A Review of Patricia Lambert’s False Witness
by W. Tracy Parnell Ó 2000
It
is almost unthinkable, but after more than 30 years New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison still has a small but loyal following that believes he
was on the right track in his investigation of the Kennedy assassination and
prosecution of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw.
Garrison
charged Shaw with conspiring to kill the 35th President along with
Lee Harvey Oswald (who, by the way, did have something to do with the crime)
and David Ferrie, a pilot and self-appointed cancer researcher. After a trial
that captured world-wide coverage and nearly bankrupted Shaw, he was found not
guilty in less than an hour. The folly of Garrison’s investigation has been
well-documented through books such as American Grotesque by James
Kirkwood and The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power by Milton
Brener. Most conspiracy-oriented researchers who initially embraced Garrison
dropped him like a hot potato, some even before the case came to trial.
However,
with the 1991 release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK (which fictionalized
the New Orleans investigation), Garrison has made a comeback that would
have made Richard Nixon proud. Stone portrays Garrison as an American hero
battling the military-industrial complex (and Lyndon Johnson and the CIA and
the Mafia and God knows who else) in an effort to learn the truth about the
assassination. His own account of the investigation, On the Trail of the
Assassins (one of two books Stone used as the basis for his film), was on
the New York Times Paperback Best Sellers list for 13 weeks following the
film’s debut.
Considering
the apparent level of credibility given to Stone’s film by the majority of the
movie-going public (seeing is believing), the need for an ongoing evaluation of
Garrison’s (and now Stone’s) abuses is clear. Enter Patricia Lambert and her
1998 book False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison’s Investigation and
Oliver Stone’s Film JFK (M. Evans and Company Inc., New York-ISBN
0-87131-879-2). Her book provides that evaluation while offering new evidence
concerning both Garrison’s methods and his own dubious background. It also
provides a sharp look at Stone’s personal reasons for wanting to make JFK and
his choice of Garrison as his protagonist.
Lambert’s
book weighs in at a modest 352 pages. It includes an index and bibliography, an
afterword, two appendices, endnotes, and 14 pages of photographs. I found the
book to be very well written and almost completely lacking both the typographic
and factual errors that seem to plague many recent assassination tomes. This is
not surprising since, according to her bio, Lambert is an editor as well as a
writer. I did note one minor “typo” and
one other error that was so insignificant that I have forgotten what it was.
The endnotes tend to support the issue at hand rather than serve as an
“off-ramp” to other areas.
One
photo of note is the picture showing Shaw and a group of men at a gay party.
Theorists have long claimed that one of the men pictured is David Ferrie and
therefore Garrison was justified in charging Shaw with perjury. However, Lambert shows that the man in the
photo (which is amazingly clear here and suspiciously hazy in some books) was
really Robert Brannon and Garrison knew this as early as 1967.
Lambert’s
first successful mission in the service of truth is a chapter on Garrison
himself. She reveals here for the first time information on Garrison’s father,
Earling R. Garrison. It seems that the elder Garrison was arrested seven times,
the first time for a mail order scheme in which he sent fountain pens to dead
people C.O.D. (the relatives believing the deceased had ordered the pens paid
the charges). Earling Garrison also spent time at Leavenworth and used the
alias of Waldo Morrison. How all this affected “Big Jim” is unclear, but it is
doubtful that it could have been positively.
Jim
Garrison himself joined the Army in 1941 where he served with some distinction,
flying 35 combat missions and receiving several decorations. He also attended American University in
England where he studied the history of philosophy, business law, and
playwriting. He was discharged in 1946 and, after an unsuccessful attempt to
re-enlist, decided to study law at Tulane University. He was subsequently
admitted to the bar without taking the exam due to his veteran status.
Using
an application containing omissions and some falsehoods, Garrison was accepted
by the FBI in 1950. After only four months in the Bureau, he left to join his
reserve unit who had been called to active duty. After the first day back in
the Army, he realized he had made a mistake and reported to sick call. He wrote
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and asked to be reinstated but Hoover refused. Garrison
was subsequently diagnosed with chronic anxiety and other disorders leading to
“a severe and disabling psychoneurosis of long duration”. His report from the
Brooke Army Hospital went on to say that his illness “existed long before his
call to active duty” and was “of the type that will require long-term
pyscotherapeutic approach”. He was released from the Army for “physical
disability” on October 31, 1951 and returned to New Orleans.
After
two failed attempts to hold political office and several years in private law
practice, Garrison emerged from obscurity during a televised roundtable debate
between democratic candidates for district attorney in 1962. Garrison’s
relaxed, self-assured manner struck a chord with the voters, and he won enough
support to force a run-off with incumbent DA Richard Dowling whom he
subsequently defeated. In the general election, he beat his Republican opponent
by over 70,000 votes, and a New Orleans political legend was born.
After
efforts to clean up the French Quarter, Garrison became embroiled in a conflict
that would ultimately lead to his iron grip on the New Orleans power structure.
It was this power that would later enable him to persue Clay Shaw unbridled.
Reacting to Garrison’s activities on Bourbon Street (which many felt were
hurting the tourist trade), eight New Orleans judges moved to cut off his
funding. Garrison reacted by saying that the judges were taking too many
vacations and suggested that they were affected by “racketeer influences”. The
judges in turn charged Garrison with criminal defamation of character. Garrison
dismissed the charges against himself, but State Attorney Jack Gremillion
reinstated them. Garrison was convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court who
reversed the conviction in a landmark decision. Along the way, Garrison
replaced two of the judges with appointees who were sympathetic to his cause.
Garrison’s hold on power was now firm, and he would use and misuse it in years
to come.
Lambert
shows, quite persuasively, that at the bottom of Garrison’s bogus Oswald-Ferrie
scenario were the unfounded ramblings of one Jack Martin, a sometime Private
Investigator. Martin began to develop his theories the day after the
assassination through a speculative phone call with a friend and a television
program that told of Oswald’s time in the Civil Air Patrol. Since Martin knew
Ferrie was in the CAP, he saw this (through use of the same type of thinking
that would later permeate Garrison’s entire investigation) as proof of an Oswald-Ferrie
connection. Soon the story had grown to include allegations of Ferrie flying
Oswald to Dallas and teaching him to “fire foreign weapons” among other
canards.
News
of Martin’s allegation soon made its way to Garrison himself, and he ordered Ferrie
brought in for questioning. Ferrie was on a mini-vacation with friends in Texas
at the time and unaware that he had become a wanted man. Upon his return to New
Orleans, Ferrie turned himself in and submitted to questioning by the FBI and
Secret Service. They released him after his story checked out. Shortly
thereafter, Martin recanted his allegations concerning Ferrie to both the FBI
and Secret Service. It turns out that Martin (whose real name was Edward Suggs)
had a long rap sheet that included a murder charge. Additionally, his FBI file
included the fact that he had been confined to a mental institution in 1956.
Amazingly, the fabrications of Jack Martin were the “evidence” that Garrison
would later use to tie Ferrie to Oswald.
To
tie Clay Shaw to Oswald, Garrison would again use the word of another dubious
character-attorney Dean Andrews. At the time of the assassination, Andrews was
in the hospital under heavy sedation. Like Martin, his imagination ran wild
after seeing a TV show (presumably the same broadcast Martin had viewed) on
Oswald. After a telephone conversation with a friend about the tragedy in
Dallas, Andrews called his secretary and informed her that he was representing
Oswald. When the surprised secretary asked who had hired him, Andrews replied
“Bertrand” thus invoking the name that would later be falsely tied to Shaw by
Garrison. Soon Andrews (who was called to testify before the Warren Commission
in 1964) would embellish his tale to include visits by Oswald to his law office
in the company of “homosexuals”. Thus, by the end of the assassination weekend,
the “evidence” that Garrison would later use to ruin Shaw’s life was
essentially in place. However, after Ferrie was cleared and Martin recanted,
Garrison would wait nearly three years to pick up on his “New Orleans
Connection”.
Garrison’s Investigation
Garrison
claimed that his interest in the Kennedy assassination had been rekindled
during a 1966 plane trip with Louisiana Senator Russell Long. There is no doubt
that Garrison’s conversation with Long, which included discussions of Oswald’s
“shooting feat” and his claim of being
a “patsy”, greatly influenced his thinking about the case. Lambert offers
another reason why Garrison may have turned his attention to Kennedy.
After
Garrison arranged a pardon for a stripper convicted of lewd dancing, it was
claimed in some quarters that her case was tied to organized crime. Garrison
reacted by stating that “organized crime doesn’t exist” in New Orleans and
brought the person responsible for making the charge before the grand jury.
Garrison was criticized by the local media including an article by his friend
David Chandler. Garrison was left reeling by this criticism and may have felt
the Kennedy case could restore his name while diverting negative attention.
Whatever
his true motivation, Garrison couldn’t have picked a better time frame to begin
his investigation. A series of books and articles had focused a national debate
on the Warren Report and the findings of the seven commissioners. Garrison
began his probe by studying the 26 volumes of the WC and critical literature.
He became convinced that Oswald was some type of undercover agent, based mostly
on the fact that he had taken a Russian language exam while in the Marines.
Garrison spoke to Dean Andrews over dinner several times during this time frame
(and subsequently), and Andrews repeated his “Oswald and Bertrand” story.
Garrison now sought out Jack Martin who retold his tale of Ferrie and Oswald,
embellishing it even further.
Garrison
brought Ferrie in for questioning, and he denied any involvement as he had
three years previously. Undaunted, Garrison ordered surveillance of Ferrie,
which ultimately led to a 24-hour watch. In the meantime, he worked out a
“secret deal” with Life magazine (more on this later) to share
information on the case. Magazine staffers were soon shocked to learn that
Garrison had decided Clay Shaw was the mysterious “Clay Bertrand”. However,
after a Christmas-time interview of Shaw during which Garrison was favorably
impressed, he told his staff to “forget Shaw”. Unfortunately for Shaw, a new
player would soon enter the game, and Garrison would change his mind again.
On
February 17, 1967, the New Orleans States-Item broke the story of
Garrison’s investigation. A few days later following an interview with the same
paper, David Ferrie died of a berry aneurysm. The death of this important
“suspect” could (and should) have signaled the end of the investigation. But
Garrison got a break when a young man called a Baton Rouge newspaper to reveal
that he had known Ferrie and was willing to talk. His name was Perry Russo, and
he would become Garrison’s star witness.
Lambert
follows the evolution of Russo’s story from its innocuous first telling (in
which, among other things, he said he never saw Oswald before) to its emergence
as the cornerstone of Garrison’s case just five days later. Russo’s story,
which concerned an assassination plotting session at David Ferrie’s apartment
involving Ferrie, Oswald and Bertrand (Shaw) came together after some leading
questions and a dose of sodium Pentothal. After striking a deal with Dean
Andrews in which he would neither confirm or deny that Shaw was Bertrand,
Garrison had Shaw arrested for conspiracy in the death of JFK.
The Trial
The
trial of Clay Shaw turned out to be actually one of the Warren Commission
instead. Things initially went well for Garrison’s prosecution team. Several
witnesses from the small town of Clinton, LA seemed to provide another
Oswald-Ferrie-Shaw sighting (more on the Clinton witnesses later). Accountant
Charles Spiesel provided details about a second party involving an
assassination plot. The tide turned, however, when it was revealed that Spiesel
was of questionable mental stability and had his own children fingerprinted to
assure their identity.
Dean
Andrews had finally refused to repeat his tale, and Garrison charged him with
perjury for his trouble, gaining his first conviction in the case. Perry Russo
for his part repeated his story, but Shaw’s defense team with lead attorney F.
Irvin Dymond successfully cast doubt on his testimony. Of particular note in
that regard was the memorandum prepared by Garrison assistant Andrew Sciambra
of his first meeting with Russo, which failed to mention the alleged Oswald-Ferrie-Shaw
plotting session. Despite Sciambra’s testimony that his memo was flawed and 26
“corrections” by Russo, the damage had been done.
All
that was left for Garrison was an attack on the Warren Commission and their
report. This included the first public viewing of the Zapruder film and
witnesses such as Zapruder himself, and other Dealy Plaza notables. In the end,
the jury didn’t buy into Garrison’s circus and acquitted Shaw in less than an
hour.
Garrison and the Media
Lambert
is able to show that, far from being disinterested in media attention as he
maintained, Garrison sought out the press and the publicity they could bring
him. He may have even entertained ideas
of a bid for the White House, explaining why he chose to prosecute Shaw when he
had no case.
As
mentioned previously, Garrison worked out a deal with Life magazine in
which they would share information in return for an exclusive article (to be
written by Richard Billings) on the New Orleans investigation. The “Jolly Green
Giant” even bragged to insiders that his picture would appear on the cover of
the respected publication.
However,
when Billings and David Chandler began to look into the case from the New
Orleans perspective, they immediately had doubts about Garrison and his probe.
They met David Ferrie and found him to be “harmless” and “likeable” rather than
the sinister character Garrison tried to portray. Their concern turned to
horror when Garrison informed them that the focus of his investigation had
shifted to Clay Shaw. An ongoing internal struggle at Life over what to
do about Garrison came to a head after his arrest of Shaw. At a Miami dinner
meeting with members of the senior staff, Managing Editor George Hunt finally
decided to kill the Garrison story.
Garrison
moved quickly to fill the void created by the cancellation. He contacted James
Phelan of the Saturday Evening Post, who had previously written a piece
about him that pleased Garrison. He asked Phelan to meet him in Las Vegas where
he was taking a short vacation. Garrison promised to tell Phelan the “whole
incredible story”.
Once
in Vegas, Garrison outlined the plot for Phelan as a “homosexual thrill
killing”. Phelan was not persuaded so Garrison gave him two documents. One was
the memorandum by Andrew Sciambra prepared after his initial meeting with Perry
Russo in Baton Rouge. The other was a transcript of an interview Russo had
given while hypnotized. After receiving permission to keep the documents
overnight, Phelan read and re-read them. He was astonished to find that the
alleged plotting session between Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw described by Russo
while under hypnosis was completely absent from his original Baton Rouge
statement.
Phelan (who had the presence of mind to copy the documents) would eventually confront Garrison and Sciambra about the memo. Garrison claimed to be unaware of the contents while Sciambra said he simply “forgot” to include the details of the alleged Oswald-Ferrie-Shaw party. Phelan wrote his story, but it was a far cry from what Garrison had imagined. Phelan’s story outlined the entire affair from its genesis in Las Vegas to the party that Sciambra forgot to mention. In another city, Garrison might have been forced to resign, but this was New Orleans and he could do no wrong.
Clinton
Revelations
Probably
the most significant thing that came out of Garrison’s investigation was his
“discovery” of the so-called Clinton witnesses. According to their story,
Oswald was first seen in the small Louisiana town about 120 miles north of New Orleans
in the local barber shop. Oswald explained he was seeking work at the nearby
East Louisiana State Hospital and was advised to see State Representative
Reeves Morgan, who suggested he register to vote. He was next seen arriving in
a large black car in the company of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw and then waiting
in a voter registration line. Finally, Oswald made an appearance at the
hospital where he filled out a job application.
The
HSCA awarded a certain amount of credibility to Garrison when it stated in its
final report a belief that Oswald was in Clinton, “in the company of David
Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw”. This tenuous stamp of approval ultimately led to
what Lambert calls Garrison’s “fourth resurrection” - Stone’s JFK. But
Lambert argues that the entire Clinton scenario is bogus and provides a new
witness to bolster her claim.
Anne
Hundley Dischler is that witness. Dischler worked as an assistant to Garrison
investigator Francis Fruge for three months in 1967. She still has in her
possession the notes from that time period. Lambert chronicles three
revelations from Dischler that helped lead to her conclusions about Garrison
and the Clinton episode.
First,
there is Dischler’s claim that a three-by-five black and white photo of the car
that allegedly delivered Oswald and his co-conspirators was used not only by
Fruge, but by “others” who had visited Clinton previously. The picture
purported to show Clay Shaw and Oswald in front with Ferrie and Guy Banister
(who never made it to the version of events testified to by the Clinton eight)
in the back. Obviously, if Garrison had a photo that accurately depicted Oswald
in a vehicle with Shaw in Clinton (or anywhere else), he would have used it
against Shaw at his trial. The fact that there apparently was no such photo
makes the case for the use of a composite picture by Garrison to color witness
testimony.
The
second revelation was what Registrar of Voters Henry Palmer (who Lambert names
as the original tipster in the Clinton affair) told Fruge and Dischler about
Oswald’s visit to Clinton. Palmer said that Oswald had actually registered to
vote and had signed the register. He further stated that the signature had been
erased, and someone else had signed over it. When Fruge and Dischler tried to
get a copy the next day, the page in question was suddenly “missing”. This
account differs significantly from Palmer’s testimony at the Shaw trial when he
stated that Oswald didn’t register to vote because he couldn’t meet the
requirements. The implication again is that Garrison (or an aide) was
micro-managing the investigation and had second thoughts about “Oswald” signing
the register.
The
final revelation taken from Dischler’s notes concerns witness Corrie Collins.
At the Shaw trial, Collins testified that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, got out
of the infamous black car. However, according to Dischler’s notes, Collins said
two men got out of the car, one wearing blue jeans and one dressed in white.
Dischler was not able to definitely identify the man in jeans (although Collins
though he might have been a “Morgan”), but she determined the man in white to
be Winslow Foster, an employee of the hospital.
Through
some good detective work, Lambert was able to identify the second man and offer
a plausible explanation to what really happened at Clinton. First, through
interviews she determined that Foster “always wore white” because of his work
at the hospital. Her interview with a former wife of Estus Morgan (who
frequently wore jeans and was named as one of two white men in line at Clinton
by Palmer) revealed that Morgan had worked at the hospital and was friendly
with Foster. Finally, Lambert shows that Morgan’s real-life situation mirrored
that of “Oswald”. Morgan also wanted a job at the hospital and showed up in the
voter registration line. Lambert maintains that Morgan’s “profile” was merely
shifted to Oswald and in fact, Winslow Foster and Estes Morgan were the two men
seen getting out of the black car not Shaw and Oswald. She also suggests that
Garrison pulled the two investigators off the case before they could interview
Foster and discover the entire truth.
JFK
the Film
Lambert
devotes a full chapter to Stone’s film and makes some solid observations. The
complete list of falsehoods and distortions in JFK is beyond the scope of this
review and could be a book in itself, but some discussed by Lambert are:
Conclusion
Patricia
Lambert has done a tremendous service with the publication of False Witness.
This book should be required reading for anyone seeing JFK; in fact,
they should sell it at Blockbuster Video. I believe that the opinion of Stone
and his film among the general public would be much different if it were. Stone
knew, however, that the average movie-goer (especially generation “X” types)
would not be knowledgeable about the subject, and he would be free to rewrite
history.
Stone’s
motive in all this? Money, of course, but also he sought in this film (as he
had in Nixon and Born on the Fourth of July, among others) to
inject meaning into his own Vietnam experience. Garrison’s motive in
prosecuting Shaw in the first place? Most likely, he sought publicity that he
hoped would help him attain higher office.
In
addition to the material discussed in this review, Lambert adds a full chapter
on the Christenberry decision in which Garrison was prevented from further
prosecution of Shaw. Also included is an appendix, which lists the many lies
and distortions of Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins.
In
False Witness, Lambert shows without a doubt that Jim Garrison’s case
against Clay Shaw was completely without merit. She also demonstrates that any
film based on this miscarriage of justice would be congenitally flawed This is a landmark work and should be
required reading for anyone studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
particularly Garrison’s investigation.