The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences

[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.

[Lance Payette]

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.

I must say, your pretty obvious desperation to cling to Pena is losing you a lot of points in my estimation of your reasoning abilities. Do you believe Pena was an FBI informant, even though the FBI said he wasn't and DeBrueys was adamant? That Oswald was an FBI informant? That he was consorting openly with DeBrueys, a Customs agent, and an INS agent, meeting them in restaurants.

It isn't a matter of "hook-ups." Shaw was a high-profile, highly respected public figure in New Orleans. If he were to stoop to "hooks ups" with a character like Ferrie, he sure as hell wouldn't be bar-hopping with him. Your egalitarianism is duly noted, but Shaw was not crazy.

There comes a time when rational people say "OK, let it go. I wish it were true to help my theory, but this goes nowhere."

Speaking of not letting it go, Richard Burnes not only brought in Josephine Hug's husband (a radio announcer) on August 3, 1967, he brought back HER for a second bite at the apple. It didn't go any better this time. One can only wonder what Burnes thought he was accomplishing. The killer, as it were, was that both spouses said they had recently seen the man she thought was Ferrie - long after Ferrie was dead. Oops.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Hug2.pdf

[Gerry Down]

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.

Ok, so this is a good example of the dismantling a witness such as Mrs Hug. But i have not seen any such dismantling like this on Pena. The objection to Pena seems to be "Well, i dont believe what he says so hes probably lying". To the best of my knowledge, Pena has not been caught out on any of his alleged lies. It seems to come down to a situation of whether one simply believes him or not, and i have not seen anything as of yet that would suggest i should not believe him.

[Gerry Down]

I must say, your pretty obvious desperation to cling to Pena is losing you a lot of points in my estimation of your reasoning abilities. Do you believe Pena was an FBI informant, even though the FBI said he wasn't and DeBrueys was adamant? That Oswald was an FBI informant? That he was consorting openly with DeBrueys, a Customs agent, and an INS agent, meeting them in restaurants.

It isn't a matter of "hook-ups." Shaw was a high-profile, highly respected public figure in New Orleans. If he were to stoop to "hooks ups" with a character like Ferrie, he sure as hell wouldn't be bar-hopping with him. Your egalitarianism is duly noted, but Shaw was not crazy.

There comes a time when rational people say "OK, let it go. I wish it were true to help my theory, but this goes nowhere."

Speaking of not letting it go, Richard Burnes not only brought in Josephine Hug's husband (a radio announcer) on August 3, 1967, he brought back HER for a second bite at the apple. It didn't go any better this time. One can only wonder what Burnes thought he was accomplishing. The killer, as it were, was that both spouses said they had recently seen the man she thought was Ferrie - long after Ferrie was dead. Oops.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Hug2.pdf

I think DeBrueys admitted he called in to Pena a few times and Pena used give him information for free. Apparently it was an informal informant arrangment rather than Pena being a registered informant in the FBIs system. From Penas point of view he would view himself as an informant, but DeBrueys might not stricly view him as an informant as he would not have assigned Pena an informant number.

Apparently this informal informant arrangement is quiet common with the FBI.