Newsgroup posts by David Blackburst, Anthony Marsh & Dave Reitzes
Subject: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 11 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990911101416.19047.00004296@ng-fg1.aol.com>
A CIA memorandum of June 20, 1967, lays out precisely who among those involved with the Garrison investigation had "Agency connections." Here they are:
1. Carlos Jose Bringuier ("Occasional contact with New Orleans office, DCS.")
2. Laurence J. Laborde (Description redacted in 1977 release)
3. Jack N. Rogers (DCS contact, "Lawyer who has been in touch with Garrison's staff.")
4. Emilio Santana (Description redacted in 1977 release)
5. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corporation (Description redacted in 1977 release)
6. Clay L. Shaw ("Contact with DCS office, New Orleans, from December 1948 to May 1956.")
7. Cecil Maxwell Shilstone ("Member of group of New Orleans businessmen supplying GARRISON with funds.")
A memorandum of September 29, 1967, adds these names: Carlos Quiroga, Rudolph Ricardo Davis, Victor Paneque, and Fernando Fernandez, all in relation to "the training camp at Lacombe, which Garrison falsely asserts was run by CIA."
The June 20, 1967, memo has another list. "The following persons, also involved in the investigation, have claimed association with the Agency":
1. William Wayne Dalzell (claimed DCS contacts)
2. Gordon Dwane Novel ("Continues to imply CIA contact, which his attorneys in Ohio and Louisiana now flatly assert. Thorough checks prove the claim false.") A transcript of the famous "Mr. Weiss" letter follows, along with summaries of a number of press clippings about Novel's claims.
3. Edward Stewart Suggs, aka Jack S. Martin ("An unstable person who reportedly claimed a CIA tie and who has asserted that he works for GARRISON. The assertion about CIA is false.")
"GARRISON has charged that many others are linked to CIA, including the five Cuban assassins and every defense attorney in the case."
A memorandum of September 7, 1967, reports, "Two persons, Donald P. NORTON and Gordon Duane NOVEL, have publicly but falsely claimed affiliation with the CIA." "On 4 August 1967 the DCS office received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as Jules R. KIMBLE of 7003 Vicksburg St., New Orleans. He said that 'Garrison was trying to connect him with CIA' but that he did not know why." "All Headquarters checks on KIMBLE were negative."
A memorandum of September 29, 1967, reports, "Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CIA." "Actually, Novel has never at any time had any association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin." "Donald P. Norton . . . has falsely claimed in a newspaper article that he worked for CIA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $50,000, which he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald." "There is no truth in Norton's story in any respect."
A memorandum of December 10, 1968, adds another name to the list of people falsely claiming an association with the CIA: Richard Case Nagell.
The memorandum continues, "Certainly, the story of CIA's connections and interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly. Shaw's lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no government information which they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are wholly false, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana, Paneque, Bringuier, and others. Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either the prosecution or defense to involve CIA in the trial, the Government will claim executive privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and particularly by CIA. No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to be available, however. To protect the Government's position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison's claims and the testimony of his witnesses, as the Louisiana judge would almost certainly take the position that any such public statement would negate the privilege."
The memo concludes, "At the present time, therefore, there is no action we can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. There is one positive aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the US press and public opinion appear to be extremely skeptical if not scornful of Garrison's allegations. We can only wait and see whether the trial will influence this attitude either way. [signed] Lawrence R, Houston, General Counsel."
Dave
From: dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 11 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990911103226.19047.00004307@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Some names are conspicuous by their absence: David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Thomas Bethell, William Gurvich, Kerry Thornley, Eladio del Valle, Lee Harvey Oswald . . .
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 11 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990911193320.05244.00000144@ng-ce1.aol.com>
I have an FBI document on a contact with Jane Roman at CIA denying that Ferrie, Banister or [Gordon Novel] are of operational interest to CIA.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 12 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990912130228.07530.00007376@ng-cj1.aol.com>
[...]
The choice of wording, that the CIA does not have "operational interest" in the three men does not constitute a complete denial of any contact with them.
[...]
Ferrie is a different story. His real connection with the CIA was that he volunteered with the New Orleans office of the FRD. From November 1960 to April 1961, he was not taken seriously. After the Bay of Pigs, he convinced Arcacha that he could be the savior of the FRD, and entered into a more active phase, but this only lasted until a few months after his August 1961 morals arrests.
So the record does not support a true direct relationship between Ferrie and the CIA, but it DOES support a more tangential relationship. Ferrie seems to have been aware of the CIA connection and romanticized it in a Walter Mitty kind of way. In any case, CIA must have also been aware of Ferrie's tangential role with the CIA-controlled FRD from November 1960 to late 1961.
So the 1967 CIA denial of operational interest is somewhat disingenuous when it comes to . . . Ferrie.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 12 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990912124800.07530.00007372@ng-cj1.aol.com>
Atlasrecrd replied:
>oh please. spare me.
You may look askance at the document, but I presume that the CIA of 1967 did not think that the document would ever be released to the public. Also, at the same time CIA was denying operational interest in Ferrie, Banister and Arcacha, it was conceding contact with Shaw, Bringuier and others. Why would CIA deny contact with the dead Ferrie but admit contact with the indicted Shaw?
(Unrelated quick observation: If Ferrie was a CIA conspirator, why did the CIA not give him assistance after his morals arrests? Why did the CIA not assist him after the assassination? Why did the CIA not help him between December 1966 and his death in February 1967, when he was under investigation by Garrison? Why, from the time of his morals arrests and phase-out of his active anti-Castro period [late 1961], and on up to and after the assassination, did he struggle in comparative poverty? Why didn't the CIA reward him for his role in the assassination? In late 1961-early 1962, he lived off his bank account. From early 1962-late 1963, he lived on his $300. a month from G. Wray Gill. In early 1964, he used his $7000 from the Marcello case and $1600 settlement from Eastern Air Lines to open a gas station that failed. From late 1964-mid-1966, he worked for a series of rinky-dink small air carriers, and from mid 1966 to his death, he struggled to start his own flying school. Why wasn't he rewarded by CIA?)
From: AnthonyMarsh
Sometimes the CIA tries to cut off its ties with an agent or asset when
morals charges come up. Read Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie.
--
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Ferrie's morals arrests were in August 1961, and the assassination was two
years later. Why would CIA cut off ties to Ferrie (by failing to help him)
after his morals arrests, but then use him as an assassin two years later?
And if they did covertly reemploy him as an assassin, why did his life, career,
and income continue the decline that had begun in 1961? Why didn't CIA help him
or reward him? What would have been in the deal for Ferrie, if, after being
involved in a successful assassination, he not only failed to get any benefit
or reward, but suffered financially? I don't get it.
From: AnthonyMarsh
I didn't say that CIA cut off ties to Ferrie. Maybe someone else did.
But I think they maintained it to keep a pilot in reserve for Mongoose
activities. Failing to help Ferrie does not signify that they cut off
ties.
[...]
Did they CIA always pay its assassins millions of dollars a year on
retainer. How much did Helms pay his? Did I ever say that CIA was paying
Ferrie anything in 1963? If you think that anyone who ever works for the
CIA is automatically guaranteed to make a fortune, you need a reality
check.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Anthony Marsh wrote:
I don't think so. Ferrie's anti-Castro activities dropped off to almost nothing
a couple of months after his arrests.
>But in fact the CIA was
If your implication is that CIA may have helped Ferrie behind the scenes, I see
no evidence of it at all.
>I have never said that Ferrie was an assassin. Do you know anyone who
I was referring to the Perry Russo image of Ferrie as the man who maneuvered
Oswald into Dealy Plaza, and considered triangulation of fire. Why would Ferrie
have done such a thing if he got nothing out of it? If the CIA stiffed him on
help or money, why didn't he go public?
>Did they CIA always pay its assassins millions of dollars a year on
No, they probably didn't. But admitted assassination conspirators like Roselli
and Giancana appear to have prosecutions staved off by CIA. And QJ/WIN
apparently received a few bucks. I'm saying that Ferrie's post-1961 legal and
financial decline does not support the idea that he was some kind of contract
agent. What was Ferrie's end of the contract?
>If you think that anyone who ever works for the
Have you ever heard that a person sets up a straw man to be knocked down? I
don't recall making any reference to anyone making a "fortune". Ferrie appears
to have received NO BENEFIT AT ALL from his putative role in the assassination.
Why would he take such a risk?
As far as a reality check goes, have you ever considered the possibility that
Ferrie may have been unjustly accused? That intellectually, we have to start
with a presumption of innocence? Why do we apply that standard to Oswald but
not Ferrie? If the goal here is truth, we need to question our own beliefs. And
my question about Ferrie's motivation to have taken such a risk is not at all
divorced from reality.
oo
"If this is justice, then justice be damned."
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Most counterintelligence officers would say that, while it may be hard to find
contemporaneous evidence of a relationship to an intelliegence service, it is
usually possible to spot one after the fact. Changes in finance. Immunity from
prosecution. Phone calls. Unexplained absences. Associations with known agents.
After late 1961, there is almost nothing suspicious in his background.
>Why wouldn't Ferrie do something like that? If he really hated Kennedy
>and wanted to see him killed
I'm not at all sure he did. His acknowledged friends say he was mad after the
Bay of Pigs, but that he supported JFK's policies in other ways. (Fiscal, civil
rights, space program, etc.) I don't know that being pissed off about something
in 1961 constitutes a clear motivation to become involved in an assassination
plot in 1963. Think of the risk: Oswald served in Ferrie's CAP unit, several
people claim that they were seen publicly in 1963, Oswald used an address where
Ferrie could sometimes be found, plotting with Oswald in front of a witness
(Russo), the Clinton incident, the public link to Marcello. Why would he risk
being tied to the assassination without some benefit to him?
>QJ/WIN was allotted an
No. I said he was paid a few bucks.
>Of course [Ferrie] received a benefit. Not going to jail.
On what charge? The FBI DID spend several weeks investigating Martin's charges,
and did not find sufficient evidence to arrest.
>Allowed to continue
What pro-Cuban exile activities did Ferrie engage in after late 1961? After
November 1963?
>Allowed to keep his pilot's license.
On what ground could it have been pulled? That Oswald served in his CAP unit,
and he and some friends drove to Houston?
>Allowed to continue his medical research. Etc.
On what ground could he be prevented from such activity? (By the way, the
overstated medical research was largely in the late 50s, not later.)
>I never said that Ferrie was part of the assassination.
True. But it does seem to be implicit in your apparent suggestion that Ferrie
should have been arrested.
Quote:>Of course he received a benefit. Not going to jail.
>Ferrie's only guilt might have been by association
As you might infer from my comments, I consider this a real possibility.
>If you are looking for
I wouldn't call it a "method". Perhaps I inferred something that you did not
state, and for that, my apologies. I do respect your knowledge and analysis of
the case.
>I may actually believe
I hope so. Dave Ferrie was a REAL person, not a cartoon character as some
present him. His friends and family are deeply hurt by the continual
presumption of his guilt. They see him as the victim of some false allegations
and his own eccentricity. Very few of the serious allegations against him seem
to have merit, when one starts with a presumption of innocence.
If someone presents some convincing evidence that Ferrie was involved in an
assassination plot, I will change my opinion.
From: AnthonyMarsh
Blackburst wrote:
Things which were overlooked in cases like Ames and not present in
Melita Norwood.
> >Why wouldn't Ferrie do something like that? If he really hated Kennedy
The same could be said about CIA officers who threatened to kill
President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. How could they keep their anger
alive over 2 years? No one would seek revenge after that many years,
right?
> in 1961 constitutes a clear motivation to become involved in an assassination
Ferrie did not know he had any knowledge of Oswald. Interviewed shortly
after the assassination he stated that he had no knowledge of Oswald and
he was not even in the same CAP at the time Oswald was. How many years
did it take for the photos of the luncheon to become public? Russo was
dismissed, the Clinton incident was dismissed, etc. If Ferrie wanted to
claim innocence he certainly was believed by ALL WC defenders.
> >Of course [Ferrie] received a benefit. Not going to jail.
Morals charges.
> >Allowed to continue
Leafleting. Arms supply. Nothing in late 1963 and thereafter.
> >Allowed to keep his pilot's license.
Morals charges. Conviction of a felony.
> >Allowed to continue his medical research. Etc.
Ethics violation.
> >I never said that Ferrie was part of the assassination.
Hmm, arrested for what?? I don't think I ever implied that Ferrie should
be arrested in connection with the JFK assassination. Questioned yes,
and done, but not arrested. Arrested earlier on morals charges.
> >I may actually believe
Ferrie was a complex character, but occasionally in life there are some
characters who assumed to be guilty of something because of their bad
associations. That is unfortunate.
> If someone presents some convincing evidence that Ferrie was involved in an
I haven't seen any.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
>Things which were overlooked in cases like Ames and not present in
Contemporaneously overlooked, yes. Apparent after-the-fact, yes. This was my
point.
>The same could be said about CIA officers who threatened to kill
Which CIA officers threatened to kill JFK over the Bay of Pigs?
>Interviewed shortly
Not quite. Ferrie said Oswald's profile picture looked familiar, but he didn't
recall ever knowing him in the CAP. And a few days later, after he had spoken
to Eddie Voebel, he conceded that he may have been in the Moisant CAP squadron
at the time Oswald was.
>If Ferrie wanted to
Ferrie's claim of innocence was believed by a lot more people than just WC
defenders.
>Morals charges.
Ferrie was not let-off on morals charges due to some CIA intervention. He was
tried on one charge and acquitted due to a technicality about dates. The other
charges were nol-prossed when Ferrie convinced witness Mike Crouchet to
withdraw the charges.
>Leafleting.
The source for Ferrie leafletting in 1963 was John Irion, and he was misdating
a 1961 incident (according to the boys who leafletted with Ferrie).
>Arms supply.
The last (and only) incident of Ferrie being involved in procuring arms was the
September 1961 Houma burglary.
>Nothing in late 1963 and thereafter.
Nope. Be glad to change my mind if you can cite evidence I have overlooked.
>Morals charges.
The FAA was quietly involved in Ferrie's dismissal from Eastern Air Lines, but
they did not have the authority to pull his license on such charges.
>Conviction of a felony.
Ferrie was never convicted of a felony.
>Ethics violation.
Ferrie might have violated traditional ethics, but nobody could prevent him
from studying medicine.
I go back to my original point. Ferrie had many legal difficulties from
1961-1963 and financial difficulties from 1961-1967. There is no evidence that
he received any help at all from CIA, or profited in any way from his putative
role in the assassination. This seems to argue that he might not have played a
role in a CIA assassination. Proof, no. Circumstantial evidence, yes.
Yes, Ferrie was an odd duck in some ways, but until we have some solid evidence
of involvement in a CIA assassination plot, we should presume him innocent.
Many JFK researchers automatically presume Ferrie guilty of something, but fail
to produce any convincing evidence of guilt. (And, they make a complete jumble
of the events of his life, as well.) Just FYI, Ferrie almost completely
disappeared from anti-Castro activities after late 1961. Period.
From: AnthonyMarsh
Blackburst wrote:
[...]
> Not quite. Ferrie said Oswald's profile picture looked familiar, but he didn't
Almost. According to Wall's FBI report #89-69 (CD 75) Oswald profile
photo had a VERY VAGUE familiarity. Don't leave out the qualifiers. They
are important.
Page 3:
A photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans
On December 10, 1963 Ferrie gave a written statement to SA Regis Kennedy
(CD 205). In this statement he denied knowing Oswald, but gave himself
an 'out' by admitting that he might have known him casually.
"To my best knowledge and belief I do not know LEE HARVEY OSWALD, and
have no personal recollection of ever having met him. If I did ever meet
him it was very casual and to my best recollection have definitely not
seen him in recent years."
SA Gerrets tracked down Jack Martin, who admitted that he was the source
of the false report that David Ferrie had trained Oswald. Martin had
heard about Oswald being in the CAP and that Ferrie had been his
squadron commander and put 2 and 2 together and came up with the story
about Ferrie teaching Oswald to shoot. See C0-2-34,030 (CD 87).
Martin was an alcoholic who often gave false tips to law enforcement.
> Ferrie was not let-off on morals charges due to some CIA intervention. He was
And no one put in a good word for him? You asked about possibilities,
not what was proven in a court of law.
> Ferrie was never convicted of a felony.
IFF.
> >Ethics violation.
Traditional ethics? I guess it depends on the hospital. Some might think
nothing of his sodomizing young boys.
> Yes, Ferrie was an odd duck in some ways, but until we have some solid evidence
> of involvement in a CIA assassination plot, we should presume him innocent.
Everyone is given the legal presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. But that doesn't mean that we have to be stupid about it and
believe that a murderer did not do it when there is ample evidence that
he did. O.J. was found not guilty of murder. So does that mean that we
have to be stupid and think that he didn't do it? Do you know of any WC
defenders who give Oswald the presumption of innocence because he wasn't
tried? Most of the messages I see here from WC defenders are along the
lines of, "Face it, Oswald is guilty. But when it comes to historical
events, we are under no obligation to just shake our heads and say,
"Well, we just don't know." We have a right to know our history.
> Many JFK researchers automatically presume Ferrie guilty of something, but fail
Yes, too many JFK researchers simply pass along what they have heard.
What I can I do about? Call them nasty names? I do what I can, such as
posting messages like this pointing out the facts.
As for guilt, there may be several things that I think Ferrie was guilty
of doing or involved in, but I see no evidence that he was involved in
the JFK assassination. Someone could have been using him peripherally or
had him in the wings ready to use if necessary. (triple play on words)
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Anthony Marsh replied:
A point well-taken. I didn't think the difference between "familiar" and "very
vague familiarity" was critical to this discussion.
>If Ferrie HAD been convicted of a felony, wouldn't the CAB have pulled
I don't know if the FAA had the authority to do this, but I believe they were
thinking of trying to pull his license.
>Traditional ethics? I guess it depends on the hospital.
Ferrie was studying medicine on his own, from books, not at a hospital.
>Some might think
Ferrie may have been "a well-versed guy on a number of subjects", but his
violations of young boys were truly appalling. But they would not have been
able to prevent him studying on his own.
>Everyone is given the legal presumption of innocence until proven
Not Ferrie. Book after book is filled with dark implications about him.
>O.J. was found not guilty of murder. So does that mean that we
In O.J.'s case, I think the evidence does support guilt of murder. In Ferrie's
case, I do not think the evidence supports guilt of conspiracy to assassinate
JFK. And I feel that the most innocuous incidents in his life are given
implications not supported by the evidence.
>Do you know of any WC
The term "WC defenders" is somewhat loaded, but I will attempt to answer your
question. The empirical evidence (the "evidence on the face of things") against
Oswald is very damning, leading me to feel that he either did it, or someone
went to a great deal of difficulty to make it seem like he did. This is not
true of Ferrie.
>But when it comes to historical
Sometimes there are so many nuances and subtleties in conflicting evidence,
that it is impossible to say for sure.
>We have a right to know our history.
True.
>As for guilt, there may be several things that I think Ferrie was guilty
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think Ferrie may have been telling the
truth in not recalling Oswald from 1955. But it is true that there are about a
dozen witnesses who allege a 1963 relationship.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Anthony wrote:
Anthony, I don't know if I can convince you of this in a short post, and I know
I can't convince many others, but I have done a LOT of research into the
specialty area of New Orleans, and Ferrie in particular. I think it is quite
possible that Ferrie did NOT encounter Oswald in the summer of 1963, that he
was being truthful. For different reasons, none of the sightings are especially
credible, and many of them just don't fit into Ferrie's actual activities that
summer. It's just my informed opinion, and I will continue to post on specific
aspects of this in this group. But I understand if you feel otherwise,
considering some of the evidence I posted to start this thread. But if you
respect the opinion of someone who specializes in a particular area, please
consider the possibility that there may be reasonable doubt about the
conventional belief.
Subject: Re: Martin's "evidence" on Judyth Baker [repost]
>Why couldn't the same thing happen
Just to clarify what is provable about Ferrie and the CIA:
Ferrie volunteered with the New Orleans office of the Frente Revolucionario
Democratico (FRD) in about November 1960. From then until April, his
involvement was limited, as he was considered a "norte americano", a gringo.
After the Bay of Pigs, he became quite close to FRD New Orleans delegate Sergio
Arcacha Smith and played a major role in that chapter. But it was short-lived:
Within weeks of his August 1961 morals arrests, Ferrie was ostracized by and
booted out of the FRD. A few months later, Arcacha was booted, in part due to
his support of Ferrie.
So Ferrie was active in the NO chapter of the FRD. And the FRD was created,
funded and to some extent run by the CIA. It is unclear if Ferrie's connection
with the FRD was completely at the local level, or if it ran any deeper. But it
was brief.
Ferrie did imply a CIA connection to a few people. He claimed in late 1960 to
have been injured in a raid on Cuba. He told Al Landry a vivid story about it.
He implied to Herb Wagner a connection with something called Operation Mosquito
(by the way, this was too early to have been a misunderstanding of Mongoose, as
Davy postulates). When he ran a training camp for his "Falcon Squadron" in
early 1961, he claimed to have the backing of either the CIA or the State
Department. And he claimed to Bob Boylston that, in the event of an attack on
the US, he would pass along "secret orders" from the government. How much, if
any, of this is true and how much might be Walter Mitty-type fantasy is
unclear. But it all seems to have ended by late 1961.
The notion of Ferrie flying raids into Cuba is doubtful. The Eladio delValle
story of spending 3 days each week in Miami on such raids is inconsistent with
Ferrie's work schedule. And other accounts, such as Robert Morrow and Ron
Lewis, are inconsistent with Ferrie's documented activites.
Jane Roman checked in 1967 and reported that Ferrie was "not of operational
interest" to the CIA. I consider this credible, since such a document would not
be expected to reach the public in 1967, and because it and other documents
were very candid about Shaw and others. Roman does not deny ANY connection (see
the FRD connection above), but no "operational interest" suggests that Ferrie's
FRD connection may have been at the local level, and very short term.
As I have noted here, there is no credible evidence of a later Ferrie-CIA
connection, and Ferrie's pathetic financial situation from 1962 to his death
suggests that he was not paid for any such activities.
More on this at a later date.
oo
Subject: Re: Garrison: "Homosexual thrill-killing"?
Re: Ferrie, Anthony wrote:
The only time in Ferrie's life when he came into contact with the CIA (as best
I can confirm) is during his anti-Castro period. That period was briefer than
people think: Ferrie apparently volunteered at the local office of the FRD, a
CIA-created group, in November 1960, but was not a very active participant at
that time. After the (April 1961 bay of Pigs invasion, he became a strong force
in the New Orleans FRD office, but that was cut short after he was arrested on
morals charges in August 1961.
It is fair to say that Ferrie was working with a CIA-created group from
November 1960-August 1961. It is not clear if Ferrie was recruited or simply
volunteered. It is not clear if his presence in the NO chapter of the FRD was
cleared or coordinated with the FRD's national leadership, or with the CIA.
The evidence does not support the idea that Ferrie was an actual CIA officer.
Although hard to disprove, there is little evidence to support the idea that he
was a contract agent. But since he was engaged in activity in the NO office of
a CIA-created group, one might argue that he was a CIA asset during that
period. He did drop a few hints to friends during that period that he was
engaged in secret activity.
Subject: Re: Garrison: "Homosexual thrill-killing"?
Walt wrote:
I've studied his life very carefully, down to intricate details. Before 1960-1,
he was employed fulltime as an airline pilot, and there are no allegations that
he had any CIA connection at that time. (The 1960-1962 period is discussed
below.) After 1962, fallen from grace after several messy morals arrests, he
drifted from job to job, trying to re-establish himself.
When CIA agents are exposed in the press, there is usually SOME kind of
after-the-fact indication that might have given the game away earlier: unusual
money transactions, unusual travel, associations with suspicious people, pillow
talk to close friends, etc. In Ferrie's case, his financial trail shows nothing
suspicious, his travel record is unremarkable, he had no associations that
would necessarily link him to intelligence, and except as noted below, no
pillow talk.
I have already stated that Ferrie WAS involved with a CIA-created anti-Castro
group from November 1960-August 1961, and that he did hint at such a connection
to a few friends. Isn't that enough? Why do you want him to be some super-spy
when the facts don't support it?
(Incidentally, a few CIA and FBI documents indicate that Ferrie was not "of
operational interest" to CIA: When they were written, it could scarcely be
expected that they would ever be made public.)
>He offers as corroboration for his statement, the fact
Outside of what I've said above, there are only a few allegations from some
sources of unknown reliability that Ferrie had a more extensive CIA connection.
>How ludicrous!..... Dave, I know you know ( probably from first hand
Very funny.
>Dave, I know you know ( probably from first hand
I don't get it. CIA documents indicate relationships with Clay Shaw, Carlos
Bringuier, Carlos Quiroga, Sergio Arcacha Smith and a bunch of other people
whose names come up in this case. I guess CIA sloppily left evidence around
about them, but cleverly concealed all the Ferrie evidence.
Regardless of what Walt says, Ferrie worked with a CIA-created group 1960-1961.
The evidence does not support (and argues against) a deeper connection.
Subject: Re: Garrison: "Homosexual thrill-killing"?
>Remember that Dulles said
Anthony:
You, Anthony, are familiar with the true spy world. I've read dozens - maybe
hundreds - of books about CIA, FBI, KGB. MI6 (etc.) spies, and there are ALWAYS
things in their past that would have given them away. Beyond his FRD period,
there's no indication of an undisclosed connection. And why would a CIA
superspy continue to trudge to work everyday and have trouble paying bills? Why
would a CIA superspy get embroiled in a serious legal case with no intervention
by some CIA cutout? And if he conspired to kill JFK, what did he get out of it?
He lived in poverty from 1963 to his death.
By no stretch of the imagination does Ferrie fit the profile of a CIA superspy.
From: Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com)
>neither
John, it is fair to say that Ferrie was connected to the CIA to this extent:
1) From November 1960 to October 1961, Ferrie volunteered to assist the
local office of the Frente Revolucionario Democratico (later known as the
Cuban Revolutionary Council), an organization that was set up and funded by
the CIA at that time.
2) Ferrie told several acquaintences that he was working with the CIA or
at least was involved in some secret project involving Cuba. One of these
friends was Al Landry.
oo
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37E00EC0.7268458E@quik.com>
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990915232150.01591.00000245@ng-fn1.aol.com>
>Sometimes the CIA tries to cut off its ties with an agent or asset when
>morals charges come up.
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37E101C9.AE20D07@quik.com>
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990916233819.02234.00001200@ng-cn1.aol.com>
>I didn't say that CIA cut off ties to Ferrie.
>But I think they maintained it to keep a pilot in reserve for Mongoose
>activities.
>helping Shaw behind the scenes
>has made the claim that he was in Dealey Plaza shooting?
>retainer.
>CIA is automatically guaranteed to make a fortune, you need a reality
>check.
David Blackburst
David Ferrie
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 18 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990918000647.02164.00001613@ng-fb1.aol.com>
>you can't assume that CIA cut off a relationship because
>you can't see CIA overtly helping the person.
>annual salary in 1961 of $7,200 and another $7,500 was allotted for
>expenses. Does that sound like a fortune to you?
>his pro-Cuban exile activities.
>strawman arguments, you can start with your own method of claiming that
>I believe something when I never said that.
>almost exactly what you do about someone
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 18 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37E3ADAB.6FDADCB@quik.com>
> Most counterintelligence officers would say that, while it may be hard to find
> contemporaneous evidence of a relationship to an intelliegence service, it is
> usually possible to spot one after the fact. Changes in finance. Immunity from
> prosecution. Phone calls. Unexplained absences. Associations with known agents.
> After late 1961, there is almost nothing suspicious in his background.
> >and wanted to see him killed
>
> I'm not at all sure he did. His acknowledged friends say he was mad after the
> Bay of Pigs, but that he supported JFK's policies in other ways. (Fiscal, civil
> rights, space program, etc.) I don't know that being pissed off about something
> plot in 1963. Think of the risk: Oswald served in Ferrie's CAP unit, several
> people claim that they were seen publicly in 1963, Oswald used an address where
> Ferrie could sometimes be found, plotting with Oswald in front of a witness
> (Russo), the Clinton incident, the public link to Marcello. Why would he risk
> being tied to the assassination without some benefit to him?
>
> On what charge? The FBI DID spend several weeks investigating Martin's charges,
> and did not find sufficient evidence to arrest.
> >his pro-Cuban exile activities.
>
> What pro-Cuban exile activities did Ferrie engage in after late 1961? After
> November 1963?
>
> On what ground could it have been pulled? That Oswald served in his CAP unit,
> and he and some friends drove to Houston?
>
> On what ground could he be prevented from such activity? (By the way, the
> overstated medical research was largely in the late 50s, not later.)
>
> True. But it does seem to be implicit in your apparent suggestion that Ferrie
> should have been arrested.
> >almost exactly what you do about someone
>
> I hope so. Dave Ferrie was a REAL person, not a cartoon character as some
> present him. His friends and family are deeply hurt by the continual
> presumption of his guilt. They see him as the victim of some false allegations
> and his own eccentricity. Very few of the serious allegations against him seem
> to have merit, when one starts with a presumption of innocence.
> assassination plot, I will change my opinion.
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 19 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990919003247.02285.00002098@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>Melita Norwood.
>President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. How could they keep their anger
>alive over 2 years?
>after the assassination he stated that he had no knowledge of Oswald and
>he was not even in the same CAP at the time Oswald was.
>claim innocence he certainly was believed by ALL WC defenders.
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37E94E14.7AF6240@quik.com>
> recall ever knowing him in the CAP. And a few days later, after he had spoken
> to Eddie Voebel, he conceded that he may have been in the Moisant CAP squadron
> at the time Oswald was.
Police Department Number 112723 taken on August 9, 1963,
showing a profile, full face and full length photograph of
Oswald was exhibited to FERRIE. FERRIE upon viewing the
photograph stated that the profile view of the photograph of
LEE HARVEY OSWALD has a very vague familiarity to him but
the full face and full length photographs of OSWALD are not
familiar to him.
> tried on one charge and acquitted due to a technicality about dates. The other
> charges were nol-prossed when Ferrie convinced witness Mike Crouchet to
> withdraw the charges.
If Ferrie HAD been convicted of a felony, wouldn't the CAB have pulled
his license?
>
> Ferrie might have violated traditional ethics, but nobody could prevent him
> from studying medicine.
> to produce any convincing evidence of guilt. (And, they make a complete jumble
> of the events of his life, as well.) Just FYI, Ferrie almost completely
> disappeared from anti-Castro activities after late 1961. Period.
Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO
Date: 25 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990925011837.19791.00001265@ng-ce1.aol.com>
>According to Wall's FBI report #89-69 (CD 75) Oswald profile
>photo had a VERY VAGUE familiarity. Don't leave out the qualifiers. They
>are important.
>his license?
>nothing of his sodomizing young boys.
>guilty.
>have to be stupid and think that he didn't do it?
>defenders who give Oswald the presumption of innocence because he wasn't
>tried?
>events, we are under no obligation to just shake our heads and say,
>"Well, we just don't know."
>of doing or involved in, but I see no evidence that he was involved in
>the JFK assassination.
Subject: Re: The Truth About David Ferrie
Date: 07 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991107054723.11004.00001740@ng-cn1.aol.com>
>I don't think Ferrie was involved in the assassination. I think it was
>guilt by association. But both Ferrie and Oswald could have been used by
>a rogue element in the CIA.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 7/8/03 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20030708103738.03610.00000012@mb-m05.aol.com>
>when Ferrie's files were reviewed
Blackburst
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 9/12/02 9:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020912090359.03000.00003778@mb-dh.aol.com>
>True up to a certain point. There is a fine distinction however. Someone
>does not have to be a government employee to be an agent or an asset.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 9/12/02 1:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020912135245.11697.00004421@mb-fi.aol.com>
>Here's our Mr. Blackburst tryin to get us to believe that Dave Ferrie wasn't
>a CIA agent.
>that there isn't any "EVIDENCE" that Ferrie was a CIA agent.
>experience)
>experience) that intelligence agencies don't leave evidence and
>documentation just lyin around.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 9/13/02 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020913100045.05626.00004305@mb-fc.aol.com>
>in a WC executive session that an intelligence officer would even lie to
>the President about someone being an intelligence agent.
We have two views of Ferrie. One is the Ferrie we see in various allegations,
sometimes by questionable witnesses, and largely uncorroborated. The other is
the real Ferrie, in the detail of his life. I find it very hard to believe that
Ferrie, outside of his year with the FRD, could have been some kind of CIA
superspy, but successfully concealed it from everyone. That he left no
financial anomalies. That he went to work everyday uneventful jobs. That none
of the people KNOWN to be acquainted with Ferrie saw evidence that he was a
superspy.
Subject: Re: SHAW evidence for McADAMS
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 1997/09/21
>Bannister nor Ferrie was connected to the CIA,
Dave