Kennedys and King Test host626

Tag: GARRISON INVESTIGATION

  • 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.

  • Wecht Responds to Boswell: 1995 to 1969

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

    The following document recently surfaced:

    MEMORANDUM FOR ADMIRAL DAVIS 3 Feb 1969

    Subj: Call received from Dr. Boswell (Suburban Hospital, tele: 530-6066) re problem concerning trial going on in New Orleans by Mr. Garrison re Mr. Shaw

    A member of the Justice Department has been in contact with Doctor Boswell and has questions re custody of patient records. Specifically, Doctor Boswell needs to talk with you sometime today (ASAP) re rules and regulations within the Navy Department relative to who has responsibility of custody of President Kennedy’s records – autopsy report, x-rays and photographs. There is a question of some material which no one seems to know where it is or where it can be obtained (Doctor Boswell suspects it may be held by Kennedy Family but is not certain). Doctor Boswell said Justice is not trying to retrieve the material but they need to know what the rules and regulations re custody are. A member of that Department will question Dr. Boswell later today. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Weckt, who is not considered too reputable will testify at the trial. Dr. Boswell needs to discuss this and the custody matter with you.

    Very respectfully,

     

    BETTY

     

    Wecht responds:

    July 31, 1995

    J. Thornton Boswell, M.D.
    11134 Stephalee Lane
    Rockville, Maryland 20852

    Dear Dr. Boswell:

    Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum typed by your secretary on February 3, 1969. It was recently obtained from the JFK files by one of the researchers.

    Inasmuch as your secretary, Betty, and I have never met, and presumably, she was not a physician, attorney, forensic scientist, or active politician, I must infer that her statement that “A forensic pathologist, Dr. Weckt (sic), who is not considered too reputable will testify at the trial” emanated from you. Certainly, I have always assumed ultimate and full responsibility for actions and statements made by my personal secretary. One need not be a lawyer to appreciate the universal logic of respondeat superior and vicarious responsibility. I would be interested in learning how you had ascertained as of February, 1969, that I was not reputable. Inasmuch as the memorandum related to the JFK autopsy materials, I assume that this characterization referred to me in my capacity as a physician and forensic pathologist.

    From whom had you received such information, and from whom had you elicited opinions regarding my competence, integrity, and honesty?

    Had you submitted an inquiry to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, which organization was to elect me as President-Elect later that same month at their Annual Meeting at the Drake Hotel in Chicago?

    Had you made an inquiry of government and political officials in Allegheny Country, where I was endorsed by the Democratic Party later that month for the position of Allegheny County Coroner, and then nominated in the Primary and elected to that job in November, 1969?

    Had you made an inquiry of Dr. Thomas Noguchi, Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner of Los Angeles County, who had officially consulted me in the Robert F. Kennedy and Sharon Tate-LaBianca murders?

    Had you submitted inquiries to the University of Pittsburgh and Duquesne University, where I had been appointed to the faculties of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Duquesne University Schools of Law and Pharmacy?

    Had you read the transcript of my testimony before Federal Judge Charles Halleck, Jr., in Washington, D.C., in August, 1968, regarding the need to examine all the JFK autopsy materials as a consultant to District Attorney Jim Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial? (Judge Halleck was apparently sufficiently impressed and granted the DA’s motion immediately from the bench. Of course, as expected, the government attorneys protested vehemently and appealed his decision. I had to wait another four years before I had the opportunity to review these materials at the National Archives and see the results of your skilled handiwork.)

    By what God-given right did you have to malign and defame me in this fashion when you obviously knew nothing whatsoever about me? (Of course, it is certainly possible that somebody had made negative comments about me. If so, you should have had the decency to have named those individuals and discussed with some specificity in your memorandum what the basis was for such negative comments.)

    It is a matter of record that the FBI and other governmental agencies embarked upon a special campaign to undermine, ridicule, embarrass, defame, and vilify anybody who had the audacity to challenge the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. Their actions were utterly despicable and morally reprehensible. Evidently, as a career military person, you felt that you had the same right to follow a similar tack, and you believed that you also enjoyed legal immunity in making defamatory comments.

    Without getting into a discussion or review of the JFK assassination and whether the WCR’s conclusions vis-a-vis Oswald are correct, one fact is unequivocally clear and universally acceptable among all forensic pathologists, including the other eight members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations Forensic Pathology Panel who disagreed with me on a few key points, namely, that you and Dr. Humes had no business whatsoever in performing the autopsy on President Kennedy. Neither of you had ever done one official medical-legal autopsy, nor had you ever spent one day in a forensic pathology training program or seminar. Your incompetence and inexperience set into motion a horrible chain of events that has continued for 32 years, and which has cost this country and thousands of people immeasurable amounts of time, effort, money, and emotional anguish.

    Tell me, Dr. Boswell, do you think you were a “reputable” person in undertaking this post-mortem examination? In what way did you make a contribution to law and justice? Or were you, like Adolf Eichman and other militarists in the past, simply “following orders”?

    Although more than three decades have passed since your abysmal performance, and despite the fact that your defamatory statement about me is no longer legally actionable, I would very much welcome the opportunity to debate the JFK assassination with you anywhere at any time. I feel confident that we could charge a substantial amount for audience tickets, and all the money could be donated to a charity of your choice. Why don’t you come out of your self-imposed obscurity and quasi-seclusion and contend with the real world? You and your colleagues created this incredible mess with one of the most tragically botched medical-legal autopsies I have ever encountered. Do you not feel that you owe enough to yourself, your family, your profession, and your country to mandate participation in a public forum pertaining to the JFK assassination?

    Or do you believe that you fulfilled all your moral and ethical obligations by simply meeting privately with your old military pathologist comrade-in-arms, Dr. George Lundberg, and enjoying the intellectual luxury of telling the same old story from your perspective without being challenged or criticized by anyone? You have been whitewashed in JAMA, and you have managed to escape grueling interrogation by a skilled adversarial attorney in an open court of law. Such immunity and protection are usually available only to absolute monarchs and governmental dictators. However, there are other assessments in life that are meaningful. I would be absolutely mortified and horribly humiliated if 85 to 90% of my countrymen consistently and repeatedly rejected my professional conclusion in the most significant endeavor I had ever engaged in during my lifetime. That is some legacy to leave your children and grandchildren.

    Very truly yours,

    Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.

    cc: James J. Humes
         Pierre Finck, M.D.
         George D. Lundberg, M.D.

  • 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.