In the summer of 1977, Garrison was interviewed by the HSCA. Here is the first page of a fifteen-page memo regarding the interview as well as one page on Clay Shaw: Some conspiracy theorists (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 332) cite this memo as 'proof' that the HSCA concluded that Shaw was a conspirator. Jonathan Blackmer had just spent over a week interviewing Jim Garrison and the memo is a mixture of what Garrison told him, and what he internalized from Garrison. They were right at the beginning of their investigation in to what happened in New Orleans. They had yet to go through Garrison's files, and were "still developing a partial witness list for Shaw." The HSCA Final Report did not name Shaw as a conspirator. When I posted this document last week, James DiEugenio complained on Facebook: "Litwin never gets tired of misrepresenting what I wrote. Which is why he cannot be trusted with evidence or testimony. Even when the words are right in front of him. I did not write that the Blackmer memo was proof of Shaw as a conspirator. This is what I wrote, "Blackmer authored a long memo which included the following statement, "We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960's and [was] possibly one of the high level planners or "cut out" to the planners of the assassination. " That is from the memo and I make that clear. And he had the book in front of him. Therefore this must have been deliberate." Here is DiEugenio's exact quote from Destiny Betrayed: "After a series of conferences in the late summer of 1977, between Fonzi, Delsa, Blackmer, Garrison and others, Blackmer authored a long memo which included the following statement, "We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960s and [was] possibly one of the high level planners or 'cut-out' to the planners of the assassination." By the time this memorandum was written, the participants in this series of meetings didn't really understand that everything had been changed. Whether or not Shaw was a planner or "cut out" for the assassination did not matter. Because both Sprague and Tanenbaum were now gone...." DiEugenio removes all the context from the quote in the memo. The memo wasn't written after a series of conferences, but after a week of interviewing Jim Garrison. Nor does he tell the reader that they were at the front end of the investigation and that they were still putting together their files. They still were working on their witness list. James DiEugenio added much more context in a letter he sent to journalist David Snyder. DiEugenio implied that the sentence was an HSCA conclusion. Here is the letter: DiEugenio says in the letter that: "Much new information has come out that has vindicated Garrison's case against Shaw. Witnesses to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in files newly declassified, were so compelling that it led the HSCA's team to note in a memo:" This was not true. The memo was not written by the HSCA's "team." It was written by Jonathan Blackmer after a week of interviewing Jim Garrison. The so-called "much new information" was just the words from Garrison's mouth. The witnesses could not have been "compelling" because they had yet to finalize their witness list. For instance, here an excerpt from the memo on David Ferrie: As you can see, Patricia Orr was still indexing the files on David Ferrie when the memo was written. In addition, the use of the word "cut out" in the Blackmer memo is pure Garrison. Check out this post where I include a Garrison memo to Blackmer where he uses the term "cut-out" to describe Fred Crisman. And what is a cut-out? Here is Garrison's description: "A "cut-out" as you will appreciate, is in intelligence terminology an insulated contact for an operation between higher level decision makers or other individuals and lower echelons where the day-to-day machinery is actually in motion. Essentially, his role is that of a key contact man. His function may be supervision or it may be merely observation and monitory with regard to a particular mission. One of his customary chosen assets for such an assignment will be his personal geographical remoteness from the general area of the operation -- hence the term "cut-out." His prompt removability provides -- especially when the circumstances are sensitive -- a high degree for the group of clique using him as its "cut-out" and helps keep the enterprise clandestine and frustrating to routine inquiry procedures." Whether that describes Shaw or Crisman, it is completely off-the-wall bonkers.

Journalist Art Kevin was invited by Jim Garrison to sit at the prosecution table for the preliminary hearing regarding Clay Shaw. Here is his report from 1997 looking back at the investigation. (Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 3, No. 2) THE JOLLY GREEN GIANT by Art Kevin A LOOK BACK AT THE CASE AGAINST CLAY SHAW BY D-A JIM GARRISON In February, 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison told the world that his office had solved the plot to murder President Kennedy. In March Garrison announced the arrest of businessman Clay Shaw. Garrison said that Shaw (also allegedly known as Clay or Clem Bertrand) and David W. Ferrie (who died 4 days after Garrison said he was involved) and Lee Harvey Oswald (then deceased), had meetings (with others) in Ferrie's apartment during which time the plot to kill JFK was hatched. Shaw calmly denied all of Garrison's charges. Like many Americans I too disbelieved the Warren Commission (WC) report. I had taken the time to read the 26 volumes and found too many facts distorted or ommited, too many questions unanswered. My distrust was further fueled by the great work of seminal critics of that time. People like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Penn Jones, Jr. In addition I'd had some run-ins with some WC personnel that led me to believe that the single bullet-single assassin theory was all they were willing to consider. But that's another story. After the Garrison story broke it was my critic friends who told Garrison that I could be trusted and urged that he speak to me. One day out of the blue, Garrison called me at KHJ radio in Los Angeles. We formed a quick friendship on the phone. "Big Jim", or, "The Jolly Green Giant", as he was sometimes dubbed, stood 6'6. He had a powerful smile and a resonant voice with a distinct southern drawl. He was very articulate and convinced that the Warren Commission report on the death of JFK was a coverup. Garrison told me there were several suspects in Los Angeles where I worked. He said he would let me have the first word on who they were so I could be the first newsman to find and interview these men. I was exhilerated. This was the story of the century and I had an inside track. A seat on the 50 yard line shared by few others! When I arrived in New Orleans Garrison warmly welcomed me at his office and introduced me to his staff. "Art thinks like we do", said Garrison, adding, "he's to be given open sesame to any and all information needed or requested whether or not it's been introduced in court. I asked Garrison's chief investigator Andrew Sciambra, a clean cut collegiate looking young man (just a year out of law school) for a witness list and a background summary as to where they fit into the larger picture. Sciambra promised me the materials the next day and some private time with him to weave it all together. Then Garrison offered me the best carrot of all. "Art how'd you like to sit with us", he asked, "at the prosecution table instead of the public section"? "I'd be honored", I replied. The next day Sciambra gave me the prosecution "hot list" and we casually discussed their roles in the New Orleans scenario. I spent days tracking down the players still alive and interviewing them myself. The cast of characters proved to be eminently bizzare. Garrison's key witness, Perry Russo, was quite unusual. Even though he seemed a good witness, Russo had to be administered Sodium Pentathol and interviewed under hypnosis on 3 occasions to recall a meeting at Ferrie's apartment where the plot to kill JFK was alledgedly discussed by Ferrie, "Leon" Oswald , "Clay" or "Clem Bertrand "and others". A narcotics addict who assertedly saw Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald at the waterfront was unavailable to me since he was already in jail. Then there was a flamboyant attorney named Dean Andrews. He had told the Warren Commission that a Clay Bertrand whom he'd met once or twice had called him the day after President Kennedy was shot and asked him to represent Oswald. Andrews said he declined. When asked by the WC to describe Bertrand, he said Bertrand was about 5'8 with sandy hair. Clay Shaw was about 6'3 with a dark Cajun complection and solid grey hair. Andrews refused to say that Shaw and Bertrand were the same man. Garrison, angered, went on to have Andrews indicted for perjury. I also tracked down a private investigator who'd alledgedly given Garrison names and "hot tips". He turned out to be an alcoholic and tried to get me to pay for his story. Lee Harvey Oswald was dead of course but I heard constant reminders from Garrison that Oswald was likely bi-sexual which is what brought him into contact with David Ferrie. Even Jack Ruby who'd killed Oswald on national TV was alledgedly gay or at the very least bi-sexual! As for Ferrie, he had been fired from a major airline for homosexual activity. He was a strange man, an ex-pilot, hairless, who often wore glued on eyebrows and similarly attached pieces of hair. When I pointed out to Sciambra that thr witness list seemed shaky at best, he went quiet. Why can't Russo remember without medical and psychological help, I asked? Wouldn't his questioning under hypnosis be suspect because of the possibility of recall being implanted? Wouldn't the drug addict be suspect of trying to deal down for a lighter sentence? Wouldn't it seem that Garrison went after Dean Andrews on perjury because Andrews refused to cooperate with Garrison? And what about Andrews refusal to tie Shaw and Bertrand together as the same man? And what about the disparity of Bertrand-Shaw's physical appearance as Andrews told it to the WC? Sciambra, clearly looking as if a ton of bricks had come down on his shoulders, told me to take it up with Garrison. I did. When I confronted the Jolly Green Giant alone in his office with my doubts, he too seemed truly crushed. He cradled his head in his hands as I recited chapter and verse of much of what I'd reviewed with Sciambra. When I concluded, I also asked for comment on the rumors circulating around town that he'd once hit his wife in public and that during his military service he'd been subject to psychiatric counseling. First he got mad. "Look", he said, "who the hell do you think would be involved in the murder of the President of the United States? Bankers? No! The scum of the earth, that's what. I did what I did with Russo just to make sure he was telling me the truth. Art, I'm sorry if you're disappointed. But you just wait until we get into court. I've got some things up my sleeve. Now as for those personal assaults on my integrity...". Garrison paused, stood up, looked me right in the eye and said, "I did get mad at my wife one time in public. Doesn't every husband and wife get that way sometime? And yes, I did have some problems in the military. I was very young. And I told you Art, the closer I get the more shit they dig out on me". With that, he turned and left me alone in his office. I sat down and contemplated what I'd just heard. I couldn't help but feel real sympathy for the man and the weight he was carrying. In the days that followed, though I continued to sit with the prosecution, cooperation sank to zero. No more coffee chats with key staff. No more inside scoop. Even Penn Jones Jr. and comic Mort Sahl told me the "Big Guy" was miffed at me. They wondered why. Frankly, so did I. Then one day I had a message at my hotel room to come to Garrison's office at a specified time that evening. I did, joining Garrison and Sciambra. "Tomorrow morning", said Garrison, "I will show the American people for the first time how the President of the United States was murdered. They will see without a doubt that there had to have been more than one shooter. I will show the "Z" film, the Zapruder film". With that, he shoved a copy in my hand. "That's for you Art. Now Andrew", he told Sciambra, "turn off the lights and let's show Art the film that will prove once and for all in an open court of law that the Warren Commission lied to the people of the United States". We saw the film several times. he was right. It was dynamite. When I asked Garrison what effect it might have on the populace in general, he thought for a moment and said, "I don't know. Revolution? They might even make me Vice President!". Garrison had a wide ear to ear grin as he looked at me. As we know, the trial was short and fast. The jury took less than an hour to determine Clay Shaw was not guilty. They obviously didn't buy Garrison's cast of oddball characters or even the devastating Zapruder film. I knew in my heart that had the Warren Commission Report been on trial, the verdict would have been "guilty". But it was Clay Shaw who was on trial and based on the evidence presented, there was no doubt he was innocent. I have often wondered if, in his heart of hearts, Jim Garrison didn't know the same thing and decided to gamble anyway? Art Kevin understood that Garrison had no case against Shaw: "But it was Clay Shaw who was on trial and based on the evidence presented, there was no doubt he was innocent. I have often wondered if, in his heart of hearts, Jim Garrison didn't know the same thing and decided to gamble anyway?"

In previous blog posts, we have published the QUICK article from April, 1967 purportedly written by Jim Garrison, that alleged a homosexual conspiracy was behind the JFK assassination. While Garrison disavowed the article, it is quite clear that much of the content had to have originated from his office. And while Garrison moved away from focusing on the homosexual angle, it is clear that homosexuality never strayed far from his mind. In January 1968. he was interviewed by journalist Jerrold Footlick, who wrote the following: "The Warren Report states flatly that Oswald and his killer, Jack Ruby, did not know each other. Mr. Garrison states flatly that they not only knew each other, but that they were co-operating homosexuals. (Mr. Garrison makes the point in considerably more vivid language.)" Here is the complete article from the National Observer of January 22, 1968: This article caused some anguish for Garrison. He claimed to have said things that were meant to be off the record. And, so he wrote a letter to Mr. Footlick: Note the language in Garrison's letter - he doesn't really deny saying that Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals - he objects because he thought he was off the record: "Furthermore, you have me saying that Ruby and Oswald were "practicing homosexuals" [sic - Footlick said 'co-operating']. I have never made any such statement for publication or for the record. In my judgment the printing of such statements, concerning deceased individuals who cannot defend themselves, in a publication is an injustice. Ruby has brothers and sisters still living. Oswald also has a family left, including his mother and two daughters. Furthermore, without commenting on whether or not it is accurate as to Jack Ruby, such a statement is not accurate as to Lee Oswald, who was a victim of circumstances in more ways than one." Garrison says the statement is "not accurate" as to Lee Oswald. Is that because he really thought that Oswald was a "switch hitter who could not satisfy his wife" - as he said to James Phelan? The feigned indignation is obscene. The man who outed Clay Shaw to the public in 1967 never cared one whit about him, or his family and friends. Take a look at the introduction to Jim Garrison's Playboy interview from October 1967: Garrison spent weeks going over the proofs of the Playboy interview. He never objected to the statement that "'Shaw was none other than Clay Bertrand,' the shadowy queen bee of the New Orleans homosexual underworld..." There is no doubt that this language comes from Garrison. In the summer of 1977, Garrison was interviewed by the HSCA. Here is the first page of a fifteen-page memo regarding the interview as well as one page on Clay Shaw: Some conspiracy theorists (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 332) cite this memo as 'proof' that the HSCA concluded that Shaw was a conspirator. Jonathan Blackmer is clearly repeating what Garrison told him, and we know that because this was right at the beginning of his investigation in to what happened in New Orleans. They had yet to go through Garrison's files, and were "still developing a partial witness list for Shaw." The HSCA Final Report did not name Shaw as a conspirator. In the latter part of February and the early part of March 1967, Jim Garrison believed that a homosexual conspiracy was responsible for the assassination of JFK. He told several journalists and his beliefs ended up in the QUICK article. But even after he decided the CIA was a far better target, he still showed an inordinate interest in homosexuality. And you can see that in a variety of memos from his investigation. For example, Jim Garrison's strangest lead was the "fag ball." In 1962, 96 gay men were arrested at a party in Jefferson Parish. After the Clay Shaw acquittal, Garrison instructed his investigators to look for new leads, and one of them was to have a fresh look at the "fag ball." Perhaps other gay conspirators were at the party. The complete list of people was cross-checked against Shaw's address book. Here is a link to additional information on the "fag ball." The issue of homosexuality was so central to the Garrison investigation that historian Alecia Long has written an entire book on the topic: Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime. You can learn more about this very important book here. “...The Shaw prosecution was not based in fact but was a product of the criminal justice system’s long-standing preoccupation with homosexuality” “..revealing how a pervasive cultural and institutional homophobia shaped the prosecution of the only person ever tried in the affair” “..it uncovers how cultural notions of gay men as criminal sexual psychopaths came to permeate JFK conspiracy theories.” You can order Cruising for Conspirators here. Appendix While not relevant to the QUICK article, I thought it important to add the following section regarding the Footlick article and a change of venue motion by the Clay Shaw defense team. The motion contains many examples of prejudicial comments by Jim Garrison. The National Observer article caused a bit of a sensation. In February, 1968 the Shaw defense team filed to change the venue of his trial (see below). They asked for several documents, and they were denied access to Garrison's correspondence on the Footlick article. Here is an excerpt from an article in the New Orleans States-Item of March 1, 1968: Garrison then issued a statement and released his letter to Footlick: Here is the Shaw petition for a change of venue: And, here is a letter from Edward Wegmann to Elmer Gertz about the change of venue hearing: Tomorrow's Post on the QUICK article Garrison Does it Again! He feigns indignation to Paul Hoch over his mention of Shaw's homosexuality. Previous Posts on the QUICK Article Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part One) Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Two) Was the QUICK article about a homosexual conspiracy written by Jim Garrison? (Part Three) Garrison Disavows the QUICK article

Confidential Magazine from August 1968. The article about the "homosexual ring" was written by Joel Palmer, a part-time investigator for Jim Garrison. According to the article, Kennedy was the "victim of a sick and vicious homosexual plot." The homosexual ring consisted of Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, Shaw, Russo and J. D. Tippit - they were tied together "into one of the most unique and diabolical plots in the history of the world." You can see more of that article here. At the beginning of his probe, Jim Garrison believed that the JFK assassination was a homosexual plot. He met journalist Hugh Aynesworth at his home in January 1967 and told him a remarkable story: (Witness to History, page 193) “Hugh,” he said at last, “you’re lucky you’re in town today. We’ve just verified this guy, and believe me, it’s dynamite.” Explaining no more for the moment, Garrison then called one of his assistant DAs, ex-boxer Andrew Sciambra, known as Moo, who arrived a short while later with this slight little guy from Houston, a piano player, who proceeded to tell us how he knew that Ruby and Oswald were long time gay lovers. He went into great detail, naming clubs in Dallas and Houston where he said he had been performing when Ruby and Oswald dropped by. He even described one occasion when the owners of a Houston club had booted out the two of them “because,” he said, “they had been groping each other all evening long.” Garrison beamed. “You might be the most important witness we’ve run across yet,” he told the piano player. “And you are certain they were with each other on several occasions?” The little man vigorously nodded yes, clearly pleased that Garrison was buying his story. Garrison told James Phelan of the Saturday Evening Post a very similar story: (Scandals, Scamps and Scoundrels, page 150-151) In an effort to get Garrison’s story into focus, I asked him the motive of the Kennedy conspirators. He told me that the murder in Dallas had been a homosexual plot. “They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold when they murdered Bobby Franks in Chicago back in the twenties,” Garrison said. “It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime. John Kennedy was everything that Dave Ferrie was not—a successful, handsome, popular, wealthy, virile man. You can just picture the charge Ferrie got out of plotting his death. I asked how he had learned the murder was a homosexual plot. “Look at the people involved,” Garrison said. “Dave Ferrie, homosexual, Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual.” “Ruby was a homosexual?” “Sure, we dug that out,” Garrison said. “His homosexual nickname was Pinkie. That’s three. Then there was Lee Harvey Oswald.” But Oswald was married and had two children, I pointed out. “A switch-hitter who couldn’t satisfy his wife,” Garrison said. “That’s all in the Warren Report.” He named two more “key figures” whom he labeled homosexual. “That’s six homosexuals in the plot,” Garrison said. “One or maybe two, okay. But all six homosexuals? How far can you stretch the arm of coincidence?” These early beliefs of Jim Garrison are no trivial matter - they are at the heart of whether he was running an honest investigation or running one racked with homophobia, paranoia, and just plain nuttiness. People forget that when the case started in late 1966, homosexuality was still taboo and gay people in New Orleans were regularly arrested for crimes against nature. While Clay Shaw was a respected member of New Orleans society, his outing as a homosexual helped to paint him as something more sinister - someone with a hidden life - and making it easier for people to wonder about his possible role in a conspiracy. He was also someone who was extremely vulnerable. - he didn't want to talk about his homosexuality and his interest in S&M. In fact, Garrison, and others, felt that Shaw would commit suicide. Ultimately Garrison abandoned the homosexual theory. The many buffs who swarmed to New Orleans probably found it improbable and distasteful. And they convinced Garrison to go after a much bigger target like the CIA. Supporters of Jim Garrison like James DiEugenio not only do not discuss the issue of homosexuality in the case, they deny it was ever a factor. Here's James DiEugenio from a review of my book, On The Trail of Delusion: For the record, there is not one memo I have read that shows Garrison ever outlined such a homosexual-oriented plot. At the beginning of the inquiry, there is evidence that Garrison was suspecting a militant rightwing plot. And as Garrison developed cases against Shaw and Ferrie, he was checking out leads that would connect them in the gay underworld. But nothing that either Peter Vea or Malcolm Blunt ever uncovered shows what Litwin is trying to impute to Garrison. Those two men are the two best pure archival researchers ever on the JFK case. And Vea specialized in the Garrison files. and Just as Jim Garrison never said anything about Shaw being a homosexual during the two years of that being a live case, Garrison has never written anything about Bloomfield being Jewish. And, of course, he is right that there is no such memo from Jim Garrison about a homosexual plot. But, as seen above, Garrison did discuss such a plot with many people. And the concept of homosexuality animated his investigators who probed people's sexuality and fed Garrison a steady stream of gossip, innuendo and rumors about gay people in New Orleans. Even as late as 1977, Garrison was still interested in homosexuality - he gave a list of suggested questions that the HSCA should ask of Thomas Beckham. Here's one about Fred Crisman: But there was an article, under Jim Garrison's name, that appeared in the April 9, 1967 edition of QUICK, a German weekly magazine. Here is the article and a translation. What QUICK reported six months ago is now confirmed by Jim Garrison, the public prosecutor from New Orleans: The murder of the President was a conspiracy. Read pages 14 to 24. Jim Garrison: Here are my proofs! The Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy. For the first time, Jim Garrison, public prosecutor from New Orleans, is revealing the implications of the conspiracy: Kennedy's murderers were sick homosexuals. This is the leader of the plot: Clay Shaw, well-respected businessman from New Orleans. It was but a fantastic vision of his disturbed mind that drove him to plan a sensational perfect crime. The deeper cause was homosexual exuberance. Blood-stained chains and whips were found in Shaw's cellar. Garrison: "My evidence against him is enough." Five perverted men and a frigid woman are connected to the biggest plot of the century. Because Lee Oswald could not get any sexual satisfaction from his wife, he sought contact in homosexual circles. He happened to meet Ferrie, a pilot, who was the male lover of Clay Shaw. Together with the Cuban Manuel Garcia Gonzales, they planned the plot. Oswald and the homosexual Ruby were nothing but puppets Marina Oswald's cold feeling drove her husband to the homosexuals. Clay Shaw was the cold cynical brain of the plot. His first accomplice was the pilot Ferrie. Lee H. Oswald had a love affair with Ferrie. During the assassination attempt, he was supposed to divert attention from the murderer. David W. Ferrie was willing to reveal his knowledge. When his name became known, he died suddenly. This man, a Cuban exile, was picked out to be the killer. He is still hunted by Garrison. Vanished without leaving a trace: Manuel Garcia Gonzales. Jack Ruby, the Dallas bar owner, was given the order from Ferrie to kill Oswald. I, Jim Garrison, have been investigating the Kennedy case for three years. I did not spend $900,000 dollars like the Warren Commission, I only spent $4,600. But by the time of the Clay Shaw trial, I will be able to produce evidence that President Kennedy was the victim of a plot by homosexuals. I'm going to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the plot, but I will also prove that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot alone. The real culprit is Manuel Garcia Gonzales. And the head of the plot is Clay Shaw. This is the milieu of the conspirators: The bars of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Here they were looking for abnormal friendships, and here they found each other. At the gay meeting place, "Wanda's Bar," (above) Shaw discussed Oswald's role in the plot. The sexually abnormal conspirators had a model for their deed from American criminal history: the Leopold and Loeb case from Chicago. This is my theory. And here is the evidence that led me to this theory: Clay Shaw's male friend was the pilot, David W. Ferrie. Ferrie met Oswald by chance and fell in love with him. By then, in the spring of 1962, Shaw and Ferrie had already decided to assassinate the president. They had already found a man to be the killer: Manuel Garcia Gonzales. Ferrie told Oswald about the forthcoming murder and Oswald agreed to take part. He was supposed to distract the police with his shots, after the real killer, Gonzales, had already finished the job. I know the whole thing sounds like ... as they say, a pretty wild story. But I'll show, point by point, how I came to believe that this "wild story" is the only possible truth in the Kennedy murder case. I was instructed by the FBI three years ago to interrogate Ferrie. Somehow the Federal Criminal Police had become aware of Ferrie in connection with the Kennedy murder. When I talked to him, he said things that puzzled me. Immediately after the assassination, Ferrie drove with two other men, whose names he never mentioned, from New Orleans to Houston, Texas, where he went with his two companions to the city ice rink and waited two full hours next to the public telephone for a call. After the call, the three men drove to Galveston that night. Here again they waited for a call. This time for three hours in a snack bar. When I asked Ferrie what this strange trip meant, he said, "It was a vacation." As I said, I was puzzled the first time I arrested Ferrie and handed him over to the FBI. When I stopped hearing from the FBI, I became curious, and continued my own research. I found out that the night Ferrie and his companions were waiting for a call in Houston and Galveston, a certain Breck Wall was also in Houston and then in Galveston. And now it gets interesting - Breck Wall is a close friend of Jack Ruby's - and oddly enough - Jack Ruby was also a homosexual, word of which has strangely enough to this day not gotten around. Ferrie Ordered Ruby: "Kill Oswald!" His 'male girlfriends' called him Pinky. Ruby was so serious about his homosexual tendencies that he had a vagina tattooed under his left upper arm. When I found out, I already knew two things: Immediately after the assassination, the homosexual Ferrie and his two companions went on a trip to the vicinity of Dallas, and there was suspicion that the homosexual Ferrie got in touch with a friend of the gay Jack Ruby. That wasn't much, but it was a start. [SIDEBAR] The Key to Action Model of the Conspirators: The Chicago child murderers Leopold and Loeb In May 1924, the two sons of millionaires Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold planned "the perfect crime." They killed a child just to understand "what a murderer feels like." Despite the sophistication, after the murder, they committed a mistake and were caught. It is known in forensic science as the Loeb-Leopold complex. Jim Garrison is certain that Shaw, Ferrie, Oswald and Gonzales were planning the assassination attempt on John F. Kennedy out of the same complex. The Munich psychiatrist and neurologist, Professor Dr. Max Mikorey, wrote in an assessment: "I believe that socially inferior homosexuals can easily plunge into conspiracies when driven by hatred and envy. Hate and envy, for example, of a radiant hero. In such a homosexual conspiracy, the number of strange deaths after the assassination of Kennedy could be explained: the pronounced group spirit demands a radical extermination of all people who are dangerous to the group because they reveal their abnormal disposition." Next, I was interested in what Jack Ruby had been up to from the time when Kennedy was murdered to the minute he shot Kennedy killer Lee Harvey Oswald. Lo and behold, I found that Jack Ruby had done something very unusual: he paid off his debts. To get the full picture, one must know that Ruby had debts his whole life, and that he never thought of voluntarily paying off his debts. Now he paid $25 to a strip-tease dancer, hawked part of his nightclub for $2,000, and divided it up among those who had been waiting for months. But besides paying off debts, he did something else: at 11:44 PM he called Breck Wall in Galveston. Today it is evident that Ruby had been given the order from Ferrie through Breck Wall to kill Lee H. Oswald. Jealousy Causes a Death Order It's been a long journey from my first suspicion of this homosexual plot to what I know about it today. A path that led me through human peculiarities, perverse passions, and a lot of dirt. I don't want to say that the Warren Commission and the FBI tried to avoid the path through this filth in their research. But I now know that with their methods of investigation, there was no way to find out anything about the circles that planned and carried out the murder of Kennedy. To get an intelligent homosexual criminal talk, you need a gay man who is familiar with the homosexual mentality. The main investigator who worked for me is one such man (his name is known to the editors). He knows all the gay boys in the French Quarter from his earlier days. He was one of them. He knows how they think, how they feel, and how they react. Although he has been married three times by now, he hasn't forgotten. And he did a good job. He led me to Clay Shaw. And what kind of homosexual this man is has never been in any newspaper before. In his apartment, we found whips and chains, and there was blood on the whips and chains. We found a pair of shoes that previously belonged to a Chinese executioner, and we found a ... [SIDEBAR] The Warren Commission Kept a Secret "The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report" is what Larry Schiller calls his report, about the people who cashed in on the death of the President, which will be published next week in America. The American author points out that the Warren Commission committed gross errors in the investigation of the Kennedy murder. The main points are: A policeman named J. D. Tippit was murdered. He was one of the witnesses to the assassination. The Commission ignored that there were three policemen named Tippit. The other two were often guests at Jack Ruby's strip club. They probably got the wrong guy. The Commission never tried to find out where Oswald bought the ammunition for his rifle. DA Garrison now knows that Oswald was accompanied by Ferrie during the purchase. Why did the Commission allow only 65 of the 69 original X-rays and photographs of the President's body in the hospital to reach the National Archives? The four that are missing show that the face has a bullet wound. This was never mentioned in the Warren Report. Why didn't the Commission question Ms. Carolyn Walther? She told the FBI three times that she saw two men at the window from which Oswald shot during the assassination. The Commission spent 3.6 million Marks on its investigation. But they did not correctly reconstruct the events. The attack took place on a sunny afternoon at 12:30 PM. The reconstruction took place on a cloudy morning. The presidential limousine was a "Lincoln Continental." But the reconstruction used a Cadillac, which is 15 centimeters higher than the original car. It was simply assumed that the shot had been fired from the 6th floor. Other angles were not even checked. In any case, the Commission didn't do a gun test. ... gun. That was important to us than the instruments of sexual torture, because it was the same type of rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald used when he shot Kennedy. I was almost certain that such a rifle would turn up at Shaw's because, back then, at the very beginning of my investigation, I had a list drawn up of the 1,600 people who owned such a gun. At the time I had the idea that in such an assassination attempt - if you want to blame someone else for it - all those involved would use the same type of weapon. At the end of lengthy investigations, it will indeed be possible to find out which bullet came from which barrel - but for the time being, the first one caught with a weapon of this type will go to jail, and the real perpetrators have enough head start to leave the country. This is exactly how the plot had been planned. Lee H. Oswald, who was only supposed to fire to distract attention, was chosen to be the man to blame. I suspect that Clay Shaw had given this role to the unfortunate Oswald because he was jealous of Oswald. After all, Oswald had taken his male friend Ferrie away from him. The questioning of Shaw's male lover James Dondson made me even more certain that Shaw was head of the plot. At the very hour Kennedy was killed, Shaw was in bed with Dondson in the same hotel room. A few minutes after the assassination, a certain Richard Randoff called the hotel and told Shaw that Kennedy had been shot. Even though the caller only used the word "shot," it was immediately clear to Shaw that Kennedy was dead. He hung up the phone, turned to Dondson, and said, "Now I have to call a few people right away." Lying was second nature to them And now comes the most important link on which the whole chain of evidence against Shaw hangs. At the same time that Shaw was on the phone, attorney Dean Andrews received a call from Clay Bertrand, asking that Andrews defend Oswald. The lawyer, who specialized in taking homosexual cases, knew Oswald. The FBI never ... managed to identify the caller, Clay Bertrand. I claim: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand. First of all, it can be assumed that homosexuals change their surnames in order to protect themselves from possible blackmail. However, they always keep their first names. Of course, this is only an empirical truth and not proof that the two Clays were the same person. But I was sure I was on the right track and I made my way through Shaw's homosexual environment until I discovered some witnesses who knew Shaw by the name Bertrand. It was not easy to get them to talk, and it was even more difficult to find out the truth. Homosexuals, whether they are persecuted or not, are well aware that society believes they are abnormal. But since they cannot afford to be totally excluded from society, they lead a life of lies. They lie until lying becomes second nature to them. Yes, I hypnotized witnesses There were only two means of learning the truth from them: hypnosis and truth serum. I've used both and that's how I came to the last link in the chain of my evidence. As Clay Shaw, this man with his male lover Ferrie, in the presence of other homosexuals, hatched a conspiracy. Immediately after the assassination, as Clay Bertrand, he appointed a defense attorney for Oswald. There was a direct connection from the homosexual Ferrie to the homosexual Ruby. The contours of the plot were clear to me. Now I was looking for details. But I would not be astonished, if by these details, the whole Warren Report, the whole official report would become nothing but a useless packet of paper. I realize that neither the Warren Commission or the FBI are going to be very pleased by my activities. When I mentioned Shaw publicly, the FBI claimed they had questioned Shaw a long time ago and found nothing suspicious. Since the Warren Commission's investigation report contains FBI reports, and since Shaw's interrogation is missing in the official report, one can only conclude: The FBI did not forward the contents of the Shaw inquiry. Of course, people will wonder what other important interrogations have been withheld by the FBI. If not all the material has been given to the official commission, their whole report is nothing but worthless. And if the Warren Commission's report is worthless, then it is time for another investigation. An investigation that will finally clear up the mystery surrounding Kennedy's murder. I am sure I will be able to convince the court in Shaw's trial about the homosexual conspiracy. I know that I am expected to expose a much larger conspiracy. A few weeks ago, I myself spoke of Cuban backers. When my inquiry was prematurely disclosed, I simply had to blow smoke in the wrong direction so that my investigation would not be disturbed. Let them all believe I am after political assassins from Cuba ... The real killer is still free. In all seriousness, there are some vague connections to extremists from Cuba in this plot. Oswald undoubtedly had such connections. But I have reason to believe that Shaw, as the inventor of the plot, tried to keep his active participation in the plot to a minimum, when he learned about Oswald's political connections. It may have been these political reasons or the jealousy of Oswald - in any case, Shaw was not involved in the last phase of the attack. The fact that he planned the plot with Ferrie should be enough to get him ten years in prison. But I am more than happy to let him go if he would help me find the real shooter: Manuel Garcia Gonzales. Tomorrow's Post Was this article written by Jim Garrison?

New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 31, 1967 Mark Lane comments on Mort Sahl's radio show

San Francisco Chronicle, May 14, 1967 San Francisco Chronicle, November 9, 1967 More on Mort Sahl here from the Chicago Tribune in 1985: But nothing that happened to him in that period could have prepared Sahl for the storm he walked into after President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Far from convinced by the findings of the Warren Commission, Sahl joined forces with New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, the most prominent backer of the theory that President Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman but was, instead, the victim of a nefarious, CIA-backed plot. This is not the place to argue the merits of Garrison`s case, but there can be no doubt that Sahl`s turbulent, three-year involvement in it had a devastating effect on his career. With most of his nightclub outlets unwilling to play host to a comic who brought all 26 volumes of the Warren Report onstage every night, Sahl began to travel the college circuit, a largely forgotten figure whose income bottomed out at a mere $13,000 a year. Typed within the industry as an obsessive maniac, Sahl only confirmed that view in 1976, when he published his autobiography, ''Heartland''--a book that was marked by his old brilliance but that also restated and amplified his disturbingly unconventional beliefs about Kennedy`s death. Heartland contains several references to Jim Garrison, including this: (page 120) "In time Garrison and Executive Assistant D .A. Andy Sciambra and I fell into black humor as we pursed this case. For instance, I was eventually fired by Channel 11 ostensibly because, while they would not censor me, they insisted I have new evidence if I persisted with the assassination story. I went on the air one week and said that Oswald, Ruby and Shaw had met at the Capital Hotel in Baton Rouge. I was fired. The program had an even rating with the Carson show in the Los Angeles area. It became evident to me what kind of power we were playing with." Sahl is referring to the story that Clyde Johnson told about Shaw and Ruby. For a while, Garrison believed the story and even included it as an overt act when the jury was being selected in the Shaw trial. It was then dropped. You can read more about it here.

I spent the weekend reading Nick Nalli's brilliant review of Josiah Thompson's new book, Last Second In Dallas. I know Nick, and I know how smart he is, but I was blown away by his article. And so, it's worthy of a second blog post. Here is his review of Last Second in Dallas: The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman and the Futile Search for Signal in Noise Please take the time read Nick's important contribution. Important takeaways: The acoustics evidence cannot be resurrected. Nalli's rejoinder to Thompson on the acoustics is persuasive. JFK's head does move forward about 2 inches between frame 312-313, indicative of a shot from behind. Thompson's supposed forward lurch starting at frame 327 is just a continuation of forward movement that started earlier. "JFK's motion during these frames is not due to a near-instantaneous interaction of his head with a high-speed projectile, but rather the interaction of his lifeless body with the backseat, Mrs. Kennedy, and the force of gravity." Here's an important part of Nick's paper: “Barger and Mullen offered Thompson one additional argument against the validity of HOLD: The presence of multiple hum frequencies on the Channel 1 recording suggested that the HOLD crosstalk was somehow overdubbed during the creation of a multigenerational copy. However, they based this on the Ramsey Panel copy, which was already known to be a multigenerational copy, so there was nothing surprising about the presence of these hums. The only way Barger could solve the timing problem was to conclude that there was overdubbing, and the only alleged direct evidence of overdubbing is the extra hums.” “If a mysterious overdubbing were the origin of the HOLD crosstalk, then this hypothesis can be tested against earlier copies: Not only should earlier copies not only not contain the hums, but also, they should not include the HOLD crosstalk. And O’Dell, once again, has convincingly demonstrated that this is not the case. Verify for yourself that the HOLD crosstalk is present on all three known versions of the recordings (the Ramsey Panel’s, the FBI’s, and BBN’s); therefore, HOLD is not a dubbing artifact: Dictabelt Hums and the "hold everything secure" Crosstalk.” Nick has also written an amazing paper on the head shot to JFK. And read Nick's paper: Sniper Target Tracking Analysis of John F. Kennedy Assassination If you are ever at the Sixth Floor Museum, check out Nick's Oral History contribution. Nick worked on his review of Thompson's book with other brilliant people including Paul Hoch, Michael O’Dell, Max Holland, Francis Corbett, Roland Zavada, Martin J. Kelly, and Louis Girdler. Note that Nick's review is hosted by Dale Myers at his excellent blog: Secrets of a Homicide.

Hat Tip: Jerry Shinley at David Reitzes' terrific website for the insights in this blog post. Kevin Bacon played Willie O'Keefe in the film, JFK. O'Keefe was a composite character based upon Perry Russo, William Morris, Raymond Broshears, and David Logan. James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed, writes: (page 210) "Finally, a man named William Morris signed an affidavit saying he knew Shaw as Clay Bertrand. And the underlying message was that this was common knowledge." His source is Jim Garrison's book, On The Trail of The Assassins: (page 86) "Gradually, my men began encountering one person after another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that "Clay Bertrand" was the name Clay Shaw went by. However, no one would authorize the use of his name or even sign a statement to be kept confidential. No one wanted to get involved. This was quite curious considering Shaw's reputation throughout the city as a man of decorum and distinction. Finally, we located a young man named William Morris who had met Shaw at the Masquerade Bar on St. Louis Street in the French Quarter. He had been introduced to Shaw by Gene Davis, who worked at the Court of Two Sisters. Davis had introduced Shaw to Morris as "Clay Bertrand." Morris had become a friend of Shaw's, not only visiting Shaw's apartment, but encountering him at one private party and, on occasion, again at the Masquerade Bar. Morris said that his tall friend was always referred to as Bertrand." Garrison changes the chronology of events in his book. He claims that they found William Morris before Shaw was arrested. That is not true. He only came forward after Shaw was arrested on March 1, 1967. Morris was questioned in July of 1967: Some comments on the interview with William Morris: Morris saw Clay Shaw's picture on television in relation to the Jim Garrison case. Morris said that Clay Bertrand was shorter than he was - and Morris was 6' or 6' 0.5", while Clay Shaw was 6'4". Morris said Clay Bertrand was in his middle 30s in 1958, but Clay Shaw was 45 years old in 1958. He also said that Clay Bertrand weighed 180 lbs., but Clay Shaw weighed about 225 lbs. Clay Bertrand came to his apartment by mistake in 1960 with Jack Ruby. Morris had already been in prison for seven years when this interview took place. Morris named a few other people who supposedly knew Shaw as Bertrand (Walter Wilson, Amos McFarlan, Candy Lee) but none of them came forward with a supporting statement. Eugene Davis denied knowing Clay Shaw. He testified before the grand jury on June 28, 1967 - which is before Morris was interviewed in prison: Garrison did not challenge Davis when he denied knowing Shaw. Eugene Davis was then interviewed on July 21, 1967 about William Morris: Some comments on the Eugene Davis interview: Gene Davis has lived at 522 Dauphine for many years; while he did live on Bourbon Street, it was before William Morris was in New Orleans. He denied, once again that he knew Clay Shaw. He had never been on Bill Boon's yacht. He tells Boxley, Martin and Meloche that "there is no part of this accusation which is true." (page 9) Davis also tells them that he never heard of Bertrand until the investigation of Clay Shaw. Interestingly, Eugene Davis was called as a prosecution witness in Dean Andrews' trial for perjury. Here is an excerpt of his testimony as recorded by the New Orleans Times-Picayune of August 14, 1967: This is important - Davis was testifying for the prosecution. And under oath he is saying that he never heard of Clay Bertrand until the investigation. And if it was really common knowledge that Shaw was Bertrand, then wouldn't Eugene Davis know it? After all, he worked at different gay bars in the Quarter and he was the owner of Wanda's. And Garrison's men searched all over the French Quarter and could NOT find Clay Bertrand. As for Bill Boon, he seemed to be afraid of the D. A.'s office, and with good reason. Here is the notice of the crime against nature charge against Bill Boon from the July 15, 1967 issue of the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Eugene Davis tried to contact Bill Boon to get him to speak to the D. A.'s office. Bill Boon then telephoned Garrison's office on August 14, 1967, and then he immediately drove to New Orleans to answer questions: Bill Boon did have a yacht, and perhaps William Morris had been on it at some time. Boon denied that Eugene Davis had ever been on board his boat. Morris no doubt knew of Davis and Boon - in fact, he spoke to Garrison's investigators a few weeks after Dean Andrews had told the press that "Clay Bertrand" was a cover name for Eugene Davis. And we know that Morris was knowledgeable about the investigation. I don't know if they ever interviewed W. T. Wilson. But I doubt it. The Morris lead was not included in Garrison's list of leads to reinvestigate after the Clay Shaw acquittal, and the lead was not included in his list sent to the HSCA. William Morris is just another one of the many prisoners who contacted Garrison's office. It's not surprising that William Morris was not a witness at Clay Shaw's trial. Other Relevant Posts about Prisoners Two Prisoners Tell Garrison Quite The Tale Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Gay Hustler? Did Valentine Ashworth Meet the Second Oswald? After Clay Shaw's Acquittal Garrison Wanted New Leads Other Relevant Posts about Willie O'Keefe Did Clay Shaw Know David Ferrie, Part One (The David Logan Story) Reverend Raymond Broshears Makes a Startling Revelation Reverend Raymond Broshears Talks to the HSCA Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells Even More in New Orleans Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells All to Stephen Jaffe and Mark Lane Reverend Raymond Broshears Reveals the Shaw-Ferrie Link The good Reverend Writes about Jim Garrison

In June 1971, William Alford, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, resigned. Here is an editorial from the New Orleans States-Item from June 22, 1971. New Orleans States-Item, June 22, 1971 New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 2, 1971

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you some breaking news. Nick Nalli is a brilliant man. I met him a few years ago in Maryland while I was going through documents at the National Archives. He has a great sense of humor and he excels in his job as a climate scientist. His sharp mind allows him undertake the type of analysis that is beyond mere mortal people, like myself. Nick wrote an amazing paper on the head shot to JFK. I couldn't think of a better person to write an in-depth review of Josiah Thompson's new book, Last Second In Dallas. And, I woke up this morning to some very good news - Nick Nalli has done it again! Here is his review of Last Second in Dallas: The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman and the Futile Search for Signal in Noise Nick worked on his article with other brilliant people including Paul Hoch, Michael O’Dell, Max Holland, Francis Corbett, Roland Zavada, Martin J. Kelly, and Louis Girdler. Note that Nick's review is hosted by Dale Myers at his excellent blog: Secrets of a Homicide. Thanks, Nick!

Penn Jones was the first conspiracy theorist to promote so-called mysterious deaths, and he wrote a series of books (Forgive My Grief) on that theme. Argosy magazine, in March 1977, published a major article on that theme and they started with Rose Cherami: Many conspiracy books (Crossfire by Jim Marrs; High Treason by Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone; and Cover-Up by Gary Shaw) have claimed that Rose Cherami was killed as a result of a hit and run. Jim Garrison also claimed she was the victim of a hit and run driver, despite the fact that he had a copy of Francis Fruge's report from April 4, 1967: Rose Cherami's son, Dr. Michael Marcades, has come out with a new book about his mother - Rose Cherami: Gathering Fallen Petals. You can buy Dr. Marcades' book here. Cherami's death is no longer a hit and run. The new story is that she was shot. Conspiracy theorist Gary Shaw has written the introduction: (page 2) "Rose died at age 41, her death sinisterly shrouded in mystery. Many believe she had to be silenced because she knew too much and therefore was a threat to the real killers of our President." and: (page 11) "She could actually identify some of the people who were participants in the President's murder. To an astute and honest person, her death was no accident -- Rose was murdered!" And, Joan Mellen, in her book A Farewell To Justice, writes: (page 207) "Rose Cheramie's death certificate reads "bullet hole in head," although hospital records mention no bullet hole. Her death was ruled, "accidental." Fruge could uncover no record of the driver who killed Rose at the address he had provided. Jim Garrison requested that Rose Cherami's body be exhumed, but Texas authorities refused to comply." Here is Rose Cherami's death certificate: As you can see the death certificate does not state "bullet hole in head." It states the cause of death was a "Traumatic Head wound with Subdural subarachnoid & Petechial Hemorrhage to the brain caused by being struck by auto." You can also see that there was a nine-hour interval between being struck and death. Here is an article from the Tyler Morning Telegraph of September 6, 1965: The medical examiner said that she died of a "massive cerebral hemorrhage." There is no evidence of a gunshot. Michael Marcades' book contains some additional documents from the Gladewater Municipal Hospital. Here are the comments from the hospital report: (page 376) "This is an adult WF who was brought to the ER of the hospital comatose and unresponsive. She has deep punctate stellate type laceration noted over the right side of the forehead. There is a deep extensive 15+ cm. laceration extending completely around the left posterior scalp area, extending down to the underlying cranium and effectively lifting the scalp from the underlying skull. The external auditory canal on the left is filled with blood and the entire left ear is swollen and contused in appearance. The pupils are large and unresponsive to light. There is blood in the pharynx and mouth. There is the odor of alcohol to the breath. The pt.'s breathing is regular and essentially normal. She is swollen and contused over the entire left side of the face. The neck is supple, but each time the pt.'s head is turned toward the right side she apparently has occlusion of her airway and becomes slightly cyanotic and has vomiting. She has open airway and normal respiratory exchange and no vomiting occurs when she is lying with her head to the left side. She is contused over the left shoulder and there is crepitation of bones in the left forearm with deformity. There are scattering rales over both lung fields and markedly impaired breathing sounds. The skin is cold and clammy to palpation. The abdomen is soft and flaccid and no specific organomegaly or evidence of internal injury to the abdomen is noted. There are contusions over both lower extremities, but there are no deformities noted. The lacerations of the scalp were cleansed and sutured and dressings applied. There was closed reduction of the left forearm with application of a cast, and there was a cutdown with a venous catheter applied to the left leg, and the pt. is being transferred to her room in very poor condition." The second note reads: (pages 378-379) "This 41 yr. old WF was admitted on 9/4/65 from the ER. The history obtained from the ambulance driver was that the pt. was apparently run over by an automobile near Hawkins and she was taken to a Hawkins doctor. He examined her and had the ambulance bring her on to our hospital in Gladewater. When she was seen in our ER she was comatose and unresponsive. She had a deep punctate stellate laceration over the right side of the forehead and a deep long laceration extending completely around the left posterior scalp, extending down to the underlying cranium. The left external auditory canal was filled with blood and the left side of the face was swollen and contused in appearance. The pupils were large and unresponsive to light. There was blood in the nose and mouth. She was swollen and contused over the entire left side of the face. The neck was supple, but each time the head was turned to the right side the pt. apparently had occlusion of her airway, because she would become cyanotic and begin to vomit. She had crepitation over the left forearm and evidence of a fracture of this. BP was 90/70 and she was clinically in shock. In the ER a cutdown was performed on the left leg and fluids were started. The laceration of her scalp was sutured and dressing were applied and then she was taken to her room. She remained cold and clammy and unresponsive for the next several hours and then suddenly had an elevation of BP to an extremely high level and the BP suddenly dropped and the pt. expired. Due to the nature of the accident, which apparently was responsible for the pt.'s condition. A coroners autopsy was requested. Dr. Jones performed the gross examination at postmortem and I spoke to him over the telephone. Although I have no official report on it, he stated that at the time of his gross examination, examination of the brain revealed marked gross areas of contusion but no specific lacerations or specific bleeding points were noted. No specific reason for bleeding from the right ear other than the contusions of the cerebrum were observed by him. The lungs were markedly edematous and heavy and boggy he stated. The abdominal organs did not appear to be lacerated and no specific internal difficulty of that nature was observed by him. These organs were sent to the headquarters in Austin for microscopic evaluation. The impression as to the cause of death was that the pt. was apparently struck by an automobile. She had clinical shock with extensive cerebral contusions and intracranial hemorrhage, lacerations of the forehead and scalp, and a fracture of the left forearm and contusion of the chest with marked pulmonary edema." Now, I am not a medical expert, but it doesn't sound like she was shot. The doctors actually sutured her scalp lacerations and dressed the wounds. She was then transferred to her room, albeit in very poor condition. I sent the hospital description to one of my best friends, who is a doctor, and he agreed that she was not shot. Some conspiracy theorists focus on the phrase, "deep punctate stellate type laceration," as proof that she was shot. But even Dr. Cyril Wecht disagrees: Dr. Cyril Wecht, the longtime coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and a prominent, national expert in forensic pathology (and vociferous Warren Commission critic), studied the hospital records of Cherami's death and, while he found the description of her wounds (specifically, the notation of “deep punctate stellate type lacerations posted over the right side of her forehead”) somewhat confusing, concluded, "There is nothing to suggest a gunshot wound or any other kind of penetrating injury.” (Cyril Wecht, August 29, 2001, letter to Robert Dorff, quoted in Dorff's presentation at the JFK Lancer November in Dallas Conference 2003, DVD, JFK Lancer Co.) The idea that Rose Cherami was murdered because of her foreknowledge of the assassination was always ridiculous. Why would conspirators let her live almost two years after the assassination? And, why did the supposed conspirators in the car near Eunice in November 1963, just toss her out while she was still alive? Wouldn't it have been dangerous for them to have her out there - ready to speak, as she supposedly did? Previous Blog Posts on Rose Cherami An Important New Find Regarding Rose Cherami Did Dr. Wayne Owens Hear Rose Cherami Predict the JFK Assassination? Did Rose Cherami Ever Work For Jack Ruby? Did Rose Cherami Watch the Dallas Motorcade on Television? Francis Fruge's Conversations with Rose Cherami about the JFK Assassination Did Anybody Hear Rose Cherami Predict the JFK Assassination? Did Rose Cherami Provide Valuable Information on Dope Smuggling? Jim Garrison (and Others) on Rose Cherami Was Sergio Arcacha Smith with Rose Cherami in November 1963?

A few conspiracy theorists believe that one of the two men with Rose Cherami in 1963, when she was thrown out of a car, was Sergio Arcacha Smith. James DiEugenio writes in Destiny Betrayed: (page 182) "Garrison now instructed Fruge to find the saloon that Rose had stopped in before she was abandoned. This place was called the Silver Slipper and the bar manager was a man named Mac Manual. After visiting with him once, Fruge came back with some photos that Garrison had given him. Manuel identified the two men with Rose as Sergio Arcacha Smith and Emilio Santana." As usual, DiEugenio's cited source is Probe Magazine. Here is the actual source - from Francis Fruge's interview with the HSCA: Garrison gave his investigators a stack of photos to show people. Mostly the same people, over and over again, which is why you got strange identifications of people. Was Thomas Beckham in Clinton with Shaw and Oswald? Was Jack Ruby in Clinton with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? There are no statements on file from Mack Manuel, and so we know nothing about his identification except what was remembered by Fruge in 1978. Interestingly, Fruge told the HSCA that Cherami said the men were Italians, or resembled Italians (what does that mean?): But, did Fruge not ask Cherami the names of the people she was traveling with? It would seem like an obvious question, no? Could Sergio Arcacha Smith have been in that car with Rose Cherami? It's highly doubtful. Here is what Stephen Roy, the biographer of David Ferrie, said on the Education Forum: "Others will probably disagree with me: You mentioned Arcacha in your topic line. We're basing this identification of Arcacha on an ID made some 3 1/2 years after the fact, by a bartender no longer alive to answer questions, after Arcacha's name and picture were all over the Louisiana and Texas news media. And if true, it would suggest that Arcacha led a double life: a quiet family man selling air conditioners in Texas, but secretly driving late at night around Louisiana, involved with strippers, drugs and worse." Even a conspiracy theorist like Larry Hancock finds this all hard to swallow: "As it turns out given the information available it seems very unlikely that Rose actually heard any more than some general gossip that was running through certain networks out of Miami. It's unlikely the two men with her had anything to do with the conspiracy and very unlikely that they were Arcacha Smith or Santana." and: "First off, Mac Manual commented that he was very familiar with the two men as they had been routinely transporting prostitutes on the Miami to Texas route for an extended period of time; his terms suggest for at least a year if not longer. Arcacha's movements are fairly well known during the latter part of 62 and into 63 as he first moved to Tampa and then to Galveston and on to Dallas. One of the reasons they are fairly well known is that he borrowed a car to go to Florida, did not return it in time and the car owner brought charges against him. Regardless of that, he had been employed in Texas for several months in air conditioning sales and unless that was a cover for transporting prostitutes then it seems unlikely that he is a fit for one of Manual's two men. Beyond that, Smith looked similar enough in appearance to have been misidentified by other individuals during the Garrison investigation so it seems at least reasonable that Manuel simply picked his photo because Arcacha looked similar to the Odio incident individual. Beyond that, I've found nothing in Arcacha's history (which is pretty detailed as a lot of people have looked into him) that suggests he would have been a small-time gangster transporting prostitutes for an extended period in 1963." We also know that Sergio Arcacha Smith was in Houston on the day that Kennedy was assassinated: Sergio Arcacha Smith is James DiEugenio's number one suspect in the JFK assassination: (Probe Magazine, July - August, 1999) "As has been shown here, newly released evidence strongly implies that Arcacha's involvement was likely operational." What is that evidence? Well, it's the identification shown above; a Richard Case Nagell claim that he has a tape recording of the conspirators; and a map of the Dealey Plaza sewer system that was supposedly in Arcacha's possession. Non-existent evidence is enough, in James DiEugenio's world, to convict a man of killing the President. Here is a blog post that looks at all of that in more detail: Was Sergio Arcacha Smith Involved in the JFK Assassination?