False Witness

by Patricia Lambert

  43. p. 251 (294)—There is no evidence that Shaw’s connection with the Italian Centro Mondiale Commerciale and Permindex were part of a secret life as a high-level international intelligence agent. Shaw explained that his involvement with both entities came about when he agreed to serve on the board of directors, and the company then used his name. He said he was unaware of any of its political activities (Phelan–Shaw Interview). Shaw certainly made no effort to keep his association with the group a secret: in 1962 he listed it in the biographical information published in Who’s Who. Had he been aware of the group’s intelligence connection, it seems unlikely that he would have done that.

  44. p. 276 (323)—Richard Helms and Victor Marchetti indicated that Shaw had been a contact of the CIA’s Domestic Contact Service, not that he had been a CIA agent.

  45. p. 252 (296)—Garrison lodged two counts of perjury against Shaw not one, as Garrison indicates here. He charged that Shaw had testified falsely when he said he didn’t know David Ferrie or Lee Harvey Oswald. Why Garrison erased the Oswald half of the perjury charge in his book is unclear, but it is a significant falsification of the record.

  46. p. 286 (335)—Garrison denies ever suggesting that oil billionaires from the southwest financed the assassination. But he did say precisely that, more than once. In a September 22, 1967, interview in Babylon, Long Island, on Station WGLI, Garrison said “oil money helped finance” the assassination and he specifically mentioned a “portion of the Dallas establishment of oil millionaires” (Brener, The Garrison Case, p. 213). On NBC four days later, Garrison stated that the assassination was sponsored by a group of “insanely patriotic oil millionaires” (Garrison interview, “Mike Wallace at Large,” transcript, Sept. 26, 1967). On November 1, 1967, he told a UPI reporter that the Dallas shooting “was a Nazi operation whose sponsors include some of the oil-rich millionaires in Texas.” That same month, in a speech delivered in Los Angeles, Garrison said one of the reasons Kennedy was killed was because he was going after the oil depletion allowance (tax deduction) enjoyed by the oil interests (Los Angeles Free Press, Nov. 17, 1967).

  47. p. 274 (321)—Garrison claims Clay Shaw died under odd circumstances, raising the possibility of foul play, and suggesting that his name belongs on the list of mysterious deaths. This final appalling exploitation of Shaw even in death is, like the rest of Garrison’s allegations about Shaw, unsupported by any evidence. The circumstances of Shaw’s tragic death were in no way suspicious. Shaw had been suffering from terminal cancer for some time and, along with medications, was receiving radiation treatments. Shaw was seen regularly by his doctor, who visited him the day before he died and found him in a near coma. The New Orleans Police Department conducted an inquiry into Shaw’s death and their ten-page report thoroughly detailed his desperate physical condition, his medical appointments, and his physical decline. It described the excruciating reality of his last days and the moment he died, which was witnessed by the friend caring for him (Report of Dets. John Dillmann, Fred Dantagnan and Lt. Robert Mutz, dated Aug. 28, 1974).

  APPENDIX B

  EDWARD O’DONNELL’S REPORT TO

  JIM GARRISON

  Following is a word-for-word reproduction of Edward O’Donnell’s report on the lie-detector test he administered to Perry Russo:

  DETECTIVE BUREAU

  June 20, 1967

  To: Jim Garrison, District Attorney for Parish of Orleans

  From: Sgt. Edward O’Donnell

  Subject: Perry Russo Interview

  Sgt. Edward O’Donnell would report that sometime in the beginning of June 1967 of being summoned to Mr. Andrew Sciambra’s office. Upon meeting Mr. Sciambra, in the District Attorney’s Office, he requested that I give a polygraph examination to one, Perry Russo. I told him I would be available anytime for this service. He informed me that Perry Russo would like to meet me prior to the taking of this test, as he has had a bad experience with Roy Jacob, who had given him a polygraph test sometime this past year. Mr. Sciambra went on to state that he felt Roy Jacob used improper polygraph technique and had antagonized Perry Russo in doing so.

  On Friday afternoon, at approximately 3:00 P.M., June 16, 1967, Mr. Sciambra brought Perry Russo to the Polygraph Room, located at Police Headquarters. I spoke with Perry Russo for approximately one hour at this time. During this interview, Perry Russo inquired about the nature of the polygraph examination. He wanted to know how it works. I explained the technique to him. He then suggested that I should ask him ten or twelve questions which he would submit to me and that he would purposely lie to some of them and see if I could determine which ones he lied to. I told Perry Russo that to demonstrate the polygraph technique for him to pick a number and write it down on a piece of paper and then put this paper in his pocket and not let me know what number he picked. During the test he was to answer no to all of the questions, forcing him to deliberately lie to the number which he picked. This particular type of test is known as a Peak of Tension, type B. This test was concluded and I immediately told Perry Russo the question which he had lied to. Arrangements were then made with Mr. Sciambra and Mr. Perry Russo to have Perry Russo come back within the next few days to take a Standard Polygraph Examination relative to the case in point. It should be noted that while Perry Russo was in the polygraph room at this time, it was impossible to obtain a polygram which could be evaluated. This was because of the subject’s erratic pneumograph tracing which could be caused by general nervous tension or by the fact that the person intended to lie during the test. Perry Russo explained that when the tubing was placed on his chest, it caused an uneasy feeling. Perry Russo and Mr. Sciambra then left this office stating that they would contact me within the next few days to conduct further tests.

  On Monday, June 19, 1967, at about 1:45 PM, Mr. Sciambra brought Perry Russo to the Polygraph Room. Mr. Sciambra then stepped outside and waited in the Traffic Office. I conducted an interview with Perry Russo from 1:45 P.M. until 3:45 P.M. A great deal of this time was spent by Perry Russo talking about himself and his problems. I wrote out a list of questions which I intended to ask Perry Russo during the examination. These questions are as follows: 1—Were you born in New Orleans? 2—Are you 26 years of age? 3—Do you intend trying to lie to me during this test? 4—Have you told me the complete truth about this matter? 5—Do you smoke cigarettes? 6—Did you know David Ferrie? 7—Were you ever at David Ferrie’s apartment on Louisiana Avenue? 8—Do you ever watch TV? 9—Did you ever see Clay Shaw at Ferrie’s apartment? 10—while at Ferrie’s apartment, did you ever meet a person named Leon Oswald? 11—Do you ever drink coffee? 12—While at Ferrie’s apartment, did you hear these people discuss ways to assassinate Kennedy? 13—Did you take part in this discussion? 14—Did you hear Shaw mention the assassination of Kennedy?

  The above questions were read to Perry Russo and he was asked if he understood them and if he could answer yes or no to these questions. He stated that he could, that the questions were perfectly clear to him. I then put the necessary attachments on Perry Russo and attempted to give him a Standard Polygraph Examination, using the above mentioned questions. After asking three questions, the test was stopped due to Perry Russo’s erratic pneumograph tracing and his physical movements. Upon shutting off the instrument and taking the attachments from Perry Russo’s body, the interview continued. Perry Russo expressed that he was under a great deal of pressure and wished that he had never gotten involved in this mess. I told him to forget about the pressures that I only wanted to obtain the truth from him relative to this case. It was explained to him that for his own peace of mind he should examine his conscience and determine what the truth is and once he does this he can stand on the truth now or ten years from now, and not have any misgivings about what he has done. I then told him, you know the questions that I intend to ask you during this test, is there anything you would wish to clarify with me. I then asked him was Clay Shaw at this party, he replied do you want to know the truth, I stated yes, he said I don’t know if he
was there or not. I told Perry that Shaw was the type of a man that if you were to see him, he would stand out in your mind and I asked him if he would give me a no or yes answer to this question. He stated that if he had to give a yes or no answer, he would have to say no. I then asked him why he went into court and positively identified Shaw as being at this party at David Ferrie’s apartment. He stated that Dymond turned him on. The first question Dymond asked me was, do I believe in God. This is an area which I am highly sensitive about. He further stated that prior to going to the preliminary hearing, he was going to state that he did not know if Clay Shaw was at this party or not at this party. He was then asked if this conversation he heard at Dave Ferrie’s apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate Kennedy. He stated, no it did not, it appeared to him like another bull session, like they were always having. He stated that quite frequently he and other people would sit around discussing such topics as the perfect murder or ways of defrauding insurance companies and getting away with it, but this doesn’t mean that they would actually do such a thing. He was then asked to describe the conversation which he heard at David Ferrie’s apartment and he stated that this was very vague in his mind and at this time he could not say who was saying what. He then expressed a desire to me to meet with Clay Shaw. I asked him what reason he would want such a meeting and he stated he would like to talk to Clay Shaw to size him up to determine if he was the kind of a person that would take part in such a plot. He then expressed a desire to me to know the contents of Mr. Garrison’s complete case against Shaw. I asked him why he wanted to know this and he stated this would help him to come to a decision. I then told him that regardless of what Mr. Garrison has or does not have, he should make his own decisions after examining his conscience and determining what the truth is. He then asked me if he could leave and that he would call me later on in the week and he would come back by himself and I could go ahead with the test. I agreed to this and took him outside into the Traffic Office, where he met Mr. Sciambra. I then went upstairs to the District Attorney’s Office, where I met Mr. Garrison and Assistant District Attorney Mr. Alcock and informed them of this interview and what I had learned while conducting this interview.

  Respectfully Submitted,

  Sgt. Edward O’Donnell

  NOTES

  Abbreviations:

  WR: Warren Commission Report (U.S. Government Printing Office edition)

  WC Vol.: The 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits accompanying the Warren Commission Report

  CD: Warren Commission Document

  HSCA: House Select Committee on Assassinations

  HSCA Vol.: The 12 volumes of Hearings and Appendices accompanying the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations

  AARC: Assassination Archives and Research Center

  INTRODUCTION

  1. L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1992), “Introduction” by Oliver Stone, p. xiv.

  2. Robert Scheer, “Oliver Stone Builds His Own Myths,” Los Angeles Times, Calendar, Dec. 1991; Oliver Stone, interview with Larry King, March 23, 1996.

  3. It may be that Harold Weisberg was not the only one maneuvering. Reportedly, in the fall of 1990, Stone was responsible for killing the movie based on Don DeLillo’s book Libra, though Stone denies the charge. The script had been optioned by A&M Films; Phil Joanou had signed on to direct. According to writer Robert Sam Anson, the script was shorter and easier to shoot than Stone’s, meaning that Joanou’s project, if it proceeded, would probably beat Stone’s to the marketplace. But it didn’t proceed. Allegedly, people at Stone’s agency (then headed by Mike Ovitz, said to be the most powerful man in Hollywood at the time) warned actors who had been interested “against questionable career moves,” and they withdrew. Supposedly, Stone himself called the director, and he too backed away from the project. Stone has claimed the Libra script just wasn’t good enough to make the grade and that no single person could kill a project in Hollywood (Robert Sam Anson, “The Shooting of JFK,” Esquire, Nov. 1991, pp. 101, 102). Yet a movie project can fall apart for the slightest reason, and there was nothing slight about the forces arrayed against Libra.

  4. David Baron, “Oliver’s Story,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, Lagniappe, May 24, 1991.

  5. Brent Staples, “History by Default: The Blame Transcends Oliver Stone,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 1991, in JFK: The Book of the Film (New York: Applause Books, 1992), pp. 311–312.

  6. George F. Will, “Oliver Stone Gives Paranoia a Bad Name,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 24, 1991.

  7. The four occasions: David Ferrie’s death; Perry Russo’s story exposed as a fraud by writer James Phelan; Clay Shaw’s acquittal; the 1971 decision by federal Judge Herbert W. Christenberry.

  CHAPTER ONE

  1. James Phelan, “Clay Shaw,” interview (hereinafter Phelan–Shaw Interview), Penthouse, Nov. 1969.

  2. Clay Shaw, “Journal” (hereinafter Shaw Journal), p. 11; New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 2, 1967; Phelan–Shaw Interview.

  3. Shaw Journal, pp. 12–14; Phelan–Shaw Interview; New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 2, 1967.

  4. Shaw Journal, pp. 14–15; James Kirkwood, “Surviving,” Esquire, Dec. 1968; Phelan–Shaw Interview. Shaw later recalled the test requested was a lie-detector test. But Salvatore Panzeca also said the first test Garrison mentioned to him was truth serum (F. Irvin Dymond, William J. Wegmann and Salvatore Panzeca, interview with author, Sept. 3, 1993 [hereinafter Dymond et al. Interview]).

  5. Shaw Journal, pp. 15–16; Dymond et al. Interview.

  6. Dymond et al. Interview.

  7. Shaw Journal, pp. 14–16; Dymond et al. Interview.

  8. Dymond et al. Interview; Shaw Journal, pp. 15–16; William Gurvich, grand jury testimony, June 28, 1967, pp. 18–20; Milton Brener, telephone conversation with author, Feb. 7, 1994. Regarding Garrison’s decision to arrest Shaw, Brener said, “Shaw defied him,” referring to Shaw’s refusal to take the test Garrison requested.

  9. Dymond et al. Interview; Shaw Journal, pp. 16–17; New Orleans Times-Picayunee, March 2, 1967.

  10. Shaw Journal, p. 16; New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 2, 1967.

  11. Cynthia Wegmann, interview with author, Nov. 3, 1993; Shaw Journal, p. 17.

  12. Shaw Journal, p. 17; William J. Wegmann, telephone conversation with author, July 23, 1998; New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 2, 1967; Dymond et al. Interview.

  13. Shaw Journal, pp. 17–19; Christenberry transcript, pp. 373 (Louis Ivon), 462 (Clay Shaw); New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 2, 1967.

  CHAPTER TWO

  1. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1988), p 8.

  2. FBI Memorandum, dated June 21, 1967, from W.A. Branigan to W.C. Sullivan. Earling R. Garrison’s FBI Identification Division Record Number was 268658 (FBIHQ Main File 67-446884, James Carothers Garrison). See also “Records of Birth, Crawford County, Iowa,” p. 86; History of Crawford County Iowa, Vol. 2, pp. 67–69 (in the archives of the State Historical Society of Iowa); “Earling Garrison Lodged in Jail Here Sunday,” Denison Review, April 23, 1930; “Judge Peter S. Klinker Holds Court Here Sat.,” The Denison Bulletin, April 30, 1930.

  3. Pershing Gervais, telephone conversation with author, March 15, 1994.

  4. FBI Report by J. M. Lopez, regarding James Carothers Garrison, Bureau Applicant—Special Agent, Jan. 13, 1951. (FBIHQ Main File 67-446884, James Carothers Garrison.)

  5. When Garrison was making headlines about the Kennedy assassination sixteen years later, an enterprising agent noticed that five years after leaving the FBI Garrison wrote about his father on a military form: “address ‘unknown.’ ” This anomaly prompted a routine identification check that turned up Earling R. Garrison and his criminal record.

  6. Judith Dorcas Garrison had been confined sometime prior to 1951 (see Jim Garrison’s 1951 militar
y medical history). One year later, after his background investigation had been completed and he had been accepted by the Bureau, Garrison listed his sister’s name on one of his FBI appointment forms.

  7. Jim Garrison, military medical history, 1951.

  8. Dymond et al. Interview.

  9. New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan. 15, 1962; Milton E. Brener, The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1969), p. 5.

  10. James Phelan, “The Vice Man Cometh,” The Saturday Evening Post, June 1963.

  11. Rosemary James and Jack Wardlaw, Plot or Politics?: The Garrison Case And Its Cast (New Orleans: Pelican Publishing House, 1967), p. 19.

  12. Brener, The Garrison Case, p. 6. In the acrimonious run-off campaign that followed, both men leveled charges at each other. Garrison, in the first notable public display of his sensitivity to criticism, filed a libel suit against Dowling.

  13. Garrison’s victory in the general election was a foregone conclusion. As explained in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on March 5, 1962: “Winning the Democratic primary in New Orleans, has been tantamount to election since the Reconstruction era of the last century.”

  14. David Chandler, “The Devil’s D.A.,” New Orleans magazine, Nov. 1966, p. 31; Gene Roberts, “The Case of Jim Garrison and Lee Oswald,” The New York Times Magazine, May 21, 1967, p. 33. One of Pershing Gervais’s “infractions” was stealing Police Department graft money twice and blowing it on two heady first-class trips to New York City.