Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 18, 2022 19:48:15 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
www.assassinat-jfk.com/media/image/perry_russo.jpg
One of the key witnesses in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw was Perry Russo. Russo was a twenty-five-year-old Equitable insurance agent from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Russo had been a longtime acquaintance of David Ferrie. He had written a letter to Garrison upon hearing about his investigation, but Garrison never received it. Russo later met a reporter with the Baton Rouge State-Times and he recounted a meeting he had with Ferrie at his apartment where the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was discussed. This discussion was published by the Baton Rouge State-Times and it came to the attention of Garrison.
Garrison sent Andrew Sciambra from his staff to talk with Russo. Sciambra spent several hours with Russo, and showed him dozens of photographs. Russo would recognize several Cubans and he immediately recognized a photograph of Clay Shaw when showed to him although he had only known him as Clay Bertrand.
Garrison had considered him significant because “he was the first eyewitness to have overheard Shaw and Ferrie engaging in the discussion of the prospective murder of John Kennedy.” (Jim Garrison, “On The Trail Of The Assassins”, p. 152 [hardcover edition]) To make sure that he was telling the truth they used hypnosis and Sodium Pentothal. Both showed that he was telling the truth.
Russo described the scene when he was on the witness stand during the Grand Jury.
Quote on
Russo responded that when he dropped in at Ferrie's place, “somewhere around the middle of September 1963,” an informal gathering—which he described as “some sort of party"—was just breaking up…Russo said a former girlfriend of his, Sandra Moffett, was also there for a while. After she departed, there remained, according to Russo, a scattering of anti-Castro Cubans—a group which occasionally came by to visit Ferrie. A few of them stayed on for a little while.
Also there was a tall, distinguished-looking man who had what Russo described as “white hair.” Even as he said this, he involuntary glanced over at Shaw who was continuing to gaze imperturbably at the paneled courtroom wall in front of him. Ferrie introduced the man to Russo as “Clem Bertrand.”
At the gathering at the apartment, Russo recalled, Ferrie introduced him to a young man who was called “Leon Oswald.” But Russo could not firmly identify this man as the same man he later saw on television as the suspect in the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald.
After the others departed, only “Oswald”, Bertrand, Ferrie, Russo, and several of the Cubans remained. The talk turned to the possibility of assassinating Fidel Castro. This conversation was speculative and strongly anti-Kennedy. No one present—including Perry Russo—had any use for Castro or President Kennedy. Moreover, the conversation was particularly heated because in August the Kennedy administration had established an embargo to stop the flow of arms to South Africa. Some of those present felt a comparable limitation of arms to countries or even guerilla forces opposed to Fidel Castro might soon follow. (Ibid., pp. 152-153 [hardcover])
Quote off
This testimony places Russo in the company of Ferrie, Bertrand (Shaw) and anti-Castro Cubans. It is obvious that they had disdain for JFK, but up to this point the talk of assassination was limited to Fidel Castro only.
It would soon change to another person.
Quote on
…There were just the four of them now—Ferrie, Russo, the man called Bertrand, and “Leon Oswald.”
Even if it was impossible to get at Castro, Russo recalled Ferrie as saying, it did not mean they could not get at Kennedy. This sudden shift of the objectives…was inevitable now that the group had grown smaller. In recent months, Ferrie had become obsessed with the subject of Kennedy.
Ferrie, Russo said, was pacing back and forth, saying they could get rid of Kennedy and blame it on Castro. That could then be the excuse to invade Cuba…All they had to do was get Kennedy out in the open.
Ferrie was excited now. Hyperthyroid, he became excited easily and when he became excited, he became loquacious. When he became loquacious, he became magnetic. All eyes were on him as he continued to describe how easily the job could be done.
Ferrie emphasized that “triangulation of crossfire” was the way to do it. Shooting at Kennedy from three directions, one of the shots would have to get him. Russo recalled the importance Ferrie put on this. (Ibid., p. 154 [hardcover])
Quote off
There is uncanny similarity to how JFK was actually killed. He was out in the open and there was a triangulation of crossfire. Furthermore, for those that didn’t believe the official conclusion there was the “Castro did it" plan B answer. Was Ferrie making this up or had he heard this type of plan from his CIA contacts?
Russo continued and began talking about Shaw.
Quote on
Russo described Ferrie’s electric tension when he talked about the assassination of Kennedy, and the contrast of Bertrand, whom he recalled as sitting back, poised and relaxed, smoking his cigarettes…Bertrand remained the central presence in the group…Bertrand spoke up.
Bertrand said it was important for each of them to be in the public eye when it happened.
Now, Russo testified, for the first time it struck him that these men were talking about where they were going to be when President Kennedy was killed. There no longer was speculation here, as in the discussion of Castro’s possible assassination. (Ibid., pp. 154-155 [hardcover])
Quote off
We know the connections that both Ferrie and Shaw had to the CIA today so this cannot be dismissed as idle talk. Moreover, JFK was killed in the way that was described so this adds more credence to what Russo testified about.
Russo would see Ferrie and Shaw together again in March 1964 at Ferrie’s new service station. Russo said it was Shaw without any doubt.
Garrison said that the defense tried hard to discredit Russo saying he was “brainwashed”, but they failed as the people they had used – Dr. Esmond Farrer and Dr. Nicholas Chetta – were deemed to be qualified experts on truth verification by Sodium Pentothal and hypnosis. They both testified that Russo had told the truth about what he testified to under their treatment.
What do you think of Perry Russo’s statements? Again, why did the Warren Commission (WC) have no interest in him? Why did they have no interest in Ferrie or Shaw either? What kind of "search for the truth” was this?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
www.assassinat-jfk.com/media/image/perry_russo.jpg
One of the key witnesses in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw was Perry Russo. Russo was a twenty-five-year-old Equitable insurance agent from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Russo had been a longtime acquaintance of David Ferrie. He had written a letter to Garrison upon hearing about his investigation, but Garrison never received it. Russo later met a reporter with the Baton Rouge State-Times and he recounted a meeting he had with Ferrie at his apartment where the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was discussed. This discussion was published by the Baton Rouge State-Times and it came to the attention of Garrison.
Garrison sent Andrew Sciambra from his staff to talk with Russo. Sciambra spent several hours with Russo, and showed him dozens of photographs. Russo would recognize several Cubans and he immediately recognized a photograph of Clay Shaw when showed to him although he had only known him as Clay Bertrand.
Garrison had considered him significant because “he was the first eyewitness to have overheard Shaw and Ferrie engaging in the discussion of the prospective murder of John Kennedy.” (Jim Garrison, “On The Trail Of The Assassins”, p. 152 [hardcover edition]) To make sure that he was telling the truth they used hypnosis and Sodium Pentothal. Both showed that he was telling the truth.
Russo described the scene when he was on the witness stand during the Grand Jury.
Quote on
Russo responded that when he dropped in at Ferrie's place, “somewhere around the middle of September 1963,” an informal gathering—which he described as “some sort of party"—was just breaking up…Russo said a former girlfriend of his, Sandra Moffett, was also there for a while. After she departed, there remained, according to Russo, a scattering of anti-Castro Cubans—a group which occasionally came by to visit Ferrie. A few of them stayed on for a little while.
Also there was a tall, distinguished-looking man who had what Russo described as “white hair.” Even as he said this, he involuntary glanced over at Shaw who was continuing to gaze imperturbably at the paneled courtroom wall in front of him. Ferrie introduced the man to Russo as “Clem Bertrand.”
At the gathering at the apartment, Russo recalled, Ferrie introduced him to a young man who was called “Leon Oswald.” But Russo could not firmly identify this man as the same man he later saw on television as the suspect in the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald.
After the others departed, only “Oswald”, Bertrand, Ferrie, Russo, and several of the Cubans remained. The talk turned to the possibility of assassinating Fidel Castro. This conversation was speculative and strongly anti-Kennedy. No one present—including Perry Russo—had any use for Castro or President Kennedy. Moreover, the conversation was particularly heated because in August the Kennedy administration had established an embargo to stop the flow of arms to South Africa. Some of those present felt a comparable limitation of arms to countries or even guerilla forces opposed to Fidel Castro might soon follow. (Ibid., pp. 152-153 [hardcover])
Quote off
This testimony places Russo in the company of Ferrie, Bertrand (Shaw) and anti-Castro Cubans. It is obvious that they had disdain for JFK, but up to this point the talk of assassination was limited to Fidel Castro only.
It would soon change to another person.
Quote on
…There were just the four of them now—Ferrie, Russo, the man called Bertrand, and “Leon Oswald.”
Even if it was impossible to get at Castro, Russo recalled Ferrie as saying, it did not mean they could not get at Kennedy. This sudden shift of the objectives…was inevitable now that the group had grown smaller. In recent months, Ferrie had become obsessed with the subject of Kennedy.
Ferrie, Russo said, was pacing back and forth, saying they could get rid of Kennedy and blame it on Castro. That could then be the excuse to invade Cuba…All they had to do was get Kennedy out in the open.
Ferrie was excited now. Hyperthyroid, he became excited easily and when he became excited, he became loquacious. When he became loquacious, he became magnetic. All eyes were on him as he continued to describe how easily the job could be done.
Ferrie emphasized that “triangulation of crossfire” was the way to do it. Shooting at Kennedy from three directions, one of the shots would have to get him. Russo recalled the importance Ferrie put on this. (Ibid., p. 154 [hardcover])
Quote off
There is uncanny similarity to how JFK was actually killed. He was out in the open and there was a triangulation of crossfire. Furthermore, for those that didn’t believe the official conclusion there was the “Castro did it" plan B answer. Was Ferrie making this up or had he heard this type of plan from his CIA contacts?
Russo continued and began talking about Shaw.
Quote on
Russo described Ferrie’s electric tension when he talked about the assassination of Kennedy, and the contrast of Bertrand, whom he recalled as sitting back, poised and relaxed, smoking his cigarettes…Bertrand remained the central presence in the group…Bertrand spoke up.
Bertrand said it was important for each of them to be in the public eye when it happened.
Now, Russo testified, for the first time it struck him that these men were talking about where they were going to be when President Kennedy was killed. There no longer was speculation here, as in the discussion of Castro’s possible assassination. (Ibid., pp. 154-155 [hardcover])
Quote off
We know the connections that both Ferrie and Shaw had to the CIA today so this cannot be dismissed as idle talk. Moreover, JFK was killed in the way that was described so this adds more credence to what Russo testified about.
Russo would see Ferrie and Shaw together again in March 1964 at Ferrie’s new service station. Russo said it was Shaw without any doubt.
Garrison said that the defense tried hard to discredit Russo saying he was “brainwashed”, but they failed as the people they had used – Dr. Esmond Farrer and Dr. Nicholas Chetta – were deemed to be qualified experts on truth verification by Sodium Pentothal and hypnosis. They both testified that Russo had told the truth about what he testified to under their treatment.
What do you think of Perry Russo’s statements? Again, why did the Warren Commission (WC) have no interest in him? Why did they have no interest in Ferrie or Shaw either? What kind of "search for the truth” was this?