Sylvia Meagher Writes Clay Shaw with an Idea

[Fred Litwin]

One has to wonder why Jim Garrison never went for the phone records to see if a long distance call from San Franscisco
came into the hospital in New Orleans where Dean Andrews was a patient.

Perhaps he didn't want to know.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/sylvia-meagher-writes-clay-shaw-with-an-idea

[Steve M. Galbraith]

One has to wonder why Jim Garrison never went for the phone records to see if a long distance call from San Franscisco
came into the hospital in New Orleans where Dean Andrews was a patient.

Perhaps he didn't want to know.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/sylvia-meagher-writes-clay-shaw-with-an-idea

I would guess that he did try to find it and hid the results. But wouldn't the FBI do a search as well?

As to Shaw: According to the Carpenter book Shaw left New Orleans a "few days" before the assassination. He had a room reserved for the 21st, the day before the shooting. So he left New Orleans on the 19th? 18th? I'll guess it was a two day trip by rail so he left the 19th.

How would Shaw - in San Francisco at the time and on a train before - know Andrews was hospitalized? And what hospital? There's no evidence that Andrews' secretary got a call from Shaw/Bertrand and told him about Andrews' hospitalization. Andrews said he later called his secretary about the call. Wouldn't she have told him, "Yes, a Mr. Shaw Bertrand called me earlier and I gave him your hospital room number"? In an FBI interview she said she never heard of a "Clay Bertrand." So again, how would Shaw get Andrews' number?

Garrison was deranged. Charming and smart but simply unstable. That people today follow him, repeat his nonsense is really shameful. We know who they are. Garrison was sick, he couldn't help himself for the most part. What is the excuse for these followers?

[Fred Litwin]

The FBI would not have been looking for a SF long distance phone call in 1963 -1964.  Afterall, it was considered a local call.

fred

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The FBI would not have been looking for a SF long distance phone call in 1963 -1964.  Afterall, it was considered a local call.

fred

Yes, but the FBI (obviously; this was the murder of the president) continued its investigation into Andrews' "Clay Bertrand" claims into 1967 and during Garrison's investigation. It didn't stop in 1963/64.

As in here where they tried to determine how Andrews could have come up with the name and/or whether a C. Bertrand did exist: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62428#relPageId=89&search=Dean_Andrews

Notice that they were informed of an unlisted phone number to a "C.A. Bertrand". They looked into it and discovered it was the number at one time for a "Carol Bertrand" who had worked at the hospital as an anesthesiologist at the hotel hospital where Andrews stayed. Shorter: they were still trying to track down this Bertrand person.

Shaw testified that he was in SF at the time of the assassination and thus any supposed phone call to New Orleans/Andrews. They could try to locate any long distance calls from SF to Andrews.

[Fred Litwin]

Interesting document. They were just looking at a possibility for an explanation about the supposed phone call. But I don't think the FBI was interested in doing a serious investigation about the phone call. I think
they believed that it was all a figment of Andrews' imagination.

fred

[Sean Kneringer]

Just listened to a 1967 interview with Meagher that I found on YouTube. While more sane than the David Liftons of the world, she was a "patsy" advocate through and through. She doesn't think he ever fired a gun at Walker, Kennedy or Tippit. When asked if critics like her were obligated to explain what actually did go down on 11/22/63, she flatly said "no."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Just listened to a 1967 interview with Meagher that I found on YouTube. While more sane than the David Liftons of the world, she was a "patsy" advocate through and through. She doesn't think he ever fired a gun at Walker, Kennedy or Tippit. When asked if critics like her were obligated to explain what actually did go down on 11/22/63, she flatly said "no."

As I recall she said (at one time) that she believed that anti-Castro Cubans were behind the assassination - the Odio incident was the key to the crime since it showed to her that Oswald was really anti-Castro and not pro-Castro; but as to the "mechanics" or details of the actual shooting she was, as far as I can see, unable to give much of any. Why an anti-Castro Oswald wouldn't be involved - would be framed - is something I can't understand.

She also said that she knew - she was a committed leftist - when she heard about the assassination that "they" would blame a Communist. But "they" didn't blame a Communist; they blamed Oswald. They cleared Castro and the Soviets and didn't blame any domestic groups - communist or otherwise - as being involved. Oswald's motive was unclear; a mix of personal and political grievances perhaps. Supposedly these far right wingers wanted to get rid of Castro - Operation Northwoods and all - so why clear him? Use the assassination as a pretext for an invasion.

Political types - on the hard right or left - simply can't resist using the assassination to express their grievances with "the government" or some element of it. Even 60 years later they can't. RFK Jr. anyone?