Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 18

Aloysius Habighorst

Paul Bleau's first chokehold is that "the official record impeaches the Warren Commission." He believes that: (page 38 in the Kindle edition of his book Chokeholds)

U.S. investigations into the assassination, statements made by investigation insiders and foreign government conclusions about the assassination prove that there is a strong consensus by the independent investigative authorities that there was a conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Bleau's chapter then lists out a variety of statements that seemingly prove conspiracy. Of course, Bleau doesn't tell readers the full truth about these viewpoints.

Aloysius Habighorst -- New Orleans Police Officer

Bleau Assertion: (pages 61 - 63)

Many witnesses have confirmed that Clem and Clay Bertrand were Clay Shaw aliases. He used this name in an airport lounge and in a probable moment of absent-mindedness gave it away to Officer Aloysius A. Habighorst after he was arrested. (See line 10 to the left in the Alias box.)

Even though Judge Haggerty ruled the following piece inadmissible… There is no reasonable explanation for the name Bertrand being in this field. This would have gone a long way in proving Shaw’s connections to Oswald.

What Bleau Doesn't Tell You:

It's laughable that Paul Bleau believes this ridiculous story. Even Judge Haggerty, normally disposed towards the prosecution, thought that Officer Habighorst was lying.

I debunked this story here. 

Jonas Butzman was another policeman who was there and he said he never heard any questions about an alias. Here is an internal defense memo:

And, of course, Butzman testified in court that Shaw was not asked his alias by Officer Habighorst.

But please read my entire post on this incident.

Here is an excerpt from James Kirkwood's American Grotesque:

The following is from AMERICAN GROTESQUE, pp. 353-359.
 
 
  In the summer of 1968 the District Attorney's office
 had authorized the release to the press of information
 contained on the fingerprint card made out at the Police
 Bureau of Identification on the night of Clay Shaw's
 arrest. the STATES-ITEM printed a photograph of the card
 July 30, 1968, and ran an accompanying article which
 quoted police officer Aloysius J. Habighorst as stating
 Clay Shaw had freely admitted he used the Clay Bertrand
 alias. The alias was typed out on the card, which Shaw
 had signed. Shaw had steadfastly denied ever using the
 alias. The District Attorney's release of this purported
 incriminating evidence to the press was in strict
 violation of the pretrial guidelines; nevertheless this
 information had been widely circulated and highly
 publicized.
 
  Now the state attempted to enter into evidence the
 fingerprint card together with the oral testimony of
 Officer Habighorst. Knowing he was in tricky territory,
 James Alcock wisely began by suggesting the jury be
 removed from the courtroom while the judge heard oral
 arguments pertaining to the admissibility of this matter.
 
  Louis Ivon, Garrison's smooth-looking investigator,
 was sworn in and proved to be a somewhat groggy witness.
 Whether he wanted to discourage a lengthy session of
 questioning or whether he was simply having an off day of
 it was not known. He had been importantly present at
 Shaw's arrest, but when Dymond asked Ivon if ho knew what
 an arrest sheet looked like, the investigator replied, "I
 may have seen them. I may have filled some out."
 
  DYMOND: Did you examine the original Clay Shaw
 arrest form?
 
  IVON: I don't know.
 
  Dymond exhibited the form which Ivon had actually
 signed and asked where he'd filled it out. Ivon could not
 remember if he'd signed the arrest form or not, or the
 search affidavit. Only when shown his signature did this
 come back to him and then he was unable to recall when or
 where he'd signed them.
 
  Now Officer Habighorst, natty in a snug-fitting dark
 suit and vest, was called to the stand. The good-looking
 police officer told James Alcock he had fingerprinted
 Shaw inside the Bureau of Investigation room the night of
 his arrest and that he'd not gotten the information he'd
 put down on the fingerprint card from Shaw's arrest
 record sheet, but from the defendant himself, including
 name, age, weight and, Habighorst and the state claimed,
 the alias Clay Bertrand. Habighorst detailed the
 procedure to Alcock and testified he had not threatened
 the defendant, not offered him promises of any sort in
 return for information, or abused him physically.
 
  The policeman was cross-examined by Billy Wegmann,
 not Irvin Dymond. There was an interesting reason for the
 substitution.
 
  Officer Habighorst's brother had been driving across
 a bridge several years previously and gotten into a
 contretemps with another motorist. They stopped their
 cars, argued, and then Habighorst's brother had taken out
 a gun, shot and killed the man. Dymond, who defended the
 brother, succeeded in reducing the crime from murder to
 manslaughter and the defendant had served four years in
 prison. It was widely rumored that Officer Habighorst
 thought his brother should have gotten off scot free, and
 his feelings toward Dymond were not friendly. In an
 attempt not to crank up an already hostile witness, Billy
 Wegmann handled the questioning.
 
  Billy Wegmann, however, was not wearing kid gloves.
 His voice rang loud and clear and he did not permit time
 to swat flies between questions, nor did he allow the
 witness to dance rings around the answer. Wegmann headed
 immediately for a controversial area, wanting to know if
 Clay Shaw's lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had been excluded from
 the B of I room when the defendant was being
 fingerprinted. Officer Habighorst said, "He was there for
 a time. If he was excluded, I don't know why." Was his
 attorney present, Billy Wegmann wanted to know, when Mr.
 Shaw signed the card? "Yes, sir," the policeman replied.
 "Are you sure?" Billy Wegmann pressed. Now Habighorst
 hedged: "I recall he was inside the door. I would say he
 was more inside the Bureau of Identification than outside
 the door in the booking area." Hammering at the police
 officer, Wegmann asked if it wasn't a fact he had seen
 the arrest register on Clay Shaw before he was finger-
 printed. Habighorst denied this, repeating his claim that
 he'd received the information directly from Shaw himself.
 
  BILLY WEGMANN: Was Mr. Shaw's attorney there when
 you got an alias?
 
  HABIGHORST: He could have been. I don't know.
 
  Judge Haggerty interrupted, asking the police
 officer how far the defendant had been from his attorney
 during the fingerprinting. "I would say twenty feet,"
 Habighorst ventured. "As far as I am from Mr. Alcock."
 Judge Haggerty surveyed the distance and said, "That's
 about thirty feet." Billy Wegmann wanted to know if
 Habighorst had been speaking in a normal voice; the
 policeman said he could not say whether Eddie Wegmann had
 heard him or not. At one point, Officer Habighorst was
 completely thrown by the use of the word "subsequent" in
 a question and Billy Wegmann was forced to rephrase the
 sentence. Now the all-important questions:
 
  BILLY WEGMANN: Did Ivon tell you that Mr. Shaw was
 not to be questioned?
 
  HABIGHORST: I don't recall.
 
  BILLY WEGMANN: Did you advise him [Shaw] of his
 constitutional rights?
 
  HABIGHORST: No, I explained the booking procedure to
 him.
 
  After a short afternoon recess, Dymond began to
 attack Habighorst's testimony by putting on the stand
 Captain Louis Curole, who had been on duty at Central
 Lockup when Shaw was arrested and had assigned a Sergeant
 Butzman to guard Shaw until his booking and
 fingerprinting were completed. Captain Curole testified
 that, as a rule, attorneys are not permitted in the B of
 I room with their clients. He went on to say Edward
 Wegmann had *not* been allowed to go into the room with
 Clay Shaw. He further testified that a copy of the arrest
 record is almost always sent to the B of I room and that
 this form would include any aliases attributed to the
 arrestee.
 
  Dymond asserted that the credibility of Habighorst's
 version was now seriously in doubt in light of Captain
 Curole's testimony. Alcock objected strenuously but the
 judge overruled him. Judge Haggerty's face was now
 tightening into a mold of absolute seriousness of
 purpose. His eyes were unblinking, as if he'd sighted a
 target that did not please him one bit.
 
  Sergeant Jonas Butzman followed Captain Curole to
 the stand. He had been within five or ten feet of Clay
 Shaw all the time the defendant was in the B of I room.
 Butzman testified he had heard Habighorst ask Clay Shaw
 only one question and that was about the spelling of a
 name. Dymond's next question was "Did you ever hear the
 name Clay Bertrand mentioned?" "No," was the reply. The
 sergeant said he did not know if Habighorst had a copy of
 the field arrest form but indicated Eddie Wegmann had
 *not* been in the room at all.
 
  The defense was picking up speed and called Police
 officer John Perkins to the stand, again over Alcock's
 objections, but the judge, now pursed of mouth, quickly
 overruled him. Although Perkins was not on duty at the
 time of Shaw's arrest he was assigned to the B of I room.
 Questioned about standard operating procedure, the police
 officer testified he had never fingerprinted a person
 without the field arrest record. More damaging, he
 claimed that the fingerprints are applied to the card,
 after the arrestee signs the card, and the information is
 put on the card last of all.
 
  Now Eddie Wegmann was called to the stand and
 questioned by his confrere Irvin Dymond. Eddie's face had
 never displayed such angry signs of colic as when he
 testified this day about Clay Shaw's arrest and the
 booking procedure. It was obvious he had much more on his
 mind than the specific testimony he was called to give
 this afternoon. Those were not acorns puffing out Ed
 Wegmann's cheeks. He was bursting with a sweeping blanket
 denunciation of the entire unspeakable injustice heaped
 upon his client from March 1, 1967, moment-to-moment, up
 until this very minute. If the jury had not still been
 playing poker in their waiting room upstairs, I think he
 might just have let it out in one ringing explosion. He
 snapped out his answers with bare civility to his own co-
 attorney in the case: No, he had not been allowed in the
 B of I room with his client. No, there had been nothing
 about an alias on any report sheet, no alias, in fact,
 had been mentioned that evening. He also testified about
 his meeting with Shaw in one of the D.A.'s offices after
 Clay had been told he was being charged with the crime
 and was being placed under arrest. Eddie Wegmann said
 they'd kept the conversation to a minimum because he had
 been warned the room might be bugged.
 
  After Eddie Wegmann was excused, Sal Panzeca, the
 junior member of the defense team, was questioned by
 Irvin Dymond. Short, compact and snappy, Panzeca had been
 the first legal counsel to see Clay Shaw on the day of
 his arrest. He testified he'd told Louis Ivon and other
 members of the D.A.'s staff that Clay Shaw was not to be
 questioned and that he would, under no circumstances,
 answer questions. Panzeca also testified he believed the
 room they were in was bugged, that communication between
 him and Clay Shaw was mostly accomplished by writing
 questions and answers on a pad, adding, "I told him not
 even to say hello or goodbye to anyone."
 
  Now Clay Shaw took the stand--the jury was still
 out--and in a firm, clear voice began his testimony
 regarding the circumstances of his arrest. The press and
 spectators granted him complete silence and attention.
 Here was the Big Boy himself. Clay stuck to the questions
 asked him, never volunteering more information than was
 requested, as he testified that he had obeyed the orders
 of his attorneys and spoken to no one. In no uncertain
 terms, he testified he had signed a completely blank
 fingerprint card, had not been asked about an alias, had
 certainly never told anyone he had used an alias, and
 that his lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had not been permitted to
 enter the B of I room with him.
 
  Under cross-examination by James Alcock, Clay got a
 laugh when he testified about giving information to an
 officer who typed up his original arrest sheet, before
 going to the B of I room. Clay said he had been standing
 three or four feet away from the booking officer and had
 not seen exactly what the man was typing. The judge
 asked, "Was there anything preventing you from seeing
 over the counter?" To this, the six-foot-four defendant
 replied in an easy going voice, "No, that's never been a
 problem with me." The spectators and press laughed, and
 order in the court was called.
 
  Clay Shaw also stood for no loose dangling ends. He
 had testified earlier that Habighorst told him it was
 necessary to sign the blank card in order to get bail, to
 which Clay said he replied, "In that case, I'll sign it."
 Now Alcock asked if Officer Habighorst had asked him any
 questions, to which Clay replied, "No." "You did not
 utter one word?" Alcock asked. Clay made no bones about
 correcting the attorney: "That was not my testimony. I
 said I was asked no questions."
 
  It was after the defendant was excused that the fun
 and fireworks began. Alcock sought to enter into evidence
 and before the jury--who had spent the afternoon
 upstairs--the fingerprint card and Habighorst's
 testimony. Dymond objected on the grounds that the
 witness testified he'd signed a blank card.
 
  This brought forth the no-nonsense ruling of Judge
 Haggerty. He had been wound up by the preceding testimony
 of two lawyers, the defendant, and three members of the
 New Orleans Police Department, all in direct conflict
 with Officer Habighorst's testimony. Now he faced James
 Alcock squarely from his bench, saying he would not allow
 the fingerprint card or the testimony of Officer
 Habighorst introduced into the trial. He would hold to
 this ruling, no matter whose testimony was to be
 believed. Either way, the judge claimed a foul. Two
 policemen had violated Shaw's constitutional rights, he
 said, by not permitting the defendant to have his lawyer
 with him during the fingerprinting--in direct
 contravention of the famed Escobedo decision, which
 allows an arrestee to have his attorney with him at all
 stages of the booking, fingerprinting, and questioning
 process. Judge Haggerty also announced that Officer
 *Habighorst* (and when he hit the name of the officer,
 the judge hit it hard) had violated in spirit the effect
 of the Miranda decision by not forewarning Clay Shaw of
 his right to remain silent. The judge went on to say
 Habighorst also violated Shaw's rights by asking him the
 alleged question about an alias, adding, now that he was
 revved up and clearing his mind of feelings built up by
 this afternoon's performance, "Even if he did [ask the
 question about an alias] it is not admissible" Judge
 Haggerty then spit out, "If Officer Habighorst *is*
 telling the truth--and I seriously doubt it!"
 
  Alcock leaped up from his chair at this remark, his
 cheeks instantly crimson and his voice highly shrill and
 trembling with anger as he shouted, "Are you passing on
 the credibility of a state witness in front of the press
 and the whole world?"
 
  Judge Haggerty jutted his head forward and said,
 "It's outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Alcock." He
 then sat back and spoke in a loud voice. "I don't care.
 The whole world can hear that I disbelieve Officer
 Habighorst." He gave Alcock a what-do-you-think-of-that
 look and then, as if to punctuate his feelings for all
 time and leave no doubt whatsoever, Judge Haggerty leaned
 forward once again and said, "I do not believe Officer
 Habighorst!"

Here is an excerpt from above that might explain Habighorst's testimony:

Officer Habighorst's brother had been driving across
 a bridge several years previously and gotten into a
 contretemps with another motorist. They stopped their
 cars, argued, and then Habighorst's brother had taken out
 a gun, shot and killed the man. Dymond, who defended the
 brother, succeeded in reducing the crime from murder to
 manslaughter and the defendant had served four years in
 prison. It was widely rumored that Officer Habighorst
 thought his brother should have gotten off scot free, and
 his feelings toward Dymond were not friendly. In an
 attempt not to crank up an already hostile witness, Billy
 Wegmann handled the questioning.

Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau