The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences

[Lance Payette]

By way of example, Josephine Hug, who worked in the Trade Mart for several years, was one of the most concerning Ferrie-Shaw "witnesses." For much of the time, she occupied an office adjoining Shaw's. She saw, she told several people, Ferrie go into Shaw's office numerous times carrying an attache case, whereupon Shaw always closed the door. EEK!

If you want to read something humorous, read the transcript of Josephine Hug's appearance before Garrison's grand jury. After Richard Burnes of Garrison's office completely bungles the interrogation, the JURORS take over and do an absolutely superb job of nailing Josephine to the wall. She finally acknowledges that OK, it wasn't Ferrie at all.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Hug.pdf

Several months later, Burnes took a stab at interrogating Hug's husband. That didn't go any better, to put it mildly:

https://www.jfk-online.com/hug3.html

Needless to say, Josephine Hug - once a star witness for connecting Shaw to Ferrie - was not called to testify at trial.

But not in conspiracy world, of course. Josephine actually saw a crew-cut David Ferrie go into Shaw's office 10-12 times with an attache case (WHAT WAS IN IT? MAYBE SEX TOYS!), whereupon Shaw mysteriously closed the door (SO THEY COULD HAVE SEX RIGHT THERE ON THE DESK!). Then "they" - whoever "they" are - got to her and TERRORIZED the poor woman into recanting The Truth.
 

You folks are nuts.

[Benjamin Cole]

LP

Yes, but there is evidence Ferrie and Shaw knew each other, from the commentary of Orest Pena, a bar owner before the HSCA.

Perhaps Pena is mistaken, or maybe he is telling the truth. 

Pena says Shaw and Ferrie would visit the bar together.

There is no word if Pena's bar was a gay bar, or gay tolerant.

As for hook-ups always hewing to hoity-toity class lines...we all know sexual desire crosses class lines the way the wind blows through the bushes.

[Tom Graves]

LP

Yes, but there is evidence Ferrie and Shaw knew each other, from the commentary of Orest Pena, a bar owner before the HSCA.

Perhaps Pena is mistaken, or maybe he is telling the truth. 

Pena says Shaw and Ferrie would visit the bar together.

There is no word if Pena's bar was a gay bar, or gay tolerant.

As for hook-ups always hewing to hoity-toity class lines...we all know sexual desire crosses class lines the way the wind blows through the bushes.

Do you want to believe Pena?

[Benjamin Cole]

TG--

What has "want" got to do with it?

Pena was a witness, who evidently did in fact own a bar in New Orleans. He is not some off-the-wall crackpot.

A bar owner would be a great resource as to who knows who in New Orleans, in that time and place.  Bar owners tend to keep tabs on customers---it is their business and trade, after all.

Why is Pena's word dismissed, but the word of others accepted?

Do you have reasons to regard Pena as an unreliable witness?

[Fred Litwin]

Pena just said that in an outside contact report but would not repeat it under oath.

He provides no evidence....

Why on earth would we believe this.

He said lots of other stuff too that I don't believe.

fred

[Benjamin Cole]

FL--

That is a valid point, that Pena would not repeat his understanding of the Shaw-Ferrie relationship under oath.

Do you have any clue why Pena would not repeat, under oath, the rather specific statements he made regarding Shaw and Ferrie? 

What did Pena have to gain by fabricating the Ferrie-Shaw friendship?

[Gerry Down]

FL--

That is a valid point, that Pena would not repeat his understanding of the Shaw-Ferrie relationship under oath.

Do you have any clue why Pena would not repeat, under oath, the rather specific statements he made regarding Shaw and Ferrie? 

What did Pena have to gain by fabricating the Ferrie-Shaw friendship?

From what I can see, Pena wasn't asked about the Ferrie Shaw relationship in his testimony. It looks like the interviewer quickly moved on to asking about Banister after asking about Shaw. Pena could have interpreted this as meaning to keep your mouth shut about it. Of course the interviewer might not have meant it that way. The interviewer at that stage might genuinely be frustrated with Penas lack of candor in his answers and just be looking to bring the testimony to a close. Though it does seem a bit odd that the interviewer did not explore the issue of the Ferrie Shaw relationship, as that would have been central to the Garrison case 10 years previously.