JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on May 21, 2021, 06:14:02 PM
-
I was reading Jim DiEugenios book "Reclaiming Parkland" today and came across it saying the following:
The FBI had developed two sources independently who said Shaw used the alias of Bertrand. Today, when one combines all these sources the number is well into the double digits. This is why Dick Billisng wrote in some of his early notes for LIFE "Evidence for Shaw is actually Bertrand is popping up everywhere". And now we even have Dean Andrews, the man who started the whole Clay Bertrand chase, on the record as admitting to Harold Weisberg that Shaw was Bertrand.
To anyone familiar with the case, this would be quiet a surprise. Dean Andrews was half going along with this lie during the Garrison trial because Garrison was putting pressure on him. But after that, Dean Andrews came out and told the truth - Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand.
So I did a little research on the internet in relation to this claim. And guess who's name came up - Fred Litwin.
So I decided to have a little read of what Fred Litwin made of this claim. Here is the link from his website: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dean-andrews-admit-that-clay-shaw-was-clay-bertrand
It turns out Dean Andrews made no such statement. Instead Andrews said to Weisberg (and this was during the Clay Shaw trial at a time when Garrison was putting pressure on Andrews) the following:
"If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear."
Yes. You read that right. The above gibberish was being interpreted as Dean Andrews definitively saying that Shaw was Bertrand.
All this makes me wonder if I should chuck Reclaiming Parkland in the bin and buy Fred Litwins book instead.
-
I was reading Jim DiEugenios book "Reclaiming Parkland" today and came across it saying the following:
The FBI had developed two sources independently who said Shaw used the alias of Bertrand. Today, when one combines all these sources the number is well into the double digits. This is why Dick Billisng wrote in some of his early notes for LIFE "Evidence for Shaw is actually Bertrand is popping up everywhere". And now we even have Dean Andrews, the man who started the whole Clay Bertrand chase, on the record as admitting to Harold Weisberg that Shaw was Bertrand.
To anyone familiar with the case, this would be quiet a surprise. Dean Andrews was half going along with this lie during the Garrison trial because Garrison was putting pressure on him. But after that, Dean Andrews came out and told the truth - Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand.
So I did a little research on the internet in relation to this claim. And guess who's name came up - Fred Litwin.
So I decided to have a little read of what Fred Litwin made of this claim. Here is the link from his website: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dean-andrews-admit-that-clay-shaw-was-clay-bertrand
It turns out Dean Andrews made no such statement. Instead Andrews said to Weisberg (and this was during the Clay Shaw trial at a time when Garrison was putting pressure on Andrews) the following:
"If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear."
Yes. You read that right. The above gibberish was being interpreted as Dean Andrews definitively saying that Shaw was Bertrand.
All this makes me wonder if I should chuck Reclaiming Parkland in the bin and buy Fred Litwins book instead.
I don't know anything about this Gerry but it's so weird I've got to wade in.
As I understand it:
Q - Are Shaw and Bertrand the same person?
A - If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear.
Even for jive this seems off the charts.
Who is the Green Giant?
Garrison?
-
I don't know anything about this Gerry but it's so weird I've got to wade in.
As I understand it:
Q - Are Shaw and Bertrand the same person?
A - If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear.
Even for jive this seems off the charts.
Who is the Green Giant?
Garrison?
The claim is that Clay Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand when he, as a gay man, visited the French Quarters to mingle with the gay element there. Shaw was a pretty noted businessman in New Orleans - he essentially built the Trade Mart among other accomplishments - so the idea is that he wouldn't want to use his real name and possibly be exposed as a gay person.
But Shaw was 6'4" and had shockingly white hair and was easily noticeable. And he made numerous appearances on TV and in newspapers over the years as a respected and accomplished resident. The idea that he could use an alias and get away with it is simply not believable.
The "Green Giant" is the nickname that Andrews used for Garrison. Garrison was 6'7". Andrews was noted for his sort of "jive talking" persona. He called the FBI "the feebies." That sort of thing.
Shaw is pictured below attending his trial: (http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/9254132/JFKshaw.jpg?1480601659)
-
The claim is that Clay Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand when he, as a gay man, visited the French Quarters to mingle with the gay element there. Shaw was a pretty noted businessman in New Orleans - he essentially built the Trade Mart among other accomplishments - so the idea is that he wouldn't want to use his real name and possibly be exposed as a gay person.
But Shaw was 6'4" and had shockingly white hair and was easily noticeable. And he made numerous appearances on TV and in newspapers over the years as a respected and accomplished resident. The idea that he could use an alias and get away with it is simply not believable.
The "Green Giant" is the nickname that Andrews used for Garrison. Garrison was 6'7". Andrews was noted for his sort of "jive talking" persona. He called the FBI "the feebies." That sort of thing.
Shaw is pictured below attending his trial: (http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/9254132/JFKshaw.jpg?1480601659)
He's a fairly distinctive looking guy. Like you say, an alias isn't really going to cut it but I don't see why he would need an alias on the gay scene - he's already there! But there's plenty of reasons for an alias.
If, as you say, Garrison is the Green Giant, the best I can make of Andrews' response is that, if Garrison can demonstrate that Bertrand and Shaw are the same person he's 'home clear'. Does this mean he's 'home clear' in terms of prosecuting Shaw or something else?
Whatever the case, it's like Andrews is asked one question but answers an entirely different one.
-
He's a fairly distinctive looking guy. Like you say, an alias isn't really going to cut it but I don't see why he would need an alias on the gay scene - he's already there! But there's plenty of reasons for an alias.
If, as you say, Garrison is the Green Giant, the best I can make of Andrews' response is that, if Garrison can demonstrate that Bertrand and Shaw are the same person he's 'home clear'. Does this mean he's 'home clear' in terms of prosecuting Shaw or something else?
Whatever the case, it's like Andrews is asked one question but answers an entirely different one.
Well, he needs/uses the alias to hide his real name. If he's at a gay bar or a gay club and he's asked his name he's not going to use his real semi-famous name. That risks exposure. He's an accomplished businessman and figure in New Orleans so he wants to stay "in the closet." Or try to. He may be there but "Clay Shaw" isn't. I'm quite sure lots of men - married ones for example - used alias's when they tried to meet gay men.
Again: the claim is he used the alias (mostly) while he was visiting the gay section of the French Quarter. So Garrison and his people (and the FBI) went to the gay bars/clubs in the Quarter and asked around. Garrison found no evidence that he use the Bertrand alias.
As to the "home clear": Andrews' reported reply means that if Garrison can show that Shaw used Bertrand as an alias then it was indeed Shaw who called him (Andrews) asking to represent Oswald. And from that it connects Shaw to Oswald and the assassination. From there it shows that they conspired to killed JFK.
All of that is a tremendous leap. Showing that Shaw used the alias Bertrand doesn't prove anything about him knowing about the assassination. It may indicated he knew Oswald but one can't then say that proves he conspired with Oswald in the assassination.
-
This issue does raise an interesting question: If Shaw did visit the French Quarter to, essentially, pick up gay men then he likely used an alias. Would he use his real name? If he's worried about being exposed - as many gay men and women were at that time - then wouldn't he use an alias?
What would that have been? On the other hand, as he said on the question of using an alias, he was such a distinctive person - tall, white hair - and somewhat famous in the city - numerous appearances on TV and his photo in the newspapers - that it would be useless to use an alias. He's too recognizable.
Added: If I recall he was asked by Garrison's people if he had ever used an alias and he replied that other than using a pseudonym for some of his writings - he wrote numerous plays - he never did.
-
Well, he needs/uses the alias to hide his real name. If he's at a gay bar or a gay club and he's asked his name he's not going to use his real semi-famous name. That risks exposure. He's an accomplished businessman and figure in New Orleans so he wants to stay "in the closet." Or try to. He may be there but "Clay Shaw" isn't. I'm quite sure lots of men - married ones for example - used alias's when they tried to meet gay men.
Again: the claim is he used the alias (mostly) while he was visiting the gay section of the French Quarter. So Garrison and his people (and the FBI) went to the gay bars/clubs in the Quarter and asked around. Garrison found no evidence that he use the Bertrand alias.
As to the "home clear": Andrews' reported reply means that if Garrison can show that Shaw used Bertrand as an alias then it was indeed Shaw who called him (Andrews) asking to represent Oswald. And from that it connects Shaw to Oswald and the assassination. From there it shows that they conspired to killed JFK.
All of that is a tremendous leap. Showing that Shaw used the alias Bertrand doesn't prove anything about him knowing about the assassination. It may indicated he knew Oswald but one can't then say that proves he conspired with Oswald in the assassination.
All of that is a tremendous leap. Showing that Shaw used the alias Bertrand doesn't prove anything about him knowing about the assassination. It may indicated he knew Oswald but one can't then say that proves he conspired with Oswald in the assassination.
I could be talking nonsense here, but I have a vague recollection that Garrison had this "method" (can't think of another word for it) that had a weird name (I want to say "propinquity") whereby just being associated with something indicated guilt.
Like you say, doesn't actually prove anything, but it might be enough to weave a prosecution out of.
I reckon Andrews thought it was enough for the Green Giant anyway.
-
I could be talking nonsense here, but I have a vague recollection that Garrison had this "method" (can't think of another word for it) that had a weird name (I want to say "propinquity") whereby just being associated with something indicated guilt.
Like you say, doesn't actually prove anything, but it might be enough to weave a prosecution out of.
I reckon Andrews thought it was enough for the Green Giant anyway.
Garrison staffer Tom Bethel explained Garrison's belief in propinquity as follows:
"In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.
-
Garrison staffer Tom Bethel explained Garrison's belief in propinquity as follows:
"In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.
Dang, WT. Just when you think Fred is finished with the hits, they just keep on comin' !!! Riveting stuff, huh?
-
Garrison staffer Tom Bethel explained Garrison's belief in propinquity as follows:
"In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.
If you start with a belief in a conspiracy and then "reverse engineer" the event you can find these connections - however tangential - between/among individuals that are related, directly or indirectly, to the assassination. Then you can claim that these connections show a conspiracy; and demand to be proven wrong. On one level, it's convincing; or at least plausible. But only if you start with the original conclusion of a conspiracy occurring. It's a kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking with confirmation bias thrown in.
This type of thinking is what Garrison did all of time; and is what his acolytes also do (that's why they're acolytes after all). It's what Fonzi and others in that "first" HSCA investigation did as well.
It's why since Garrison the conspiracy "community" has been lost, adrift in this "the government killed JFK" sea of paranoia and fantasies. E.g, Oliver Stone, "JFK".
-
....
So I decided to have a little read of what Fred Litwin made of this claim. Here is the link from his website: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dean-andrews-admit-that-clay-shaw-was-clay-bertrand
It turns out Dean Andrews made no such statement. Instead Andrews said to Weisberg (and this was during the Clay Shaw trial at a time when Garrison was putting pressure on Andrews) the following:
"If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear."
Yes. You read that right. The above gibberish was being interpreted as Dean Andrews definitively saying that Shaw was Bertrand.
All this makes me wonder if I should chuck Reclaiming Parkland in the bin and buy Fred Litwins book instead.
.....
Dang, WT. Just when you think Fred is finished with the hits, they just keep on comin' !!! Riveting stuff, huh?
Shaw had a reputation for being, rehabbing and flipping houses in the French Quarter. He owned a house there with one of the first swimming pools I thought he lived in. He was no stranger to the quarter but meeting places at midnight might have made a "fake name" useful.
Are there no researchers here? Search term "home clear" on the Weisberg archive served up this, in a 2001 letter to Joan Mellen, second page. In the first page, Weisberg concurs with me... Garrison helped the government by discouraging further inquiry as a result of his "prosecution" of Clay Shaw.
Weisberg reminded author Mellen, "I was there..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%206-78ff/Item%2028.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196029798_5b82da448e_c.jpg)
-
.....
Shaw had a reputation for being, rehabbing and flipping houses in the French Quarter. He owned a house there with one of the first swimming pools I thought he lived in. He was no stranger to the quarter but meeting places at midnight might have made a "fake name" useful.
Are there no researchers here? Search term "home clear" on the Weisberg archive served up this, in a 2001 letter to Joan Mellen, second page. In the first page, Weisberg concurs with me... Garrison helped the government by discouraging further inquiry as a result of his "prosecution" of Clay Shaw.
Weisberg reminded author Mellen, "I was there..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%206-78ff/Item%2028.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196029798_5b82da448e_c.jpg)
As I'm still a novice here, and slightly dense, can you explain to me how Andrews' statement about the "giant" identifies Shaw as Bertrand.
-
As I'm still a novice here, and slightly dense, can you explain to me how Andrews' statement about the "giant" identifies Shaw as Bertrand.
I think the argument the CTers are trying to make is that Dean Andrews was saying that if Garrison could prove Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand then he would be in the home clear, meaning he would have success. But that's not at all clear from the line and in any case Andrews was under pressure at the time from Garrison to stop saying Betrand was not Clay Shaw. So Harold Weisbergs line means nothing in effect.
The line of course could also mean that if Garrison "gets past that" meaning "forgets that", he is in the home "clear" meaning "success". Dean Andrews could just as well have been telling Harold Weisberg that Garrison was barking up the wrong tree in thinking Shaw was Bertrand.