Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part Six

Fred Litwin
10 minutes ago
7 min read

Wegmann Files a Civil Rights Complaint with the Department of Justice.

Clay Shaw leaving the court house in New Orleans.

Our last post on Clay Shaw left off with Ed Wegmann sending a letter to John Doar at the Department of Justice in late-September of 1967. He promised Doar that information on the case was being compiled and would soon be sent to him.

Lambert then says that Wegmann met with Robert Kennedy who asked many questions but provided no assistance.

At the beginning of December 1967, Wegmann wrote a letter to John Doar with a copy of Harold Weisberg's book, Oswald in New Orleans.

Wegmann tells Doar that he is "in the midst of documenting the facts" about Garrison's violation of Shaw's civil rights.

And then Wegmann sends him a sixteen-page civil rights complaint.

Here is short excerpt from Patricia Lambert's chapter:

Wegmann alerts John Doar to the gravity of this pleading in the first paragraph. That's where Wegmann asks the United States government to "bring an indictment" for "serious and substantial violations of Mr. Shaw's civil rights" against New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, three members of his inner circle, the sole witness upon whom his case against Shaw depends, and the doctor who helped elicit the witness's story under hypnosis.

Here is the beginning of Wegmann's complaint:

:Lambert continues:

Wegmann has taken aim at the heart of Garrison's "secret team" operation at Tulane and Broad. In the atmosphere prevailing in New Orleans at that time -- with Garrison straddling the city like some prosecutorial Godzilla -- this effort to hold him and those assisting him personally accountable for their actions is a bold move.

In the complaint, Wegmann lays out the unsavory details of Garrison's investigation. In retrospect, Wegmann's most significant charges concern two prospective witnesses who will never take the stand at Shaw's trial. Wegmann accuses Garrison and his investigators of trying to bribe these men to give false testimony incriminating Shaw. Their names are Alvin Beauboeuf and Fred Leemans.

Here is what the civil rights complaint said about Fred Leemans:

Here are a couple of blog posts about the Fred Leemans case:

Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part One

The complete Fred Leemans story with related documents.

Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part Two

Here is how conspiracy books have covered the Leemans story.

Here is what the civil rights complaint said about Beauboeuf:

Al Beauboeuf was the young man who went to Houston and Galveston with David Ferrie during the weekend of the JFK assassination.

Here are a couple of links about Beauboeuf:

Alvin Beauboeuf, R.I.P.

Beauboeuf died i 2023 and here is the obituary I wrote.

My Interview with Al Beauboeuf...

I spoke to Beauboeuf in 2020.

Here is how Lambert describes the offer of a bribe to Beauboeuf:

Lynn Loisel, one of Garrison's investigators, who specified that he was acting with Garrison's authorization, offered Beauboeuf $3,000 and a job with an airline (being a pilot is Beauboeuf's dream) if he provided "the missing links" incriminating Ferrie in the assassination plot. If Beauboeuf is afraid of incriminating himself, he needn't worry, Loisel says, they can "change the story around" to protect him. But Beauboeuf knows nothing about any plot, and he explained that during earlier interviews in Garrison's office.

Loisel's offer takes place in the office of Beauboeuf's attorney who suspects from the outset that Garrison's man is trying to buy false testimony and takes the precaution of surreptitiously recording the conversation. After Garrison hears about the recording, Loisel and another investigator visit Beauboeuf at his home, as Wegmann puts it in his complaint, and tells him "If he got in the way he would be shot." This allegation appears, in less polite language, in a New Orleans Police Department report: According to Beauboeuf, Loisel said, "I don't want to get into any shit and before I do I'll put a hot load of lead up your ass."

Years later, Beauboeuf told this writer about that encounter with Loisel and the other investigator. "One of them's got one hand wound in my clothing holding me and his other hand has a gun in my face and he shoved it in my mouth." Beauboeuf couldn't remember the precise words they used but he did remember the message. "They were saying, 'If you don't retract [the attempted bribery claim], we're going to kill you.'" The next day, Beauboeuf signed a statement at the DA's office stating that he did not consider the offer a bribe, a statement he later recants.

Wegmann talked with Owen [Wegmann continually spells his name as Owens] in January 1968 who told him that the DOJ was "still studying his complaint"

In Mid-January, Wegmann writes Owen:

Wegmann writes that Garrison's "conduct is as bizarre and as unethical as ever. This is best evidenced by his handling of the arrest and charging of Edgar Eugene Bradley of Los Angeles, California, his latest victim."

Edgar Eugene Bradley was also charged with conspiring to kill JFK, and Garrison said he was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. It was a ridiculous charge as Bradley was on a bus in El Paso on November 22nd and he could prove it. Garrison presented no evidence at Bradley's extradition hearing and Ronald Reagan refused to have him sent to Louisiana. Years later, Garrison would apologize in person to Bradley.

Wegmann emphasizes that time is of the essence and requests a meeting with Owen and the Attorney General.

Wegmann called Owen again in February:

Wegmann told Owen that he had filed a change of venue motion on February 6, 1968.

Ramsey Clark appeared on the Meet the Press television show on February 18, 1968 and was asked about the Garrison case:

Ronald Ostrow [reporter for the Washington Post]: Mr. Clark, can we turn to New Orleans and District Attorney Garrison's investigation into the Kennedy assassination. Do you still believe that he's turned up nothing new, no new evidence?

Ramsey Clark: I've seen nothing new. The findings of the Warren Commission are supported by an immense quantity of evidence. I know of no investigation in history that was more comprehensive, or any facts in history that are better supported by the evidence, than those of the Warren Commission.

Ronald Ostrow: Why doesn't the federal government take Mr. Garrison to court for violating the civil rights of Clay Shaw and others he's implicated there?

Ramsey Clark: This is a free country and local authorities have their responsibility and it's a rare, rare case where any local authority has been prosecuted by the federal government for violations of citizen's rights. It's been almost exclusively in brutality cases -- actual physical violence directed towards citizens.

If only Garrison had beaten up Clay Shaw, the government might have acted.

Garrison must have been watching because he then issued this insane press release:

The reference to Jack Ruby driving a rifleman to the grassy knoll refers to the allegations of Julia Mercer. The allegation that the FBI had advance knowledge of the assassination came from William Walter. — *The reference to Jack Ruby driving a rifleman to the grassy knoll refers to the allegations of Julia Mercer. The allegation that the FBI had* *advance knowledge of the assassination came from William Walter.*

This press release got a fair bit of play in the newspapers:

In the meantime, Wegmann wrote to Stephen Pollak asking for a meeting:

Wegmann wrote Robert Owen a follow-up letter:

Here is the headline from the February 16, 1968 edition of the New Orleans States-Item:

Here is Jim Garrison's crazy press release about Allen Dulles:

The allegation about the finding of bullets in Dealey Plaza is explored further here. Garrison is talking about the three tramps when he writes that "some of these CIA employees were accidentally arrested at the scene of the assassination which made necessary the murder of Officer Tippit ..." — *The allegation about the finding of bullets in Dealey Plaza is explored further here.* *Garrison is talking about the three tramps when he writes that "some of these* *CIA employees were accidentally arrested* *at the scene of the assassination which made necessary the murder of Officer Tippit ..."*

Garrison wrote that his office "has succeeded in identifying the assassination of President Kennedy as an operation conducted by elements of the CIA." In addition, "this office now has identified most of the CIA employees involved in that part of the operation occurring in New Orleans and is engaged in constructing cases against them."

What ever happened to those cases?

Wegmann even turned to the Bar Association for some help:

Wegmann then wrote Pollak and Owen to update them on developments and to inform them that he is on his way to Washington.

Wegmann writes that "It is again submitted that it is incumbent upon the Justice Department to protect the rights of this citizen by taking such action as is appropriate under the attendant circumstances."

Wegmann and Dymond return to Washington and met with Stephen Pollak, another assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, and his colleague John J. Kirby.

Pollak told Wegmann and Dymond that there was no basis to conduct an investigation:

Mr. Pollak told him that while we do not endorse the methods which Wegmann alleges Garrison has used in his prosecution, that there does not appear to be a statutory basis for our proceeding at the present time.

At the end of the meeting Pollak says that he would review Wegmann's materials to see if "there were any basis for an investigation at this time."

In the meantime, Peyton Ford tells Wegmann that his committee cannot help:

Wegmann replied:

Wegmann wrote that "If Mr. Garrison is allowed to continue his present course of conduct, it seems inescapable that an innocent man will be deprived of his liberty ... "

Wegmann writes Pollak after their meeting:

Wegmann writes Pollack that he was "at a loss to understand how and why you and the Department have concluded that the facts and documents which I have previously furnished to the Department do not constitute a conspiracy on the part of Mr. Jim Garrison ... and his associates to violate Mr. Shaw's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights."

Wegmann wrote that "the case against Clay Shaw is pure fiction and that he is the victim of an unscrupulous and unconscionable public prosecutor who, in concert with his associates, has conspired and continues to conspire to violate Mr. Shaw's civil rights."

Wegmann refers to a statement from Cedrick Younger Von Rolleston. You can read all about him here.

Wegmann concludes by writing that the facts presented "warrant nothing less than an investigation by the Department or such other government agency as is appropriate."

Lastly, Wegmann mentions "the Peacock case" which refers to the City of Greenwood vs. Peacock. This was a case in which state defendants were trying to get their case removed to U.S. courts. They did not succeed but there was a vigorous dissent which included the Chief Justice [Earl Warren].

Unfortunately, Wegmann's letter changed nothing: