Conspiracy theorists believe that David Ferrie either committed suicide or was murdered (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 225). I wrote about the death of David Ferrie here, In the weeks before he died, Ferrie was complaining that he had encephalitis. He knew he was a very sick man. Dr. Cyril Wecht, in his book The JFK Assassination Dissected: An Analysis by Forensic Pathologist Cyril Wecht, agrees that David Ferrie died of natural causes. He claims that he phoned Garrison with his review of the autopsy: "Garrison suspected the pressure got to Ferrie, who took his own life. The district attorney said he had gone into Ferrie’s apartment after the body had been removed and pocketed a bottle of Proloid, a prescription medication that he claimed the coroner’s technicians had failed to collect. The bottle had pills missing, and Garrison wondered if the medication was used by Ferrie to kill himself. I volunteered to review the autopsy report and, grateful, he said he’d mail it to me. In a subsequent phone call, I reported back that the autopsy, performed by Dr. Ronald Welsh, was expertly done, and I agreed with the conclusion that it was a natural death. I explained that an aneurysm can frequently rupture, spilling blood into the brain. Think of it as an inner tube with a weak spot, I said. Ferrie had complained of headaches for a while, a completely consistent scenario for his condition. Ferrie had other contributing causes of trouble: hypertensive cardiovascular disease and pulmonary edema (swelling) and congestion." Wecht continues: "Moreover, because there were two notes found, and the deceased was relatively young, the coroner asked for toxicology screening above and beyond what was typically done. The lab ran the full gamut for organic and inorganic substances, which include opioids, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, barbiturates, and marijuana, as well as alcohol. The results came back negative. Only a small amount of caffeine was detected, which comported with the cup of coffee that a reporter, the last person with Ferrie prior to his death, had said he ingested." Wecht says that Garrison protested: "Garrison said there were seven pills still in the bottle of Proloid he had taken, and that he had learned Ferrie didn’t even have a prescription for the medication. Garrison expected I would agree that the coroner’s techs had screwed up by not collecting it but, again, I had to set him straight. Proloid was a hormone to stimulate the thyroid gland to counteract a low metabolism, and it takes time to work once introduced into a person’s system. I had never heard of one case in which it was used as a suicide drug. In fact, as I explained, the only way it would make sense for Ferrie to use Proloid to kill himself would be if he stuffed the actual bottle into his throat to block his windpipe—and that didn’t happen. Also, most people using drugs for a suicidal overdose generally don’t leave a few pills in the bottle. They want to be sure to die, so they take all of the medication. These were the likely reasons the techs didn’t bother collecting that bottle, and I reminded Garrison that his own action of taking something from a death scene was improper. Had there been something to his theory of a “Proloid suicide,” he had interrupted the chain of custody. As for the lack of anyone’s name on the prescription medicine, I had no idea. Maybe the pills were left over from the experiments he conducted on the white mice that had been in his apartment. I said that partly facetiously. The last people to have seen Ferrie reported that his breath was labored and he moaned in pain with each step. He had also been unable to keep food in his stomach for long. It seemed to me that his system was shutting down. He might have lived, had he gone to a hospital." But what about the supposed suicide notes? Here is one of the notes: Dear Al: When you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be possible. I wonder how you are going to justify things. Tell me you treated me as you did because I was the one who always got you in trouble. The police arrest. The strip car charge. The deal at Kohn School. Flying Barragona in the Beech. Well, I guess that helps ease your conscience, even if it is not the truth. All I can say is that I offered you love, and the best I could. All I got in return in the end was a kick in the teeth. Thus I die alone and unloved. You would not even straighten out Carol about me, though this started when you were going steady. I wonder what your last days and hours are going to be like. As you sowed, so shall you reap. Wecht comments: "Could that have been a suicide note? Absolutely. But it also could have been the words of a jilted boyfriend who was acknowledging his own poor health." Here is the other note: 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. Daily we are propagandized more and more about a rising crime rate. But how do we know it is true? We don't, for we Americans have little or no access to the truth. Today I went to the police headquarters to see these "public records" of this rising crime rate and nearly wound up in jail for my trouble. I was searched, interrogated, verbally abused, had my record checked, and finally threatened. Needless to say, I did not see the "public records." Still more irking is to hear a superintendent of police, who rose through the ranks (thus proving that zero equals super zero) stating that the solution to the crime problem was tightened and more stringent laws. A somewhat messianic district attorney concurred. Together these men prove themselves utterly unfit for office, just as they proved that an electorate cannot be depended on to pick the right man. The problems of crime rest deep in society. The problems exist in the existence of divorce and the absence of regulations. No parents would send him [sic] child to an amateur for dental work, nor a quack for an appendectomy. Yet what atrocious negligence is permitting other amateurs to raise children. Mere kids are allowed to marry because they have the "urge". How stupid can you get? Every expert tells in detail how children must be cared for physically, emotionally and intellectually. Yet society lets girls and boys, not yet capable of lover [sic] begat [sic] children who, love-starved, turn to crime for some sort of identification. However, I don't think we will often see a district attorney or a police chief with brains to realize this. We pay so much attention to the law. I have not figured out the reason. I have watched judges like Cocke at work. The various police and district attorneys and the like get to bend the judge's ear long before the trial. These judges of today deny defendants due process of the law. They permit the court to try the case in chambers, to have district attorneys form their opinions and decisions long before the defense gets a chance. Further, these same judges (and I am afraid it pertains to nearly all of them) then comment, by word, glance, gesture or remark, on the evidence in front of a jury. If the defendant wins, these judges take it as a personal insult. When I was a boy my father preached that in the "American way of life" you are innocent till proven guilty. No greater lie has been told. The man charged before the court has flat got to prove his innocence. Go witness a criminal trial and watch. The state is supposed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you read decisions of the various courts of appeal and the Supreme Court you discover that truth and falsehood, right and wrong have no place in court. All the state needs is "evidence to support a conviction". If this is justice, then justice be damned. Wecht notes: "This sounds more like a journal entry or letter to the editor than a missive to anyone." Jim Garrison does not mention the Wecht phone call in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins. Instead, Garrison writes: (page 144) "The sudden death of David Ferrie had brought us, right on the heels of the previous week's unwelcome front-page story [the news of Garrison's investigation], our second straight disaster. I could not rid myself of Ferrie's prophetic remark to Lou Ivon immediately following the news story: "I'm a dead man now." Nor could I rid myself of the nagging possibility that his death might as easily been causes by murder as by suicide. In either case we had lost our best chance for cracking the case." In his book A Heritage of Stone, Garrison wrote that the remark "I'm a dead man," was from an interview with Allen Campbell. (page 110, footnote 59) And the May 1969 interview with Campbell does contain that line: Hard to know if Ferrie really said that. But we do know that he complained to many people about his health, and he did think he was dying. He was also extremely worried about what might happen to him because of the Garrison investigation: (Lambert, False Witness, pages 62 - 63) "[Dave] Snyder and his wife both agree about Ferrie's state of mind. "Ferrie was scared to death," they say, "scared to death of Garrison, scared of being arrested." Ferrie was frightened because of the newspaper reports of his 1961 "crime against nature" charge. His predilection for teenage boys was a matter of public record. Many would regard him as a child molester, and they are not dealt with kindly in prison. Those last days, Ferrie was terrified by that, not (as Garrison and later Stone depicted) the fear of being murdered because of his knowledge of the assassination. He had no such knowledge." Previous Blog Posts on Dr. Cyril Wecht Dr. Cyril Wecht's Error on Jack Ruby Dr. Cyril Wecht on the Bullet Wounds to Kennedy's Back/Throat Dr. Cyril Wecht is Proud to be a Conspiracy Theorist Dr. Cyril Wecht on Jim Garrison

There's no shortage of conspiracy theorists who bristle at the term 'conspiracy theorists.' It seems that Dr. Cyril Wecht has some advice for them - wear the term as a "badge of honor." Well, Dr. Cyril Wecht wears the title proudly: (from the preface of his new book) "The term 'conspiracy theorist' is tossed around by those who resent that we don't buy the official story. They sneer that we can't prove what we claim -- while slamming the door on declassifying government files that might help us to do that very thing. They want to make us seem like paranoid time-wasters for pursuing this case for all these years. They'd like us to shut up and find a new hobby, one that won't cast aspersions on their past actions and continual cover-up. But we who are true believers in the idea of government malfeasance are not oppressed at being termed conspiracy theorists. We're fine with those two simple words because they cast doubt on the party line. We wear those words proudly, as our badge of honor." Gee, all the people I know who believe that Oswald was the lone gunman also want all the files released. Does Wecht really believe that any withheld or redacted files will really prove their so-called case?

The JFK Assassination Dissected: An Analysis by Forensic Pathologist Cyril Wecht, is replete with all sorts of errors. Wecht writes: (page 163 in Kindle) "By November 1963, Ruby owned the Silver Spur Inn and two strip clubs in Dallas: the Carousel and the after-hours Vegas, which was managed by his sister, Eva Grant." It was not the Silver Spur Inn, it was the Silver Spur Club, and Ruby sold his interest in 1952, then reacquired his interest, and then closed the club in 1955. You would think that Dr. Wecht could have afforded a proper editor to review his work. Previous Blog Posts on Dr. Cyril Wecht Dr. Cyril Wecht on the Bullet Wounds to Kennedy's Back/Throat Dr. Cyril Wecht is Proud to be a Conspiracy Theorist

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, uses James Gochenaur, a former student at the University of Washington at Seattle, to support two major allegations, one on Kennedy's throat wound, and one on an assassination plot in Chicago. Gochenaur was not a direct witness to anything, but he did have conversations with ex-Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, and ex-FBI agent Carver Gayton. There are some very good reasons to question Gochenaur's credibility. The first time Gochenaur appears is at 42:38 and he is in a segment on the throat wound of President Kennedy: Dr. Donald Miller: One of the main reasons Dr. Perry changed his testimony and publicly agreed it was an exit wound is a Secret Service agent put the pressure on him, and that person was Elmer Moore. In 1970, Elmer Moore was head of the Secret Service office in Seattle. And a graduate student named Jim Gochenaur became friends with him. And he admitted to Gochenaur that regretted putting pressure on Dr. Perry. James Gochenaur: So, I asked him directly, I said, "Mr. Moore, did you pressure Dr. Perry?" He stopped for a minute, and he says "Well, I was ordered to do that." He expanded on it, and he said that Inspector [Thomas] Kelley had ordered him to talk with Perry and convince him that it could be either an exit or an entry wound. Not an entry wound. And I thought it was pretty interesting that he would admit to something that's pretty close to a felony. It's interesting that the Moore did not pressure Perry to say it was an exit wound, but rather to say that it could be either. In his testimony to the HSCA, Gochenaur said that Moore told him he had "badgered" Perry into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck." Elmer Moore did talk to the Dallas doctors. How much he pressured Perry is not exactly known. Is Gochenaur the right witness to back up the allegation? In the early 1970s,Gochenaur corresponded with Harold Weisberg and you can view their letters here. Here is an excerpt from his letter to Weisberg from May 10, 1971: Point C. is interesting: "Moore told me several times he did not "twist Perry's arm," which leads me to believe he might have." So, in JFK Revisited, we are getting Gochenaur's interpretation of what Moore actually said, which was quite different from what he actually said. Got it. Gochenaur appeared a second time in JFK Revisited in a segment about a plot to kill JFK in Chicago in November 1963: (1:28:03) Whoopi Goldberg: Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore was aware of Agent Bolden and the Chicago plot. James Gochenaur: I met with Elmer three times face-to-face, several phone calls very short, one very long one with him. I first asked him did you ever interview Thomas Arthur Vallee? And he says, "Oh, Washington wouldn't let me see the files on that." I said, "Oh, well, what about the man, the Secret Service Agent by the name of Abraham Bolden?" His demeanor completely changed. He stood up from his chair. He pulled out his revolver and he put it on the table right in front of me. He leaned over the table, and he says, "Jim, tell me right now, who are you working for?" I said, "I'm an independent researcher." He told me, in a very loud voice, and with a very stern look on his face, "We finally got him." Once again, a story with some truth, but with quite possibly the wrong witness. Gochenaur was interviewed by the Church Committee in 1975. (courtesy of the Malcolm Blunt Archive in the Authors, Journalists and Researchers folder) He said that Elmer Moore told him he had destroyed a picture that was given to him by Jack Ruby's sister. Moore never told Gochenaur what was in the picture, but "Gochenaur gained the impression that it was a photo of Ruby and some individual that would link Ruby to the incident in Chicago." The incident in Chicago was an attempted assassination of Kennedy in early November 1963. Gochenaur said that Moore told him that Ruby had made several calls to Chicago on the day before he shot Oswald. Here is a really wild allegation: "Moore told Gochenaur that one of the persons Ruby talked to in Chicago was an individual who was arrested in Chicago on November 1, 1963, the day a number of people were arrested in the vicinity of Soldiers' Field, where President Kennedy was scheduled to appear." Gochenaur is claiming that Moore linked Ruby to another assassination attempt on JFK. This is a far bigger allegation than claiming that Moore put pressure on Dr. Perry. Is there any evidence to back this up? If there is, I can't find any. Here is a list of Ruby's long distance calls just before the assassination: (CE 2302) The two Chicago calls are to the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) and to Nathan Carroll, husband of Jack Ruby's sister Marian. Unfortunately, that is all we know since "Gochenaur said that he was reluctant to speak about some of these matters over the telephone, especially with regard to the names of people that Moore had mentioned in connection with Ruby's activities in Chicago." The HSCA interviewed Gochenaur, and the Chicago plot was not discussed at all. Gochenaur also repeated assassination buff factoids to the Church Committee (courtesy of the Malcolm Blunt Archive in the Authors, Journalists and Researchers folder): "In this connection, Gochenaur said that he believes it has been reported, either in the Warren Commission or in the assassination literature that when Thomas Vallee was arrested in Chicago on November 1 outside Soldier's Stadium, as indicated above, it was discovered that Vallee's car was registered in Lee Harvey Oswald's name." The link between Vallee and Oswald was raised in 1970 by Sherman Skolnick. "Skolnick also says that Vallee's car, bearing New York license plate 311 ORF, was "linked or registered to Harvey Oswald." There was never any truth to this. The Weisberg-Gochenaur correspondence gives us a contemporaneous view of what was being said. It's hard to distinguish between what Moore and Gayton actually told Gochenaur and Gochenaur's buff views on the assassination. For instance, Elmer Moore was in San Francisco the weekend of the assassination. Here is what Gochenaur wrote about that in his letter to Weisberg on April 6, 1971: However, in a letter from Richard Sprague to Bernard Fensterwald, it appears that Gochenaur believed that Moore was lying about being in San Francisco and might have actually been in Dallas: So, Moore was either watching Shaw in San Francisco or he was lying and was actually in Dallas. Also, Gayton supposedly told Gochenaur that Hosty told him that Oswald was a "potential security informant," but that Oswald was reluctant and did nothing to help. Gayton said this to the Church Committee but did not repeat this to the HSCA. He only overlapped with Hosty in Kansas City for one month. But this silly statement just makes Gochenaur look like an amateur buff: (from his Church Committee interview) "Gochenaur also pointed out that it was on November 1 that Hosty visited Oswald's home and talked to Oswald's mother and Oswald's wife in an effort to reach Oswald." Here is an excerpt from a letter that Gochenaur sent Harold Weisberg in March 1971: Richard Sprague sent a letter to Bud Fensterwald about Gochenaur in which Elmer Moore was to meet them in Victoria, British Columbia. They discussed a mysterious "Mr. O" who supposedly worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence: In November 1971 Gochenaur sent Weisberg a note about this ONI man: Here is a letter that Gochenaur sent to Harold Weisberg in June 1972: Carver Gayton was interviewed by the HSCA: The relevant quote is towards the bottom: "Gayton admitted talking with Gochenaur but says he is somewhat of a flake and was an assassination buff when they met in Seattle." Elmer Moore was interviewed by the Church Committee, and he wasn't happy about Gochenaur: Moore did not feel that Gochenaur was honestly reporting his views: Moore claims he was just trying to help Gochenaur: Gochenaur repeated a lot of buff factoids to Moore: Future blog posts will cover the wound in JFK's throat and the Chicago plot against JFK. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled propaganda network financed by the Russian government. If you want to see the latest Russian propaganda, well, this is the place. And guess who loves being interviewed on RT. Yup, Oliver Stone. This gives him the freedom to criticize the United States and to praise dictators like Vladimir Putin. I refuse to link to RT interviews of Oliver Stone. But just google "Oliver Stone" RT and you'll come up with lots of hits. He is right at home on RT. But some people understand what Russia is all about, and who know how to be interviewed on RT. Here's Jamie Kirchick with a lesson for us all. Here are some links about RT: Ofcom fines RT £200,000 How Russia spreads disinformation via RT is more nuanced than we realise YouTube shuts German channels of Russian broadcaster RT Germany Fears Influence of Russian Propaganda Channel Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

One of the crazier allegations comes from James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed: (page 209) "Tommy Baumler would be interviewed by Harold Weisberg for Garrison. But later on, in 1981, he was interviewed by controversial attorney Bernard Fensterwald. At that time he told him that Banister and Shaw were quite close and that "Clay Shaw, Banister, and Guy Johnson made up the intelligence apparatus in New Orleans." His source was an interview by Bernard Fensterwald and J. Gary Shaw with Baumler on December 30, 1981. So, who was Tommy Baumler and why should we believe what he said? He was known for his extreme right-wing views, and he supposedly did some work for Guy Banister in infiltrating college campuses looking for communists. In 1967, Baumler was a lawyer working for Louis Davis, another extreme right-winger, who was also helping to fund the Garrison investigation. Baumler wanted to work for Garrison. Here is an excerpt from Garrison's lead memo from November 1967: Some comments about this memo: Baumler wanted to be an "investigator" for Jim Garrison. Does any of this sound like a lead? Did Baumler really work for Banister? The memo says that "Our information indicates that Tommy Baumler was among those who went in and out of Banister's office for several years in the early Sixties." Not one word about Shaw or Johnson being in the intelligence apparatus of New Orleans. Weisberg commented on Davis and Baumler: Baumler once called Garrison's office with other important information: What conclusion would you make from the above two memos? That Baumler liked to talk and that he knew very little. The FBI also had some information on Tommy Baumler: So now we have a group of masochists in New Orleans. And Jim Garrison just might be a member. Harold Weisberg commented on this: Jack Martin and David Lewis worked together on a two-part memo to Jim Garrison about the JFK assassination probe: Now we know where Garrison got the line that Baumler was "in and out" of Banister's office. DiEugenio continues about Tommy Baumler: (page 274) "In the spring of 1968, Harold Weisberg interviewed Tommy Baumler. Baumler had formerly worked for Guy Banister as part of his corps of student infiltrators in the New Orleans area. Because of that experience, Baumler knew a lot about Banister's operations. For instance, that Banister's files were coded, and that Banister had blackmail material on the subjects he kept files on. He also knew the intelligence network in New Orleans was constructed through Banister, Clay Shaw, and Guy Johnson; how close Shaw and Banister were; and that "Oswald worked for Banister." In Weisberg's interview with Tommy, he would occasionally ask to go off the record by telling him to turn the tape recorder off. Clearly, there were things going on in New Orleans that Baumler considered too hot to be attributed to him." Ok, well, here is Weisberg's memo: Weisberg writes that "When Tommy wanted to be off the record, he either signaled me to turn the tape off or asked me to, on the tape. Some of the times I wasn't taping, alas, because I just didn't have enough tape." Okay, but was there anything said of substance? The answer is no, and even Weisberg admits that "there is so much chatter and rambling, I'll have to listen to the taped part to adequately report ... it was mostly free association." Here is Weisberg's portrait or Tommy Baumler: "He delineated a self-portrait of an unabashed fascist, congenital and conscious. He is aware of the meaning of his beliefs and considers what he describes as his beliefs as proper. He is an exponent of the rights of power. He says that whatever happens, the Shaw case will end without punishment for him because federal power will see to that. This, he says, will also be the destinies of Andrews, Thornley, if he is convicted, and any others, and he is unconcerned about the import, entirely without indignation about injustice and the failure of justice. He is quite illuminating about Guy Banister, said Dion Turner is his client and is legally insane, met Kerry Thornley, but he doesn't know where, ..." And did Baumler meet the elusive Clay Bertrand? Just kidding. Well, he met somebody that sounds very important: "He spent some time describing the activities of a man he said had to be CIA and engaged in what he wanted me to understand was a major propaganda campaign, designed to influence public opinion here, including that of jurors, and about you [Garrison] personally. He described him as a "nondescript" man in two ways on different occasions, as a working-class man and a "middle-class" businessman. Gray hair, skin olive to ruddy, medium height and build. Knowledge of case "tremendous", attitude "very antagonistic." It is Tommy's thought that if the CIA could put 500 men like him working throughout the country, it would kill the probe. He is, according to Tommy, "fabulous". He has seen him at Monteleone's Rooftop Terrace, at night and at Pete's Place at about 3 pm. He once also saw him in university section [sic], at a restaurant-bar. One of these is on St. Charles. He talked like a local man." Yet again, another mysterious person who cannot be named, and who cannot be found. At the bottom of page two of the above memo, Weisberg writes: "Tommy says he never met Oswald, that Rocco Di Nocolas is wrong, and he knew the source was di N." Here is a memo that Weisberg sent to Jim Garrison on that particular episode: Oswald at a poetry reading? Perhaps, but what this memo shows me is that New Orleans was a cauldron of rumors, innuendo and gossip. Weisberg had tapped into a group of people that loved to tell stories - most notably Barbara Reid - who was the queen of gossip in the French Quarter. Tommy Baumler also liked to tell stories. A 1973 Harold Weisberg memo has this paragraph about Tommy Baumler: And there is also this: I don't know what is really going on, but it doesn't sound like Mr. Baumler was a tower of virtue. Does any of this lead you to believe that Tommy Baumler has some special information about Clay Shaw and the so-called "intelligence apparatus" of New Orleans? I don't have a copy of the Baumler interview with Fensterwald but I did find this on the internet probably written by Joe Biles) : The Bernard Fensterwald / J. Gary Shaw 1981 Interview with Tommy Baumler [The following is from an unpublished lunch interview of Gary Shaw I wrote for the Mineral Wells Index. Shaw resides in Cleburne, Texas, home of another newspaper published by our publisher, CNHI. This was to have run several weeks ago, but I was laid off due to the so-called "recession." Silly liberal media... I hope to have the notes from the actual interview available soon.] One of the subjects I asked Shaw about was his 1981 interview with New Orleans Attorney Tommy Baumler. Baumler had worked for Guy Banister, a right-winger and virulent anti-Communist private investigator, infiltrating leftist groups on college campuses. Many witnesses place Oswald in Banister's office during the summer of 1963. Shaw recalled vividly the interview: "We spent probably a week in New Orleans looking up some of the characters from the Garrison investigation. ... One of them was Tommy Baumler, who we finally found. We were kind of off the beaten track and we found the house, and we were led into the back of the house in a long room and he's sitting at the end of a table as long as from here to there [gesturing], probably fifteen feet long, sitting like a big frog man, you know? "And he never moved--I don't know whether he couldn't move or just exactly what. But he had Lieutenants or somebody on each side of him, one of them who had brought us in, and one who sat behind us the whole time." Baumler told Shaw unequivocally that "Oswald worked for Banister." He also said that Banister was very close to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman who was tried and acquitted in 1969 of charges that he conspired to murder President Kennedy. The Kennedy assassination is full of people saying things. It's very easy to tell stories. So just because Tommy Baumler supposedly said that "Clay Shaw, Banister, and Guy Johnson made up the intelligence apparatus in New Orleans," doesn't make it true. Lastly, guess who was once Guy Johnson's law partner? None other than Jim Garrison: New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 20, 1976 By the way, Guy Johnson was in naval intelligence during World War II. This, of course, makes him very suspicious, no? And Jim Garrison, in his book On the Trail of the Assassins, referred to Johnson "as a friend of mine." (page 26)

Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an excellent opinion piece by my friend Alecia Long: "In short, historical scholarship and the evidence at the National Archives make it clear that Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw, who was accused of acting with Oswald and another man, was largely conducted to provide a public forum for questioning the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman. As we approach the assassination’s 60th anniversary, let’s look to the historical record rather than the silver screen for satisfying and nuanced answers to still-important questions. An archive borne in tragedy and consolidated on the basis of durable but disputed claims of conspiracy retains the ability to enlighten us historically about a whole range of issues that resonate in contemporary American life." Please read her piece. And then go and buy a copy of her excellent book, Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime. There was also an important article about JFK conspiracy theories in Rolling Stone. Yes, Rolling Stone was the magazine back in the 1970s that loved JFK conspiracy theories. Times have changed. Tim Weiner's article, This Is Where Oliver Stone Got His Loony JFK Conspiracies From, discusses the Paese Sera series of articles from March 1967 that was most probably a KGB operation designed to blame the CIA for the assassination. You can read my book, On the Trail of Delusion, for more information on those articles. But Weiner understands just how dangerous conspiracy theories can be: "I can tell you for a fact that our democracy is suffocating under an avalanche of disinformation. Trump won the 2020 election! Covid vaccines are seeded with microchips! Democrats are blood-sucking pedophile communists! 9/11 was an inside job! Our body politic is being poisoned by lies. They stalk the land like brain-eating zombies. And we can’t seem to kill them. We have a moral obligation to call bullshit when we see it. Especially when public figures promote lies for profit. Stone’s JFK films are fantasies. Conspiracy theories are not facts. They’re a kind of collective psychosis. And they’re driving our country down the road to hell." Oliver Stone did get an opinion piece published yesterday - in the Hollywood Reporter! Here is the tweet that the Hollywood Reporter sent out about the Oliver Stone article: A total of five reply and fifteen retweets, and 59 likes in the first five hours! And not surprising, more and more people are noticing that the Emperor has no clothes.

Today is the 58th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He was only 46 years old when he was gunned down in Dallas, and few presidents have ever imbued the nation with such enthusiasm. He asked all Americans to put their country first -- "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." As I said a year ago: There will be articles, TV shows, blog posts (like this one) and tweets about his life, and his death. There will be arguments about conspiracy theories and whether Oswald was the lone gunman. And there will be people bemoaning the fact that there are more JFK assassination documents to be released. There are two things we should do today. First, take some time to remember JFK, his life and his Presidency. JFK brought hope to many people within the United States and to many people around the world. It was a time for optimism. Boy, have times changed. There will probably be some op-eds by Oliver Stone bemoaning the fact that Joe Biden has not released all the documents. He's also upset that his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, doesn't seem to be getting any traction. We can all have our disagreements over JFK Revisited. But there is something really obscene about the fact that Oliver Stone has crucified Clay Shaw once again. When Oliver Stone released his epic film JFK in 1991, he found himself embroiled in a controversy with gay rights activists. David Ehrenstein, writing in the Advocate, a popular gay magazine, called JFK “the most homophobic movie ever to come out of Hollywood.” Why was he upset? Oliver Stone based his movie on the real-life prosecution of Clay Shaw, a gay man in New Orleans who was accused in 1967 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison of conspiring to kill JFK. It took two years for the case to come to trial and the jury acquitted Shaw in less than an hour. A few days later, Garrison charged Shaw with two counts of perjury and it took another two years before it was quashed by a higher court. Clay Shaw with his attorneys after his acquittal With a substantial part of his savings spent on his defense, Clay Shaw had to come out of retirement and go back to work. He then sued Garrison for $5 million in damages, but he unfortunately died of cancer before the case could be heard. The best years of Clay Shaw’s life were stolen – he had retired to write plays and restore properties in the French Quarter of New Orleans – and for what? In the early part of his investigation, Garrison told journalists Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Jack Anderson, Jerrold Footlick, Merriman Smith, Art Kevin, and Max Lerner that a homosexual conspiracy killed JFK. Ultimately, JFK conspiracy theorists got him to move away from that theory and view the CIA as the culprit. Even so, Clay Shaw's name was raked through the mud. Here is a short excerpt of the infamous Sciambra memorandum, written right after Andrew Sciambra first interviewed Perry Russo: Clay Shaw admired and voted for John Kennedy. This memo was actually read out loud in court during the Shaw trial. What a homophobic slur! I should add that because of his status, Clay Shaw was allowed to invite people to join him at the Nashville wharf to see President Kennedy. He invited Label Katz of the B'nai B'rith: So, for Oliver Stone to use a homophobic prosecution as the basis for JFK was not just vicious; it victimized Clay Shaw a second time, and this time in front of a world-wide audience. Stone believed that Jim Garrison was a crusading prosecutor who was trying to take on the CIA, the military-industrial complex and the national security infrastructure. Stone claimed it was “worth the sacrifice of one man,” and so Stone kept Clay Shaw as the evil mastermind along with his band of conspiring homosexuals. Stone met with gay rights activists to assure them that he wasn’t homophobic. He asked them to wait and see the final film and then render their verdicts. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance for Defamation went to a screening. They wrote a letter to the LA Times saying “We are particularly concerned about an unlikely and gratuitous scene depicting gay characters dressed in elaborate costumes and involved in some kind of sadomasochistic activity. We also question the inherent imbalance in the portrayal of the gay characters as kinky, bizarre and pathetic, while Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner, is a classic Hollywood hero – whitewashed, according to most critics, of real historical blemishes.” Los Angeles Times, December 6, 1991 Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, mentions Clay Shaw’s arrest “on charges that he was part of the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy …” Nowhere in the film does it even say that Clay Shaw was tried and was acquitted of conspiracy. This is an astounding error of omission, because Stone makes a big deal out of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald never had his day in court. Nor does the film mention what Judge Herbert Christenberry said in 1971 after three days of hearings regarding the perjury charges. He found that Garrison “undertook his baseless investigation with the specific intent to deprive Shaw of his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments ... the only conclusion that can be drawn from Garrison’s actions is that he intentionally used the arrest for his own purposes, with complete disregard for the rights of Clay Shaw.” Stone also alleges that Clay Shaw was a CIA agent. For conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone, this is consorting with the enemy, and certainly enough to suggest participation in an assassination conspiracy. And on this he falls flat on his face. Shaw did have an association with the CIA, but he was just a source for the Domestic Contact Service from 1948 to 1956. Shaw’s career was in international trade and the CIA took an interest in his trips to the Caribbean, Central America and South America in 1949 and another trip to South America is 1951. When Shaw curtailed his international travel in 1956, his association with the CIA ended. Clay Shaw was an outstanding citizen of New Orleans. There is a reason why a plaque celebrating his life hangs outside one of the many properties he refurbished during his life. There is also a reason why there are no commemorations of Jim Garrison in New Orleans. Mr. Stone, shame on you.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, presents Governor John Connally as a witness who offered testimony that contradicted the single bullet theory. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (26:16) Whoopi Goldberg: [Senator Richard] Russell was strongly influenced by the Zapruder film and by the testimony of Governor Connally. John Connally: I understand there's some, some questions in the minds of the experts about whether or not we could have both been hit by the same bullet and that was the first bullet. I just don't happen to believe that. I don't believe it. Never will believe it. Whoopi Goldberg: This forced the other commissioners to include Connally's dissent in the [Warren] Report, and as a result they could not absolutely deny the possibility of a conspiracy. However, that is not the only statement that John Connally ever made on the shooting. For instance, here is part two of the 1967 CBS documentary series on the Warren Report: You can see John Connally at 51:50 of the above video. Here is what he said: John Connally: "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened, and what occurred, with respect to the one-bullet theory is that it had to be the second bullet that might have hit us both. Interviewer: Do you believe Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy? John Connally: That's possible. That's possible. Now the best witness I know doesn't believe that. The documentary interviews Nellie Connally who does believe that Connally and JFK were hit by separate bullets. John Connally returned at 53:34: John Connally: Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion. The first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me. Now, so far as I'm concerned, all I can say, with any finality, is that if there is, if the single bullet theory is correct, then it had to be the second bullet that hit President Kennedy and me. Walter Cronkite: The Governor insists that he heard a shot before he was struck, and that therefore he could not have been struck by the first bullet as the Warren Commission supposes. Does JFK Revisited actually accept the Connally's view that there were only three shots fired on November 22, 1963? Here is yet another interview of John Connally from 1991: At 0:51 he describes turning on to Elm Street, and once again says that he was hit by the second bullet. This is all consistent with the single bullet theory. Here is a clip that Oliver Stone will never show people.. John Connally's lapel flap: And while we are at it, here is a .gif file that shows the reactions to the single-bullet:

We all know the scene in Oliver Stone's film JFK in which Guy Banister (Ed Asner) pistol-whips Jack Martin (Jack Lemmon). Later on, Jack Martin goes on to tell Garrison the real reason it happened - he had witnessed a lot of strange things in the office. Here is the scene: And, Jim Garrison, in his book On The Trail of the Assassins, tells the story of Jack Martin coming to his office, on the Monday after the assassination: (page 31) "Well, when we came back to the office, Banister started bitching about one thing and then another. He was in a mean mood. Then all of a sudden, he accused me of going through his private files. No I never went through his private stuff ever - absolutely never. And that really ticked me off." He hesitated for a long moment. "Go on, Jack," I said gently. "I guess I blew up," he continued, his face flushed with memories of injustice. "That's when I told him he'd better not talk to me like that. I told him I remembered the people I had seen around the office that summer. And that's when he hit me. Fast as a flash - pulled out that big Magnum and slammed me on the side of the head with it." Of course, there is no internal Garrison memo about this conversation. The police report says something different. And here it is: The police report only mentions unauthorized long distance telephone calls. Note that Delphine Roberts is listed as a witness. Why didn't Garrison's investigators ask Delphine Roberts about this incident when she was interviewed? Perhaps because it really was a dispute about telephone charges. Now, Garrison does claim that he mentioned the police report to Martin, who then asks "does a simple argument over phone bills sound like a believable explanation to you." And, of course, it doesn't. But, as David Reitzes argues, Banister had a history of such outbursts: As the District Attorney himself told Life editor Richard Billings in December 1966, Banister was both a "violent man" and a "heavy drinker." According to Garrison's 1966 description, Banister was "probably insane before he died," an assessment borne out by others who knew him. Despite his former standing in the law enforcement community, Garrison advised Billings, Banister "went all the way down before he died" only a few months after the events of November 22nd. Guy Banister's behavior was noted to be violent and erratic on numerous occasions during the late 1950s and early 1960s. In fact, in 1957 he lost his job as Assistant Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department when, while drinking, he pulled a gun on a waiter in a French Quarter bar; and on March 31, 1964, he was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault after allegedly brandishing a pistol at three youths on a city bus Reitzes quotes from Aaron Kohn's deposition before the HSCA on November 7, 1978. Here are the two pages from that deposition that talks about Guy Banister: And there is some corroboration for the police report explanation of the pistol-whipping incident. Here is what Jack Martin told Harold Weisberg (these are notes of a conversation Washington Post reporter George Lardner had with Weisberg); And Joseph Newbrough, a part-time detective for Banister, told the HSCA that Martin told him the argument was over long distance calls. Here is an excerpt from that report dated April 10, 1978. (HSCA Outside Contact Report of Joseph Newbrough, RIF# 180-10072-10214, courtesy of Jerry Shinley) And, David Ferrie told the FBI about Martin's long distance phone calls. Might he have told Banister about them? Francis Martello, the Lieutenant who wrote up the incident report, was interviewed by the HSCA on August 18, 1977: (HSCA Outside Contact report of Francis Martello, RIF# 180-10080-10206, courtesy of Jerry Shinley) Jack Martin, a known fabricator, started embellishing the incident in an affidavit he wrote with David Lewis (another Garrison witness who had little credibility) on February 20, 1968: Martin says that he went into Banister's private office and told him that he had "compiled, and kept records of all events we had either been involved in, exposed to, or heard about, bar nothing." Well, what ever happened to those records? Banister then gets mad about being double-crossed about a client - and that client was George Lincoln Rockwell. Martin then admits that is true. Martin then says that "there had been no secret as far as anyone was concerned in regard to the fact that Banister, David William Ferrie, and Lee Harvey Oswald may have known, or been acquainted with one another." It's a strange statement - may have known? Did he not see them in the office? Martin then basically accuses Banister of being involved in the JFK assassination, "We reminded him of this, together with the fact that he often mentioned, "Someday, somebody is going to poke a rifle out a window," when speaking of unpopular politicians at times." Banister gets upset and talks about fighting, and Martin then says "Our reply was that we would most likely remain silent regarding him (Banister), but not Ferrie under any condition." Hold it, what happened to Oswald? After the pistol-whipping, Martin runs off to the bar and says there are two witnesses, and perhaps "more witness may be available to this statement." In the police report, Martin goes to the hospital, and then goes home and calls the police. No mention of going back to the bar. Here is what Jack Martin told the HSCA on December 5, 1977 (RIF# 180-10080-10-208): And, here is what Delphine Roberts told the HSCA about the pistol-whipping incident: Roberts then thinks that Martin wanted the Oswald file, which contained "news clippings." Cleary the pistol-whipping incident happened. It probably was about long-distance telephone calls. Jack Martin couldn't help himself - once Banister died, he was free to embellish all he wanted. Update: Here is an excerpt from a document from the Harold Weisberg Archive. He has a collection of notes from Hoke May - a reporter for the New Orleans States-Item. This seems to be a note to May from one or more of his States-Item colleagues. I have no idea if this is true, but if true, it would explain why everybody gave different reasons for the pistol-whipping. Update 2 I just noticed this paragraph in a Sam Newman statement to Jim Garrison on January 18, 1967. He was the owner of 544 Camp Street:

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited; Through the Looking Glass, once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. I found this surprising since there is no shortage of scientific studies that have conclusively found that the photographs are legitimate. Here is a partial transcript of JFK Revisited: (Approx. 30:57) Brian Edwards: Marina Oswald took backyard photographs of Lee Oswald holding a rifle and a pistol on his hip, and in that first photograph, that she took three of, Commission Exhibit 133-A and 133-B, show a ring on the ring finger of the right hand. 133-C the ring appears on the left hand. In fact, the Dallas police showed Lee Oswald one of the pictures, while he was still in custody, and he said "that's my face but I don't remember ever having had that picture taken." That is not even the correct quote from Lee Harvey Oswald. Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Dallas police officer Guy Rose: The first photo alterationist was Lee Harvey Oswald -- he wouldn't even admit that the face was his. Here is a screen shot from JFK Revisited showing the three photographs: I don't believe there is a great mystery here. Lee Harvey Oswald wore two rings - his wedding ring, typically on his right hand (Russian style) and his Marine ring. Might he have been wearing two rings? Here is a close-up of CE 133A: There also appears to be a ring, or an indication that there had been a ring, on his left hand as well: Here is CE133C: The ring on his left hand does look like a Marine ring, and not a wedding ring: Here is a picture of Oswald in handcuffs and you can see his Marine ring on his left hand: Here are some relevant links regarding the backyard photographs: Here is the study by Professor Hany Farid of Dartmouth. A 3D Stability analysis The HSCA also concluded that the backyard photographs were legitimate. Oliver Stone is so desperate to prove that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is not Oswald's that he included this clunker.

JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass makes the claim that Clay Shaw was the elusive Clay Bertrand. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (Approx. 1:17:10) Goldberg: The Review Board has shown these denials to be false. Shaw was both a highly valued contract agent and had a covert security clearance for a project codenamed QK/ENCHANT. New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews had worked with Oswald in May of '63 in an attempt to upgrade his military discharge from its undesirable status. After the assassination, a man calling himself Clay Bertrand, phoned Andrews and asked him to consider going to Dallas to defend Oswald. Under oath, Clay Shaw denied that he was Clay Bertrand and Andrews claimed that because of the medication he was on, he had only imagined the phone call. But today, because of the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, we now have evidence and 12 people who confirm that Shaw used this name as an alias. Andrews later admitted that Shaw was Bertrand to author Harold Weisberg, but made him promise not to reveal this until after Andrews’ death. I have already debunked the notion that Clay Shaw was a "highly valued contract agent." But was Clay Shaw really Clay Bertrand? I have already debunked the claim that Dean Andrews admitted to Harold Weisberg that Shaw was Bertrand. How about the "12 people who confirm that Shaw used this name as an alias"? Over the past year, I have systematically debunked every witness that James DiEugenio uses for the allegation that Shaw was Bertrand. He definitely went for quantity rather than quality. Please check out my master index to James DiEugenio's witnesses. Here are the witnesses conspiracy theorists use to 'prove' Shaw was Bertrand: Witness: Dr. Jacob Kety and Greg Donovan Did Carlos Marcello's Doctor Friend Know About Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio can't even get the name of Dr. Kety right. He adds certainty to a claim that is not really being made. Witness: William Morris Did William Morris Know Clay Shaw as Clay Bertrand? William Morris was a prisoner who made several claims. I post the entire interview with Morris, as well as several memos from people who dispute his claims. Witness: Dean Andrews Did Dean Andrews admit that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand? Joan Mellen asked Harold Weisberg if Dean Andrews admitted that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. I post her letter and his reply. Witness: Virginia Johnson Did Clay Shaw's Maid Know He was Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio's claims about Virginia Johnson are not borne out by two memos written by Garrison's staff. Witness: Jessie Parker Did Clay Shaw Sign the VIP Room Guestbook as Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio doesn't tell his readers that Jessie Parker made significant changes to her affidavit once it was determined that witnesses disputed what she said. Witness: Aloysius Habighorst Did Clay Shaw Admit to Aloysius Habighorst that he was Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio doesn't tell his readers that another policeman, Jonas Butzman, testified that Clay Shaw did not admit he was Clay Bertrand. Witness: Thomas Breitner Did Thomas Breitner Meet Clay Bertrand? James DiEugenio leaves out many of the other crazy claims of Thomas Breitner. Had he testified at Clay Shaw's trial, he would have been another Charles Spiesel. Witness: Ed Guthman David Chandler Talks to Shaw's Investigators More debunking of DiEugenio's claims that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. Witness: Aaron Kohn and Joseph Oster Did The FBI Know That Shaw was Bertrand? Aaron Kohn and Joseph Oster identify Shaw as Bertrand, but they were just getting this information from news sources. They both had no personal knowledge that Shaw was Bertrand. Witness: Valentine Ashworth Did Valentine Ashworth Meet the Second Oswald? Ashworth claimed that Oswald he traveled to Ohio where he met Clay Shaw "who was known as Clay Bertrand." Yet another prisoner with a ridiculous story. Witness: Fred Leemans Did Clay Shaw Take Lee Harvey Oswald to the Gay Baths? The Fred Leemans Story, Part One. Fred Leemans claimed that Clay Bertrand patronized his Turkish baths and that he was Clay Shaw. The only problem is that Mr. Leemans kept on changing his story. There are two other witnesses mentioned in Joan Mellen's book, And Justice For All, Rickey Planche and Barbara Bennett. But neither of these witnesses came forward during Garrison's investigation and there are no formal statements from either of them. If anybody knows of any witnesses I have left out, please contact me. I look forward to seeing the annotated script of the so-called documentary. I also want to include a document that I have posted several times. It shows that Garrison couldn't find Clay Bertrand back in 1967: Of course, the FBI and the Secret Service put in a lot of work in late 1963 trying to find Clay Bertrand, without any success. A searcher for Bertrand was right in Garrison's office. If there really was a Clay Bertrand, Jim Garrison never found him. And he never came up with any credible evidence that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand.