20-07-2013, 04:36 PM
It is necessary now to explain why Phelan found it necessary to lie about Matt Herron. Because the strategy utilized by Phelan and Sheridan was to state that Russo had all these memories drugged into him by Nicolas Chetta and Dr. Esmond Fatter. Chetta applied the sodium pentothalcommonly called truth serumand Fatter conducted the hypnosis and then questioned Russo. When one reads these sessions in the correct order, one can see that there was no leading of the witness by Fatter. The author was fortunate enough to attain these transcripts directly from Garrison's files, even before the ARRB got hold of them.[i] When the two sessions are arranged in the correct order, as Garrison marked them, it is manifest that "…Russo quite clearly and unequivocally describes Bertrand all by himself."[ii] James Phelan and Shaw's lawyers quoted them out of sequence to make it seem that Russo had to be prompted to name Bertrand. But when one reads them in the proper order, its clear that Fatter is referring Russo to a previous identification that he has already made.
As both Bill Davy and Joe Biles accurately note, what Phelan always referred to as the "first memorandum" is actually the second memorandum. What happened is that when Sciambra went up to visit Russo, the witness orally sketched out the gathering at Ferrie's and named who was there. He also chose some photographs of the participants. But Sciambra thought it better for recall and also for truthfulness that Russo be put under sodium penothal and hypnosis for his actual description of the discussion. Therefore, he interviewed Russo about all the other things that ended up in the actual second memorandum, e.g. Russo's relationship with Ferrie, Ferrie's obsession with Kennedy, and the other times he saw Shaw/Bertrand etc. As Biles points out, this is easy enough to discern by just looking at the signature block of the memo about the gathering at Ferrie's where an assassination was discussed. That date is February 28, 1967. The second memorandum, about the lesser details, was done about a week after Shaw's arrest, around March 6[SUP]th[/SUP].[iii] Further, it was this first memo, misrepresented by Phelan, that served as the basis for Lou Ivon's search warrant. In that warrant, Ivon writes about what Russo had said under truth serum and he adds the following: "That the said confidential informant while under the sodium pentothal verified, corroborated and reaffirmed his earlier statements."[iv] (Italics added) Since Sciambra had still not finished his memorandum about the other things Russo had said to him, then clearly he had already related to Ivon what Russo had said in Baton Rouge about the gathering at Ferrie's apartment. That is why Ivon used the word "reaffirmed". And finally, as Biles points out: If all the things Russo had to say were really not that important, then why would Garrison OK the request by Sciambra to put him under hypnosis and truth serum?
The other objections to Russo's testimony are that in a TV interview he did before he was administered truth serum he was asked about Oswald and Ferrie. He said he did not recall Oswald being associated with Ferrie.[v] But the point is that the man Russo identified was Leon Oswald, not Lee Harvey Oswald. And in fact, the evidence today is pretty much decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time. For instance, Sylvia Odio, one of the best and most important witnesses in this case, said that two Cubans came to her house in late September of 1963 with a Caucasian man they called Leon Oswald.[vi] Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963. Nagell said that this Leon Oswald was meant as a Secodn Oswald and was working with the anti-Castro Cubans, he was not at all pro-Castro.[vii] Raymond Broshears, a friend of Ferrie's, also spoke about a Leon Oswald. He described him as resembling Oswald but not actually Lee Harevey Oswald.[viii] Michael Kurtz interviewed rightwing witnesses in Baton Rouge who recalled meeting an Oswald who was introduced to them as Leon Oswald in July and August of 1963. This happened more than once, and on his last visit to the area, Leon Oswald was accompanied by two Latins.[ix] David F. Lewis, who once worked for Banister said that he was introduced to a man named Leon Oswald by Sergio Arcacha Smith's right hand man Carlos Quiroga. This was at Mancuso's Restaurant in late 1962. It is highly doubtful this was the real Lee Harvey Oswald since he was still living in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at the time. All of this testimony strongly suggests that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald. Niles Peterson, who was a friend of Russo's and briefly attended the gathering, told William Davy and Peter Vea that there was a Leon Oswald there.[x] This author believes that it was this mannot Lee Harvey Oswald-- who was at Ferrie's the night of the gathering described by Russo.
In the light of all this new evidence, it is startling that some serious and intelligent people still take James Phelan seriously. Clearly, Phelan was on a mission. And like the intelligence assets they were, he and Sheridan were out to politicize, polarize, and propagandize Garrison's case any which way they could. What is surprising is that they were so successful for so long.
[i] Lyon Garrison let the author copy these and many other exhibits in 1994.
[ii] Probe, Vol. 6 No. 5, p. 26. At a meeting in San Francisco, I showed these Garrison-marked transcripts to a gathering of Kennedy researchers. They all agreed that Russo was not being prompted and were surprised that Phelan would present it as otherwise.
[iii] Biles, p. 44.
[iv] Ibid. Biles brief but incisive discussion of this issue is one of the best in the literature.
[v] See the You Tube series, "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison".
[vi] WC Vol. 11, pgs. 370-71.
[vii] Russell, pgs. 288-89.
[viii] Ibid., p. 367.
[ix] Kurtz, "Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans: A Reappraisal", p. 17.
[x] Interview by Peter Vea and William Davy in 1994 of Niles Peterson in New Orleans. Michael Kurtz in his book The JFK Assassination Debates, notes that a Cuban he encountered, Santos Miguel Gonzalez, recalled the gathering at Ferrie's. He also said that Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald were there. But he denied there was any discussion of assassinating Kennedy that night. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with Russo's recall since he said this discussion occurred when almost everyone was gone. (Kurtz, p. 164)
As both Bill Davy and Joe Biles accurately note, what Phelan always referred to as the "first memorandum" is actually the second memorandum. What happened is that when Sciambra went up to visit Russo, the witness orally sketched out the gathering at Ferrie's and named who was there. He also chose some photographs of the participants. But Sciambra thought it better for recall and also for truthfulness that Russo be put under sodium penothal and hypnosis for his actual description of the discussion. Therefore, he interviewed Russo about all the other things that ended up in the actual second memorandum, e.g. Russo's relationship with Ferrie, Ferrie's obsession with Kennedy, and the other times he saw Shaw/Bertrand etc. As Biles points out, this is easy enough to discern by just looking at the signature block of the memo about the gathering at Ferrie's where an assassination was discussed. That date is February 28, 1967. The second memorandum, about the lesser details, was done about a week after Shaw's arrest, around March 6[SUP]th[/SUP].[iii] Further, it was this first memo, misrepresented by Phelan, that served as the basis for Lou Ivon's search warrant. In that warrant, Ivon writes about what Russo had said under truth serum and he adds the following: "That the said confidential informant while under the sodium pentothal verified, corroborated and reaffirmed his earlier statements."[iv] (Italics added) Since Sciambra had still not finished his memorandum about the other things Russo had said to him, then clearly he had already related to Ivon what Russo had said in Baton Rouge about the gathering at Ferrie's apartment. That is why Ivon used the word "reaffirmed". And finally, as Biles points out: If all the things Russo had to say were really not that important, then why would Garrison OK the request by Sciambra to put him under hypnosis and truth serum?
The other objections to Russo's testimony are that in a TV interview he did before he was administered truth serum he was asked about Oswald and Ferrie. He said he did not recall Oswald being associated with Ferrie.[v] But the point is that the man Russo identified was Leon Oswald, not Lee Harvey Oswald. And in fact, the evidence today is pretty much decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time. For instance, Sylvia Odio, one of the best and most important witnesses in this case, said that two Cubans came to her house in late September of 1963 with a Caucasian man they called Leon Oswald.[vi] Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963. Nagell said that this Leon Oswald was meant as a Secodn Oswald and was working with the anti-Castro Cubans, he was not at all pro-Castro.[vii] Raymond Broshears, a friend of Ferrie's, also spoke about a Leon Oswald. He described him as resembling Oswald but not actually Lee Harevey Oswald.[viii] Michael Kurtz interviewed rightwing witnesses in Baton Rouge who recalled meeting an Oswald who was introduced to them as Leon Oswald in July and August of 1963. This happened more than once, and on his last visit to the area, Leon Oswald was accompanied by two Latins.[ix] David F. Lewis, who once worked for Banister said that he was introduced to a man named Leon Oswald by Sergio Arcacha Smith's right hand man Carlos Quiroga. This was at Mancuso's Restaurant in late 1962. It is highly doubtful this was the real Lee Harvey Oswald since he was still living in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at the time. All of this testimony strongly suggests that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald. Niles Peterson, who was a friend of Russo's and briefly attended the gathering, told William Davy and Peter Vea that there was a Leon Oswald there.[x] This author believes that it was this mannot Lee Harvey Oswald-- who was at Ferrie's the night of the gathering described by Russo.
In the light of all this new evidence, it is startling that some serious and intelligent people still take James Phelan seriously. Clearly, Phelan was on a mission. And like the intelligence assets they were, he and Sheridan were out to politicize, polarize, and propagandize Garrison's case any which way they could. What is surprising is that they were so successful for so long.
[i] Lyon Garrison let the author copy these and many other exhibits in 1994.
[ii] Probe, Vol. 6 No. 5, p. 26. At a meeting in San Francisco, I showed these Garrison-marked transcripts to a gathering of Kennedy researchers. They all agreed that Russo was not being prompted and were surprised that Phelan would present it as otherwise.
[iii] Biles, p. 44.
[iv] Ibid. Biles brief but incisive discussion of this issue is one of the best in the literature.
[v] See the You Tube series, "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison".
[vi] WC Vol. 11, pgs. 370-71.
[vii] Russell, pgs. 288-89.
[viii] Ibid., p. 367.
[ix] Kurtz, "Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans: A Reappraisal", p. 17.
[x] Interview by Peter Vea and William Davy in 1994 of Niles Peterson in New Orleans. Michael Kurtz in his book The JFK Assassination Debates, notes that a Cuban he encountered, Santos Miguel Gonzalez, recalled the gathering at Ferrie's. He also said that Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald were there. But he denied there was any discussion of assassinating Kennedy that night. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with Russo's recall since he said this discussion occurred when almost everyone was gone. (Kurtz, p. 164)