More on the Death of David Ferrie
Subject: Re: David Ferrie's "Mysterious Death"
Date: 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981222143111.08216.00000249@ng-fb1.aol.com>
Just for the record, the actual wording from the cover page of Chetta/Welch's
autopsy of Ferrie:
1) Rupture of berry aneurysm of Circle of Willis with massive left subdural
hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and secondary pontine hemorrhages.
2) Hypertensive cardiovascular disease.
3) Pulmonary edema and congestion.
Classification of Death: Natural
A few other quotes from the autopsy:
"There are no external marks of violence on the body at any point...There are
no evidences of of trauma or contusions to the scalp at any point...The ears,
nose and mouth show no abnormalities. There is a small area of dryness of the
inner aspect of the upper lip on the right side. This area measures 3/4 in. in
length and is somewhat reddish brown. There is a less well defined area on the
lower lip immediately inferior to the lesion on the upper lip. Both areas show
no deep hemorrhages or swellings...There are no burns or hemorrhages in the
oral cavity...There are no venipuncture marks at any point in the extremities
or the body...There are no fractures of the calvarium."
Just for the record.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: David Ferrie's "Mysterious Death"
Date: 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981222135824.08216.00000230@ng-fb1.aol.com>
Matt wrote:
>Were there any contusions anywhere else on his body, like on his arms,
>legs, face, and neck, where the murderers would have to hold him to
>restrain him?
The autopsy report mentions bruising inside the lip, but says there were no other visible marks on the body. (And incidentally, does not mention the knife scar Garrison said he saw on the body).
>Why didn't the DA order a toxicology screening for
>this drug if he suspected foul play?
My reading of the sequence of events is that Garrison did not notice the Proloid bottle (nor realize it's potential significance) until after the autopsy. The coroner [ordered a toxicology screening and found "a chemical analysis of Ferrie's blood, urine and spleen(?-hard to read) was negative for the presence of alcohol, drugs and poison." No specific screening for Proloid, for that possibility did not occur to Garrison or anyone else until later that year.--DB, separate post of December 22, 1998] And the only material in the stomach was coffee, no evidence of pills or other fluid.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: David Ferrie's "Mysterious Death"
Date: 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981222140849.08216.00000238@ng-fb1.aol.com>
Dreitzes wrote:
>I'll bet the Proloid story never turned up until his book in 1988. Can you
>confirm or refute that?
In a 4/7/67 memo, Garrison speculates about prescriptions, but does not mention
Proloid.
In a 10/3/67 memo, Fred William (of Garrison's office) quotes Ferrie's last
doctor, Richard Bagnetto, as mentioning that an overdose of Proloid could
induce a berry aneurysm.
In a 10/18/67 letter, Garrison discusses the Proloid possibility with a Dr.
Edward Bruno of New Jersey, who volunteered his services.
So, the earliest mention of Proloid I have found is 10/3/67.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: David Ferrie's "Mysterious Death"
Date: 24 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981224025324.08431.00000306@ng-fu1.aol.com>
[...]
Here's the sequence of events, as I understand it:
2/67 - The Forensic Laboratory report lists several samples of "medication submitted in connection with the death of the above subject"...8. Proloid (no prescription)
4/7/67 - Garrison speculates that "there are new drugs which can cause an aneurysm if an overdose is taken". He mentions Levophed, Aramine and Parnate, but no Proloid. He also suggests interviewing Ferrie's doctor, Richard Bagnetto.
9/19/67 - Garrison gets a letter from Dr. Edward Bruno of New Jersey offering to research the drugs found in Ferrie's apartment. Again, no Proloid. 10/3/67 - Bagnetto interviewed by Fred William: "Dr. Bagnetto stated that Proloid, a drug used in treatment of thyroid condition, would raise the blood pressure and if taken in an overdose could possibly cause a berry aneurysm. He said that this would be traceable through high iodine content in the blood. I showed him a copy of the Coroner's Lab Report and asked him if it indicated that such a test had been run. He answered no." A decade later, Garrison wrote on the memo: "I subsequently called Coroner's office to determine whether they had kept samples of Ferrie's blood (or had drained his spine) - re iodine factor - and answer was negative."
10/5/67 - Garrison writes: "There appears to be a real possibility that David ferrie committed suicide by taking an overdose of Proloid...I learned from the report of the Coroner's Office that a bottle of Proloid (with only seven tablets left in it) was found in David Ferrie's apartment. Dr. Bagnetto has indicated that Proloid was the last thing in the world Ferrie should be taking. This Proloid bottle appears to be non-prescribed...I think we should make a thorough investigation of the possibility that Ferrie committed suicide by means of Proloid...I think we should prepare - if possible - a complete case for the Proloid possibility, supported by statements from pathologists and other qualified doctors."
10/18/67 - Tom Bethell writes to Bruno for more info, mentioning Proloid among other drugs. There I lose the trail.
So to answer your question, Bagnetto apparently learned (from Garrison's office) of the bottle (not empty) of non-prescribed Proloid, and suggested the possibility that it could have helped hasten Ferrie's death, if taken in overdose.
The sequence of events suggests that Garrison did not pocket the bottle of Proloid on 2/22/67, and that the possibility of a connection between the drug and Ferrie's death did not occur to Garrison until pointed out by Bagnetto on 10/3/67. This is in contradiction to the account in Garrison's book.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Ferrie: Suicide or Anxiety?
Date: 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990608093150.25727.00001859@ng-fh1.aol.com>
Howpl wrote:
>we also hear about the two unsigned "suicide"
>notes
The assassment of the notes as "suicide notes" is subjective. They can also be construed as Farewell notes of a dying man.
>What evidence is there that Ferried was depressed to the point of being
>suicidal, either before or after the story broke?
Ferrie suffered from severe headaches all his life, and his autopsist believed he suffered a non-fatal burst aneurysm at some point. Beginning in 1966, Ferrie began telling friends he thought he was dying [which proved to be an accurate assessment]. He told this to Jimmy Johnson, for example. In July, 1966, he signed a new will. By early 1967, he was fearing that he had encephalitis or cancer of the neck, whose symptoms are not unlike those of a growing aneurysm. He was unable to keep food down, and told many (such as Garrison investigators Sciambra and Ivon) that he was very sick.
There is little to support a suspicion of suicide, but much to suggest that Ferrie was slowly dying from what ultimately killed him.
>what evidence is there
>that this very strong, if strange, personality felt he could not prevail over
>charges that were supposedly baseless?
Ferrie drifted from moments of hopelessness to moments of strength. In his final days, he was planning to sue Garrison's office and Jack Martin. Ferrie told friends that he had been hounded by Martin's allegations for three years, and that he was too sick and tired to fight.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Truth .vs. Smear: can you tell the difference?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000727001810.26428.00000107@ng-fv1.aol.com>
Matt wrote:
>How long [had Ferrie been sick], David?
Ferrie had been somewhat sickly most of his life. According to close friend John Irion, Ferrie began dabbling in drugs and a general decline after being fired by Eastern Air Lines in 1963. He first started complaining about feeling very sick in early 1966. In July 1966, he drafted a new will. By late 1966, he was convinced that he was gravely ill.
[...]
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Truth .vs. Smear: can you tell the difference?
Date: 30 Jul 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000730024838.01330.00000008@ng-ci1.aol.com>
Magic Bullet wrote:
>> Ferrie had been somewhat sickly most of his life.
>What does that mean?
>Pricisely nothing in evaluating his death.
Well, that was the preamble to a longer sentence, but it IS relevant. He missed an entire year of school due to sickness at age 12. He subsequently began experiencing terrible migraine headaches in the afternoon. By the time he was a divinity student, he had developed a thyroid condition and began experiencing alopecia areata, which progressed to alopecia totalis. He was always complaining about being sick, especially 1966-7.
>Sounds like a classic hypochondriac to me.
Generally, when a person who is regarded as a hypochondriac dies from a condition not unrelated to the symptoms he was experiencing, we can speculate that he was not a hypochondriac at all.
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Truth .vs. Smear: can you tell the difference?
Date: 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000730235528.00303.00000505@ng-ce1.aol.com>
Atlasrecrd wrote:
>Now David, you know it wasn't his thyroid that caused all of
>Ferrie's hair to fall out, don't you
Some of the quotes from Ferrie's father, quoting his doctors, from that time (early 40s) suggest that they thought there was a connection. I did some rudimentary research into the various forms of Alopecia. There is no consensus on the cause even today. In the first half of this century, there were all manner of theories as to what caused it.
>BTW David, why was Dave always complaining about that cancer in his neck?
He complained about cancer of the neck, and also about encephalitis. The symptoms of these things are not unlike what one would experience with berry aneurysms, and might be misdiagnosed by an ameteur medical person. A "doctor" who diagnoses himself has a fool for a patient.
>And
>why was he self-medicating himself?
If you mean patent medicines, Ferrie fancied himself a medical expert. If you mean illegals, there is evidence he may have dabbled in them after his life came crashing down, after his morals arrests.
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: David Ferrie interview-Feb. 18th, 1967
Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000905152953.17599.00001378@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Atlasrecrd wrote:
>David, then why didn't Ferrie go to a doctor or
>hospital and seek treatment?
He did. He was being treated by Dr. Richard Bagnetto, complaining of headaches and inability to hold food down. Bagnetto was looking into the matter, but the aneurysm was not discovered until after his death.
>Not that it matters to me, but your recent
>posts make it quite clear that you're rather
>adverse to any evidence showing Ferrie was
>hiding something.
In a sense, you are right. One can look at the events around the time of the assassination and around the time of his death in two different ways: That Ferrie was a guilty liar, or that things are not as suspicious as they seem. It is often alleged that Ferrie lied to various law enforcement officers about several things. When I look at those things and consider the possibility that he may not have been lying, it seems to be a valid possibility.
If one just assumes Ferrie was a guilty liar, nothing I say or the evidence suggests is going to change the way they feel. If one considers the possibility that he may have been truthful on several of these things, there is evidence to support it.
I'm not adverse to evidence that Ferrie was hiding something. I am adverse to assertions that he was, that are not only unsupported by evidence, but sometimes contradicted by it.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Garrison and Ferrie Death
Date: 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990730001155.01170.00000808@ng-xc1.aol.com>
John:
In an undated NODA memo from Garrison to Alcock, Garrison states that: "I learned from the report of the coroner's office that a bottle of Proloid (with only seven tablets left in it) was found in David Ferrie's apartment." The memo was cc'ed to Tom Bethell.
The memo references a 9/19/67 letter from a Dr. Bruno, raising the Proloid possibility, and Bethell seems to have responded to Bruno on 10/18/67, so I surmise that the memo was written sometime between those dates.
Bruno's letter is the earliest reference I have found to the Proloid theory, although Garrison kicked around the drug idea, mentioning other drugs (but not Proloid), on April 7, 1967.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Garrison and Ferrie Death
Date: 31 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990731010600.09785.00004113@ng-ca1.aol.com>
[...]
Garrison did consider non-Proloid possibilities on April 7. Bruno's September 19 (handwritten, hard to read) letter considers toxicology, but does not appear to mention Proloid. Bagnetto was interviewed on October 3, and DID mention the Proloid possibility. Garrison's undated memo to Alcock mentions both Bruno and Bagnetto. Curiously, he says "The attached letter from Dr. Bruno contains some information with regard to Proloid." However, the letter that was attached as I found the document in the Archives was the September non-Proloid letter. I presume that there must be a second Bruno letter which I don't have.
In any case, the first mention of Proloid seems to be in the October 3 Bagnetto interview. I have found no earlier mention. I am certain that Garrison's account of a 2/22/67 interest in Proloid is not accurate.
oo
David