! Despite my pleadings. Please stop sending me off on research
projects until you are willing to occasionally do the same.
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
I said proof, not POOF McAdams. But you chimed in anyway. So are you
coming out of the closet too?
Bob E.
In article <jmcadamsC...@netcom.com>, jmca...@netcom.com (John Mcadams) writes:
>
Cary Zeitlin
>Here's Enns again.
>
>Still insisting that anybody who doesn't like the Garrison investigation
>must be homosexual.
>
>After all, it was a "homosexual thrill killing."
>
Indeed, I found a picture of Fenns in the dictionary, right next
to the word "bigot." It wasn't pretty, either. :-)
Listen up, buffs -- how does it feel to have an out-and-out
homophobe like Fenns regurgitating his hatred, and knowing
he's on your side? Aren't you a tad embarrassed to be associated
with him? Does it remind you of the feeling you had when you found
out that that conspirati hero Prouty is closely associated with Holocaust
deniers? And why doesn't one of you find the backbone and integrity
to condemn his bile? You know damn well that if a LNer were spitting
out this kind of crap, you'd go ballistic.
******************************************************************************
Cary Zeitlin E-Mail to ZEI...@LBL.GOV
Standard Disclaimers Apply This Space Available
Lisa Pease
: In article <009879D2...@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu writes...
: >Here's Enns again.
: >
: >Still insisting that anybody who doesn't like the Garrison investigation
: >must be homosexual.
: >
: >After all, it was a "homosexual thrill killing."
you're quoting McAdams, but talking about Enns. What gives?
: Indeed, I found a picture of Fenns in the dictionary, right next
: to the word "bigot." It wasn't pretty, either. :-)
: Listen up, buffs -- how does it feel to have an out-and-out
: homophobe like Fenns regurgitating his hatred, and knowing
: he's on your side?
He's regurgitating hatred to those who would use children against their
will.
If that doesn't turn YOUR stomach, that says rather a lot about you, and
those who choose to support you.
What say you, Felix? Would you like to be a friend of someone who decries
someone else who decries child abuse?
: Aren't you a tad embarrassed to be associated
: with him?
No. He's obviously someone with great concern and respect for children,
and for truth, for that matter.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
I took issue on what I thought he was saying because I don't have any
hatred of gays, indeed some I've known longer than most of my non-gay
friends.
But I heartily agree that using children for pornography and sexual acts
is a lower crime even than lying about the truth in the Kennedy
assassination.
: Does it remind you of the feeling you had when you found
: out that that conspirati hero Prouty is closely associated with Holocaust
: deniers?
Notice how, without proof, Cary Zeitlin tries desperately to smear by
association.
Never mind that the Holocaust museum asked Prouty to speak at the opening
ceremonies. His reputation is beyond your pathetic attempts at reproach.
He's one of the few from inside with the wonderful bravery and
self-sacrifice to tell the truth even though it cost him. His integrity
was such that they had to send him to the South Pole to keep him away
from the scene for fear of what he might reveal.
My hat has been and will continue to be off to Col Prouty, and all others
who battle fascism in the name of 'national security' or whatever the
current cover story is.
fe...@ivory.trentu.ca
>Lisa Pease <lpe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Cary Zeitlin (zei...@csa2.lbl.gov) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: Indeed, I found a picture of Fenns in the dictionary, right next
>>: to the word "bigot." It wasn't pretty, either. :-)
Then I'm in two places in the dictionary. I can only find one
next to good citizenship. What dictionary do you use?
FENNS
>>
>>: Listen up, buffs -- how does it feel to have an out-and-out
>>: homophobe like Fenns regurgitating his hatred, and knowing
>>: he's on your side?
>>
>>He's regurgitating hatred to those who would use children against their
>>will.
>>
>>If that doesn't turn YOUR stomach, that says rather a lot about you, and
>>those who choose to support you.
>>
>>What say you, Felix? Would you like to be a friend of someone who decries
>>someone else who decries child abuse?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I haven't been following this too closely, but I'll say
>that I, like everyone else here, I'm sure, am quite
>against child abuse, and I wouldn't want as a friend
>anyone who did such.
>
>I'm not sure how this applies to Cary, though.
>
>Felix
John McAdams
When I repost an insulting message from one of the buffs, Mike Kelly
just can't resist adding some more insults and reposting it again!
Thanks Mike!
In article <3b1aj3$8...@tequesta.gate.net>,
mke...@gate.net (Michael Kelly) writes:
>John Mcadams (jmca...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Another Lisa Pease message larded with insults.
>
>: Rather average, I would say.
>
>: Lisa can't turn the insults off. She believes she has a *right* to
>: insult people who disagree with her.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And you .John persist in this idiocy of playing Sysop
>of this newsgroup when everyone has read your pledge
>to "make this newsgroup as useless as possible".
>
It's a pledge that requires the cooperation of the buffs, Mike. And
buffs like you have been *most* cooperative.
I appreciate that!
>The contempt you have for the citizens goes along with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the contempt you show for democracy generally, so I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>guess this exhibition of megalomania should be no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>surprise either.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Underline the stuff you don't like yourself,
>I'm busy! :)
>
Glad to, Mike!
Now please, add some more insults and repost this, will ya? I'll look
forward to it.
>
>: In article <lpeaseCz...@netcom.com>
>: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
>
>: >Most of us here have come to see him as a disinformationist. He has more
>: >time and energy for putdowns than any real person I've ever encountered.
>: >Personally I think this is his job. You may come to believe the same, if
>: >you read enough here over time.
>: >
>
>
>: >
>: >
>: >And btw - notice once again McAdams disinforms about who is talking
>: >below. Locke is also in this thread.
>
>
>
>: >
>: >Yes. Unlike you, I do not make up answers to that of which I am ignorant.
>: >But that seems to be your special penchant.
>
>
>: >
>: >
>: >Bullshit, McAdams! You don't get "covert security clearance" for
>: >reporting statistics! Sheez how you underestimate the audience here! No
>: >one is stupid enough to fall for THAT crap!
>: >
>: >You are such a liar, McAdams - but then that's just your CIA training
>: >showing up. Where did you get that - Ed Dolan - CIA liar on Compuserve? :)
>: >
>
>
>: >
>: >You would have done better to ignore this, because to do otherwise is
>: >clearly to spout disinformation. And by your need to provide an answer
>: >you only give weight to the significance of this. Thanks for being
>: >stupid, and aiding my case.
>: >
>: >
>
>
>
>: >
>: >People only got into trouble with Garrison when they lied. And a few of
>: >them did, and were appropriately charged with perjury.
>: >
>: >Oh but I forgot - you take that personally since you are a congenital liar.
>: >
>: >
>
>: >
>: >Bullshit again, McAdams - you don't have to pay for this service - you
>: >post on taxpayers money from Marquette University. More's the pity.
>: >
>: >
>
>
>: >
>: >Sorry McAdams. You're going to have to do better than that. Actually,
>: >you're going to have to let someone ELSE do better than that, as you have
>: >zero credibility on anything relating to this case.
>: >
>: >Look. It goes like this.
>: >
>: >McAdams doesn't want us to believe the sun exists.
>: >
>
>
>: >
>: >So keep at it McAdams. You are at least a source of amusement - actually,
>: >that should read "at most" a source of amusement.
>: >
>: >
>
>: >: >
>: >: >Oh tell me again how innocent Clay Shaw was. Tell me how he never pejured
>: >: >himself. Tell me of how he was persucted by Garrison. Tell me how
>: >: >Garrison's case was not obstructed by the FBI and the CIA channelling
>: >: >their efforts through Walther Sheridan.
>: >: >
>: >: >Tell me more lies.
>: >: >
>
>--
>
>Mike
>
>"To commit the perfect crime, you don't have to be intelligent,
> just in charge of the investigation that follows."
>
John Mcadams
lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
>: >: In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
>: >: Ferrie knew each other.
>: >
>: >: Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
>: >: Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
>: >: prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
>: >
>: >Garrison wanted to make his case with people with entirely clean
>: >backgrounds, and people not from the gay community. Naturally, that left
>: >him few who could know the extent of Shaw's involvement, since most of
>: >his doings happened with shady and/or gay people!
>: >
>
>: And that's why he put drug addict Vernon Bundy on the stand!
>
>
>Calling Bundy a "drug addict" is not accurate - but more on that in a
>separate post. Someone's been doing some good research on Bundy and I'll
>post it here when I get permission.
>
Lisa, Vernon Bundy's *testimony* was that he was out on the shore of Lake
Pontchartrain, shooting up with heroin, when he saw Shaw and Oswald together.
If *he* would admit he was a drug addict, and the prosecution admitted
that, why won't you?
>
>: >: Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
>: >: Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
>: >: children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
>: >: Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
>: >: drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
>: >: whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
>: >
>: >I will always think that Speisel was two things - telling the truth but a
>: >plant nonetheless designed to discredit Garrison's investigaton.
>: >
>
>
>: Interesting. Garrison puts a crazy man on the stand, and you can't
>: accept that Garrison was irresponsible. You think The Conspiracy must
>: have tricked him into doing this.
>
>
>You can't accept that Garrison was NOT the one to put him on the stand -
>Alcock was, over Garrison's voiced objection.
>
Let's see, Alcock was an *assistant* DA. And Garrison was the DA. So of
course, Garrison had to take orders from Alcock.
Do you have a source *other than* Garrison's own claim that he objected
to putting Speisel on the stand?
>And don't you think it's a tad suspicious that Speisel's father was FBI?
>I do. I think there's less than coincidence at work there... Planning on
>doing a little research there....
>
>
Speisel was an obvious loon long before he got involved with Garrison in
New Orleans.
Are you implying that he just *pretended* to be crazy?
>: >Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
>: >Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
>: >moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
>: >Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
>: >and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
>: >
>: >Does McAdams tell you this? NO.
>: >
>
>: I don't know it to be true.
>
>: I'm certainly not going to take Garrison's word for it!
>
>You could take the word of the others in Garrison's office as well. But
>you won't. You can't - won't fit your smear case will it?
>
Give me a citation WRT others in his office.
>
>: >Does McAdams tell you how Russo ASKED to be hypnotized in order to
>: >remember more specifics of the event? No. Does McAdams tell you that
>: >Russo's story is consistent over time? No. Does McAdams show you the
>: >hypnosis text itself so you can see just how little he WAS led the first
>: >time he came out with the entire assassination party story? Nope. But
>: >then, what ARE you thinking, if you believe anything he says? :)
>: >
>
>
>: Did Russo asked to be hypnotized? What's your source on that?
>
>Russo (still and on the stand), Sciambra, Dr. Fatter, Garrison - how many do
>you want?
>
How about posting a citation on this.
I can believe he might have (he was an *extremely* cooperative witness),
but the fact that he may have said this *after* being hypnotized doesn't
carry much weight. Neither would the testimony of Sciambra or Garrison.
>: I'm aware that he didn't resist being hypnotized, I just want to know
>: what your source is.
>
>If you're aware that he didn't resist, why do you continue to waste my
>time by asking? Never mind - just answered my own question.
>
>
If you actually have a source on this, it shouldn't be hard to post it.
>: >Most of us here have come to see him as a disinformationist. He has more
>: >time and energy for putdowns than any real person I've ever encountered.
>: >Personally I think this is his job. You may come to believe the same, if
>: >you read enough here over time.
>: >
>
>
>: Same old Lisa. Calls everybody who disagrees with her a
>: disinformationist.
>
>
>You love to reduce things to a false sentence, don't you?
>
>I don't call anyone who disagrees with ME a disinformationist. I do call
>anyone who disagrees with on-the-record EVIDENCE a disinformationist.
>Very simple.
>
And of course, the "on-the-record EVIDENCE" must be interpreted the way
Lisa Pease interprets it, else one is a "disinformationist."
>
>: >McAdams also lies directly by omission by saying Mrs. Jessie Parker was
>: >"discredited by a hand writing expert" without telling you that both
>: >sides hired their own expert, and the prosecution's expert found the hand
>: >writing (Shaw's signature and Bertrand's signature on an Eastern Airlines
>: >hospitality room guest book) to be indeed that of Shaw's, signing as
>: >Bertrand. It was, no surprise, the hired gun of the defense that found
>: >the signatures didn't match, but then we all know how 'experts' are
>: >bought daily for trials. I'm sure we'll see some of that in the OJ
>: >defense as well.
>: >
>
>: The prosecutions "expert" was a ditz. The defense clearly won on this
>: issue.
>
>Not true! She used binoculars to examine the minute details, in much the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>same way a scientist would use a microscope.
>
>The defense won because they were up last. Had the situation been
>reversed I've no doubt the opposite would be true. All you ever have to
>do in a trial is not disprove the other person, just call anything about
>them into question and poof - out the window. Now that has nothing to do
>with truth, sadly, and is one of the great failings of our legal system.
>It's not about the truth, it's about winners and losers, with truth being
>the biggest loser of all.
>
>It's all about perception management, I think that's what the CIA calls
>it - and I'll talk more on that later in the week.
>
If Shaw *really* had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination, why
would he go around signing the name "Clay Bertrand" to registers long
*after* Dean Andrews had connected that name to the assassination?
Do you really believe that, Lisa?
>
>: >McAdams also neglects to tell you this woman had actually SEEN Shaw at
>: >the airport, signing the register, and was of course puzzled why the man
>: >she saw sign the sheet had the name of Clay Bertrand when to her the man
>: >doing the signing was clearly Clay Shaw. In fact, she was a pretty damn
>: >good witness - but notice how McAdams doesn't tell you that.
>: >
>
>
>: If it wasn't really Shaw's signature, then it wasn't really Shaw.
>
>I believe it WAS Shaw's signature, because of the eye witness who SAW him
>sign it. I can sign my name so no expert would say I had signed it - does
>that mean I didn't sign it? How ridiculous!! :)
See above.
>
>
>: Just ask yourself what the Garrison people would have you believe.
>: They would have you believe that Shaw (using the alias "Bertrand")
>: participated in the Kennedy assassination.
>: Dean Andrews brought the name "Clay Bertrand" to the attention of the
>: FBI and then the WC, and FBI agents were all over the French Quarter
>: trying to find "Bertrand."
>
>Yep. I have Dean Andrews original pre-intimidation statement on the
>Bertrand call in my FTP site, too, for any interested! :)
>
I thought Shaw was supposed to be some sort of shrewd master spy.
And you're telling me he *continued* to sign the name "Clay Bertrand" for
years after Andrews had connected it with the assassination?
Do you *really* believe that?
>
>: But then Shaw just waltzed into the New Orleans airport in December
>: 1966 and signed the register with a name that ties him to the Kennedy
>: assassination!
>
>: Do you really believe that, Lisa?
>
>
>Yep. It's called arrogance. The CIA is full of it. When did he sign the
>aiport register, McAdams? This is key. Tell me. :)
>
>If you don't know, that explains your comment.
>
>
December 1966.
Now what's your point?
>: >: And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
>: >: credible witnesses!
>: >
>: >Right. Garrison's most damning info came from people with shady
>: >backgrounds or from the homosexual underground. Naturally, Garrison did
>: >not want to have to try to make his case with THESE people.
>: >
>
>: But he used Charles Speisel and Vernon Bundy!
>
>
>Speisel was used against Garrison's wishes. Garrison told Alcock he found
>his story just a bit too 'pat' - too suspicious. But Alcock was so
>eager to have backup he decided to go with him. Vernon Bundy was
>not the drug addict he's been pictured as, but again - more on that later.
>
You mean Bundy *lied* about being a drug addict at the trial?
How about producing the "more later" that you've been promising?
This proves nothing. The strong presumption is that the trial will go
forward to the end.
>And the jury did say the Clinton witnesses were most compelling. Too bad
>they weren't the last witnesses maybe, instead of the first...
>
>
>: >And too, during Shaw's trial Garrison was besieged by a press that,
>: >wonder of wonders, was doubly function as intelligence informants,
>
>
>: You have presented no evidence that anybody joined the Garrison
>: investigation as an agent or informant.
>
>
>The honest thing to say is you don't personally believe it. The dishonest
>thing to say is there is 'no evidence'.
>
But what you have "typed below" isn't evidence. It's just grist for the
paranoid suspicion mill!
>See what I typed below. Others already have.
>
>
>: It's clear that many people defected from the investigation when they
>: discovered what a sham it was.
>
>
>Not one of Garrison's original staff defected. Not one. Even Rosemary
>James, hardly a fan of Garrison's, found that compelling.
>
>
All the original staff were New Orleans residents who would have to
continue to live in the same city with Garrison!
No, the *defense* challenged that. Sciambra was torn apart on
cross-examination.
>: >the sodium pentathol session where Russo confirmed that he had seen Shaw
>: >at Ferrie's during the talk of the assassination, and even after the
>: >first of two hypnosis sessions, where Russo gave a detailed account of
>: >Shaw's planning with Ferrie the getaway after, the assassination, the
>: >setup, etc. Phelan was exposed on the stand for having made a mountain
>: >out of a molehill.
>
>: Plelan was explosed as not having believe Sciambra's silly lie.
>
>Phelan was exposed as a liar - saying he didn't know Russo was egging him
>on (on the stand) when he did (says his book), or saying he knew Russo WAS
>egging him on (in his book) while perjuring himself on the stand (saying
>he DIDN'T know.)
>
I'm not sure what your point is here. Phelan wrote the book long after
Russo had admitted to "egging him on."
BTW, Plelan told Kirkwood that Russo was bugging the conversations they
were having.
>I find it entirely revealing that you choose to believe a quite easily
>proveable liar, while not believing Russo who no one has ever proven to
>be a liar. You can choose not to believe him - that's at least honest.
>But you can't call him a liar because you have no proof at all.
>
The proof is in the memos, Lisa!
>
>: >And recently released files show why. Phelan was not
>: >only a journalist, but working for the federal bureau of investigation -
>: >passing them files from Garrison's office for the FBI to use to discredit
>: >Garrison.
>
>
>: Plelan passed this material along to *everybody* who wanted a copy,
>: including the FBI.
>
>: Saying he was "working for the FBI" is simply a lie.
>
>
>Then why is his name redacted in all but one of the Airtels? Why do the
>airtels say how important it was to protect his identity? He was an
>intelligence asset - paid no doubt by Saturday Evening Post - but then,
>that IS how it's done.
>
You have no evidence he was an intelligence asset, except your *generic*
sort of evidence. You know, this person didn't like Garrison, so OF
COURSE they were an "asset."
The airtels *say* that Phelan gave this information to the FBI, they
*don't* say he was any sort of agent.
And of course the FBI tries to protect the identity of people who give it
information! Given the existence of the buff culture, where simply
cooperating with the FBI is considered sinister, they *ought* to do so.
>
>
>: >Phelan passed the FBI, btw - only a portion of the text from
>: >the SECOND HALF of the SECOND SESSION of hypnosis - the now-famous scene
>: >with the white haired man talking on tv about the assassination. Phelan
>: >most dishonestly never acknowledged the transcript of the first session
>: >in which Russo clearly comes up with Shaw, the date, the place, the
>: >participants, and the talk without leading.
>: >
>
>
>: Kindly prove this!
>
>Want a copy of the airtel, with a copy of Dr. Fatter's second session
>attached? :)
>
>FOIA it yourself.
>
IOW, you refuse to support your assertion!
In another post, you placed the time of the second hypnosis session
*after* Garrison had given the transcript to Phelan.
You're going to have to get this sorted out.
>: My impression is that the passed the entire transcript along to
>: everybody. If that's not true, then post a citation showing it isn't!
>
>
>They copied the two pieces he gave them - and it's easy to tell the two
>hypnosis sessions apart because the second one is "Dr F" where Fatter
>talks and the first is just "Q" for questioner.
>
>I can't prove whether he gave them both and they only chose to copy the
>one or not. It kind of makes my point either way - either they went along
>with Phelan's misrepresentation because that's all they had (they meaning
>the FBI) OR - they were as guilty as he was, KNOWING Russo had not been
>led but allowing Phelan to continue to make this misrepresentation! :) So
>take your pick - either way Phelan is guilty and a proven liar, and the
>FBI is either willing to go with that without further investigation, or
>is doing the same misrepresentation.
>
Again, you are going to have to get this sorted out if you want to be
taken seriously on this issue.
You are accusing Phelan of *selectively* leaking stuff, yet you admit
above that you don't really *know* that he did!
>
>: >If any of you haven't seen this yet, grab the files SciambraMemo1,
>: >RussoHyp1 and RussoHyp2 for the testimony relating to Shaw and judge for
>: >yourselves. A few people have really had their eyes opened by comparing
>: >what was ACTUALLY said to how Phelan, Kirkwood, Posner, and now McAdams
>: >have chosen to misrepresent the facts of this.
>: >
>: >Another journalist vehemently anti-Garrison during the trial was Hugh
>: >Aynesworth. In just another of those many COINCIDENCES (I think not) in
>: >this case, Hugh Aynesworth was working for the Dallas Morning News - the
>: >paper that mispublished the actual motorcade route to exclude the turn
>: >onto Elm street,
>
>: My God, the whole paper was a nest of assassins!
>
>
>I've never called Aynesworth an assassin. If you do, you better be ready
>to back that up!!
>
How is it relevant that he worked for the DALLAS MORNING NEWS?
>
>: >and the paper that also provided Ruby's alibi that
>: >morning during Ruby sightings by witnesses elsewhere.
>
>
>: Yea, a vertible *nest* of assassins!
>
>Wait - are you saying Ruby was NOT an assassin? Hahahah THIS is rich! :)
>
>Or maybe you are trying to implicate other reporters - seeing how
>careless you are with the truth this would hardly surprise me. So McAdams
>is a conspiracy believer after all!!! :)
>
Why did you claim that "the paper . . . also provided Ruby's alibi?"
What was your point?
>
>: >Hugh Aynesworth
>: >told the press that his magazine during the Shaw trial, Newsweek, was
>: >"representing Shaw" in the trial. How's that for objective journalism?
>: >But it's more than that - Aynesworth was also, like Phelan, informing to
>: >the FBI and the Whitehouse, telling them the details of Garrison's case
>: >in advance.
>: >
>
>
>: They were telling people in Washington that Garrison had no case.
>
>: Which was true.
>
>
>They were quoting from fake witnesses, bribed witnesses, tapes that
>didn't exist, etc. I love how that's good enough for "truth" for you -
>exposes you completely.
>
If Garrison really had a case, then why didn't he present it to the jury?
>
>: >Then there is Walter Sheridan. Walter Sheridan was actively bribing
>: >witnesses, and charged with such by Garrison after the trial. Sheridan
>: >fled the state at that point and never did have to stand for the charges.
>: >Sheridan had a loooong history in the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence),
>: >NSA (National Security Agency - the most secretive of the intelligence
>: >services at the time) and like Phelan and Aynesworth, the FBI. Sheridan
>: >hired convicts to lie on TV about Garrison. Sheridan made much of strange
>: >allegations against Garrison - like people on Garrison's staff shoving
>: >a gun down a witness's throat - something the accuser later recanted in a
>: >signed statement, but one which nevertheless Sheridan chose to exploit.
>: >
>
>: You've never proved any of your reckless charges against Sheridan.
>
>: If you have evidence, *post it.*
>
>
>I have, over and over. You just ignore it - but then, that's what you're
>paid to do.
>
The "evidence" is either "connections" that are part of your guilt by
association way of thinking, or unsubstantiated charges made by the
Garrisonites.
>It's your turn, McAdams. If you have any evidence that Sheridan was a
>humble servant of the American people, *post it.*
>
You mean I'm supposed to prove a negative?
That shows just how sincere you are in wanting to find the truth!
>
>: >And then of course, there was Gordon Novel, electronic
>: >surveillance/eavesdropping expert, who early on offered his services for
>: >a short time in Garrison's office, than skipped town telling the press he
>: >had "tapes" that "proved" Garrison's office was doing illegalities. Of
>: >course, none of these "tapes" ever surfaced - but the allegations were
>: >all that mattered in the ongoing smear campaign.
>: >
>
>
>: That a flake like Novel suckered Garrison says a lot about Garrison.
>
>Are you calling Novel a flake, McAdams? I hear he has a penchant for
>death threats.... Hear that Gordon? McAdams just called you a flake! :)
>
>Garrison was too nice a person to believe there was so much evil in the
>world. Took him a few hard knocks to realize just how far this thing
>went. He had no idea the top levels of the CIA were involved when he
>first started, and was careless in a way he would live to regret. Like
>many of us, I think he honestly thought people had just missed the
>evidence of conspiracy through ineptness, not through conscious dismissal
>of such. When he saw what was happening to him, it quickly became clear.
>And the mob did not have the power to control the press the way the CIA
>did - he didn't need it spelled out for him. He was, after all, a very
>bright man.
>
>
Garrison was absurdly credulous. He would believe any flake who appealed
to his conspiracy fantasies.
You haven't proven that "it was a standing joke in the quarter."
My guess is that Andrews told a "little lie" to get some attention, and
then found himself having to elaborate his lies. When he refused to tell
the lie that Garrison wanted (that Shaw was "Bertrand") he was convicted
of perjury.
>: >Yes. Unlike you, I do not make up answers to that of which I am ignorant.
>: >But that seems to be your special penchant. But be sure I WILL find out
>: >what it was, and from a non-involved source. I wouldn't believe a thing
>: >you or your CIA buddy on Compuserve Dolan would have to say about this.
>: >Maybe someday one of the few honest people I believe still populate parts
>: >of the CIA will come forward and make this clear for us.
>: >
>: >
>
>
>: IOW, you're not going to believe anything that runs counter to your
>: biases.
>
>
>LOL! I wouldn't believe you if you were the last man on earth!!
>
>In fact, as soon as you say something, I can nearly be CERTAIN it is not
>true, such is your credibilty here.
>
Thanks for the insult, Lisa!
>Source. McAdams. What is your source?
>
>
My source for claiming that Shaw had no relationship *other* than giving
information to the Domestic Contacts Division is the memo that
*conspiratorialists* keep posting here.
My source for saying that he was passing along shipping statistics to the
CIA was Ed Dolan on Compuserve.
Just what evidence do you have that Shaw had *any* other connection with
the CIA?
>: >: Apparently, it was the CIA's program of getting shipping statistics from
>: >: various American ports.
>: >
>: >
>: >Bullshit, McAdams! You don't get "covert security clearance" for
>: >reporting statistics! Sheez how you underestimate the audience here! No
>: >one is stupid enough to fall for THAT crap!
>: >
>
>: You're not intelligent enough to know the truth when you see it.
>
>hahahaha! Still no source, no backup - nothing but ad hominems, showing
>the world you know nothing about this!! :)
>
>
Your claim that you don't get a "covert security clearance" for reporting
statistics is entirely unsupported.
Back it up!
>: >You are such a liar, McAdams - but then that's just your CIA training
>: >showing up. Where did you get that - Ed Dolan - CIA liar on Compuserve? :)
>: >
>
>
>: Lisa goes ballistic. Par for her.
>
>I'm calling you a liar because you are. You make up things right and left
>and try to make them pass for truth. Not gonna happen.
>
You go ballistic when anybody disagrees with you, Lisa.
>
>: >: >This guy was an
>: >: >operative, not just an asset, McAdams. Sorry - I can't show you the
>: >: >employee list during those years - it's not exactly published.
>: >: >
>: >: >Civilians with covert security clearance most of us would call "agents".
>: >: >If you don't that's your peragotive. But I think it is most apt, in this
>: >: >case.
>: >: >
>: >: >Prove otherwise!
>: >: >
>: >
>: >
>: >: This is Bruce logic!
>: >
>: >: "I say it's true. I don't need evidence. You prove it's untrue!"
>: >
>: >in other words - he can't.
>: >
>: >
>
>
>: You've just admitted that one cannot *in principle* prove that
>: somebody wasn't an agent.
>
>
>Yep.
>
But then you insist that I prove Shaw wasn't an agent!
Showns how committed your are to "finding the truth!"
>
>: An internal CIA memo, written to discuss possible CIA reaction to the
>: Garrison investigation, says that Shaw was no agent, but merely gave
>: information to the Domestic Contacts Division.
>
>: Of course, you don't want to believe it.
>
>
>Nope.
>
>What. You don't think the CIA makes up cover stories in their own
>interoffice memos? Sheez! Give me a break!
>
Now this is interesting!
The conspiratorialists post this memo, and say "see, Shaw was connected
with the CIA."
But then when we lone nutters point out what the memo actually says, it
becomes a fake "cover story!"
Can't you guys get your act together?
.John
Lisa Pease
: In article <lpeaseCz...@netcom.com>
: lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) writes:
: >: >: In the following post Lisa Pease tries to prove that Clay Shaw and David
: >: >: Ferrie knew each other.
: >: >
: >: >: Her sources are interesting. She *doesn't* use any of the witnesses that
: >: >: Garrison used at the trial. She uses *other witnesses* that the
: >: >: prosecution didn't see fit to put on the stand.
: >: >
: >: >Garrison wanted to make his case with people with entirely clean
: >: >backgrounds, and people not from the gay community. Naturally, that left
: >: >him few who could know the extent of Shaw's involvement, since most of
: >: >his doings happened with shady and/or gay people!
: >: >
: >
: >: And that's why he put drug addict Vernon Bundy on the stand!
: >
: >
: >Calling Bundy a "drug addict" is not accurate - but more on that in a
: >separate post. Someone's been doing some good research on Bundy and I'll
: >post it here when I get permission.
: >
: Lisa, Vernon Bundy's *testimony* was that he was out on the shore of Lake
: Pontchartrain, shooting up with heroin, when he saw Shaw and Oswald together.
: If *he* would admit he was a drug addict, and the prosecution admitted
: that, why won't you?
There IS a difference between someon who takes drugs maybe 3 times, and
somone who is a drug addict. No one has ever contested he was shooting
up. But to try to portray him as an addict that in addition is incapapble
of discerning truth is a stretch.
: >
: >: >: Just how credible did you have to be to get put on the stand by the
: >: >: Garrison people? Well, there was Charles Speisel, who fingerprinted his
: >: >: children to make sure nobody was substituting ringers. There was Perry
: >: >: Raymond Russo, whose story got better and better under hypnosis and
: >: >: drugs. There was Mrs. Jessie Parker, who said Shaw signed a register but
: >: >: whose testimony was discredited by a handwriting expert.
: >: >
: >: >I will always think that Speisel was two things - telling the truth but a
: >: >plant nonetheless designed to discredit Garrison's investigaton.
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: Interesting. Garrison puts a crazy man on the stand, and you can't
: >: accept that Garrison was irresponsible. You think The Conspiracy must
: >: have tricked him into doing this.
: >
: >
: >You can't accept that Garrison was NOT the one to put him on the stand -
: >Alcock was, over Garrison's voiced objection.
: >
: Let's see, Alcock was an *assistant* DA. And Garrison was the DA. So of
: course, Garrison had to take orders from Alcock.
Coming from your background, I wouldn't expect you to understand this, as
you are someone who obviously grovels to authority.
But Garrison had turned the Shaw prosecution over to Alcock. He felt once
he'd turned it over that it would not be showing good faith, trust and
respect for Alcock if he were to step in and overrule him. Garrison
trusted Alcock and although he disagreed with him he felt it would be a
bad precendent to step in and overrule him. If Spiesal HADN'T testified,
there was the chance Alcock would have forever blamed that on Garrion not
allowing him to use a key witness. Garrison was in a bind, and did what
any good leader who has delegated authority did - suffered in silence on
that one.
: Do you have a source *other than* Garrison's own claim that he objected
: to putting Speisel on the stand?
Yeah! Alcock!
: >And don't you think it's a tad suspicious that Speisel's father was FBI?
: >I do. I think there's less than coincidence at work there... Planning on
: >doing a little research there....
: >
: >
: Speisel was an obvious loon long before he got involved with Garrison in
: New Orleans.
: Are you implying that he just *pretended* to be crazy?
NO - I'm implying that his father sent him to Garrison's investigation to
ruin it.
: >: >Notice that McAdams doesn't tell you that Garrison DID NOT WANT to put
: >: >Speisel on the stand since he showed up with too pat a story at the last
: >: >moment before a thorough background check could be run on him. But
: >: >Garrison said he had turned power over to Alcock and Oser for the trial
: >: >and felt it was their show and he shouldn't interfere.
: >: >
: >: >Does McAdams tell you this? NO.
: >: >
: >
: >: I don't know it to be true.
: >
: >: I'm certainly not going to take Garrison's word for it!
: >
: >You could take the word of the others in Garrison's office as well. But
: >you won't. You can't - won't fit your smear case will it?
: >
: Give me a citation WRT others in his office.
Sorry - not until you pay off your outstanding debts on reference
requests. Start with answering Robert Harris. Then give me your published
reference on Milteer. Then we'll see.
: >
: >: >Does McAdams tell you how Russo ASKED to be hypnotized in order to
: >: >remember more specifics of the event? No. Does McAdams tell you that
: >: >Russo's story is consistent over time? No. Does McAdams show you the
: >: >hypnosis text itself so you can see just how little he WAS led the first
: >: >time he came out with the entire assassination party story? Nope. But
: >: >then, what ARE you thinking, if you believe anything he says? :)
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: Did Russo asked to be hypnotized? What's your source on that?
: >
: >Russo (still and on the stand), Sciambra, Dr. Fatter, Garrison - how many do
: >you want?
: >
: How about posting a citation on this.
I have. And you still have your outstanding debts on this. Pay up,
McAdams. Pay up first.
: I can believe he might have (he was an *extremely* cooperative witness),
: but the fact that he may have said this *after* being hypnotized doesn't
: carry much weight. Neither would the testimony of Sciambra or Garrison.
He said this before being hypnotized. But no references until you pay up.
[redundancy deleted]
: would he go around signing the name "Clay Bertrand" to
registers
long : *after* Dean Andrews had connected that name to the assassination?
: Do you really believe that, Lisa?
Do you really believe we have a conpsiracy of liars - people all over New
Orleans conspired to claim to know Shaw as Bertrand, to have seen him
sign guest registers as Bertrand - to have seen him in the presence of
Oswald, Ferrie using the name Bertrand? Are you saying there was a
conspiracy, McAdams?
Sorry. My only conspiracies involve people connected to the government.
Yours involve people with no association with each other who don't even
KNOW each other. :)
: I thought Shaw was supposed to be some sort of shrewd master spy.
You are the only person who has ever said that.
: And you're telling me he *continued* to sign the name "Clay Bertrand" for
: years after Andrews had connected it with the assassination?
: Do you *really* believe that?
Heck yeah. It's called arrogance. It's called "total control".
Assume for a second, whether you believe it or not, that Clay Bertrand
was Shaw's alias.
Assume for a second, whether you believe it or not, that Clay Shaw helped
set up the assassination, the patsy, the escape etc. just as Russo described.
Now imagine Shaw watching the events unfold without a hitch - just like
had been planned.
Now how hard is it to understand the EXTREME complacency - you just
pulled off the biggest crime in history and EVERYON FELL FOR IT!!! Heck -
I wouldn't think twice either - no one asked, no one cared - no one said
a word about it - that is, until Garrison and Co. came along and scared
the heck out of him.
: >
: >: But then Shaw just waltzed into the New Orleans airport in December
: >: 1966 and signed the register with a name that ties him to the Kennedy
: >: assassination!
: >
: >: Do you really believe that, Lisa?
: >
: >
: >Yep. It's called arrogance. The CIA is full of it. When did he sign the
: >aiport register, McAdams? This is key. Tell me. :)
: >
: >If you don't know, that explains your comment.
: >
: >
: December 1966.
: Now what's your point?
This is long after the Warren Report has been accepted as gospel by the
press. HE WAS IN THE CLEAR! HE'D PULLED IT OFF!!! NO ONE WAS LOOKING FOR
HIM! :)
That is, until a few months later....
And the date of late 66 also gives credibility to the eyewitness. It
would be far less credible if she distinctly remembered him from, say,
1962. But this was just a few months prior to the arrest! :)
: >: >: And the people *Lisa* uses didn't make it into this select group of
Judges have the option to close the case early if they felt there WAS no
case. Haggerty felt there WAS a case and did not exercise this option.
The case didn't go ahead due to presumption - it went ahead because there
was indeed a case!
But of course you HAVE to say "this proves nothing." Because to allow
reality into the debate is to the lose the point you are trying to make.
: >And the jury did say the Clinton witnesses were most compelling. Too bad
: >they weren't the last witnesses maybe, instead of the first...
: >
: >
: >: >And too, during Shaw's trial Garrison was besieged by a press that,
: >: >wonder of wonders, was doubly function as intelligence informants,
: >
: >
: >: You have presented no evidence that anybody joined the Garrison
: >: investigation as an agent or informant.
: >
: >
: >The honest thing to say is you don't personally believe it. The dishonest
: >thing to say is there is 'no evidence'.
: >