Path: spool.mu.edu!vms.csd.mu.edu!6489MCADAMSJ From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Re: Dean Andrews (Was: Rose Cheramie) Date: 13 Oct 1993 02:14:42 GMT Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services Lines: 135 Distribution: world Message-ID: <00973ECD.D1E9FE60@vms.csd.mu.edu> References: <009733BD.84967F00@vms.csd.mu.edu> <0097354C.498A5C20@vms.csd.mu.edu> ,<28srtn$jd8@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> <009739D8.3B1D3C80@vms.csd.mu.edu>,<28v6gg$it3@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu In article <28v6gg$it3@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: >|> >|> I'm afraid this reflects the disturbing tendency of conspiratorialists >|> to judge a witness credible merely because the witness tells some sort >|> of conspiracy story. >|> >|> Judged by any independent standard, Andrews has no credibility. >|> > > >As usual, John, you purport to "discredit" testimony simply by disbelieving >it and by attacking the individual, asserting that the individual is >incredible-- ad hominem hidden under the mask of rationality. You have >yet to discredit the testimony as being unfactual in the face of contradictory >information whose truth is generally considered to be superior. > >I wait with baited breath for your detailed analysis of Andrews's historical >inaccuracies. And, I wait with baited breath for you to actually read and >critique his testimony, probably for the first time ever. > OK, Andrews testimony. Let's talk about a central issue. Who was Clay Bertrand? First, Andrews told the FBI that story about Bertrand being mostly a "voice on the phone" who called up to get legal help for the "gay kids" who had been rounded up by the police. Bertrand had supposedly suggested Andrews to to Dallas to represent Oswald. Then, he apparently told the FBI that Clay Bertrand was just a figment of his imagination. Liebeler asked him about this in the WC hearings. MR. LIEBELER: Let me ask you about this: When I was down here in April, before I talked to you about this thing, and I was going to take your deposition at that time, but we didn't make arrangements, in your continuing discussions with the FBI, you finally came to the conclusion that Clay Bertrand was a figment of your imagination? MR. ANDREWS: That's what the Feebees [FBI agents] put on. I know that the two Feebees are going to put these people on the street looking, and I can't find the guy, and I am not going to tie up all the agents on something that isn't that solid. I told them, "Write what you want, that I am nuts. I don't care." They were running on the time factor, and the hills were shook up plenty to get it, get it, get it. I couldn't give it to them. I have been playing cops and robbers with them. You can tell when the steam is on. They are on you like the plague. They never leave. They are like cancer. Eternal . . . . IOW, I was trying to save the FBI trouble running around trying to find somebody they weren't going to be able to find. At any rate, Andrews then proceeded to go on and tell the WC that there was indeed a Clay Bertrand. So let's go forward to Jim Garrison's grand jury in New Orleans. Garrison's people wanted him to identify Clay Shaw as Clay Bertrand. Andrews was uncertain. "I can't say he is and I can't say he ain't . .. . . I cannot say positively, under oath, that he is Clay Bertrand or he is not." After the grand jury indicted him for perjury, Andrews changed his story. He went back before the grand jury and told them that he had known all along that Clay Shaw was *not* Clay Bertrand. He went on to say that Clay Bertrand was just a name he invented to protect a bartender friend who called him while he was in the hospital but had no connection with Oswald or the assassination. This confession got him convicted of perjury. Then let's go forward to the Clay Shaw trial. The *defense* put Andrews on the stand, and had him say that the "Clay Bertrand" he had talked to was not Clay Shaw. The prosecution pressed him to tell who Clay Bertrand really *was.* He said Bertrand was really Gene Davis. But Gene Davis had *nothing to do* with any suggestion that Andrews go to Dallas to represent Oswald. ANDREWS: At the time Mr. Leibeler was questioning me, it is just as it is in the courtroom, rapid fire. It was an informal meeting. I didn't place too much importance to why an insignificant person like myself would even be called. I answered the best I could at that time. I didn't deliberately lie. I might have overloaded by mouth with the importance of being a witness in front of the Warren Report, but other than that I didn't deliberately lie. I think the only explanation I can give you is my mouth ran ahead of my brain. ALCOCK [assistant DA]: Do you recall telling Mr. Liebeler that you saw Clay Bertrand six weeks prior to the time that he questioned you? ANDREWS: Well, I figured that wasn't material. You can call it a lie if you want, I call it huffing and puffing. ALCOCK: Huffing and puffing under oath? ANDREWS: Bull session. Alcock then went on to ask: "you are now telling this court under oath that *no one* called you on behalf of the representation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas?" Andrews response: "Per se, my answer is yes, no one called me to say that." Shall we summarize to this point? Andrews said: 1.) a Clay Bertrand called to suggest he represent Oswald, then 2.) Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination, then 3.) a Clay Bertrand called to suggest he represent Oswald, then 3a.) the Clay Bertrand who called to suggest he represent Oswald might or might not have been Clay Shaw, then 4.) the Clay Bertrand who called (but said nothing about representing Oswald) most definitely *wasn't* Clay Shaw. 4a.) He later added this person was really Gene Davis. All the above is taken from Kirkwood's fine AMERICAN GROTESQUE. So, is this guy credible, or not? ..John