the wegmann files - kennedys and king - kennedys and king
TRANSCRIPT
Inside Clay Shaw'sDefense Team:
l=
The Wegmann Files
What the defense lffiew,and didnT share...
rl..,until 1995.
By Jim DiEugenio
In preparing his book Care Closed, GeraldPosner secured access to the files of the lateEdward Wegmann. He gained access throughWegmann's daughrer Clrrrhia, who now prac-tices law inNew Orleans. Wegmann, who diedin 1989, was Clay Shaw's longtime friend andcivil attomey. To my knowledge, Posner wasthe first author to access and use the Wee-mann files for a book on theJFK case. posnei,who wrote about the New Orleans scene(Shaw, Jim Garison, and Oswald). used thesefiles to back up much of what he wrote re-garding Jim Garrison's invesrigation. To noone's surprise, Posner did pretty much whatthe likes ofJames Phelan, Hugh Aynesworth,and Walter Sheridan did thiny years earlier.He voted the stlaight pafty line on New Or-leans: Garrison was a deluded, panly comrptmegalomaniac; Shaw was the cultivared, up-standing gentleman victimized by the runawiyDA. Conceming Oswald's activities there, theCrescenr Ciry amounred to a bunch of fasci-nating loose ends adding up ro very little.
One wonders if he truly read and under-stood what was in the Wegrnann files.
It wasn'r until t}le summer of 1995 thatthe public was able to gain access to the Weg-mann files. At the ARRB hearine in New Oi-leans on June 28th of thar yiar, CynthiaWegmann tumed over the extant files b theBoard. Ms. Wegmann's comments to theBoard showed that she was in complere agree-ment with Posner on the issue of Garison,scase against Shaw. Among other things, shesaid she was outraged at the recent trearmentof Shaw in Oliver Stone's,lFKi
.. .CIayShau/'s name remains besmirched, he canbe podrayed as a buffoon in tilms, the true natureofthe man has been hidden and deslroyed. I be_lieve that anyone who lak€s a look attheie recoros'rillrealize how amorphous, how litfle evidence, itany, there was, and it's for this rcason that mvmother and land my brothers would l ike to mak;this record available to the oublic.
These remarks are quite loqical and ex_pected considering who her fat-her was andconsidering the fact that, according to a fileletterdated 11,/3,/69, she spent vacition timehorseback riding with Aynisworth.
As noted above, posner,s finqers are evl-dent in rhese files. The ones he ised are for_ever.stamped wirh his identifying posr_irs,whrch, oi course, raises rhe possibil iry that hemay nave taken rhe originals. Whar is a birsurprising though is how much posner left out.This says much about the Wall Stteet lawver.bur it says even more about Shaw his defenseteam, and indirectly, the value of Garnson.scase..For even though Wegmann was_qurrellteralry-looking for an Oswald_did_ir solu-
contirued on page g
May-arure, r99? piO3E
The Wegmann Filescontinued from page 7
tion to the assassination, he kept on bumpinginto evidence of conspiracy.
Ed Wegmarn had been Shaw's civil attor-ney for more than a decade at the time ofShaw's arest. Shaw had become quite pros-perous as a real estate speculator in the FrenchQuarter area of New Orleans, and he chose
Wegmann to handle the legal side of*rese realestate ffansactions. Ed's partner was hisbrother William, who, to my knowledge, isstill alive. Their associate was Sal Panzeca, whois still around and who, in 1994. worked acrossthe street ftom Bill Wegmann. This trio be-came Shaw's instart defense team in Marchof 1967 when Garrison had him booked forconspiracy in the Kennedy murdei Not oneof them was an expedenced criminal trial at-tomey. Their first choice in this regard was
GuyJohnson, who had been quite close to theWegmanns. In a matter oftwo weeks though,Johnson was dropped. When I questionedPanzeca on this point in 1994, he replied thatalthough Johnson was a fine lawyer, he andEd Wegmarn did not get along. The implica-tion was that there was a personality clash.As we shall see, the files suggest that therewas more to it than that.
Up until rhe Board's acquisition of thiscollection, the standard view of the makeupof Shaw's defense was contained in JamesKirkwood's book Ameican Grctesque, whichwas originally published in 1970. As that bookreveals, Kirkwood had extraordinary access toShaw, his defense atbmeys, and their allies.(This was confirmed to me in a 1993 inrer-view with a former amou! of RosemaryJames,Lyle Bonge). Unfortunately, the picturepainted by Kirkwood is so violently skewedthat the power structure inside the defenseteam was obfuscated. From Kirkwood onecould logically guess that Dymond andPaazeca were the battery energizing the team.Not so. As revealed in these files, the real driv-ing force was the Wegmanns, especially Ed-ward. Dymond comes off as a hired gun, anexpensive, skilled criminal lawyer. Panzeca isthe young attomey on the way up who is es-sentially a courier for the big boys.
Still, that sketch is only partial. The realheaft and soul of Shaw's defense is embodiedin the munificent help they were getting ftoma multitude ofsources, This is something onlyhinted at in Kirkwood's lopsided tome. Andeven those hints rarelv reveal how some ofthat help filtered in. Finally, as we shall see inthe second part ofthis anicle, the clandestineaspect of much of this aid is revealed in probefor the first time. This will be done with thehelp of newly released files discovered by pe-ter Vea and Bill Daw from the so-called CIA"Segregated Collection". It is hard to believethat Posne4 and especially Kirkwood, knewnothing of this aspect.
The Wegmanns hired not one, but two top-notch private detective services to help them.These were not just picked randomly out ofthe phone book. One was the now infamousWackenhut corporation. Once billed by Spymagazine as the "CIAs CIA', this company rsmade up of a large group of former iediralagents-mostly FBI-that gave many, manyrepons and interviews to Shaw's defense.
The other company was called ..Holloway
Associates Inc.", a Texas comDanv subtitledon its letterhead, "Former FBIigents,,. Thesetwo agencies were filing reports for a periodof at least two years, right up to and duringShaw's 1969 trial. Whoever paid them-andthere are hints the Wegmanns did-it musthave been aducal sum. (Coincidentally, Wack-enhut was the same company that did the re-
i
rJ
i -
Fl()i|i May-.tune, r99?
ports for Eastem Airlines in the dismissal pro-ceedings against David Ferrie. The firm wasthen called Southem Research.)
But the evidence now shows that Shaw wasthe recipienr ofmuch more thar the servicesof former FBI agents hiring themselves out aspaid detectives. As noted earlier, the sheernumber of ftiends and allies that came roShaw's side was stunning. Consider a partiallist: New Orleaas Cuban exile leader CarlosBringuier, intelligence asset cum joumalistAynesworth, Garrison defector Bill Gurvich,Dallas Deputy DA Bill Alexander, FBI and CIAassociated writer Edward Epstein, CIA opera-tive Gordon Novel, Congressmal and formerHUAC member Ed Hebert, former Hoovercrony and Merropolirar Crime Commissionchairman Aaron Kohn, Jack Ruby,s sister EvaGrant, CIA asset and manager of INCA, EdButle!, Shaw's old ftiend and Time-Life Bu-reau Chief Holland McCombs, former FBLNSA, ONI agent Walte! Sheridan, atong withhis local protege Rick Townley, Townley,s re-puted CIA associated larryer Steve Lemann,and finally, David Ferrie's pal Leyton Martens.
The above does not include the network_ing ofShaw's lawyers with other suspects anddefendants involved in Garrison's cise. Thisincludes attorneys for Jack Ruby (AlanAdelson), and Edgar Eugene Bradley'(GeorgeJensen and later Glen Duke). Interestingly, ittimes the legal representation for some sus-pects is the same. One ofGordon Novel,s bat-tery of a$omeys was Elmer Geftz, Gertz wasalso an attomey for Jack Ruby.
Elmer Gert and Godon llovelThe Geftz case is interesting. Accordhg to
attomeyJim Lesar, Geftz was a respected li-bel lawyer who acually argued a caie beforethe Supreme Court. Novel's attomey while hewas in New Orleans was Steve plotkin. Whenhe fled to Columbus, Ohio to escaoeGarrison's iurisdiction, his new aftomey be_came Jerry Weiner. But after Garrison,s ;ow_erful.October, 1967 pl4yboy nLervrew, I.ioveloecrded to sue the DA and t}le magazine formillions. Since this was a libel and defama_tio-n- casgt Ggtz magrcally entered the pictureas Novel's third lawyer. What makes this ercnmore peculiar is the statements Novel broughtsuit over. Garrison stated in the interview thatPlorkin admifted he was being paid by the CIA,ano rnat Novel was a CIA operative. He thenadded thac Novel and plorkin later sued himfor millions but withdrew the lawsuit when itwas leamed they would have to retum to NewOrleans to give depositions. This material hadbeen uncovered- by local St4tcj_Item reporrersRoss Yockey aad Hoke May who reponid it ina series of stories appeadng in Ap;l ard Maytn tnat newspaper. Later in the interview, Gar_nson comments on the 1961 raid ofa mun!
tions bunker in Houma, Louisiana whichNovel was a part of Novel actually related thisstory himself to the DA while workine withSheridan ro infilrrate Garrison's office ii early1967. Garrison also wenr into Novel's experi-ences with Cuban exiles and his pan in rhepreparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Again, these details had been printed in thelocal New Orleans papers, this time in May,1967. Everything else related by Garrisonabout Novel in the interview was a matter ofpublic record and the DA quoted such sourcesas the Associated Press for some of the mate-
continted on We l0
I
Mqr/-.turc, ree? FIOEIE
The Wegmann Filescontimted, from page 9
rial. In other words, there is nothing includedthat could be remotely termed as libelous.
Judge Campbell agreed with the above as-sessment. In his decision on the case in 1971,he wrote, "In this case, as I shall illustrate indetail, plaintiff Novel has done absolutelynothing toward bearing his burden of comingforth with amrmative evidence," He went on
to note that he found "no evidence by whichthis plaintiff can sustain his heary burden ofproving actual malice against either of thesedefendants." The judge concluded with thesetwo statements before dismissing the lawsuit,". . ,it appears that the substance ofthe state-ments now claimed to be libelous originatedwith plaintiff himself." And finally:
His so-called @nneclions wfi fie CIA also originatedwith his odn volunlarily offe€d sbdes. The lact asstipulated also establish that Novel enthusiaslicallyjumped into he fray wih Gadson, ofedng news mediasbtemenb aboul lhe Gadson invesiigalion.
In the face ofcertain defeat, Novel decidedto sue, and Gertz went along with it. Some-one as experienced as Gertz must have knownthere was no real foundation for a lawsuit.Which naturally leads to the question: Whydid he take the case? Especially considering aclient of Novel's checkered background. Theanswer seems to be that someone behind thescenes wanted a libel action against Garrisonto be trumpeted in the papers, knowing fullwell that a Garrison victory would never bepublished anywhere. In fact, to my knowledge,Campbell's decision is published here for thefirst dme.
Mr. Gertz also had artother orofession:book reviewer. When Warren Cbmmissioncritic and Garrison aide Mark Lane publishedhis memoirA Cidzens Di$ert in 1967. the C[i-cago Sun-Times had, Ge*z do their review of thevolume. Of course, the review was less thanobjective, but the thoughtful Genz sent EdWegmann a copy.
The episode with Novel is inreresting inother respects. For these and other ffles re-veal that when Novel went to Mclean, Vir-ginia b take his polygraph test denouncingGarrison, he was still closely associated withNBC and Walter Sheridar. It tums out thatthe technician operating the polygraph wasLloyd Furl Furr was ttle parmer of anotherpdvate investigator named konard Harrelson.It was Harrelson, enlisted by Sheridan, whodid t}te phony polygraph of Ed Panin whichattempted to frame Jimmy Hoffa for conspir-ing to kill Bobby lGnnedy. Harrelson was laterinvestigated and prosecuted for fraud in poly-graph testing Lt St. louis. Neither Furr notHarrelson were certified by the Academy forScientific Investigation which sharply criti-cized Harrelson's work in the Partin case.These two associations-Geftz and Furr-raise more questions about the real roles ofboth Sheridan and Novel in both the Garri-son inquest and the JFK case overall. As weshall see in part two of this anicle, the ques-tions about Sheridan will loom even larser inWashington.
trftgnann Gertz and EpsteinIt is through the Genz-Wegmann corre-
spondence that the figure of Edward Epsteinenters Shaw's defense. Almost simulta-neously, Epstein seems to have contacted bothatbrneys. In a letrer dared.4/5/67, Gefizwrites:
I haye just now oblained po€s€ssion of an unpublishedmanusqipt of Edward J. Epsbin, the auho. of /nquesf.. . . .The preparaton of$e aiicle was financed by ftelvew yo*er magazine, and according to [4r. Epstein,witl whom I have spoken, is to be published in tE im-mediate tuture. In due coutse. . .l\4r. Epstein l|,ill en-large the manuscriptand publish it in book tom.
Thz docament below is an excerpt ftom a three page ffidtit signcd. by Fred Leratatts who owned,a ntrhish bath in New O earc and canw to lim Garrison thrcugh ossistant DA Robert Lee-Leenorls told, Lee that hc had. seen Shaw with Oswald at his establishment. He then reyersed, hisstory and becane a witwss for Waltet Sheidan on his NBC special. The ffidait below showswhy he did and illustrates thl close cooperation betwun Sheidan, federul oflciak, and Shaw's@wyers.
SlllE 0t Lotntura
PlttSt ot orl.l|rs
ttnD trl
..1 sould llk€ to st&te the r"asons for whlch I app?sr€d otr tlrc IIBC show aDd lled a50ut ny contsctgwlth the Dlstllot Attomey's ofice. !lmt, I !€colyed num€mus snoDJ[lous tb$st€ ng phons csllgr€latlve to the lnfornstlotr thst I hsd tlvetr Ur. o8mlson" Ihe gl8t of these cElls r|Es to th€ effeot thatf I dld not change Dy ststen€Ilt 8nd Btat€ thst I bad been brlbed by.tin Canlso!'s onco,I and qyfamtly would b€ ltr p\y8ic8l dsoger
I! addlttoD tn tbe anoqymous pbono otlls, I flas vblt€d by 8 nan wbo erl blt€d 8 bsd€e 0,nd stst€dthst tre mi 8 govErnmeDt agent. ttls ne,D lDform€d ms thsi the govemme wa€ prsenw che0klngthe bar of,ner8 l! the Slldell Lre8 for posslble ltrcoroe tar vlol8tloDs. Thls na,D ihen ltrqut€d wheiherI ws8 ths l[r. Iremaor lnvolv€d h th€ Clsy 8b8w 0ase. Shen I lnforned hl[ thst I w[s, he s8ld thstit wa8 not sma,rt to be lnvolv€d beosuse I lot of peoDl€ thai had b€€D dot hurt 8nd trst p€ople lnpowepflrl places wDuld s€€ to lt that I rss t8k€n cax€ ol
one ofthe anonJmous cslers suggested thst I chenge qy st8t€mollt sDd stst€ that I hsd been bdbedby Ga.rdsotr'a omce to glve bln the lnfolmatioD sbout Clsy thsw. Ee suggest€d that I contaot l&.Irvin Dynond, Attorney for Clay L ghsw, and teU I n tbst I gsv6 Mr Cafftso! the stst€r0eni sboutthsw oDly sft€r lir. Ir€ offeEd ne 12,600. -aft€r cotrsultlng wltb 
The date ofGenz,s letter is absolutelvcru_cial in rracking Epsrein,s bona fides. ForEpstein's anicle enritled .,The Taneled Web,,did not appear in Tfu Nsw forher umiijuly l3rh,three ald a halfmonths later. Even more re_vealing, in his preface to The AssassnationChronicles (799.2, Carroll and Graf) Epsteinwrires tlat he began his invesrigation for thisanicle in April of 1967. If this is so, what isthe manuscripr he is sending Genz? What_ever really happened. ir appears Epstein hadnrs mmd made up well in advance of the re_search for his arricle.Ifthis is so, then it lendscredence to those who had severe reservauonsabout Epsrein early on, i.e. Vince Salandria.Maggie Field, and Ray Marcus. h is also inrer_estrng to note, that at the inception of thisproject, before serious research Lad even be_gun, Epstein knew that the article would laterbecome a book. Usually, the sequence is re_versed. An already prepared booliis excemtedas a magazine piece. The circumstances iur_rounding the afticle, and the eventual book,Counterplot, remain highly unusual.
you at this point as to the source oftiese docu_ments. However, I can assure you lhey are au_thentic-"
Edgar E Bndleyand Bill BoxteyBradley's following letter to Wegmann rs
interestint. One of the people n-amed inBradley's civil suit was Wlliam Wood a.k.a.Bill Boxley. Boxley was rhe ,,former,,
CIA agentwho tumed up one day ro help Garrison fur_tner hrs case against his former employer.Boxley did a_ lot of work investigating Bradley.In a.nore, Wegmann is advised thai Bradleyhad located Boxley/Wood in Austin, Texas and:
He is a scared _and ir really hidiru our . . .lundeNhnd tiat Boxley tried to convince J. G. that I hadmudered som€one in 1962. | $ink il was a man namedPenin. J. G. ciecled to fnd out I ,rias in Europe al netime.
Regarding Wood, a recently declassifiedCIA file shows that a .,William !Vood,, was ac_tually a CIA recruiter in New Orleaas in I 963 .Once Wood
-was found our by Garrison, Waker
Holloway of the Wegmann,s Holloway Asso-ciates Inc.. tried to recruit him to therr cause.Reportedly, Wood refu sed.
Gurviclr Ununnted luitr|ess^,
Such was-nor the case with Gurvich. Therues contarn the stenographic record ofa mara_thon inrerview berween him and all four ofshaw's arromeys, dated August 29, 1967.Gurvich left Garison,s officiin late June of1967. He then went on a whirlwind nation_wde press rour inJuly and August which wasar least pardy aranged by Sheridan. He rhen!-etumed to New Orleans and worked for theWegmanns until Shaw,s trial and beyond.During this August inrerview, Gurvich madesome revealing statements about his place inGarrison,s invesrigation. The DA trusied himso much that, said Gurvich,
Galbon and I shaGd he same omce, lhe same desk_I m0 nts car-lte neverused iHrc oldsmob e_l hada ru set ol leys to his oftce and every$ing.
. . Larer-on, Gurvich admits thar he tookmmgs ott carrison,s desk and Xeroxed them,tnmgs. that were not part of the ..master fiIe,,ne sble-
Although Gurvich volunteered to be a wit-ness for the defense, he was never called atS_haw's trial. His seriousness and reliabiliry assuch.can be_measured byhis comments aboursarnson's knowledge of Guy Banister madeounng the above referenced interview:
O To whatextent was Banister invotued in this, oo youknow?
A: He w"s simply involved because Ferde had oncewofieo lor him
No mention ofBanister,s CIA orONIlinks.
No mention of the presence ofsergio ArcachaSmith or Oswald at Banister's ohce. Later.Gurvich tops himself:
0t Do€s he lGarison] have any proof lltat Ban6rerwasa CIA or any federal agent
A: I donl believe he has any proof that Banister everextsted.
With answers like this, its no wonderGurvich was never called as a trial witness orthat the grand jury didn,t take his charsesagainst Garrison verv seriouslv.
. As Pro&e previously nored (Vol. 3 #4 p. 3),
when the Wegmann files were released to rhepublic by the ARRB, this very inreryiew wasreaftred m the press. A section of Gurvich,scomments were construed as the DA offedng'bribes" to witnesses Darrell Gamet and ClydiJohnson. Apparently, no reponer read pastihenrst lew pages of the ffanscript. On page lgor rne seconct session, the following exchangeoccurs:
Qi The only peBom yo|l have seen him giye rnoneyare dlaraders such as Gamer_
A: No, not Ganer I have neverseen Gamer.Qr--Johnson.
A:Johnson.
QrAllhe'll put out b rEybe a $10.00 bi or a twenty?A: Thats what I was told hats what hey gave hjm. /Muany .tnt seethe nnney...
Qr Who told you that?
-Getring back to the correspondence, and
unbeknownst to Mr. Geftz, on the same dayhe wrote the above letter, Wegmarn sen, fiimone that actually included excerpts fromEpstein's upcoming New yorAar hit plece. Theone- Epstein had barely stafted researching.. -
How friendly and helpful was Epstein-toMr. Gertz? Consider rhis May, 1968 nore fromUertz to EDstein:
Oear Llr. epsein:
I greaty enjoyed lalking wih you today, and I bok forward 10 s€eing you. | fiink that we can be mutuat|y hetp-rur.Atany rate, we willmake he efiod!Good luck to you in yourph. D. examinations
- , Ed Wegmann,s correspondence wich
t(uoy s attomeys went on well inro the .ZO,s.
I3.r.'i::*i.l Y"sttrT was communicaringwlth_Atan Adelson_who offered to help durling Shawt trial-about_the ersatz tax chalgesand subsequeff two trials ofcarrison in .1972
- Wegmann. also sent his advance copy of
Epsrein's afticle to George Jensen, one oftogar E. Bradley,s lawyers. Wegmann offerednls "continued desire to cooperate and assistIlu
t".u9y y"y porsible.,, Lil<e the correspon_dence wi[h Genz and Adelson, these leitersy:n:,:u, b:yo{ rhe_rime of Shaw,s acquir_Lal.
,when Bradley fled a l ibel suit against
Mark Lane and-l5 other panies inJuly ofl969,copies of rhe filing were senr to Ed iVegmannupon his request. In retum, on February 12,-rvlv, wegmann sent Bradley materials from:iT"9r'r_l]"j that were pilfered and given1o him byBill Gurvich. Apparently, Wegmannwas sersirive about revealing the fait that:l*l:h h4 srolen these marerials from rheuA. He added, ,,I deem it besr not ro advise
A:--€r-+lcock. lEmphasis added.l
In other words, Gurvich was told by assis-tant DA Jim Alcock about small amounts ofexpense money, which as pro6e reponed, cameour or uarnson,s own pocket. Gurvich had tol?]-. gp*" this since he goes on to say thar^rcock
menpur upJohnson at the Monteleone
:.ir,.,r,:-": rl:.
"rl.: pushed in the media by
tne f lkes of Nsw Ode4ns frmes picqiune wntetlrave snyder were completely unsound.
Hugh Aynes$,orft : (lA Applicantfrom the Wegmann files, it is clear rhat a
maror conributor to their effon was Narysyeetreponer Hugh Al,neswonh. The evidence in_orcares-thar Aynesworth was with Ed Weg_mann almost from his arrival in New Orlearisto a point well past Shaw's trial. There is anote-trom Ayn€sworth on Newswee[ letrerheadro wegmann dated 9,/lg,/71, abouc lg monthspast snaw's acouittal
, The enLire ieries of repons Arrlesworrh
caDled to-NewrweeA_most of it unpublished_
l:-!1T ", ,nir fite. Generally, rhe repons fall
:.l,^"-,T"::i1",8:.i":: atracks on carri;on, pro_tes or David Ferrie, and hagiographies ofshaw. On some days, rhe proliic iynesworthcontinued. on page 12
I
May-.ture, r99" ?ElOilE
I
I'I
The Wegmann Filescontinued, from poge 11
would type up more than one report; some-tirnes he would do as maly as three. The se-ries on Ferrie strongly suggests thatAynesra'orth had access to govemment files.They contain too many details, especially ftomFerrie's early life, that could not have beenattained fiom A)neswonh's NewOrleans valtage point. The factthe informadon was shared withWegmann suggests that Aynes-worth was a "cutout" for eitherthe FBI or CIA into Shaw's de-fense. Aynesworth's FBI ties wereexposed long ago. With the newrelease of the CIAS "segregatedcollection", his tie to the Agencycan now also be revealed in Drintfor the first time.
Concerning Ayneswolth'sdeep involvement with assassina-tion-related matters, it seems aptto quote from another recentlydeclassified document. this onefiom the FBI. This one revealsAyneswonh's involvement withMarina Oswald. It has long beena mystery as to how Ayneswofthgot hold of Oswald's "diary",which he then made a killing offof by selling it to Tfu DaIIas Mom-ing News, and then O S. News and,Wo d. Report. Some had thoughtthat Depury DA Bill Alexanderhad stolen it ftom the propertyroom ofthe Dallas Police Depart-ment. But in 1993 this issue wasclouded even more. The FB! de-classifred aJuly 1, 1964 report thatstates an infonnant had told themthat "Oswald's diary had been ob-tained by Aynesworth ftom Ma-rina Oswald at no cost." When tlfealso bought rights to it, Marinawas paid $20,000 for the copyright. Funher,the informant stated that "he had heard thatAynesword stated he had an affair with Ma-rina Oswald when he interviewed her sometime ago." (Interestinglt the repon goes onto say that the philandering Aynesworth hadlost his former reponing job for the DmverPost because he had been caught "en flagrantedelicto" with an ex-convict's wife.) Becausethe informaat in this report would not revealhis name, the above information must beiudged tentadvely, But, A)'nesworth's use ofMarina is not. Aynesworth's local newspaperpal Holmes Alexander wrote about it in Julyof 1964. He revealed that it was Aynesworththat was putting pressure on both the Warren
10 oct 63
cof,nDtmulr
FRoU: Ctdef, Conta,ct DMBion O,rL Braroh)
VU"- Chlef, Eoustotr omceR€sident Ageft, Dsusg
hldb[itr ol ft& orut tyr. osth frE!, ttiD to G.!Dr
1. Eugh Grsrt Aynes{orth, gsiemeAvistioD rsDoltrrfop th€ Dallss MomiDg News, told Ee thst be had applied for I vlss fo; gubsapFoimst€ly I year ago, He he8,rd notldlg for som€ lI montbs sltd firenlD eady Sept€mber of 196g he necelv€d I csll fton th€ Czech Enbsssy lnW88bltrgtotr D. C. , asklng htm f he wEs stlU lllter€8t€d ltr goi!6. Ee reDlledth8t h€ wE8 aod asked lf hls applcatlon w8s golng to r€c€lve fsvorabl€ coBBiderstio[ lle Czech Embs83y l€pltsentsth€ would only stste that it wasbelng colsidercd.
3. .Ayneswolih hss bad Bome IS yesxs e4erl6nce a88 r"porler aJxd slnc€ tr€brusrT 1980 ha8 been tbe gclenceAylation r€Dorterfor th€ Dalss ltorDlng ews. Ee bas offered bjs selvlces to us lf it devdopstbst he l€c?iyos s vlse, I sE submlttlng & name cb€ck request for -qynes-worth End rdll teep you advls€d of dev€lopmeuts.
J. trll,rlotr fo,oltr
Note in tlw aboye doctmtent that Aytasuorth's contqct at CIA is tlvsatne man who was suyrposedly tfu handler of George DeMofuenschild,t,and the nan who bpt an eye on any revival of interest in Ganison in tlwmid 70's, J. Walton Moore. Ako, the dqte-tfu month before the cssos-sin ion---is very suggestive and tfu mission to Cubo" at tiis time, would,obviottsly be of grnt intercst to tlE CIA. ,gneswo*h, shortly tfureaft4wrote seyeruI of the eorly nsws articles about tfu Kenncdy assassinahon.
Commission and the FBI to paint Oswald as aderanged left ist assassin.
Marina, Almeswor$ and ililonOne ofMarina's most dubious stories has
always been that Oswald had threatened tokill Richard Nixon. The FBI looked at thispossibility in February of'64 ard found it dif-ficult to cenifu since Nixon was not in Dal-las-Fonh Worth when Oswald threatened him
tensibly on the NEwswuk staff, he was alsobeing paid byTime-Life and also Ed Wegmann,for whom he would do occasional special as-signments. (This, of coutse, discounts anymonies he may have received from the Bu-reau or the Agency) . Ayneswordr brought intoWegmann's orbit his old friend and Dallascohort who had worked with him on the afore-mentioned "diary" caper and with whom hehad split the fee. Bill Alexander was used ro
keep Garrison's assistants fromquestioning Sergio Arcacha Smithin Dallas. Ayneswoth was par-ticularly worried, wirh good rea-son, tlat Arcacha might fall intothe DAs hands.
Ayneswonh's initial repons toNEwsl"c€t are quite revealing. Hischecks from Time-Life seem tostem from the fact tlat he was apart ofthefu research team onlife'saborted reinvestigationofthe casein 1966. This investigation re-sulted in the November 25, 1966cover story entitled 'A Matter ofReasonable Doubt". This "inves-tigation" was quickly squelched byEditor-in-Chief Hedley Donovan.But the presence ofAlnesworth inthe crew prompts the question asto how serious that inquest wasin the first place. The question iseven more pertinent because ac-cording to these files, other mem-bers include Dick Billings (HSCAcover-up), lite stringer DavidChandler (major obstructor ofJimGarrison), and Holland McCombs(old and warm friend of ClayShaw) . Consider this excerpt ftomAynesworth's 2/22/ 67 repon:
Billings made al least tro tips to New OFleans to @nhr wih Chandler and someCubans, and in paiic{lar, oavt, WilliamFede, he onetime Dibt wio was arcstedshoriy afler fE assassination. . .
This is extraordinary, From this and otherinformation (surfaced by Wallace Milamthrough the Holland McCombs, file) we cansurmise that:
I . Aynes\a'orth and t{fe were onto the sameleads as Garrison either independently or inBnoem.
2. David Chandler knew about Ferrie,s im-portance prior to the public exposure ofGarrison's investigation. Chandler also knewOswald and associated with him more thanonce in New Orleans in 1963.
3. The presence of McCombs, Chandler,and Ayneswonh doomed the investigationwhich, according ro Milam, dated back to1965!
(supposedly in April, 1964). But even thoughthe Bureau and the Commission uied to talkher out ofthis, she insisted on it. It tums ourthat Holmes Alexarder quotes Aynesworth assalng that he had an exclusive interview withMarina afterwards and she was still insistinson the veracity of this story. Ayneswofth nadrally tries to rie the attempt to Nixon's callingfor a decision to force Castro's regime out olCuba, a story which had run in the local pressbefore the incident. Alexander's anicle impliesthat the FBI may be downplaying this storybecause of thet failure to spot Oswald as apossible assassin before the iact.
Whatever his covert ties in 1963-1964. bv1967 A;,neswonh was on three payrolls. Os-
FiOilE May-Iune, tee?
, To retum to Aynesworth,s intelligence ties,there are strong suggestions in his reports to News_we?i, as to just how far they go. ln a2/24/67 re-port on Ferrie, Aynesworth describes hisordination into the Old Catholic Church ofNorthAmerica. He then adds parenrhetica.lly, .We're try-rng to protect our own in this goup and wouldappreoate your not using the church,s name.,, Thisclearly denotes that Aynesworth knew this strangereligious sect was being used by the CIA as a froitorganization, as other sources, like Thomas Beck_ham, have confirmed. Also note the use ofthe pos_sessive pronoun 'bur own,'. In another reoorrdated 3/3/67, ABesworth writes rhat the CIA at_tempted to get former Nazi intelligence offcertumed CIA mercenary Otto Skorzeny in on aCasro kidnapping plot in 1963. The faci lhat rhisgem has never been revealed, even in the 1967Inspector General Report, shows iust how con_nected Ayniswonh was.
As an intel l igence operat ive, one of4yneswort!'s prime functions was to gamer in_forrnation from inside Garrison,s camp (probablyfrom moles like Gurvich), ffnd out who irospec'-tive witnesses were, and get to them beiore bar-risondid. Therefore, the Wegmann files contain along intewiew between Ayneswonh and Cubanexile Julian Buznedo. Buznedo was an associateofboth Ferrie and Arcacha-Smith. Aynesworth gothold of him before Garrison and had a long tilkwith him-on_3/l 8/d7 attempring to find out-rvhatne nad or vatue to the DA and who he had b.lkedto so far. In another case, when Dealey plaza wit_1ess. Jir.n Hicks was being interviewed byuarnson's statt as a prospective witness, Ed weg-mann wrote to Aynesworth in January of 1 96g:
At your convenience, il tould be helpfu if you tvould haveyour s€cretary lirbn to he tape of you telephone conveFa-ton wifi Hid$ and bke $eelrcm tu gbt of he tape andany stabmenb whidt mbht be helDful.
___ Three days later, Ayneswonh wrote back toYejInrT ": . .l will try to dig our the Hicks tapearo get the important points from it.,, (It is inrer_esung to note that at the same time Aynesworthis researching Hicks, he was attacked and beaten
lLli li h*.t.l*m while preparing to testifi
oerore the grand iury). Even more revealing as roAynesworth's operarions, when Garrisoi was*"jlj"g.oyJ_p4l"s policemen like Roger craigand Buddy Walthers, Ayneswonh wrote to Wegimann, "I. am traving a friend check Buddy Walti_ers'position, because ofhis mention in thi Nordenpapers.".Eric Norden was a leftist wnter andscnolar who conducted the exraordinary interviewwithGarison in pt4yboyb October, 1967 issue. The1l-p,,1.-1ll:n
n:. i.r.that Aynesworth had not iusrthe mlervieq but Norden,s nofes forrhe inrerviewIfso, one can only speculate as to how he got them.Aynesworth was so plugged into the New Orleansscene that he was on to witnesses whose namesand testimonyare still murky today. In Octoberof
continued on page j4
I.
llfialr-cture, r99? Fl$ilE
r
The Wegmann Filescontinued, ftom page I i
1967, Ayneswonh begins a letter to Weg_mann, "Received your letter about Cedric vonRolleston. I had already begun a systematiccneckout on him, since I was aware ofhis callto the States-Item earlier in the week,,, Sinceboth Rosemary James arrd Chandler workedat that paper, this is how Aynesworth prob_ably knew about the call. Fie concludei theletter with, "Meanwhile, don,t vr'olry aboutCedric. He's in the bag."
Ayneswofth also appears to be a centralconduit for burglarJohn Cancler. Cancler wasone of the New Orleans parish prison wit_nesses used by Walter Sheridan in his hourlong NBC polemic against Garrison broadcastJune 19, 1967. Aynesworth visited Canclerwith Sal Panzeca in May. In rhis original inter-view, Cancler levels charges agaiist the DAeven wilder than the ones in Sheridan,s broad_side. He states that the Dlfs office is acceot_ing kickbacks from lonery operarions, is inbna prostirution ring, and that Cancler rs ser_ting up fellow burglars on the ourside so thatGarrison can look good in the papers for anupcoming election. Amazingly, Cancler,through prison worker Nina Su'izer, was stillirl contacr with Aynesworth in March, 1969.after Shaw's acquittal. Cancler was still hold-ing out promises ofmore .dirt,, on Garrison.
Ruth Paine ll: IIina Sulz€rAs mentioned above, these interviews were
initially arranged through Nina Sulzer, a goodfriend ofClay Shaw's who was closely associ_ated with a Quaker group in New brleans.Through co-workerJane Lemann, Sulzer a.lsoconnects with tlte local law firm ofMonroe &Lemann, which according to a Garrison memo,was a conduit of funds to Sheridan whichhelped pay off"wimesses,, for his sDecial. AsBill_Dalylointed out in his fine monographon Clay-Shaw, Sulzer also helped harass wir_nesses.dangerous to Shaw, e.g. Vemon Bun_dy, while he was under her watch in Drison.How close was Sulzer to the defense? In a let_ter fiom Dlrnond to rhe Wegmanns dated g/29,/67, it is revealed thar Sulzer had accomoa_nied defense investigators to Dallas and wastranscribing notes she took during the trip.On another occasion, April 13, 196?, a meet-ing took place in her office with panzeca.Wackenhut agenr Bob Wilson and inmateDonald Jordan. The point was ro dig up dinon Perry Russo of a lexual and nerirouc na-ture.
Sulzer figures prominently in Kirkwood,saforementioned lengthy polemic. As Bill Davytotes in Through the Looling Gla.ss, Kirkwood,s
FIOIE uetr-arure, tee?
index sources her nearly twentv times. To_wards the end she is acknowledged with"warm phrases ofcamaraderie and giatitude,,(p. 659). Righr above this quote, Kirkwoodsingles out Clay Shaw for his friendship andcooperation on his book. Ar rhe beginning ofthe tome, Kirkwood dedicates hii book- toJames Leo Herlihy (p. 7) and addresses himin his preface as 'Jim,, (in the text he refers tothe defendanr as ',Clay,,.) Herlihy, Kirkwoodand Shaw visited Lyle Bonge, according to myinterview of Bonge. Bonge related that thiitrio had visited him and gotten drunk at hisplace together. From all this, it is natural topresume that Kirkwood would be pnw romuch ofwhatwas going on behind the scenesin Shaw's camp. If so, there is much that heleft out. As I mentioned above, Davy notes inhis monograph chat Sulzer, on numerous oc_casions., tried to dissuade Bundy from his story.Daw also notes that:
A physicalsurvelllance placed on Mrs. Sulzer af_ter she had attempted to dissuade Bundy,s testi-mony djsclosed that on al least one occaston snevisited a residence where Shaw was staying aodspenl approxjmately three houls with hjr
_ In all likelihood, Sulzer was informing toShaw about her progress with various Dnson_ers at the Parish prison in wealieningGarrison's case. Kirkwood must have knowiabout this. But Kirkwood does something evenworse. Early in the book, Kirkwood has Shawrelate a story about Garrison at a New Orleansrestaulant with his wife where, as a public off-cial in a public plarc, Garrison then'a egeilythrew a drink in her face. Shaw then addeithat some had speculated tlnt his olvn obser_vation ofthe incident may have been a reasonfor his_prosecution. (When the Wegmannsasked Gurvich abolt this incident, heieplied,"I never heard that.,,) Kirkwood lefi outShaw's accompanying story abour Brennan,sbistro. In rhe long curvich interview Ed Weg_mann reveals that with both Shaw and Gari_son sitting ot n2arw tabld Gardson stated tosomeone-who is not named, ,.1'm going ro getthat sonofabitch',, meaning Shaw. igain, whenq_uestioned on thispoint, Gurvich iesponded"I have never heard that.,,
Gdrison was not Shaw's only defamationtarger. And Sulzerwas nor his onlyinformant.In various
-memos to Ed Wegmann, Shaw re_
rers to -ntonnanrs,' supplying him with am_munition against the DA. In fact, Shaw seemspreoccupied with the task ofdiscrediting po-teffial witnesses with the use ofsex, alc6hol,and,/ordrugs. PerryRusso and ClydeJohnson(see Probe Vol. 3 #6 p. 18) receive much at_tenrion ftom Shaw in this regard, probablybe_cause they direct ly connect him ro aconspiracy. For instance, Shaw wrote an un_dated memo stating that Johnson iniected
himself into the case when he and a ftiendgot drunk one night in a bar and ,,rhought itwould be fun ro call up ole Garrison and tellhim he knew all abour rhe plot.', There is nosource given for the information in Shaw,smemo. But the implication is that it came fromShaw's cousin by marriage, Archie Wall.
. In this article, for the most part, we havebeen concemed with goings on at the locallevel, i. e. in New Orlears. There have beenhints of higher level involvement, especiallyin cenain "expens" volunteering their iervices(see the sidebar ar righr). Also, Ayneswonh'sCIA and FBI connecrions clearly suggest rharhe is a back channel for uppei level forces.But rhere is another instanci, touched on ore-viously, rhat is probably even more signifiianrin this regard and goes a long way in clari$-ing who in_ fact the Wegmanns were and whyShaw may have been &awn to them originally,
Banister and Guy lohnsonIn the third trarscribed reel of Gurvich,s
long 8/29/67 intervrew with Shaw,s defense(mentioned earlier), the subject of GuyBanister's intelligence ties surfaied. Ed Wes_mann was curious as to whar Garrison kneiabout Banisrer in this respect. Curvich pooh_poohed this with his nonsensical commenrthat he believed Ganison had no proof ofBanister's existence (see p. l1). .qftei this ex_cbange about Banister,s govemment ties andGarison's knowledge of them, Bill Wegmannmade a most telling comment: ,,This was aDone ol contention berween GuyJohnson andmyself..." There are two implications in thisstatement. First, that there was dissension onthe defense between at least one of the Wes_manns and Shaw,s first choice for lead atroiney. This- makes panzeca,s previouslymentioned comment about a ,,personalityclash" suspect, or at least not the entire truth.The otherimplicadon is thatGuyJohnson dis-agreed with Gurvich,s assessment. In otherwords, Johnson thought thar Banister did haveintelligence ties and that Garrison either knewabout them or would discover them.
In light of rhis, it is fair to gamer rhac irwas this dispute that led to tlJreplacementofJohnson with Dyrnond. This is quite justi_fied in view of the eventual trid Jtrategy ofthe Wegmanns, which was to completely-Jenyany intelligence de berween Shiw aria tnigovernment and any relationship becweenShaw, Banisrer and Ferrie. We know this tobe completely false today. And even thoughmary felt Shawwas lying, this straregyprov;dralny successtul at the uial.
But why would Johnson assess the situa-tion differently at such an early stage, in rhefortnight following Shaw,s arreit oriMarch 3,1967? And why would this lead to, usins
continued on page 16
I.
May-rune, ree" FlOilE
The Wegmann Filescontinued, from page Ij
Panzeca's adiective, the "excellent" attomey'sdepanure?
One reason is that Johnson knew the truthabout Banister and was more honest about itthan the Wegmanns were. Consider the fol-lowing. In a 1976 obituary in the Times-Pica-pne, it is revealed tlatJohnson served in theNavy in World War II. In a 1955ne',rcpaper article, it is noted drathe would address members ofthe Sertoma Club. His talk wasentitled "Trouble in the FormosaStraits." The article then notesthat "Johnson /ecentll served inthe Formosa alea with the Na-val Intelligence department."(Emphasis added). From *ris,one would deduce that when drewar was over Johnson's navycareer continued. As Jim Gani-son noted in On tfu Trail of tlwAssassins, Guy Banister was alsoONl. In the filmJFK when Gar-rison takes out two assistantsto visit 544 Camp St., one ofthem mentions an old intelli-gence adage, "Once ONI, al-ways ONI." In a 1960 newsarticle in the Nev Orleans Statei-Itan, a movement was started toroot out "subvelsive influencesin the state." Two of the menwishing to serve as investigators for this newcommiftee were Guy Banister and 'Atty. GuyJohnson of New Orleans."
But the association between Johnson andBadster is eyen closer than the above wouldsuggest. Among the recently declassifieddocuments that Garrison had tumed over torhe HSCA were pages ftom Ferrie,s treatiseon cancer. Garison noted to the HSCA that.when copying this work, another letter ofFerrie's was "accidentally sruck in rhe photo-stat machine". This caused an unintentionalnotation to be left at the bottom ofone of thepages ofthe treatise. It read in parL .Some ofB's microfilm were sent to Atlanta right-wingers-many of original files are at GuyJohnson's."
Johnson was also in a position to knowabout Banister's associado; with Clay Shaw.As Daly notes, one of the most tantalizingfacets of Shaw's career was his high level se-curity clearance coded qKENCHANI In re-cenrly declassified CIA files, either Johnsonor his son Guy Jr also has a high level CIAclearance.In aDecember 1981 intewiew, BudFensterwald talked to a former associate of
Banister's in New Orleans named TommyBaumler. Garison also knew of Baumler atthe time of his investigatior! but he was un-derstandably tight-lipped with the DA. Yearslater, with little to worry about. he was morecandid. In Fensterwald's handwritten notes ofthe interview one line reads: "Shaw. Banisterand Guy Johnson-intelligence apparatus forN. Orleans". Further in the interview noles,Fensterwald writes that Baumler was veryclea! tlat "Oswald worked for Barmister.,, (sic)Right below this, figuring even more lnto
Mouledoux. There is a recently declassified filewhich contains a &ttsl by Guy Banister to Johnsonm this law lirm, proving Baumler's assertions.The date ofthe letter isJanuary 5, 1959. In it,Banister is proposing for infiltration purposesinto the National Students Association oneWilfred A. Bergeron. Banister states that whiletalking to Bergeron, he told him that "he hadserved in the Air Force and had jusr gotrenout ard entered school, He said he served inthe security section and has atomic cleatance."At the close ofthis lettet Banister states "lfit
is satisfactory and you carr de-termine this individual's reli-ability, I will set him up to beginwork with me and pass on toyou any information he pro-duces." In the March i967 is-sue ofRQmp4lts, writer Sol Stemexposed the longtime CIA infil-tration ofthe National StudentsAssociation (NSA), whichJohnson and Banister seem tohave had a hand in. ThatJohnson was performing these"anti-subversiye" activit ieswhile parmers in this law firmwith at leasr one of the Weg-manns is illuminating.
But there is sometling evenmore Elling inyolved. In an-otler recently declassified CIAfile, it is noted that the aniclesof incorporation for Banister'sso-called detective agency werenotarized on I/2L/58 by noneother rhan William J. Weg-
mann. This seems to be at the time ofcourse,when he was associated with Johnson at theabove firm. Could it truly be possible that theWegmanns would not be cognizant of whatBanister was really up to at 544 Camp Street,or at his previous location in the Balter Build-ing? This strains creduliry. If so, Wegmann,scomment to Gurvich is reftacted as if in apri_sm. It is most tikely that the Wegmanasdid know ofBanister's federal connections andwere now intent on stopping Garrison, not somuch ftom finding out about rhem, but beingable to present witnesses to tesdfu abour iiand the Shaw-Banister-Johnson nexus. Withthis trial strategy, Johnson was too close !othe fire to sit at the defense table.
The above outlines and hints at who andwhat was involved in the defense of ClavShaw againsr Jim Garrison. The reader wil lnote that the tlail seems to lead above NewOrleans and into the higher echelons ofpower in Washington D. C. The nexr parlof this article wil l use declassified fi lei toshor,v with precision the Wegmann connec-tion to Washington. +
Oswald's New Orleans profile, Baurnler satedthat Banister was able to give leners ofmarquei.e. a license to clear one with law enforce-ment officers, so that "if you are caught as acommunist, the lener will clear you of com-munist leanings."
So, by a.ll indications, Johnson was ouiteaware of the realiry of what was going on atGuy Banister's omce in the sumrier oi 1963.But another question arises as we delve deeperintoJohnson's deparure ftom Shaw,s defe;se.Did the Wegmanns know also? Or were thevjust unaware of such a connecrion and howthat could compromise their client, ClayShaw? In the aforementioned 1976 obituaryforJohnson, it is revealed that he worked fortwo New Orleans DAs. Befoie his ONI ser-vice Johnson was an assistant under DA T.Bemard Cocke. The anicle then notes thai,'After serving in the Navy in World War II.Mr Johnson retumed to become an assistantDA under Herve Racivitch."
This is quite interesting. When Racivitchstepped down from public office, he formed aprivate law firm in New Orleans. Ttre name ofthis firm was Racivitch, Johnson, Wegraann and
FiOilE lt[ay-rrrne, lee?