Phelan’s five-page article was filled with snide characterizations, half-truths, and innuendo. But he saved his harshest blast for the end. He wrote that when assistant DA Sciambra first interviewed Perry Russo, his notes made no mention of the party at Ferrie’s. Phelan then suggested that all of Russo’s testimony at the preliminary hearing had been pumped into him under drugs and hypnosis by Dr. Chetta and Dr. Fatter. It did not matter to Phelan that both Russo and Sciambra denied this to his face before he went to press. Nor that Russo had talked about the fateful party at Ferrie’s to the Baton Rouge press and television before Sciambra had ever met with him.105 When Phelan appeared on camera for Sheridan, he said essentially the same thing. He went on to say the same to James Kirkwood in his 1970 book on the Shaw trial, American Grotesque. And he repeated the same story in his 1982 book, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels. What is astonishing about this is that not only did the mainstream media accept Phelan’s story readily, but that even those in the Kennedy research community did so. Further, when asked, James Phelan never revealed his background as a compromised journalist who had ties to government agencies. The public had to wait for the declassification process of the ARRB to ascertain the facts about Phelan’s checkered past.
Now that we know much more about him, there are many paths one can follow in order to understand what Phelan did in the Garrison investigation. A good place to start is his long association with Robert Loomis. Loomis was a former top editor at Random House who was known for sanctioning books that specialized in concealing the true facts about the assassinations of the sixties: in 1993 he sponsored Gerald Posner’s infamous Case Closed; in 1970 it was Robert Houghton’s book on the RFK case, Special Unit Senator; and then again, he helped publish Posner’s 1998 book on the King case, Killing the Dream. The reader should note, not only did Loomis help get these spurious books published, he got them out at timely moments in history. The Houghton book was published right after the trial of Sirhan Sirhan. The John F. Kennedy book was out at the 30th anniversary of his death. The King book was also published at the 30th anniversary, and in the midst of a swirling controversy about that case due to legal proceedings instituted by attorney William Pepper in Memphis. Well, Loomis was the editor for Phelan’s 1982 book which featured a long and derogatory chapter on the Garrison case.
Before Phelan ever got to New Orleans and Shaw’s preliminary hearing, he had already done work for government agencies. In Garrison’s files adduced for the ARRB, there is a report of a private investigator who went to visit Phelan unannounced. His pretext was that he wanted to ask him about an interview Phelan had done for Penthouse Magazine with Clay Shaw. The investigator asked Phelan if he was familiar with reporters being used by the CIA in planting stories. Phelan said he knew of this process of compromising journalists. But his personal ethics as a reporter would not allow him to compromise a story, or a source for a story. Further, he would never reveal the contents of any story prior to publication to anyone, especially to someone connected to a government agency. The visitor now showed Phelan declassified documents revealing two reporters, one working for the Saturday Evening Post, who were being used by the FBI in counterintelligence programs against the Klan. Since the Post had been Phelan’s primary employer, Phelan now began to grow a bit uneasy and started stroking his arm.
The investigator now showed Phelan a photocopy of an article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post in March of 1964. It was by Phelan about L. Ron Hubbard. The investigator then asked who the man at Saturday Evening Post was who assigned him the article about Hubbard. Phelan said he could not recall who it was. Phelan was then asked if he was ever assigned to write an article by the FBI, CIA, or the FDA. Phelan said this had never occurred. Phelan was then shown a copy of a letter from an editor at the Post consenting for the magazine to be used by the FDA for an attack on Hubbard. Phelan read the letter slowly and again got nervous. Phelan was then asked if he had ever been asked by an agency of government to furnish either his notes for a story or his interview notes to them before his article was published. Phelan denied this had ever happened. Phelan was now shown declassified documents revealing that this was precisely what he had done in relation to his Hubbard story. In his report, the PI writes, “As Phelan read the three documents he started breathing very heavily and started making some types of moaning sounds. He then grabbed one arm and stroked it.”106
The reader should especially note here that not only was Phelan a willing conduit for a government agency, but then when asked if he was on a covert assignment, he continually lied about this aspect of his professional life. When, in fact, to anyone who carefully examined his career it would, at the very least, suggest itself. Needless to say, when the ARRB began to declassify documents on the Garrison investigation it was revealed that Phelan again did what he had denied he had done. He had gone to the FBI and turned over documents he had attained as a result of his interview with Garrison in Las Vegas in early 1967. In an April 3, 1967 FBI memo, it is revealed that R. E. Wick wrote to Cartha DeLoach that he had agreed to see Phelan reluctantly. Phelan was trying to pump Garrison for details about his investigation but was disappointed that the DA would return to criticism of the Warren Report.107 Having had personal conversations with Phelan prior to the declassification of these FBI documents, the author can say that when asking Phelan these very questions about his dealings with Garrison, the pattern was repeated. That is, he denied informing to any government agency about the DA, and he also denied turning over any documents from his work product. In these FBI documents he requested that the Bureau not reveal his name. Therefore he probably thought he could maintain a false veneer of independence and deceive everyone about it. But after the ARRB review, Phelan was now exposed as lying about this crucial matter a second time. Needless to say, if the public had been informed about this past history, they likely would not have taken his writings about the DA at face value.
An important part of Phelan’s rendition about his encounter with Russo in Baton Rouge was his asking him when he first mentioned the name of Clem Bertrand. For instance, Phelan told James Kirkwood that in Baton Rouge, Russo did not say anything about Clay Shaw as Bertrand, nor did he mention the gathering at Ferrie’s home.108 As the reader can see from the citation above, Russo did mention the gathering in a Baton Rouge newspaper. But further, there was a third party with Phelan when he went to see Russo for the first time after Garrison let him read Andrew Sciambra’s memorandum about his Baton Rouge interview with Russo. This man’s name was Matt Herron. Herron was a photographer for various large circulation magazines, including the Post. When Phelan discussed Herron with this author, he always clearly insinuated that it was no use talking to him, since Herron would back up Phelan’s version of the encounter. That is, Herron also heard Russo say that the first time he had mentioned Bertrand at the gathering was in New Orleans.109 In fact, in a phone conversation with the author, Phelan actually said that Herron had lost faith in Garrison after this.110 Therefore, no one thought it was worth the trouble to find Herron. Even though he would be the deciding vote in the matter, because Sciambra and Russo disagreed with what Phelan had written about this issue.111 In fact, Phelan actually told Kirkwood that after they left Russo’s house, he told Herron to recall what Russo had just said since “someday you’re going to be in court on this and I’m going to have to tell this story and you’re my witness.”112
Kirkwood was a lousy investigator. Because this is now exposed as another Phelan canard. After all these documents impeaching Phelan’s credibility had now been exposed to the light of day, this author decided that if Phelan was willing to lie about such important matters as cooperating with the FBI and FDA, and turning over documents to them in advance of an article, then would it not be consistent that he would also lie about Matt Herron? That is, to camouflage his own story by discouraging anyone from communicating with the man. After all, contrary to what Phelan told Kirkwood, Herron was not called as a witness for the defense at Shaw�
��s trial. Why would Dymond not call him if he bolstered Phelan’s version of his encounter with Russo? So the author looked up Mr. Herron and talked to him on two occasions. On both occasions, Herron said that Russo had told them that he mentioned Bertrand in Baton Rouge. And further, that Russo’s statements on this were very strong in 1967. Because of this, Herron was surprised when he read Russo’s testimony at the Shaw trial. He felt that, for whatever reason, it was now diluted.113 If you are counting, this is now three lies to three different people that Phelan told. Actually four lies, since he not only lied about Russo, but about what Herron would say about him. (As we will see in the discussion of the Shaw trial, Phelan told another lie about Russo in public.)
Let us address other misrepresentations by Phelan. The reason that Garrison met with Phelan and told him about his Kennedy inquiry in the first place is that Phelan had written a long story in the Post about Garrison’s attempt to clean up the French Quarter. But as it turned out, Phelan did not write that story. It was written by local reporter David Chandler. Phelan changed it ever so slightly and then took the byline.114 This might be the reason Garrison trusted Phelan and agreed to meet with him in Las Vegas to discuss the case with him at length. Also, on Sheridan’s program, Phelan called Sciambra Garrison’s first assistant. This was not accurate. John Volz was Garrison’s first assistant at the time. In Kirkwood’s book, Phelan describes Bill Gurvich as Garrison’s chief investigator. Again, this is not true. Lou Ivon was Garrison’s chief investigator. He then says that Gurvich was deeply troubled by what Phelan had learned about Russo and Sciambra. This is stage decoration by Phelan. Gurvich could not have been greatly disappointed since, as we have seen, he never believed in Garrison’s case anyway. He was on assignment.
It is necessary now to explain why Phelan found it necessary to lie about Matt Herron. The strategy utilized by Phelan and Sheridan was to state that Russo had all these memories about Bertrand, Ferrie, Russo, and Oswald discussing an assassination plot drugged into him by Nicolas Chetta and Dr. Esmond Fatter. Chetta applied the sodium pentothal—commonly called truth serum—and Fatter conducted the hypnosis and then questioned Russo. When one reads these sessions in the correct order, one can see that there was no leading of the witness by Fatter. The author was fortunate enough to attain these transcripts directly from Garrison’s files, even before the ARRB got hold of them.115 When the two sessions are arranged in the correct order, as Garrison marked them, it is manifest that “Russo quite clearly and unequivocally describes Bertrand all by himself.”116 James Phelan and Shaw’s lawyers quoted them out of sequence to make it seem that Russo had to be prompted to name Bertrand.
As both Bill Davy and Joe Biles accurately note, what Phelan always referred to as the “first memorandum” is actually the second memorandum. What happened is that when Sciambra went up to visit Russo, the witness orally sketched out the gathering at Ferrie’s and named who was there. He also chose some photographs of the participants. But Sciambra thought it better for recall, and also for truthfulness, that Russo be put under sodium penothal and hypnosis for his actual description of the discussion. Therefore, he interviewed Russo about all the other things that ended up in the actual second memorandum, such as Russo’s relationship with Ferrie, Ferrie’s obsession with Kennedy, and the other times he saw Shaw/Bertrand, etc. As Biles points out, this is easy enough to discern by just looking at the signature block of the memo about the gathering at Ferrie’s where an assassination was discussed. That date is February 28, 1967. The second memorandum, about the lesser details, was done about a week after Shaw’s arrest, around March 6.117 Further, it was this first memo, misrepresented by Phelan, that served as the basis for Lou Ivon’s search warrant. In that warrant, Ivon writes about what Russo had said under truth serum and he adds the following: “That the said confidential informant while under the sodium pentothal verified, corroborated, and reaffirmed his earlier statements”118 (italics added). Since Sciambra had still not finished his memorandum about the other things Russo had said to him, then clearly Sciambra had already related to Ivon what Russo had said in Baton Rouge about the gathering at Ferrie’s apartment. That is why Ivon used the word “reaffirmed.” And finally, as Biles points out: If all the things Russo had to say were really not that important, then why would Garrison OK the request by Sciambra to put him under hypnosis and truth serum?
The other objections to Russo’s testimony are that in a TV interview he did before he was administered truth serum he was asked about Oswald and Ferrie. He said he did not recall Oswald being associated with Ferrie.119 But the point is that the man Russo identified was Leon Oswald, not Lee Harvey Oswald. And in fact, the evidence today is pretty much decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time. For instance, Sylvia Odio, one of the best and most important witnesses in this case, said that two Cubans came to her house in late September of 1963 with a Caucasian man they called Leon Oswald.120 Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963. Nagell said that this Leon Oswald was meant as a Second Oswald and was working with the anti-Castro Cubans, he was not at all pro-Castro.121 Raymond Broshears, a friend of Ferrie’s, also spoke about a Leon Oswald. He described him as resembling Oswald.122 Michael Kurtz interviewed rightwing witnesses in Baton Rouge who recalled meeting an Oswald who was introduced to them as Leon Oswald in July and August of 1963. This happened more than once, and on his last visit to the area, Leon Oswald was accompanied by two Latins.123 David F. Lewis, who once worked for Banister, said that he was introduced to a man named Leon Oswald by Sergio Arcacha Smith’s right hand man Carlos Quiroga at Mancuso’s Restaurant in late 1962.124 It is doubtful this was the real Lee Harvey Oswald since he was still living in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at the time. All of this testimony strongly suggests that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald. Niles Peterson, who was a friend of Russo’s and briefly attended the gathering, told William Davy and Peter Vea that there was a Leon Oswald there.125 This author believes that it was this man—not Lee Harvey Oswald—who was at Ferrie’s the night of the gathering described by Russo.
In the light of all this new evidence, it is startling that some serious and intelligent people still take James Phelan seriously. Clearly, Phelan was on a mission. And like the intelligence assets they were, he and Sheridan were out to politicize, polarize, and propagandize Garrison’s case any which way they could. What is surprising is that they were so successful for so long.
Hugh Aynesworth: CIA Applicant
Coordinated to appear in conjunction with Phelan’s Saturday Evening Post piece, Aynesworth’s article appeared nine days after Phelan’s. On May 15, 1967, Newsweek published his “J.F.K. Conspiracy,” the most violent attack on Garrison’s investigation thus far. The first two sentences set the tone for what followed: “Jim Garrison is right. There has been a conspiracy in New Orleans— but it is a plot of Garrison’s own making.”126 The piece made numerous bizarre accusations against Garrison: that the investigation had financially ruined several men; that the DA’s office had offered a witness 3,000 dollars and a job to give false testimony; that Garrison’s staff had threatened to murder a witness; that Garrison himself had threatened a man who tried to talk him out of his probe; that Russo had testified at the preliminary hearing under post-hypnotic suggestion; that Garrison was holding the citizenry of New Orleans in terror in order to manufacture more headlines; and that Garrison’s theory of the assassination had gone through so many changes that his conspirator was now a composite of “Oswald, homosexual, rightwing extremist, FBI agent, Cosa Nostra hood, CIA operative and Russian double-agent.”127
To understand how someone could conjure up such a fantasy—with utter disregard for the canon of reporting ethics—one has to understand who Aynesworth was and is, and how protected he was. At the time of the assassination he was a conservative reporter at the Dallas Morning News.128 According to Hugh he was in Dealey Plaza on November 22. At times he says he was at the scene of Tippi
t’s murder. He has also maintained he was at the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested. Finally, he has written that he was in the basement of the Dallas Police Department when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. The problem is that its difficult to find evidence for him being at any of these places at the time he says she was—let alone all four of them. In spite of that, it seems that he quickly made the decision that he was going to make a career out of the Kennedy assassination. He also decided that he was going to try and keep the Commission honest. With Aynesworth that meant portraying Oswald as not just a lone assassin but as a serial political killer. On July 21, 1964, Aynesworth’s colleague, rightwing syndicated journalist Holmes Alexander, wrote a revealing column about Hugh. The implication was that the local Dallas reporter did not trust Earl Warren to helm the Commission. He was therefore conducting his own inquiry. He had talked to Marina Oswald and she had told him that Oswald had also threatened to kill Richard Nixon. The portrait of Oswald slowly emerging from the small amount of information put out by the Commission was that “of a hard-driven, politically radical Leftist … If the full report follows the expected line, Oswald will be shown as a homicidal maniac.” Alexander concludes with a thinly veiled threat: If the Commission’s verdict “jibes with that of Aynesworth’s independent research, credibility will be added to its findings. If [it] does not there will be some explaining to do.” Clearly, Alexander had communicated with Aynesworth. And his view of the case, at this relatively early date, was as skewed as his friend’s. For no objective person could possibly label Aynesworth’s inquiry as “independent.” To use one example: Aynesworth’s story about Marina and Nixon was so far out that not even the Warren Commission bought into it.129 For as the Commission noted, Nixon was not even in Dallas until several months after the alleged incident. And there was no announcement in the papers that Nixon was going to be there at this time period. Clearly, Aynesworth was manipulating a witness, in this case Marina Oswald, to achieve his own political agenda.
Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, & the Garrison Case Page 37
