Dean Andrews' Perjury regarding Clay Shaw?

[Nick Rose]

The OP has made me reconsider Dean Andrews' importance though.

Yes. This is my point.
i understand Tracy's point that Andrew's value to Garrison diminished severely after the meat, bones, and marrow of his evidence was tossed out by the judge ... However prior to that occurrence it was literally almost the entirety of Garrison's factual proof (outside of Russo, whom I believe, but whose value as a witness was low) .

However my point, as you here iterate, is that regardless of what happened to Garrison's case at trial, Andrews remains the most cogent, succinct, and damning proof of a conspiracy.

Obviously, we would have hoped all evidence would be admitted, and it would have lead to a conviction of Shaw, and the dominos fall, but absent that fantasy, It remains the best succinct evidence of a conspiracy...

Again,
he knows oswald, and has dealt with Oswald previously
he knows oswald has been sent to him by Bertrand before.
he admits to knowing Bertrand's voice and what he looks like (seen him twice at least)
he admits Bertrand calls him to defend oswald after 11/22/63
and he outright admits to lying to the Feds &/or allowing them to perjure on his behalf regarding this phone call and further, he strongly indicates the reason he asked the FBI to perjure for him was fear for his own safety ("the heat") and that he wanted to be left alone (and alive).
This lie takes the most ridiculous form of the assertion that this "Bertrand", whose voice he recognizes on the phone, who he has seen at least twice previously, who has on at least one occasion prior sent oswald in on his business, whom he thinks quite poorly of and wants to beat up (probably for putting him in this situation, I'm guessing) now, instead of being the person who called to ask Andrews to defend Oswald, instead he is a "figment of his imagination."

this series of events can ONLY be indicative of some sort of conspiracy.
you do not lie to the FBI and change your story unless you are guilty yourself, or you have reason to believe that your testimony would put you in danger of reprisal from the real criminals.

since all of my above admissions can be succinctly proven to be true with only 3 or 4 simple quotes from WC testimony itself, it stands (IMHO) as the easiest place to point your finger to and say, "yeh, we'll look at this. If there is no conspiracy why is this guy not only committing perjury, BUT then ADMITTING such under oath. What reasonable and innocent explanation can be put forward that does not directly lead back to criminal implications?"

ps - I forgot about the portion where they ask him about files he said he would try to bring and he openly admits (somewhat disgruntled) that he could not find them, because his office had been rifled through, and documents were seemingly missing. Another WTF moment for a case involving no conspiracy and a lone nut.

also, even his secret service deposition contains the bombshell that Oswald told him he was paid $25/day to hand out pro Castro leaflets.
http://www.jfk-online.com/ce3094.html

[Albert Doyle]

I disagree. I believe that Ferrie was in Houston giving several different stories as to why is proof that he and Shaw were up to their necks in the plot to assassinate. JG had the goods on Shaw and the CIA knew this and made sure his office was sabotaged, his extraditions were ignored, witnesses were killed, especially Ferrie, who would have had a LOT to tell, imho. Keep in mind that a lot has come out about Shaw since the trial. All favoring Garrison's case.

Dawn

I don't disagree. The Perry Russo witnessing was shown in Stone's 'JFK'. If Ferrie and Shaw were as deep into it as that scene depicts then they were straight in on it, which would make sense for somebody like Shaw who went back to OSS in Italy during WWII. People who underplay Shaw's depth don't realize he was the only OSS member allowed into British Intelligence Headquarters in Italy and was also an associate of Angleton. Once you add the fact Shaw was a board member on Permindex and worked with the classic CIA World Trade Market front he automatically can't be shallow. This is why I tell people not to throw out Piper with the bathwater because he details this. Shaw was a keystone between the mob, CIA, Cuban exiles, Banister's group, and the international cabal sponsoring the assassination which, as you say, is why CIA was so desperate to interfere with Garrison's trial. Shaw got away with being so deep in broad daylight because his gayness and New Orleans cultural socializing made him aloof.

Figuring this stuff out is like trying to assemble a moving jigsaw puzzle. In this case Shaw's reaching out to Dean Andrews might simply be the ad lib move of a main plotter who tried to do something because the patsy failed to be killed as planned. This would make sense because contact would be shut down between these plotters once the assassination was committed. Also, Ferrie might have been assigned as a standby to evacuate the Oswald double witnessed by Sgt Vinson but the plans changed at the last minute.