03-01-2014, 06:09 PM
I would first like to introduce myself to everyone here. I am thankful that such a forum exists and am excited to be joining it.
I picked this forum over several others since it seems most active, with the best balance between sanity and activity (meaning the discussions are broad, but moderated well).
I could not help but notice in the "index" to the Educational Forum (you know, that *other forum) that there is NO entry for Clay Shaw, and likewise, no entry for Dean Andrews Jr. This makes me sad, as there are entries for plenty of other two bit characters of questionable value in the index.
NOW ON TO MY VERY FIRST QUESTION...
Is the significance of the perjury in Dean Andrews' testimony,
( jfkassassination.net/Russ/testimony/Andrews.htm )
generally understood? To me, it seems to be either overlooked, or sort of nodded at and then everyone moves on.
This should be a big deal, and yet, not only does Shaw, in general, get little press on the forums, Andrews is usually a footnote in the rare Shaw thread, if mentioned at all.
Why?
Some items I consider bombshells in his testimony:
*He had seen Oswald in the presence of homosexual "Mexicanos" previously. Possible link to Shaw/Ferrie via the gay portion, and again with the "Mexicano", which could have been Cubans for all we know. although, I'm hard pressed to put cross-dressing Cuban kids in to the intelligence milleue.
*He admits a call from "Bertrand" to defend Oswald at trial.
*He admits to having seen Bertrand in person after the above exchange. Is irritated by the thought of him, calls him a rat, says he wants to beat him.
*Admits to having received several phone calls from Bertrand previously.
*Admits knowing Oswald was paid to hand out pro-Castro leaflets. Admits discussing this with Oswald.
*Admits having met Bertrand in person years prior as well. Makes assumption it was Bertrand who sent Oswald in with the gay Mexicanos.
*Positively identifies Bertrand as a "bisexual", "a swinging cat", whom he claims mostly sent him homosexual youth to defend on sex charges, etc.
*Makes a firm statement, based on his military experience, that he absolutely does not believe Oswald could have gotten off three shots, and killed the president by himself.
*Confirms in jive that he asked the FBI to perjure his prior statements regarding Bertrand, asking them to write that he was "crazy", so they would leave him alone.
There are probably some more items of great weight in Andrews' statements, but these are the ones I easily recalled while scanning over it.
It seems to me, this testimony should be leaned on more heavily.
Is it "ignored" simply because it has been beat to death before my time, because it is a dead end at this point, or is the importance of it simply not well understood.
??? Thank you, and I look forward to continued involvement here.
I picked this forum over several others since it seems most active, with the best balance between sanity and activity (meaning the discussions are broad, but moderated well).
I could not help but notice in the "index" to the Educational Forum (you know, that *other forum) that there is NO entry for Clay Shaw, and likewise, no entry for Dean Andrews Jr. This makes me sad, as there are entries for plenty of other two bit characters of questionable value in the index.
NOW ON TO MY VERY FIRST QUESTION...
Is the significance of the perjury in Dean Andrews' testimony,
( jfkassassination.net/Russ/testimony/Andrews.htm )
generally understood? To me, it seems to be either overlooked, or sort of nodded at and then everyone moves on.
This should be a big deal, and yet, not only does Shaw, in general, get little press on the forums, Andrews is usually a footnote in the rare Shaw thread, if mentioned at all.
Why?
Some items I consider bombshells in his testimony:
*He had seen Oswald in the presence of homosexual "Mexicanos" previously. Possible link to Shaw/Ferrie via the gay portion, and again with the "Mexicano", which could have been Cubans for all we know. although, I'm hard pressed to put cross-dressing Cuban kids in to the intelligence milleue.
*He admits a call from "Bertrand" to defend Oswald at trial.
*He admits to having seen Bertrand in person after the above exchange. Is irritated by the thought of him, calls him a rat, says he wants to beat him.
*Admits to having received several phone calls from Bertrand previously.
*Admits knowing Oswald was paid to hand out pro-Castro leaflets. Admits discussing this with Oswald.
*Admits having met Bertrand in person years prior as well. Makes assumption it was Bertrand who sent Oswald in with the gay Mexicanos.
*Positively identifies Bertrand as a "bisexual", "a swinging cat", whom he claims mostly sent him homosexual youth to defend on sex charges, etc.
*Makes a firm statement, based on his military experience, that he absolutely does not believe Oswald could have gotten off three shots, and killed the president by himself.
*Confirms in jive that he asked the FBI to perjure his prior statements regarding Bertrand, asking them to write that he was "crazy", so they would leave him alone.
There are probably some more items of great weight in Andrews' statements, but these are the ones I easily recalled while scanning over it.
It seems to me, this testimony should be leaned on more heavily.
Is it "ignored" simply because it has been beat to death before my time, because it is a dead end at this point, or is the importance of it simply not well understood.
??? Thank you, and I look forward to continued involvement here.