29 September 1967
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Clay L. Shaw's Trial and the Central
Intelligence Agency
1. This memorandum is for information
2. The investigation of District Attorney Garrison of
New Orleans into the assassination of President Kennedy, and his
attack on the Warren Commission report, now focuses on one facet-
-the trial of Clay L. Shaw, who has been indicted for conspiracy
to assassinate the President. In his public announcements
Garrison has been careful not to reveal his theory of the trial.
Technically, he could restrict himself to an attempt to prove a
conspiracy among Shaw, Oswald, the pilot Ferrie, and possibly
others without involving CIA at all. As we understand Louisiana
law, Garrison will have to prove at least one overt act in
pursuance of the conspiracy, and with Oswald and Ferrie both
dead, we do not at the moment know of such an act which he could
prove.
3. We speculate, therefore, that he will try to involve
others and bring out testimony that they were involved in such
things as the movement of arms and money in pursuance of the
conspiracy. Again, conceivably, this could be done without
involving CIA. Indeed, in his most recent pronouncements,
Garrison has been concentrating on an unidentified group of
Dallas oil men of the extreme right-wing type, who he says were
the instigators, backers, and real controllers of the conspiracy.
He plays the recurring theme, however, that those who actually
carried out the assassination were people who had been associated
with CIA and that CIA had set up Oswald as the "patsy" to detract
attention from the true assassins. He also says that CIA is a
part of a giant conspiracy on the part of "the establishment" and
the Dallas oil men to conceal the true facts. It would seem
probable, therefore, that Garrison would attempt to involve CIA
in the Shaw trial, and from what we know, he should be able to
produce witnesses who can testify at least to some peripheral
connection with his case. Despite the fact that Garrison's
theories are basically and preposterously false, therefore, he
may well be able to involve CIA in the Shaw trial.
4. Garrison has thrown out so many theories, names, and
efforts in different contexts that it is difficult to construct a
clear scenario, bit the following speculations will serve to
illustrate the problems with which we will be faced if Garrison
pursues this course:
a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, might testify that
Ferrie was a friend of Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was
associated with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front
(CDRF) until January or February 1962 and that Ferrie and
Arcacha Smith were involved in a cache of arms in 1961.
Garrison attempted to extradite Arcacha Smith from Texas
to testify before the Grand Jury but was not successful.
[REDACTED]
b. Rudolph Ricardo Davis might testify about a
training camp across the lake from New Orleans, possibly
at Lacombe, Louisiana, run by a Cuban exile group (MDC)
not affiliated with CIA, and that connected with this
camp were Victor Paneque and Fernando Fernandez. Davis
claims he met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection
with anti-Castro activities. Paneque was also identified
by Quiroga, the possible witness mentioned above, as
having been in charge of the training camp at Lacombe,
which Garrison falsely asserts was run by CIA.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
c. Garrison has questioned a Cuban named Santana
after which Garrison inferred that Santana owned a rifle
like Oswald's. Garrison alleges that Santana was in
Dealy [sic] Plaza at the time of the assassination on
orders of the alleged conspirators Shaw, Oswald, Ferrie,
and Arcacha Smith. [REDACTED]
d. Garrison's office has questioned a Carlos
Bringuier, who denied any CIA contact. But, according to
reports, Garrison will try to introduce evidence that
Bringuier had knowledge of an alleged affiliation of
Oswald with CIA. Also, according to the Warren
Commission report, there was an altercation and fight
between Oswald and Bringuier in August 1963 and a radio
debate between them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald
identified himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had some
contact with the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans
office [REDACTED]
e. Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D.
Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers,
Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CIA. Garrison says he can
prove that Novel, along with Arcacha Smith and others,
robbed a munitions bunker at Houma, Louisiana at the
instigation of CIA. Garrison may claim that this robbery
was one of the overt acts of the conspiracy. Actually,
Novel has never at any time had any association with the
Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin.
f. Donald P. Norton has been questioned at
length by Garrison, and Norton has falsely claimed in a
newspaper article that he worked for CIA from 1957 to
1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $50,000, which
he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald. Here
again Garrison may claim that this is the overt act in
the conspiracy. There is no truth in Norton's story in
any respect.
5. We could continue to speculate about some of the
other names involved, but the foregoing is sufficient to
illustrate the potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA's
connections and interrelationships would be enough to at least
confuse a jury thoroughly. Shaw's lawyers have no way of
refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the
witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their
stories. They have so far no Government information which they
can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA,
is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel
stories, which are wholly untrue, it would have to make some
partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana,
and possibly Paneque, Bringuier, and others. Shaw himself was a
contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from
1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director
of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans
Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma,
the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if
any effort is made by either the prosecution or defense to
involve CIA in the trial, the Government will claim executive
privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into a claim
that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and
particularly by CIA. No alternative to the claim of privilege
appears to be available, however. To protect the Government's
position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot
take any action publicly to refute Garrison's claims and the
testimony of his witnesses, as the Louisiana judge would almost
certainly take the position that any such public statement would
negate the privilege.
6. At the present time, therefore, there is no action we
can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during
the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information
that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult
decisions. There is one positive aspect at the present time,
which is that outside of Louisiana the U.S. press and public
opinion appear to be extremely skeptical if not scornful of
Garrison's allegations. We can only wait and see whether the
trial will influence this attitude wither way.
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
Clay Bertrand's signature in Clay Shaw's handwriting.
Page 249 of "A Farewell To Justice".
Your Gonna LOVE these next two>>>
SHAW-CIA
Clay Shaw Worked for the
CIA
SUBJECT: Clay L. SHAW (201-813493)
1.
Subject was born on 17 March 1913 in
2.
Standard background information on Subject (parents, marital status, records of
education and employment, etc.) is lacking because SHAW was a contact of the
Domestic Contact Service.
3.
Traces on Subject have been run in RID/Main Index, the index of the Office of
Security and the Central Cover Staff. The first showed only a 1951 FBI interview
with SHAW about a former employee of the
4.
Some of the OO-B reports based on SHAW’s reporting are on hand. They are the
following. (It is noted that the source description identifies the source by job
title.
a.
OO-B 47958, 26 March 1952, concerns a letter written to the public relations
director of the International Trade Mart by one Dr. Jutta SCHALLER, a trade
consultant to the
b.
OO-B-9381, 27 December 1948. Information acquired 18 December 1948. SHAW
(identified by job title) has agreed to lease to the CSR government 1,000 feet
of space for a display of merchandise in
c.
OO-B-4933-49, 14 June 1949, information date late April and early May 1949.
Results of a trip SHAW made in March through May 1949 in West Indies, Central
America, and
d.
OO-B-4934-49, 14 June 1949, same general subject and background as above.
e.
OO-B-4935-49, 14 June 1949, as above.
f.
OO-B-35477, 29 June 1951. Results of a SHAW trip in 1951 in Central and South
America and the
5. On 9 May 1961 General C. P. Cabell,
then DDCI, addressed the Foreign Policy Association of
6. On 3 March 1967 the Washington Star
reported that Garrison had arrested SHAW and had made public charges that SHAW,
FERRIE, OSWALD, and others had plotted to assassination in the apartment of
FERRIE at 3300 Louisiana Parkway, New Orleans. SHAW has said that he never saw
OSWALD. He denies having used the name Clay BERTRAND. Jack S. Martin said that
FERRIE had mentioned SHAW to him. J. Monroe SULLIVAN, executive director of the
San Francisco World Trade Center, told the Associated Press that SHAW was in
7. Memorandum No. 84-67, 3 March 1967,
from Chief
a.
The first contact of the
8. Undated and unsigned memorandum
(probably produced by CI/R & A). The following additional information was
provided by the
investigation.
According to Dave Reitzes at http://www.jfk-online.com/nobertrand.html
:
"It's well known that neither the FBI nor Secret Service could locate
any trace of a "Clay Bertrand" in New Orleans in 1963-64. Not so well
known is the fact that Jim Garrison and his no staff were every bit as
unsuccessful during their later JFK investigation."
Reitzes also says at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw2.htm
:
" It is doubtful that any "Clem Bertrand" ever existed outside
the
imagination of a witness named Perry Raymond Russo"
With due respect to Mr. Reitzes, I seem to have trumped the combined
investigative power of the FBI, Secret Service, and Jim Garrison... by
the simple trick going to the library and poking in some old New
Orleans city directories.
From the Polk City Directory of New Orleans, 1965:
Bertrand, Clem, & Co., Ofc Sups. 500 Camp St. Frank N. Bertrand, pres.
Mrs. Leah Bertrand vp
(street address listing)
Camp Street, up from intersection with Poydras
500 Camp
Bertrand Clem & Co Inc
Ofc Sups
So: There was a "Clem Bertrand & Co. Office Supplies" in New
Orleans,
for some period of time of less than 2 years including whenever in
1964 the research for the 1965 Polk's City Directory was conducted.
And the connection to anything relvent to the case is....
Well, same block of Camp Street as Guy Bannister's office at 544
Camp.
For what it's worth, -- C.M. "Froggy"
Contact Information tomnln@cox.net
Page Visited
Times