Kennedys and King Test host626

Author: James DiEugenio

  • FBI vs. ARRB: Heading Into Overtime

    From the September-October, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 6) of Probe

    The first dispute over release of previously classified documents by the Assassination Records Review Board now continues into a second month. In the July 22nd issue of Probe (“ARRB Meets First Hurdles,” p. 1) we reported that the FBI had chosen to contest the release of 15 previously classified documents that the Board had decided to declassify in full. The ARRB vote on these documents had been unanimous. The Bureau then decided to take their dispute to President Clinton. They asked him to intervene on their behalf to block full disclosure. President Clinton decided to send the appeal back to the FBI and gave them 30 days to further substantiate their original arguments against total disclosure.

    Those arguments centered on the traditional line of protecting sensitive “methods and sources” accompanied by expected collateral damage to intelligence sources and agents inside foreign countries. In this latter part of the FBI plea, the Bureau has enlisted the help of the State Department in defending their position. From our sources in Washington, we understand that State will be helping redraft the FBI plea which is due on September 30th with a decision expected to be announced shortly after.

    Response Significant

    COPA Secretary John Judge has written that the White House was surprised at the volume of faxes, letters, and calls that they received over this issue. At the time of the FBI appeal, there had been little mainstream media coverage of this case. When Melissa Robinson of the Associated Press, who has become the point person for that news organization on this issue, first went with the story, very few newspapers picked up on the dispute. But two things seem to have happened since. First, the FBI refused to take an official position on the issue. Neither Director Louis Freeh, nor Attorney General Janet Reno has acknowledged the debate over the files. Robinson wrote in her original story, “A telephone call to the FBI seeking comment was not immediately returned.” When word of the dispute got into Probe, Open Secrets and the Internet, a buzz was created over the issue. Kennedy researchers like John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Gary Aguilar and many others, wrote letters that were published on computer billboards and sent via fax and E-mail to the White House. This took place in late August and early September. Then during Claudia Furiati’s Kennedy conference in Rio de Janeiro (Probe, July 22nd p. 18), Newman played his hole card.

    Carver Gayton & the “Dirty Little Rumor”

    As readers of Probe should know, the FBI has always denied any formal relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. This denial was upheld by both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Still, there have been serious questions raised about this stance from the beginning. In a famous article in the January 27, 1964 issue of The Nation, Harold Feldman raised some very cogent questions about this point. In researching his recent book Oswald and the CIA, John Newman discovered an affidavit in the files of the Church Committee by one Carver Gayton. In this document Gayton had stated that he had met FBI agent James Hosty when Hosty had been transferred to Kansas City after the assassination. While there, Hosty had told Gayton that Oswald had been a PSI (Potential Security Informant) for the Bureau. While at the Rio Conference, Newman prepared a press release and faxed it to several press organizations. Reporter Sam Vincent Meddis picked up the release and wrote a story for USA Today. That story appeared at the top of page four in the August 30th issue of that national newspaper. In the article, FBI authorities stated that Gayton later denied that Hosty made the statement. This is true. Gayton told the HSCA in a June 1, 1977 interview that Hosty never told him anything at all about Oswald “and certainly not that LHO was an FBI agent.” The problem here is that the Church Committee document was a sworn affidavit. The HSCA report is of an informal interview. There is no evidence that the HSCA ever confronted Gayton with his previous affidavit. It is interesting to note here that the lead that the HSCA was following on this interview was the same one that the Garrison investigation uncovered on Gayton. A man named Jim Gochenaur had written a letter to Garrison stating that when he was renting an apartment from Gayton, Gayton had told him the Hosty anecdote. In his interview with Howard Gilbert and Jack Moriarty of the HSCA, Gayton ridiculed Gochenaur by stating “he is somewhat of a flake and was an assassination buff”.

    Oliver “Buck” Revell

    The article then quotes Oliver “Buck” Revell, former Bureau criminal investigations chief. In what must be termed “damage control”, Revell states that “the PSI designation does not necessarily mean Oswald became an informant. It merely suggests that the FBI had an interest in possibly turning him into one because of his Marxist connections.” This is the same “retired” FBI agent who wrote a fatuous response to the LaFontaine piece in the Washington Post on the John Elrod story. The same Revell who recently threatened legal action against PBS and author Diarmuid Jeffreys for charging him with cooperating with Oliver North in 1) Illegally harassing CISPES, a Central American support group favoring the Sandinistas, and 2) Assisting North’s efforts to obstruct justice during the Iran-Contra Hearings. The same Revell who has become FBI point man on the Oklahoma City bombing, a case the FBI is already having problems with as questions about the explosives used and witnesses against suspect Timothy McVeigh now abound. It is important to note that Revell was also in charge of the FBI Dallas field office and became associate director from 1989-91.

    In light of this information about FBI reluctance, seemingly led by “retired” higher-up Revell, it is relevant to quote Robinson’s AP release: “The FBI has not yet specified reasons for keeping parts of the documents classified but is expected to stress the sensitive nature of work with foreign governments and the need to protect informants’ identities” (emphasis added).

    Although the Newman press release garnered the press coverage and framed the media debate, two other bits of evidence in this regard bolster the original contentions about Oswald by the critical community. Researcher Jeff Caufield has found a report on another HSCA interview with New Orleans FBI employee William Walter, mentioned by Jim Garrison in his book On the Trial of the Assassins. It seems that Walter, in a November 1977 interview, told HSCA investigators that Oswald was an FBI informant. Researcher Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko reportedly has also uncovered similar documents relating to an FBI agent who discovered the same and when FBI Director Hoover learned of this, “he hit the roof.”

    FBI on Trial

    These indications of Bureau obstinacy in the face of the law – and possible obstruction of justice in the Kennedy case – could not have come at a worse time. The FBI is now under siege on several fronts. The new book Fatal Justice, on the Jeffrey McDonald murder case, has exposed the use of “professional” witnesses, a practice that goes back a very long time with the Bureau. The recent hearings on Capitol Hill concerning the shootings at Ruby Ridge bore a resemblance to the O. J. Simpson trial in a significant aspect. In the latter, LAPD officer and star witness Mark Fuhrman took the fifth amendment and refused to testify upon recall by the defense. In the former case, sniper Lon Horiuchi took the fifth before the Senate Committee investigating the Ruby Ridge shooting. His attorney was Earl Silbert, the original Justice Department lawyer involved in the Watergate investigation. Silbert was later replaced by special prosecutor Archibald Cox. A week later, four more FBI officials took the fifth in front of the same committee. The attorney for the four officials was Brendan Sullivan, the former attorney for Oliver North. In a further parallel, the chairman of the investigating panel was Arlen Specter. Specter allowed the five agents to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination in a closed session. He said there was no intent to “humiliate” them.

    Making things even worse for the FBI’s image are the revelations of former crime lab analyst Frederic Whitehurst. In an AP story carried nationwide and on an ABC “Primetime Live” segment, Whitehurst made the following startling revelations: 1) He was pressured to distort findings about the World Trade Center bombing to favor prosecutors. 2) In a Georgia bombing case investigated by current FBI Director Freeh, two agents slanted evidence by testifying about tests that weren’t done and scientific conclusions they could not support. One of the agents, Roger Martz, testified in the Simpson case. 3) During one investigation, he was physically threatened by FBI bomb squad members to make false claims about evidence. 4) On one occasion, an FBI crime lab expert illegally adjusted a forensic testing device in order to alter the results the machine produced.

    In a turn that will be familiar to all JFK researchers, when Whitehurst complained about these practices, nothing was done about his memos. Indeed the FBI’s only reaction has been to declare Dr. Whitehurst’s charges false and then demote him. At the end of the ABC segment, when reporter Brian Ross asked Whitehurst outside his home why he had gone public with the charges, Whitehurst, choking back tears, said that the proudest day of his life was when he became an FBI agent. On that day, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. That oath did not include a clause to remain silent when other FBI agents broke the law. This genuinely moving moment will remind many readers of the transformation described by Kennedy researcher Bill Turner in his pioneering book Hoover’s FBI.

    In the face of all this, Director Freeh – while acknowledging the accusations as very serious – rejected suggestions for an outside panel review of the FBI. Even though opinion polls show that, in the face of these violent controversies, favorable opinions of the FBI have declined and negative perceptions have risen. To our knowledge, Freeh has taken no public position on the ARRB dispute with the FBI files. In a Los Angeles Times interview, the Director stated that 1) he regarded any matter that affected the FBI’s credibility as serious, 2) that it was essential to acknowledge past mistakes, and 3) that firm action should be taken to correct wrongdoing. If Louis Freeh is serious, a good place to begin on all three is for him to take a public stand for openness on the Kennedy files.

  • Perry Raymond Russo: 1941-1995

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    Just as we went to press, we were told by New Orleans sources that Perry Russo had passed away of a reported heart attack on August 16th.

    Russo, of course, was the witness at the Shaw trial who stated that Ferrie, “Leon” Oswald, and a man he later identified as Clay Shaw, discussed the assassination of President Kennedy at Ferrie’s apartment in New Orleans in September of 1963. Russo surfaced after Ferrie’s death (Ferrie had threatened his life previously) and became a witness for Garrison at the preliminary hearing of Clay Shaw in March, 1967. Perry was brutally maligned by local Shaw allies like Rosemary James, and national media reporters who ended up having government ties e.g.Walter Sheridan, Hugh Aynesworth, and James Phelan (see p. 7, col. 1). Because he would not turn on Garrison he underwent a four year onslaught that altered his life permanently. He later became a taxi driver, working 80 hour weeks. He would always give researchers access to him and was a font of information on Ferrie, anti-Castro Cubans, and the New Orleans scene in general. In the summer of 1994, Perry got researchers Jeff Caufield and Romney Stubbs into Ferrie’s apartment and reconstructed the scene at Ferrie’s apartment that he testified to at the Shaw trial.

  • Connick vs. Garrison: Round Three

    Connick vs. Garrison: Round Three

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    connick Harry Connick ran against Jim Garrison twice, once in 1969 and again in 1973. He lost the first time and then, due to the bad publicity of Garrison’s two frame-up trials, he defeated him in 1973. Connick took office April 1, 1974. He has been the DA ever since. As background to the rather curious events of the last two months, it is important to note who some of Connick’s backers were in the 1973 race with Garrison and to mention at least one strange event that occurred during the ’69 race.

    In the 1969 race, on the eve of the election, a poll put out of New Orleans on October 15th placed Garrison ahead 49%-18%. Three weeks later, very close to election eve, a St. Louis company called DeWitt announced the results of another poll. This one put Connick ahead 49%-28%. Garrison won in a landslide. The poll was quite questionable, yet WDSU newscaster Terry Fletcher did a much publicized segment trumpeting its results. The day after the election even the Times-Picayune, no friend of Garrison’s, wondered if the poll was a hoax intended to help Connick win. In 1973, Connick outspent Garrison by a wide margin, as had been the case in ’69. In the second race, the local alternative papers like Gambit and The Courier badgered Connick to release the list of contributors to his campaign. After weeks of pressure, Connick finally released a partial list. The contributors included the major backers of the Superdome project, including his brother William (Superdome secretary). In other words all the big banking interests in the city. Two other contributors were Clay Shaw and Carlos Bringuier. Two others were Leonard and Bill Gurvich, who also ended up helping Shaw’s defense. Both newspapers at that time, owned by Ashton Phelps, did much to help Connick. Connick won a close race.

    Connick Drops the Ball

    As Garrison suspected, once he was in office, Connick did nothing to preserve or pursue the Kennedy investigation. For example, in a televised debate during the ’69 race Connick stated that although he was “inclined to say there is no merit to them” he would have to evaluate each of the charges involved in the case before dismissing them. Apparently, the evaluation did not take long since, to use one example, the case against Kerry Thornley was dismissed five months after he took office. Under Connick’s watch there has been massive urban flight out of New Orleans into the suburbs like Gretna, Covington, and Metairie. The New Orleans police force has deteriorated to the point where stories about murder and cover-up run in big city newspapers. In fact, the August 12th issue of the Los Angeles Times ran an article in which a chief suspect in a serial murder case there is a policeman. New Orleans has become the city with the highest murder per capita ratio in the U.S.

    The Missing Files

    So on June 28th, when Connick stepped into the witness chair to testify before the ARRB at the old U.S. Mint at 400 Esplanade, most observers familiar with him and his career did not expect much in the way of candor or forthrightness. Even before the hearing, Connick tipped his hand by cozying up to Gerald Posner, mysteriously in town for a secret and “unrelated” project. No dummy, Connick complemented the Board on its effort to secure records. He said he had decided to turn over what he had left to them because “what you are doing is important and we think that what we can hopefully add. . . will clarify some of the clouded areas of the past and make sense out of what happened.” Under questioning from the Board he implied that Garrison and his staff had “rifled” the investigative files since much was missing from them when he took office. He qualified that to Kermit Hall by saying “Our criminal code calls that theft.” He took a parting shot at Garrison by saying that when he took over the office “it was a pretty sorry state of affairs”, “things were run in a very slipshod manner”, and “It was in bad shape”.

    It was a typical Connick performance: slick, sanctimonious, less than candid, mean-spirited and cheap toward his predecessor. But Connick made one mistake. By calling the disposal of records theft, he sent shock waves through some members of his former staff. Predictably, Connick did not reveal that he himself had participated in-ordered actually-the destruction of valuable records. According to an affidavit executed by a former Connick staffer the DA decided to destroy the records of the grand jury testimony during the Shaw investigation. When the staffer questioned this decision on the basis of historical significance, Connick said, “Burn this sonofabitch and burn it today!”

    Fortunately for history, the staffer did not. He kept them in his garage in the intervening years and when Connick’s accusation of “theft” was broadcast, he felt that the DA was setting him up to take the fall on the missing grand jury testimony. He called local television reporter Richard Angelico and gave him the testimony of the 40 witnesses. He swore out the affidavit on condition Angelico send them to the ARRB. Angelico did, but not before getting an interview with Connick in which, in another typical Connick performance, Connick smugly stuck his foot in his mouth (the entire report is in the accompanying transcript). It got worse when, the day after Connick denied he destroyed records, another former staffer, Ralph Whalen, stated in the local papers that he remembered Connick “destroying a bunch of Garrison stuff . . . some things that related directly to the Shaw case”.

    Subpoenas Galore

    Suffice it to say, after stating on camera that he did not remember ordering the destruction of the records, Connick had been cornered. He now told the press that he had discussed the matter recently with top assistants and “Neither has any recollection of any orders to burn anything.” This was a curious statement for him to say because on the next day, July 13th, he ordered his former investigator Gary Raymond-the staffer who had contacted Angelico-before the grand jury. Clearly, Connick had been embarrassed in front of his electorate and then he had been disingenuous with them. How else can one explain the apparent paradox of the DA “not remembering” any orders for destruction, yet issuing a specific subpoena for a specific name-Gary Raymond-to appear before the grand jury to testify on such matters. Raymond’s name had not appeared in either the broadcast or any of the papers yet. On the same day, he also issued a subpoena for Angelico to appear before the grand jury. Later he was to subpoena the ARRB itself. He referred to Raymond as “the thief” in the case and Angelico as “the recipient of stolen property.” During a press conference Connick, after saying in the Angelico segment that everything involved in the Shaw case should have been “retained and preserved in some way”, now reversed himself. He said he did destroy records, but none that could have been useful to historians. He then defended his order to destroy the grand jury testimony by saying, “What’s my responsibility, to put them in an iron box and adore them?”

    The subpoena to Angelico was served on WDSU’s corporate counsel so it was not valid: specific personal subpoenas have to be served on the person named. The subpoena to the ARRB, according to ARRB attorneys and the Justice Department, is not valid. Raymond did show up before the grand jury. Even though there were nine murder cases that week, Connick still attempted to muster enough grand jurors to hear Raymond. Connick could not get a quorum and Raymond was asked to come back the next week, July 20th. His session on that date was then canceled. As of today, the only person to have gone before the grand jury was Connick’s first assistant. When she outlined what had happened, the members asked, “Well, what’s the charge?” Her response reportedly was, “We aren’t sure.” The grand jury asked what she was doing there then, since they had important matters to attend to.

    At this point and due to reports out of New Orleans that Connick was going to destroy other remaining records of the case, Jim Lesar wrote a long FOIA request to Connick. It read in part, “I am making this request to prevent you from carrying out your threat to destroy records relevant to an important chapter in American history.” And further on, “Whatever records you or your office may possess pertaining to Garrison’s investigation into President Kennedy’s murder are of intense interest to students and scholars of the assassination.”

    Another strange thing then occurred. Hugh Aynesworth, longtime FBI asset on the Kennedy assassination, wrote a front page article based on the grand jury testimony for the July 16th Washington Times. Predictably, it focused on the testimony of Bill Gurvich, a plant inside Garrison’s office, without , of course, mentioning that fact. At first, most felt that WDSU had sent the testimony to Aynesworth since Angelico had closed his report by saying that he would send the transcripts to an “assassination expert” in Washington for review. But in an interview with PROBE Angelico stated, “Why do think it was me. Connick and Aynesworth have been friends for a long time.” Both Angelico and Raymond also revealed that Connick had kept a copy of the testimony for himself.

    The story then took another twist. With the controversy swirling to a boiling point in New Orleans, with the local papers and TV carrying daily stories, with the public waiting for the results of the grand jury testimony and subpoenas, with T-shirts being printed with Connick’s picture above the quote “What’s the point Harry?”, the DA left town. He went to New York. All further announcements were left to his office. But Connick did do one thing before he left. He sent out feelers to Raymond. He wanted to know what he wanted in return for a deal. Connick’s position in New Orleans was weak.

    Before the controversy erupted, Connick had agreed to send up the only investigative file left from the Shaw case to the ARRB. This was a five drawer file cabinet chockfull of extremely interesting, unique materials. In fact the day he testified, he called the ARRB and said he was arranging to have it sent up. This was in keeping with an interview he had given to researcher James DiEugenio in August of 1994. At that time he said that he would only give these files to an official government body. In fact the HSCA had indexed these files but, for some reason, had not requested them.

    In the first week of August, Reuters ran a story based on an interview with author Gerald Posner. The story was picked up by the Washington Post and the New York press. This previewed and announced an upcoming article to be written by Posner for the New York Times Magazine in the Sunday August 6th issue. That piece was written at about the level of Posner’s book, i.e. recycled, blatant disinformation. (See accompanying CTKA press release.)

    Was Connick plotting with Posner during the ARRB hearing? Did he or WDSU (strong allies of Walter Sheridan during the Shaw prosecution) send the transcripts to Aynesworth? Did Connick talk with the always pro-Warren Commission staff of the The New York Times while he was in New York? Did they then arrange a damage control piece with the always accommodating Posner? It is curious, but predictable, that Posner’s piece mentions not one word about Connick being under attack locally. As in 1967, the people in New Orleans got a much better view of things than did the American public. Was this the aim? Should we ask Connick? What’s the point Harry?

  • ARRB Meets First Hurdles

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    On July 21st the National Archives released the first set of ARRB approved documents. These were 16 CIA documents that the agency did not choose to contest. As Peter Dale Scott has written, “One of the documents . . . strengthens the impression that David Phillips . . . was directly involved before the assassination in the handling and reporting of Oswald’s visit to Mexico City.” Scott found that the temporary duty officer who picked up a special pouch related to the Mexico City episode was “Michael C. Choaden”, a name the Review Board understands, from the CIA, to be a pseudonym for Phillips.

    FBI and CIA Balk

    After the rather smooth going on the first release, both the FBI and CIA began to balk at what came next. From CTKA sources in Washington, the ARRB itself, and the AP newswire, PROBE will now outline the struggle going on in the capitol.

    When the ARRB moves to release a batch of documents from an agency’s files, that agency has the privilege to request a private conference with the Board to try to convince them of other options other than full disclosure e.g. postponement or non-release. A worst case postponement can last well into the next century. Our sources tell us that the original release pattern planned by the ARRB has been altered. The pattern originally held that another batch of solely CIA documents from Oswald’s CIA HQ file were to be released next. Then a combination of 15 FBI and 2 CIA documents concerning Oswald’s trip to Mexico City were to be third. The Board had originally agreed on this sequence. The CIA then requested another audience with the Board to request postponement on the CIA HQ release. This audience was granted. During this delay, the third release went ahead and will be uncontested on the CIA’s part. After their conference with the CIA, our information is that the Board is now reconsidering their original intent to release the documents in full. The FBI has been more overt about the scheduled release of 15 documents. They have appealed the release of 9 of these to President Clinton. According to the ARRB, the FBI contested files relate to Oswald’s stay in the Soviet Union, the Communist Party USA, and Ruby’s shooting of Oswald.

    Sources and Methods, yeah yeah yeah…

    The objections seem to be on the usual grounds of the sensitivity of “methods and sources” and damage to our intelligence relationships with foreign countries, i.e. intelligence sources and agents inside foreign countries. Since the Board has seen the documents and are well aware of the standard line on “national security” one can’t help but wonder how that antique warning could be sounded three decades later and with the Cold War finished.

    The Board’s Recommendation

    We quote from Mr. Marwell’s letter to President Clinton dated August 11th:

    Dear Mr. President:
    I have the honor of submitting to you the enclosed Reply of the Assassination Records Review Board to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s August 8, 1995 Appeal of Formal Determinations under The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
    There are two principal points made in our Reply. First, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has failed to provide the “clear and convincing evidence” required by the JFK Act; and second, much of the information that the Bureau now wishes to redact has already been officially released by the Bureau. We respectfully request that you carefully consider the merits of the arguments raised in our Reply.
    In making its formal determinations, the Board carefully considered the assassination records in question and determined that the public interest in the release of all of the information contained in them outweighted the insufficient evidence that the FBI had offered in support of continued secrecy. The Review Board has, and will, postpone the release of information in cases where the statutorily mandated “clear and convincing evidence” is supplied and that evidence outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
    A copy of the enclosed Reply, classified SECRET, is being sumitted under separate cover to Marvin Krislov, Associate Counsel at The White House.”

    The contents page of the 26 page reply to the FBI’s appeal shows that the ARRB has come down on the research community’s side on this issue:

    Part I: The JFK Act Presumes Disclosure of Assassination Records
    Part II: The FBI’s Informant Postponements
    A. The FBI Failed To Meet Its Statutory Obligation to Provide Clear and Convincing Evidence
    B. The FBI’s “Broad-Brush” Arguments Against Release of Information About Informants Should be Rejected
    C. In the Absence of Clear and Convincing Evidence to the Contrary, the JFK Act Requires Full and Immediate Release of the Appealed Documents
    Part III: The FBI’s “Foreign Relations” Postponements

    We back the belief in total candor. In fact we think its the only tenable view today. We trust the Review Board’s judgment since it is certainly not composed of fringe, or irresponsible professionals. In fact, in Graff and Hall, it contains two former intelligence employees. Does anyone believe they would vote to endanger “national security”? It is a critical time and we are glad it came early. Here and elsewhere, we urge everyone to call or fax the White House, and FBI Director Mr. Freeh to make their voices heard on this momentous issue. Mr. Clinton must back the ARRB in this first appeal by the FBI to the White House. These appeals for secrecy and non-review have led the Bureau into suspicion on the King case, and culpability in Ruby Ridge and Waco. Let this appeal fall where the previous ones should have: on deaf ears.

    ~ Jim DiiEugenio

  • GOP Effort to Defund the ARRB

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    The story broke suddenly in The Wall Street Journal of June 23, 1995. The Republicans in the House were looking for funds to cut from the federal government’s operating budget. The first move was to pass a bill cutting $155,000,000 and eliminating 2,700 jobs from operations of the House and legislative agencies such as the General Accounting Office. Then Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey apparently had their legislative aides go through the White House budget and target agencies they felt were unnecessary and expendable. In the sixteenth and next to last paragraph of the Wall Street Journal story noted above, the reference to eliminating the Review Board appeared. Ironically a quote from Armey in the story read that, “I hope that we can set straight a perception of wrongdoing.” How Congress could do this by saving a whopping two million (approximate ARRB budget) from a one and a half trillion dollar budget escapes us. Precisely the opposite effect would occur. But this statement and this effort shows us even more how out of touch our Washington representatives are.

    When this story got out and circulated to the members of the ARRB and the research community, a coordinated effort took place to lobby the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. This effort was led by representatives and friends of COPA like John Judge, Dan Alcorn, John Newman, and Washington columnist Sarah McClendon. As a result of this effort, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland sponsored an amendment that restored funding in the House to 2.15 million for the ARRB. The bill was passed and then sent on to the equivalent committee in the Senate led by Sen. Shelby (R) of Alabama and Sen. Kerrey (D) of Nebraska. It was passed there also. The villain in this drama was Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R) of Iowa who originally moved the bill to cancel the ARRB in the House Committee on Appropriations. We understand that the line being sold in the House was that the National Archives could do the equivalent job that the ARRB was doing. We won’t comment on the inanity of that obvious deception.

    There was a downside in all this though. President Clinton had originally asked for an operating budget of 2.4 million. In the view of many, that was not enough. But the amount voted in both the Senate and House versions of the bill was 2.15 million. It seems the DeConcini effort of the previous year to whittle down the budget has taken a mental hold on the funding figure in Congress. Next year Probe will prepare its readership in advance to lobby the appropriate committees for the higher figure.

    ~ Jim DiEugenio

  • Raymond vs. Connick: Round One

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    This is not the first time that Gary Raymond has crossed swords with his former boss, Harry Connick. When Connick came into office in 1974, Raymond was an investigator on his staff. By the time he left the department in the mid 1980’s, he was his chief investigator. He then became a private investigator. Since one of Raymond’s specialties was pedophile cases, Connick asked him to check out a case he had of a local priest who was sodomizing children and young adults. Gary checked out the materials, tapes and affidavits and recommended to the DA that he prosecute the case. Gary waited and waited. Nothing happened.

    Meanwhile, Gary encountered one of the kids he had seen on the pornographic tapes, which the priest had been peddling. Raymond asked the boy if he wanted to talk for the record. He said that the priest had threatened his life if he did. Raymond then drew up a three page memo outlining the case and he forwarded it to Connick. Connick’s assistant then told Gary that the DA was very angry about the memo. When Raymond asked why, the reply was that it left a paper trail. Connick had cut a deal with the archbishop in September of 1989. Later, Raymond saw Connick at a St. Patrick’s Day parade. He asked the DA when the priest was going to be prosecuted. Connick put his finger in his chest and said, “He won’t. Not as long as I am the DA. And you can’t do a thing about it.” Gary then went to Richard Angelico and he did a continuing five day series on what became the famous Father Dino Cinel child abuse case, in which the priest was making child pornography films in the rectory of St. Rita’s Church. One of the series highlights was Angelico’s interview with Connick. He asked the DA if he had made a deal with the diocese not to prosecute. He said he had because it would have been too difficult to track down and I.D. all the kids. Angelico had to remind Connick that the DA had gone before the legislature in 1985 and had the law changed so that mere possession of the material was a contraband charge. Connick had smugly stuck his foot in his mouth.

  • CTKA Press Release

     

    Nearly a month and a half later, the public has yet to see the files. Yet Connick has allowed one select person privileged access. He is Gerald Posner, author of the 1993 book “Case Closed” which argued that the Warren Commission was correct in its 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone, deranged assassin of President Kennedy. In a 1994 interview with researcher James DiEugenio, Connick said that no one could have these files except an “official body”. The article does not explain Connick’s apparent reversal on this point. Posner also never explains why Connick is delaying the National Archives receipt of these materials.

    Mr. Posner’s article is relatively brief: 11/2 pages, or 3 magazine columns. In this short piece, Posner spends 7 paragraphs dealing with the contents of these new files. Of these, 3 deal with information not already published in books. Yet, the last people able to peruse these files, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (a true official body) made a recently declassified index to these records. The index itself is 16 pages long! From this skeleton guide much of the material ignored by Posner is new and seems to support some of Garrison’s charges, specifically about the association of Shaw with Oswald and the attempts some people made to intimidate and bribe his witnesses, which is why he wished them surveilled. This is left out by Mr. Posner.

    Finally, Posner leaves out the most important story of all. The ARRB is about to request the release of CIA HQ files on Oswald to the Archives. The CIA is resisting. If, as Posner states, the case is closed and Oswald was the sole, deranged assassin, why would the CIA a.) have voluminous files on him, and b.) not want the public to see them fully disclosed 32 years later. Posner and the Times should save their space for an article on this issue and its outcome done by an unbiased writer whose interpretations can be checked against the record. Openness, not elitist bias, is what the JFK Act was all about.

  • The Transcript from Harry’s Hell

    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    WDSU Local Evening News, 7/11/95

    Lead In:

    There have been many mysteries surrounding the murder of President John F. Kennedy including a mystery right here in New Orleans: What happened to the files of former prosecutor Jim Garrison?

    Connick:

    I think everything connected with that case should have been retained and preserved in some way.

    Cut to:

    live in-studio anchors Norman Robinson and Susan Roesgen sitting with reporter Richard Angelico.

    Norman:

    You’ll recall that the District Attorney testified that the files had been stolen.

    Susan:

    But for the first time we know what happened to at least some of the JFK files because Richard Angelico found them. Richard.

    Richard:

    Well Susan and Norman, the story of the missing original grand jury testimony is bizarre to say the least. Harry Connick says it was stolen. But a former staffer of Connick’s says the District Attorney knows better about the missing Kennedy files.

    Cut to:

    A montage segment of the Zapruder film, HSCA Report cover, photos of Oswald in handcuffs, films of Garrison and Shaw, booking photos of Ferrie and Shaw.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    The assassination of John Kennedy spawned dozens of conspiracy theories. But the Warren Commission named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. Many found that hard to believe. Among them New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. After a highly publicized investigation, he arrested New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw, charging that Shaw, Oswald and a local pilot named David Ferrie plotted Kennedy’s death here in New Orleans. Shaw was acquitted, Garrison’s investigation discredited.

    Cut to:

    Angelico in front of Court House.

    Richard:

    For years the records of that investigation lay in storage at the DA’s office gathering dust. Now a federal commission, the Assassination Records and Review Board wants those records and two weeks ago called on current district attorney Harry Connick to produce them.

    Cut to:

    Film of the Review Board hearing.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    Connick told the committee only a small portion of the records remain. Most of them, he said, had been stolen.

    Connick:

    There are a lot of folks who were connected with that investigation and prosecution and were in that office you know, from that time of the trial until we took office in ’74. And I think a lot of that material is probably in their custody. I think those files were rifled and I think they took from those files things that would be of great interest to the American public, and to the world as a matter of fact.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    Connick clearly pointed the finger of blame for the missing records at Garrison’s office. Had a crime been committed asked the committee chairman? To which Connick replied:

    Connick:

    Our criminal code calls that theft.

    Cut to:

    Angelico walking down the street in front of the Court House.

    Richard:

    Those were strong words from the DA But now a former member of Connick’s staff has come forward with equally strong words. He says Connick did not tell the committee the entire truth.

    Cut to:

    Montage segment of the two page affidavit being shown on the screen.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    In this sworn affidavit the former staff member says, “Recent news articles indicate DA Harry Connick has testified before the Assassination Records and Review Board that records of Garrison’s were “pilfered” from the files of the DA’s office. Nothing could be further from the truth. Harry Connick, elected District Attorney, Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Orleans Parish, personally ordered those records destroyed. I know, and do hereby swear this to be the truth because I was one of two or three individuals ordered by Harry Connick to destroy them.”

    Cut to:

    Angelico in an office with a table in front of him. Copies of the grand jury testimony are on top.

    Richard:

    These are the records the former staffer says that Connick ordered him to destroy: the original testimony of more than 40 witnesses who appeared before Garrison’s grand jury. Many of them major players in the investigation The documents include the testimony of Perry Raymond Russo, the man who placed Shaw with Oswald and Ferrie. Mark Lane, the original conspiracy theorist. Dean Andrews, a New Orleans lawyer, who claimed to have gotten a call asking him to represent Oswald. And even the testimony of Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s widow. According to the affidavit, Connick’s reasons for destroying the records were simple: he needed more storage space.

    Cut to:

    The affidavit.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    The former staffer says when he suggested the records were of historical significance, Connick told him: “This investigation was a figment of Jim Garrison’s overactive imagination. Burn this son-of-a bitch and burn it today.”

    Cut to:

    Close-up shots of the bound grand jury testimony.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    But the staffer disobeyed Connick and kept the records for over 21 years until turning them over to me. Last week we asked Connick about his testimony before the Assassination Records and Review Board and his contention that many of the records had been stolen by Garrison’s staff.

    Cut to:

    Inside of Connick’s office. Angelico is sitting opposite of Connick at his desk.

    Richard:

    The grand jury testimony in the Shaw case should have been kept do you think?

    Connick:

    I think everything connected with that case should have been retained and preserved in some way.

    Richard:

    We have a, I found an affidavit from a former staff member of yours who says that you ordered him to burn the grand jury transcripts.

    Connick:

    No, no. (Smiles, giggles nervously.)

    Richard:

    I’ll let you look at it and see what it says.

    Connick:

    I don’t, I don’t, it. . .so what’s the point.

    Richard:

    Well, he saw you tell the committee that and he says you ordered him to burn the grand jury transcripts of the Shaw-Garrison investigation because you simply needed storage space when you moved into office.

    Connick:

    That, that, that may well be so. . . we, we dispose of a lot of records, have disposed of a lot of records, um-huh.

    Richard:

    Hmm. He maintains in the affidavit that, that he suggested to you-

    Connick:

    I will, I will accept that as, as valid. . .

    Richard:

    Huh?

    Connick:

    I will. He’s saying that we should have kept it, is this what he’s saying?

    Richard:

    He’s saying that he came to you and said maybe we should keep this because this is not John Smith killing John Doe, this is Garrison’s investigation of Shaw. It may have some historical significance. And you said the case has been disposed of, the man not guilty, burn the records.

    Connick:

    Right.

    Richard:

    Because you needed storage space. . .

    Connick:

    Uh-huh.

    Richard:

    Do you dispute that? Do you recall that?

    Connick:

    I, I don’t recall that, I don’t recall that. But if I did do it, so what, its done.

    Richard:

    Yeah.

    Connick:

    We’ve destroyed a lot of records.

    Cut to:

    Inside of Sal Panzeca’ office. Angelico and Panzeca sitting at a table with the grand jury testimony between them.

    Richard’s Voice-Over:

    As a final footnote to this story, we showed the transcripts to Sal Panzeca, a former member of Shaw’s defense team. His reaction:

    Panzeca:

    We were not able to see the documents at the time I was working on this case, uh, today we would be and I think that the Garrison case would never have gone to trial.

    Cut to:

    In studio, Angelico sitting at a desk with the two anchors.

    Richard:

    These records were provided to us on the condition that we forward them to the Assassination Records and Review Board. We will do that. We have also provided a copy to an assassination expert for his review to determine if these files will shed some light on the assassination investigation. We’ll let you know what they find.

    Norman:

    Richie, does an original copy of the grand jury testimony exist anywhere else.

    Richard:

    Well, Connick told me that he had some copies of grand jury testimony. I don’t know if what he has is some of the other originals or if they’re copies. He says he can’t make that public because its grand jury testimony. He’ll probably burn those.

    Susan:

    Now since you’ve gotten actually your hands on these, conspiracy buffs who are still out there would want to know, did you see anything surprising in it?

    Richard:

    Not from what I know of the Kennedy assassination. I mean one of the things I read first was Perry Raymond Russo’s grand jury testimony because he’s the one who placed Oswald, Shaw, and Ferrie together. But if you step back a little bit and you know what happened to Perry Raymond Russo, he was given sodium pentothal, he was hypnotized at one point because he had no independent recollection of this. And under hypnosis it was suggested to him that there was a gray-haired man at a party he went to. So when you put this all in context nothing’s really new. And that’s why we’re giving them to the expert so that he can go through them and give us a synopsis of everything.

    Susan:

    Good, maybe we’ll get more. Great story Richard.

    Norman:

    And the mystery continues.

    It’s too bad that Angelico’s report didn’t stop after the Connick interview. Two fallacies were appended to it at that point. First, the implication by Panzeca is confusing. Defense lawyers are not allowed to contest the prosecution’s case to a grand jury today just as they were not back then; so its hard to decipher what he means when he says the case would not have gone to trial if he would have known what was in the grand jury testimony. Secondly, Angelico repeats the ancient James Phelan canard about Russo. As the recent revelations in the actual interviews, trial testimony, and Bill Turner’s unpublished manuscript show, Russo mentioned the name Bertrand before he was hypnotized and without being prompted.-Eds.