In December 1967, Jim Garrison released several pictures to the press which he believed proved that Kennedy was shot by a .45 caliber bullet. Here is a UPI article on his theories: Garrison also believed that this shot was fired from a sewer, or a storm drain, on Elm Street. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Jim Garrison on December 9, 1967: Martin : You said a moment ago you would show us or tell us where you think that bullet was fired from, that the man was picking up from the grass there. Where do you think it was fired from? Garrison : Well ... this is going to be the first time I've ever shown this, but we've gotten a little tired of hearing people like Earl Warren and Ramsey Clark, who ought to know better, saying repeatedly, that they've seen nothing new. Well, I'm going to show them something new. I think we just showed something new in this 45 caliber bullet because they've never mentioned it in 26 volumes. Right next to where the President was killed, just a little bit in front of where the President was killed, there is a sewer opening. Underneath Dealey Plaza there is a drainage system. Dealey Plaza used to have a bunch of houses and they were taken down to make the plaza. You have a surface drainage system with pipes through which men can crawl. The small ones are 15 inches wide, and the large ones are 30 inches wide. One of the assassins went, got his, made his exit through the subsurface drainage system. The one who went through the drainage system was the man who killed the President, who fired the 45 from the right by the side of the car and tore the President's head off. Now we went into the sewer one morning early in Dallas, got in in the dark, put the top down and we found a man fits in there very easily, we also found that after shooting from it it's easy to crawl under the street through the 15 inch pipe, when you're in a 30 inch sewer which leads out of Dealey Plaza to another part of the town. Entrance can be gained through two ways to the sewer area. I don't have a picture of the sewer here but you can take pictures in Dallas. Entrance can be gained directly above the sewer through a manhole. Martin : Behind the grassy knoll? Garrison : Well, no, that's another place but it can be entered above it by removing the cover of the manhole. You remember about an hour before there was a truck parked over the pavement which Julia Mercer saw but there can also be entrance behind the picket fence through a 3x3 grating down by the overpass which lifts up, you get in and you crawl through the 15 inch tunnel and you'll end up, there's only room for one man in the manhole but he can stand up in the manhole and when he gets in there he has a clear view of the occupants of a convertible from the chest up. In other [...] we didn't know until we put a man in there in the dark hours of the morning and waited until the sun came up and took photographs that you could see so clearly to the occupants inside the car, but you can. Martin : All right, when you are inside the vantage point, from inside, where is that in relation to where the man was picking up something from the grassy areas across the street? Garrison : Well, it's in a cattycorner kind of way. It's opposite, actually this is the proper way. The shooting was not due South it was towards the car as it approached diagonally slightly and if the line continues that's where the bullet ended up with the pieces of the President's head surrounding it. This is the bullet that disappeared as soon as the federal ... got its hands on it. The 45 caliber bullet from a handgun which was fired from the sewer. Martin : Mr. Garrison, do you believe you have the identity of the person who was in that sewer? Garrison : I would, I would not be accurate if I said I had the identity of the man in the sewer. We now have a number of names of individuals who apparently were at the operating level. I'd say four but there were so many more that I'd rather not speculate which one was standing where, so in all honesty, I'd have to say the identity of that particular man, no. Here are a couple of pictures of the sewer opening (storm drain) on Elm Street: That is how it looked back in March 2020 when I visited Dallas. Here is the picture Garrison released in 1967, and it doesn't appear there is a manhole cover on the storm drain: The notion of a shot from the storm drain is just ridiculous. You would have about 2 seconds to fire a weapon and you would be aiming up at the limousine. If you go to my first post about a sewer shot, you will see some photographs that Garrison released from the storm drain. Not to mention the problems of a person squeezing through those very narrow pipes. Here is an entrance to the sewer system near the triple underpass. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Was JFK Shot From a Sewer? My original blog post on the shot from the sewer. Was Jim Hicks the Communications Man in the JFK Assassination? When Jim Hicks testified before the grand jury, Garrison discussed the shot from the sewer.

Shortly after Jack Ruby gunned down Lee Harvey Oswald, Dean Andrews told his story of being contacted by Clay Bertrand to represent Oswald. The FBI and the Secret Service tried hard to find the elusive Bertrand to no avail. I have blogged about this here. James DiEugenio took exception to what I wrote in my book about the search : "On page 39 he writes that the FBI and Jim Garrison were trying to find Clay Bertrand in late 1963. He then repeats this on page 41. The obvious question is: How could Garrison be looking for Bertrand in 1963 if he did not know about him? As noted above, Garrison had not studied the Commission volumes at that time, for the good reason that they would not be published until a year later. The only way I could explain this Twilight Zone temporal confusion is that Litwin is so hellbent on trying to show that Garrison was bereft of any reason to suspect anything about either Shaw or Ferrie, that he mixed the two elements together. He then minimized what had really happened or just cut it out." On page 38 of my book, I wrote that "The FBI, the Secret Service, and Garrison spent several days looking for Bertrand with no success." On pay 39, I wrote a caption, "The FBI and the District Attorney's office tried to find 'Clay Bertrand' in late 1963, but to no avail." And on page 41, I wrote that "In the meantime, Garrison's men scoured the French Quarter looking for Bertrand, but to no avail." So, what really happened? The FBI and the Secret Service talked to the following organizations and people about Clay Bertrand: The New Orleans Police Department Identification Division. The New Orleans Police Department Records Division. The New Orleans Police Department Intelligence Division. Various informants like Betty Parrot New Orleans Credit Bureau New Orleans Public Library Louisiana State Employment Service Tulane University New Orleans Retailers' Credit Bureau New Orleans Police Department Bureau of Identification New Orleans Police Department Vice Squad I am sure that that is not an exhaustive list. The FBI also talked to Dean Andrews' secretary and to Prentiss Davis, his chief investigator. They couldn't help in the search, and even Dean Andrews was phoning around. Here's the kicker: Dean Andrews contacted Raymond Comstock who was an investigator in Garrison's office. Comstock was no ordinary investigator -- he was part of the inner circle within the D. A.'s office investigating the JFK assassination. Comstock couldn't help Dean Andrews. Given the fact that Andrews was known to have a very active mouth, it seems clear that he would have provided Comstock with all the pertinent details about "Clay Bertrand" and why it was important to find him. Comstock then called the FBI to discuss the matter. Surely, more information must have been exchanged. After all, they were all cooperating in the David Ferrie matter. It seems far-fetched to me that Raymond Comstock would not say anything to his boss about the search for Clay Bertrand. As the inner circle met to discuss the JFK assassination investigation, it beggars belief that they would decide to keep Jim Garrison in the dark. And it wasn't just Raymond Comstock who knew. The FBI and the D.A.'s office shared many of the same informants. New Orleans was a den of rumor, gossip, and innuendo. Given Garrison's interest in David Ferrie, would not someone have mentioned Dean Andrews and the mysterious Clay Bertrand? And Raymond Comstock was a policeman - it was quite common for officers to be assigned to the District Attorney's office. And so Raymond Comstock probably had a very good idea that the police were assisting in the search for Clay Bertrand. Here is what I think happened. It didn't take long for the FBI and the Secret Service to determine that Bertrand was a figment of Dean Andrews' imagination. Here is an excerpt of an FBI report from December 6, 1963: The search for Clay Bertrand ended. Regardless of whether you believe the story has merit or not, the word, amongst official circles, was that it was made up. No doubt Garrison heard this too. Fast forward to October 1966. Books on the JFK assassination are talk of the country, and Jim Garrison reads Harold Weisberg's Whitewash . He noticed that his old friend, Dean Andrews, pops up on page 66: "Entirely by surprise the Commission received and the Report neglects the most reasonable and probative testimony on marksmanship from one of the witnesses heard with least enthusiasm. New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews was called because he reported Oswald's connections with Cuban groups to the Secret Service, by phone, while hospitalized. He caught the Commission entirely by surprise by saying Oswald had not and could not have killed President Kennedy. He emphasized the point that the Commission had never asked all the experts quoted: Marksmanship is a skill that requires a high degree of coordination and practice. (11H330-1)" However, that section is about marksmanship, and doesn't even mention Clay Bertrand. There is also a second section in Whitewash about Dean Andrews, on pages 271-274. Clay Bertrand is mentioned in this section, mostly in relation to the alleged visits of Oswald to his office: "Andrews' link with this element was a semi-mysterious Clay Bertrand, whom he described as "as a lawyer without a briefcase." (11H337). Bertrand frequently phoned him on behalf of his homosexual clients "either to obtain bond or parole for them." and "Further testifying about the Mexican, Andrews injected a detective-story note, saying "There's three people I'm going to find, one of them is the real guy that killed the President; the Mexican; and Clay Bertrand." Weisberg ends his section with this: "These clear evidences of a "False Oswald," the connections of the real or false one with Cuban refugee groups and the attempts establishment of a "cover" in New Orleans are totally ignored by the Commission in its exhaustive inquiry into Oswald's trip to Mexico City, from September 26 until October 3, 1963 (R299-311, 658-9, 730-6)" Not surprisingly, when Garrison first met Dean Andrews, he discussed a variety of topics with him, one of which was the Clay Bertrand story. Here is an excerpt from Dean Andrews' lawsuit against Jim Garrison: Garrison's discussions with Dean Andrews. over the course of three months, were wide-ranging. Clay Bertrand was just one of many topics. Now have a look at the way Jim Garrison describes that meeting in his book On the Trail of the Assassins : (page 80) "After some nights of reading Andrews's testimony before the Warren Commission, I had arranged for him to meet me for lunch here at Broussard's Restaurant. That was back in early 1967, when I was still frustrated with our futile search for Kerry Thornley. Based on the Warren Commission testimony, I thought Andrews might lead us to an even more important witness." Garrison describes the lunch as if the conversation was only about the identity of Clay Bertrand. He goes on to threaten Dean Andrews: (page 82) "I leaned forward. 'Read my lips,' I said. I spoke with careful deliberation. 'Either you dance in to the Grand Jury with the real moniker of that cat who called you to represent Lee Oswald, or your fat behind is going to the slammer. Do you dig me?'" And yet Garrison did not call Andrews before the Grand Jury until March 1967, over four months after their initial conversation. I believe that Dean Andrews' version of what happened is closer to the truth. At his trial for perjury, Dean Andrews asked Jim Garrison about this meeting: New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 10, 1967 Dean Andrews was also asked about his first meeting with Garrison on the June 1967 NBC documentary, "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison." [this section is from the full interview available at NARA] Andrews says that they "generally discussed the Warren Report and the book [ Whitewash ]." Garrison did not have a copy of the Warren Commission volumes: Here is another excerpt from Andrews' lawsuit: And so Garrison borrowed a copy of Andrews' testimony in November 1966. He borrowed a copy because he had not yet purchased the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits of the Warren Report. Perhaps that is why he changed the date of their meeting to early 1967 -- by then he did have a copy of the 26 volumes -- and he could claim the entire meeting was called to discuss Clay Bertrand. And Garrison didn't have to share the glory with Harold Weisberg. David Chandler confirmed to James Kirkwood that Garrison did not have a copy of the Warren Report: "In this period, after Garrison had already decided on Shaw, and Ferrie, and made some sort of conspiracy theory, he had not -- not only didn't have or own any sort of digest or copy of the Warren Report, he hadn't read any digest. And to my knowledge the first one he got was loaned to him by Billings." I don't believe Garrison knew, before reading Whitewash , that Dean Andrews had repeated the discredited Clay Bertrand story to the Warren Commission. After all, the FBI and the Secret Service believed that Andrews had just made up the story. Dean Andrews might have been surprised that Garrison was bringing up a story he had hoped had been forgotten. And it was during one of their meetings in late December 1966 that Garrison brought up the name Clay Shaw: It was only after the death of David Ferrie and the arrest of Clay Shaw that Garrison really put the pressure on Dean Andrews. Garrison's description of their first meeting is a fiction. The search for Clay Bertrand in 1963 and Dean Andrews's testimony before the Warren Commission were two separate events. Garrison certainly knew about the first but was surprised by the second.

The diary of Arthur Bremer is, of course, very suspicious: "It is my considered judgment that the diary left behind by Arthur Bremer, while undoubtedly written by his hand, is an example of the deception customarily used by intelligence agencies. It serves as an arrow pointing in the wrong direction. It serves to help make a highly meaningful act appear meaningless -- just as did so much of the "evidence" gratuitously left behind after the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy." This wasn't the first time Garrison discussed the Wallace shooting. New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 10, 1972 Gore Vidal was also suspicious of Bremer's diary. Tom Bethell writes in his article " Was Sirhan Sirhan on the Grassy Knoll?" from the Washington Monthl y, March 1975. "Vidal, in his discussion of E. Howard Hunt's writings, demonstrates this tendency. At one point he argues that Arthur Bremer's diary was not written by Bremer because it is too literate. Awkward fact that, because much of the diary is illiterate. That, of course, is all a part of the scenario: "they" did that, too. Thus both literacy and illiteracy tend to confirm the theory. What, then, could disprove it?"

The famous clairvoyant predicts the future! I thought I would have some fun with this post. It's hard to believe that Jeanne Dixon was hired to speak at these luncheons. New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 4, 1967 Jeanne Dixon said that Jim Garrison was on the "right track." Here is your absolute proof that all of this stuff was nonsense. She was back in September. New Orleans Times Picayune, September 18, 1967 About Jim Garrison, Dixon said that "it is apparent that sources outside of the United States are attempting to discredit him." I guess she missed the CIA/FBI disinformation campaign!

Washington Evening Star, March 16, 1967 I am not sure of the date of this cartoon, but it was drawn by Hugh Haynie who worked for the Louisville Courier-Journal,

Washington Evening Star, May 29, 1967 An apt cartoon illustrating the damage Garrison was doing to critics of the Warren Report. Sylvia Meagher wrote about this in a letter to Harold Weisberg: Josiah Thompson also mentioned the damage Jim Garrison did to the critics in his 2021 book Last Second in Dallas : (page 112)

Here's another Art Buchwald column on Jim Garrison.

I posted an important Max Lerner opinion piece yesterday on Garrison's early thinking on the JFK conspiracy. Garrison told Lerner, just like he told Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Merriman Smith, and Lawrence Schiller, that homosexuals were behind the conspiracy. Here is another excellent Lerner opinion piece. Springfield Daily News, February 24, 1969 I find this article to be particularly persuasive. Lerner mentions Edward Jay Epstein's book, Counterplot . It's an excellent book, and I heartily recommend it. You can read Epstein's three major books on the JFK assassination, with added commentary, in one large compilation. A few important tidbits: "But I do know, from a long conversation with him after the Shaw case broke, how obsessed he has been with destroying the Warren Commission's report on Kennedy's death, and with exposing the malignant counter-conspiracy (as he sees it) to keep the truth about the killing from the American people. The trial is his means to that end. He sees himself very much as Darrow saw himself in the Scopes anti-evolution trial, and like Scopes, Shaw is as much symbol as defendant." I also like Lerner's conclusion: "I have one major quarrel with Epstein. My own emphasis would not be on Garrison as demagogue, but on Garrison as an obsessed man, caught in the cocoon he has spun, believing it, and beyond any hope of ever getting free of it."

Washington Evening Star, June 14, 1967 Max Lerner sat down with Jim Garrison at his home in New Orleans for three hours. Money paragraphs: It's not clear exactly when Lerner sat down with Garrison. But this is very consistent with what Garrison told Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Merriman Smith, and Lawrence Schiller. In addition, here is what Perry Russo told Shaw's attorneys in March 1971: Sounds almost identical to the Lerner article. Check out this post on Jim Garrison and the issue of homosexuality in his investigation.

Here is an overview of the Garrison investigation from the New Orleans Times-Picayune of December 15, 1991. Here are some of the important quotes in this article: "He had changed from a liberal, crusading, dedicated public officer to a megalomaniac. Once he became fixed on the Kennedy probe, he became absolutely ruthless in his pursuit of it." David Chandler on Jim Garrison "A few of us quite frankly were relieved. We were hoping this was the opportunity we had been waiting for to shut it down, say the key to the case had died and get out. Unfortunately, Garrison's reaction was just the opposite." John Volz, Former Assistant DA to Garrison, on David Ferrie's death. "Garrison would develop the theory, then go out and try to get the evidence to back it up. And the theories kept changing." John Volz "A couple of assistants went off to interview Spiesel and came back and said, 'Well, he'd make a good witness, but he's crazy,' Then I realized they were planning to use him anyway." Tom Bethell on Charles Spiesel "Clay Shaw could have lived a tasteful, quiet, lovely life for 25 or 30 years on what he had saved. Instead his life was wrecked to advance Garrison's agenda. The cynicism was appalling." Rosemary James "Garrison took an innocent man and used him to get the international acclaim that he sought. He was a nut and a phony, and he never had a case. Irvin Dymond, defense attorney for Clay Shaw

Art Buchwald was a political satirist whose work appeared in over 550 newspapers across the United States. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Outstanding Commentary in 1982. In 1967 there was a scandal regarding Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut. It centered on Dodd's association with Julius Klein, a public relations consultant for several West German clients and there were allegations of financial wrongdoing. Art Buchwald by Yousuf Karsh who was a very famous Canadian. Art Buchwald wrote about the scandal through the lens of Jim Garrison . I don't think the commentary is particularly funny, but it does show that Buchwald had a good understanding of Garrison and his ridiculous tactics. Ironically, Eberhard Deutsch defended Jim Garrison in both Gordon Novel's libel lawsuit, and in Clay Shaw's damages lawsuit. In fact, Deutsch was linked with Garrison as early as 1964. Art Buchwald died in 2007.

Here is an editorial from the Chicago Daily News right after the acquittal of Clay Shaw: Chicago Daily News, March 4, 1969 Unfortunately, Garrison was re-elected for another term. Here is an editorial from the Arkansas Gazette from March 4, 1969: And, here is the San Francisco Chronicle from March 4, 1969: Note the inclusion of homosexuals with "bums, perjurers...and other social misfits and bottom rungers." And in a paper from San Francisco. Gay people still had ways to go in terms of acceptance. Here is the Los Angeles Times from March 4, 1969: Here is a very good letter to the editor from the March 7, 1969 edition: And here is an Oliphant cartoon from March 8, 1969: Here is the Miami Herald from March 4, 1969: Other Relevant Blog Posts Clay Shaw's Acquittal Washington Post Editorial on the Acquittal of Clay Shaw The New York Times on Clay Shaw's Acquittal Sylvia Meagher Congratulates Clay Shaw On His Acquittal