There is, perhaps, no other area of the Kennedy assassination saga that is as divisive among researchers as the investigation led by Jim Garrison. As the District Attorney of New Orleans from 1962 to 1973, Garrison was the only public official ever to bring anyone to trial for the assassination of JFK. When Garrison's inquiry, which had been operating in secret, hit the headlines in 1967, it sparked off a controversy that still rages to this day. Garrison, previously lauded for his attempts to clean up Orleans parish, quickly found himself labeled as an irresponsible publicity hound and his office was accused of bribing and drugging witnesses, inciting perjury and hounding an innocent man. Not surprisingly, his suspect, Clay Shaw, was acquitted. But was the attack on Garrison warranted? Or did he, in fact, "have something"?

Saturday 4 September 2010

Introduction Pt. 2

With Andrews refusing to help, despite Garrison warning that he would call him in front of the Grand Jury, Garrison and his staff began combing the French Quarter looking for leads. Initial searches yielded no results but eventually assistant DA Andrew Sciambra was told by the bar bartender at “Cosimo’s” that Clay Bertrand was the alias of Clay Shaw, director of the New Orleans International Trade Mart. [1] According to Garrison, the bartender felt it was no big secret and, sure enough, “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.” [2] The problem Garrison encountered was that no one was willing to go on record and provide a signed statement.

On February 17, 1967, Garrison's investigation, which had been operating in secret, hit the headlines. “DA HERE LAUNCHES FULL JFK DEATH PLOT PROBE” the New Orleans States Item revealed. The day after the story broke, two of Garrison’s assistants, Lou Ivon and Andrew Sciambra, visited David Ferrie at his apartment to gauge his reaction. Ferrie was sick, unable to eat and showing signs of deterioration. According to Allan Campbell, Ferrie had shown him the States Item article and exclaimed, “I’m a dead man!“ During the course of his conversation with Ivon and Sciambra, Ferrie continued to deny any involvement in the assassination. He said that he had never heard of Shaw or Bertrand and complained that he was being framed. [3] The following afternoon, Ferrie called Ivon, begging for his protection. “They’re going to kill me!” he cried. Ivon quickly called Garrison who instructed him to check Ferrie into the Fountainebleau Hotel under a false name. According to Ivon, Ferrie broke down and admitted that he had worked for the CIA, that he knew Shaw and that Shaw too had worked for the agency. He also admitted that he knew Oswald but still claimed that he was not involved in the assassination. [4] Ivon left the Fountainebleau around 2:00 AM but when he returned a few hours later, Ferrie was no longer there. Three days later, David W. Ferrie was found dead in his apartment.

With Ferrie dead, Garrison concentrated on building his case against Clay Shaw. One thing that had become abundantly clear to Garrison during the course of his investigation, was that the majority of Oswald’s contacts during the summer of 1963 were people that had been in some way connected to the CIA. Garrison suspected the same of Shaw, but was unable to prove it. The man who was to become Garrison’s star witness against Clay Shaw came to the DA’s attention on February 24, 1967, just a few days after Ferrie’s death. Perry Russo, an insurance salesman from Baton Rouge and an acquaintance of Ferrie, gave an interview to the Baton Rouge States-Times about Ferrie's anti-Kennedy remarks. The next day, Garrison sent assistant DA Andrew Sciambra up to Baton Rouge to talk with Russo. Russo told Sciambra about a meeting he had attended at Ferrie’s apartment in the summer of 1963. According to Russo, Ferrie and his guests at the gathering had discussed a plan to assassinate President Kennedy. Present at the gathering were a group of Cubans, a man he thought was Ferrie’s roommate named “Leon” and an older man named “Clem Bertrand.” The party, he said, discussed using a “triangulation of crossfire.“ Sciambra produced a stack of photographs from his brief case and asked Russo to identify anyone he knew. He recognized a number of Cubans and identified “Leon” as Lee Harvey Oswald. Most importantly, he identified a picture of Clay Shaw as the man he’d known as “Clem Bertrand.”

Russo agreed to travel back to New Orleans to meet with Garrison. Once he arrived at Garrison‘s office on Monday 27, Russo was asked to describe “Bertrand” to a police artist named Robert Buras. The finished picture was an exact likeness of Clay Shaw. Given the importance of Russo’s account, it was decided that more should be done to test its veracity. Russo was taken over to Mercy Hospital where he was administered Sodium Pentothal (commonly referred to as “truth serum“) by Orleans Parish Coroner, Dr. Nicholas Chetta. Under the effects of Sodium Pentothal, Russo confirmed the details of the meeting at Ferrie’s apartment. He also corrected Sciambra when used the name “Clay.” Russo knew the man as “Clem Bertrand.” He described him as “a tall man with white kinky hair, sort of slender.” [5] “There’s not a chance at all that what this kid said is not true” Dr. Chetta said. “It had to have happened.” [6] On March 1, Russo was put under hypnosis by Dr. Esmond Fatter, during which time he recalled the date, the place and the “big guy” with “white hair” named “Clem Bertrand.” A second hypnosis session confirmed all of the details of the first. Satisfied that he had done all he could to test the truthfulness of Perry’s story, Garrison obtained a warrant for the arrest of Clay Shaw.

Following Shaw's arrest, Garrison filed a motion for a preliminary hearing - something he was not obliged to do but felt that “because of the enormity of this accusation, we should lean over backward and give the defendant every chance.” [7] The preliminary hearing, of course, essentially worked in the defendant’s favour since Louisiana law at that time did not oblige prosecutors to share the names of their witnesses with the defence. At the hearing, Garrison presented a new witness, a heroin addict named Vernon Bundy. Bundy testified that in June or July of 1963, he had been preparing to shoot-up at the Lake Pontchartrain seawall when a black sedan pulled into the parking lot. The driver, a tall grey-haired man, got out and walked past Bundy to talk to a younger man. The pair spoke for fifteen to twenty minutes and the driver of the sedan handed a roll of money to the younger man. Bundy claimed to have overheard the younger man ask, “What am I going to tell her?” to which the grey-haired man replied, “Don’t worry about it. I told you I’m going to take care of it.” Bundy also claimed that the younger man dropped some yellow leaflets and that after the two men had left he had walked over and picked one up. On it, he said, was some writing about Cuba. [8] Bundy would identify the two men as Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald.

The three judge panel at the preliminary hearing agreed that there was enough evidence to indict Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. At this point, Garrison could have filed a charge against Shaw “just by signing it and depositing it with the city clerk.” Instead, he chose to take the extra precaution of voluntarily presenting his case before the Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury had failed to indict Shaw it would have meant the end of Garrison’s case. It did not. Shaw was indicted and Garrison spent the next two years trying to bring his case to trial. During those two years, Garrison's staff and witnesses would be the subject of a relentless smear campaign by the national media. Not surprisingly, a fair trial was rendered impossible and Shaw was acquitted of all charges.




1. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 85.
2. Ibid. p. 86.
3. Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 102.
4. Bill Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 66.
5. Mellen, p. 115.
6. Ibid.
7. Playboy interview.
8. Davy, p. 124-125.

No comments:

Post a Comment