afterwards?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Before you called?

Mr. Andrews: No, After.

Mr. Liebeler: After you called your Secretary?

Mr. Andrews: Let's see. He wasn't there when I made the phone call. He wasn't there when Clay Bertrand called me, I am pretty sure, because he would have remembered it if I didn't.

Mr. Liebeler: You discussed it and he doesn't, In fact, remember that you received the telephone call from Clay Bertrand?

Mr. Andrews: He wasn't there. While he was there, we received no call from Clay Bertrand or no call concerning the office or business because I would have talked to him about it.

Mr. Liebeler: You say that be left before you called your secretary?

Mr. Andrews: I think he left around chow time, which, I think around 4 o'clock. I could be wrong.

Mr. Liebeler: Now after giving this time sequence that we have talked about here the consideration that I am sure you have after discussing it with the FBI, have you come up with any solution in your own mind to the apparent problems that exist here? That is to say, that your recollection is that you called your secretary after you received the call from Clay Bertrand and you called your secretary at 4 o'clock, which would indicate that you must have received the call from Clay Bertrand prior to 4 o'clock, but you did not receive the call from Mr. Bertrand while Mr. Davis was there, and he left at approximately 4 o'clock or shortly before you called your secretary, in addition to which, you first recall receiving the call from Clay Bertrand some time between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. Andrews: Well, the time factor I can't help you with. It is impossible. But I feel this: I wouldn't have called my secretary -- if I couldn't get her to verify It, I would tell you that I was smoking weed. You know sailing out on cloud 9.

Mr. Liebeler: But, in fact, she did verify the fact that you did call her?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I often thought It was a nightmare or a dream, but it isn't. It's just that I can't place -- other than what I told Regis Kennedy and John Rice, the exact time I can't help you on. But if it hadn't been for calling her and asking her --

Mr. Liebeler: To look up the Oswald file or if she remembered the Oswald file?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I would just say I have a pretty vivid imagination and let's just forget it. Anything other than the law practice -- I would say that what Regis suspects is that I was full of that dope, but I normally take certain steps, and this is the way I would have done it is what I did. I called her. Had Davis been there when the call came in, Davis would have been told, and he would have left the hospital, went down to the office, and shook the office down for the file, and called me from there before he went home. I know it couldn't have come in while he was there. The only media of time that I can use is either medication or food. Of course, being fat, I like food. I wasn't much interested in food. They weren't feeding me too much, and I am pretty sure it was after medication and food and the tray had been picked up that the call came in.

Mr. Liebeler: Of course, they fed you more than once up there?

Page 120

Mr. Andrews: They feed three times a day, but they don't feed you enough to keep a sparrow alive.

Mr. Liebeler: Well, in any event, you are not able to clarify for us the sequence of what happened?

Mr. Andrews: Well, the sequence of events had to be this: Davis spent Saturday afternoon with me. He probably left just before chow, and when I ate, and the phone call came in some time after chow. I am positive it wasn't as late as 9 o'clock. I think the latest it could have been is 6, but Miss Springer says I called her some time around 4, 4:30 -- I don't know which.

Mr. Liebeler: Miss. Springer is your secretary?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Now do you recall talking to an FBI agent, Regis L. Kennedy, and Carl L. Schlaeger on November 25?

Mr. Liebeler: Now --

Mr. Andrews: I don't remember -- Kennedy, yes, Schlaeger, no I don't even know if he was in the same room. I don't think I have even seen him much less talk to him.

Mr. Liebeler: Kennedy was; yes?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: They usually go around in pairs?

Mr. Andrews: Well, they work in teams, so he's got to have been there.

Mr. Liebeler: Now Kennedy came and visited you at the hospital; Is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Mr. Liebeler: Now --

Mr. Andrews: I remember that pretty good because I called the Feebees, and the guy says to put the phone, you know, and nothing happened.

Mr. Liebeler: The Feebees?

Mr. Andrews: That's what we call the Federal guys. All of a sudden like a big hurricane, here they come.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember telling him at that time that you thought that Clay Bertrand had come into the office with Oswald when Oswald had been in the office earlier last spring?

Mr. Andrews: No; I don't remember.

Mr. Liebeler: Was Bertrand ever in the office with Oswald?

Mr. Andrews: Not that I remember.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you have a picture in your mind of this Clay Bertrand?

Mr. Andrews: Oh, I ran up on that rat about 6 weeks ago and be spooked, ran in the street. I would have beat him with a chain if I had caught him.

Mr. Liebeler: Let me ask you 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 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 bills were shook up

Page 121

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.

Mr. Liebeler: That was the description of the situation?

Mr. Andrews: It was my decision if they were to stay there. If I decide yes, they stay. If I decide no, they go. So I told them, "Close your file and go some place else." That's the real reason why it was done. I don't know what they wrote in the report, but that's the real reason.

Mr. Liebeler: Now subsequent to that time, however, you actually ran into Clay Bertrand in the street?

Mr. Andrews: About 6 weeks ago. I am trying to think of the name of this bar. That's where this rascal bums out. I was trying to get past him so I could get a nickel in the phone and call the Feebees or John Rice, but he saw me and spooked and ran. I haven't seen him since

Mr. Liebeler: Did you talk lo him that day?

Mr. Andrews: No; if I would have got close enough to talk to him, I would have grabbed him.

Mr. Liebeler: What does this guy look like?

Mr. Andrews: He is about 5 feet 8 Inches. Got sandy hair blue eyes ruddy complexion. Must weigh about 165, 170, 175. He really took off, that rascal.

Mr. Liebeler: He recognized you?

Mr. Andrews: He had to because if he would have let me get to that phone and make the call he would be in custody

Mr. Liebeler: You wanted to get hold of this guy and make him available to the FBI for interview, or Mr. Rice of the Secret Service?

Mr. Andrews: What I wanted to do and should have done is crack him in the head with a bottle, but I figured I would be a good, law-abiding citizen and call them and let them grab him, but I made the biggest mistake of the century. I should have grabbed him right there. I probably will never find him again. He has been bugging me ever since this happened.

Mr. Liebeler: Now before you ran into Clay Bertrand in the street on this day, did you have a notion in your mind what he looked like?

Mr. Andrews: I had seen him before one time to recognize him.

Mr. Liebeler: When you saw him that day, he appeared to you as he had before when you recognized him?

Mr. Andrews: He hasn't changed any appearance, I don't think. Maybe a little fatter, maybe a little skinnier.

Mr. Liebeler: Now I have a rather lengthy report of an interview that Mr. Kennedy had with you on December 5, 1963, in which he reports you as stating that you had a mental picture of Clay Bertrand as being approximately 6 feet 1 inch to 6 feet 2 inches in height, brown hair, and well dressed.

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Now this description is different, at least in terms of height of the man, than the one you have just given us of Clay Bertrand.

Mr. Andrews: But, you know, I don't play Boy Scouts and measure them. I have only seen this fellow twice in my life. I don't think there is that much in the description. There may be some to some artist, but to me, there isn't that much difference. Might be for you all

Mr. Liebeler: I think you said he was 5 feet 8 inches before.

Page 122

Mr. Andrews: Well, I can't give you any better because the time I was looking for the fellow, he was sitting down. I am just estimating. You meet a guy 2 years ago, you meet him, period.

Mr. Liebeler: Which time was he sitting down?

Mr. Andrews: He was standing up first time.

Mr. Liebeler: I thought you met him on the street the second time when you --

Mr. Andrews: No, he was in a barroom.

Mr. Liebeler: He was sitting in a chair when you saw him 6 weeks ago?

Mr. Andrews: A table at the right-hand side. I go there every now and then spooking for him.

Mr. Liebeler: What's the name of the bar you saw him in that day, do you remember?

Mr. Andrews: Cosimo's used to be. Little freaky joint.

Mr. Liebeler: Well, now, if you didn't see him standing up on that day --

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: So that you didn't have any basis on which to change your mental picture of this man in regard to his height from the first one that you had?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: I am at a loss to understand why you told Agent Kennedy on December 5 that he was 6 feet 1 to 6 feet 2 and now you have told us that he was 5 feet 8 when at no time did you see the man standing up.

Mr. Andrews: Because, I guess, the first time -- and I am guessing now --

Mr. Liebeler: Is this fellow a a homosexual, do you say?

Mr. Andrews: Bisexual. What they call a swinging cat,

Mr. Liebeler: And you haven't seen him at any time since that day?

Mr. Andrews: I haven't seen him since.

Mr. Liebeler: Now have you had your office searched for any records relating to Clay Bertrand?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Have you found anything?

Mr. Andrews: No; nothing.

Mr. Liebeler: Has this fellow Bertrand sent you business in the past?

Mr. Andrews: Prior to -- I guess the last time would be February of 1963.

Mr. Liebeler: And mostly he refers, I think you said, these gay kids, is that right?

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Mr. Liebeler: In discussing this matter with your private detective, Mr. Davis, and Miss. Springer, your secretary, have you asked them whether or not they have any recollection of ever having seen Oswald in the office?

Mr. Andrews: Davis does; Springer doesn't.

Mr. Liebeler: Davis does have a recollection?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; he recalls. He usually stays with me until about closing time. We review whatever he is doing, and he remembers them as a group.

Mr. Liebeler: So he was there then the first time they were there? The only time that he was with a group is the first time, is that right?

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Page 123

Mr. Liebeler: Have you discussed with Miss. Springer and Mr. Davis the whereabouts or any recollection they might have about Clay Bertrand?

Mr. Andrews: They weren't with me, I believe, at the time I knew,

Mr. Liebeler: Have you discussed it with them?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; but they weren't employed by me at the time I knew him.

Mr. Liebeler: So they have no recollection of Bertrand?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: When Oswald came into your office, of course, he told you what his name was, didn't he?

Mr. Andrews: Lee Oswald. I don't know whether that's his name or not.

Mr. Liebeler: But that's what he told you?

Mr. Andrews: That's what he told me.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember discussing or mentioning his name to Davis at any time prior to November 23, 1963?

Mr. Andrews: What the procedure is -- I am in a different office now than I was then, and it was a very small office, and they would come into it -- well, what I would call my office -- and they just had the reception room out in the front, and Davis would go out there, and on those matters, it's not a matter that he would be discussing, but probably some word; passed as to the swishing and the characteristics that they had, but other than that in the business, unless something is assigned to him, he knows nothing in that office unless it is assigned to him.

Mr Liebeler: So you say you probably did not mention Oswald's name

Mr. Andrews: I probably did not, other than we commented on the group in general, but none of the business that was involved or any names.

Mr. Liebeler: Is it an extraordinary thing for a bunch of gay kids to come into your office like that, or did they come from time to time?

Mr. Andrews: Well, let's see. Last week there were six of them in there. Depends on how had the police are rousing them. They shoo them in. My best customers are the police. They shoo them into the office, God bless the police.

Mr. Liebeler: Did you ever know a man by the name of Kerry Thornley as one of these gay kids?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Have you ever heard of Thornley?

Mr. Andrews: No; I represent them and that's about all there is to it. When they owe me money, I know where to go grab them, and that's about as far as it goes. Is he supposed to be down here?

Mr. Liebeler: Thornley?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I can find out if he ever made the scene here real easy.

Mr. Liebeler: No; he is not in Nev Orleans, I don't think, at the moment. When Oswald told you about his discharge, did he tell you what branch of the service he had been in?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you why he got discharge?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you what kind of a discharge he had?

Mr. Andrews: He told me he was dishonorably discharged. That's what

Page 124

I call a yellow sheet discharge. I told him I needed his serial number, the service he was in, the approximate time he got discharged, and, I think $15 or $25, I forget which, and to take the service, or rate or rank, the serial number, and to write to the Adjutant General for the transcript of the proceedings that washed him out so that they could be examined and see if there was any method of reopening or reconsideration on the file.

Mr. Liebeler: But he did not tell you any of those things?

Mr. Andrews: No; he said he would come back, and he came back, but I still didn't get his serial number and I still didn't get the money.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember specifically that he stated he had a dishonorable discharge as opposed to some other kind of discharge? Do you have a specific recollection on that?

Mr. Andrews: We call them in the Navy, B.C.D.'s and I associated that. He never mentioned the specific type discharge. It was one that was other than honorable, as we would put it in the legal sense. I just assumed it was a B.C.D. If he was in the Marines or Navy. If he was in the Army, it's a yellow discharge.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you if he was working at that time or if he had a job when he first came into your office?

Mr. Andrews: Never asked him.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he associate his other than honorable discharge with difficulty in obtaining employment?

Mr. Andrews: I just don't remember. He had a reason why he wanted it reopened. What, I don't recall. He had a reason. I don't recall he mentioned a reason, but I don't recall. I was trying to remember where they were seated to see if that would help, but no.

Mr. Liebeler: Tell me approximately how tall Oswald was.

Mr. Andrews: Oh, about 5 feet 6 inches, 5 feet 7 inches, I guess.

Mr. Liebeler: And about how much did he weigh?

Mr. Andrews: About 135, 140.

Mr. Liebeler: I don't think I have any more questions. Do you have anything else that you would like to add?

Mr. Andrews: I wish I could be more specific, that's all. This is my impression for whatever it is worth, of Clay Bertrand: His connections with Oswald I don't know at all. I think he is a lawyer without a brief case. That's my opinion. He sends the kids different places. Whether this boy is associated with Lee Oswald or not, I don't know, but I would say, when I met him about 6 weeks ago when I ran up on him and he ran away from me, he could be running because he owes me money, or he could be running because they have been squeezing the quarter pretty good looking for him while I was in the hospital, and somebody might have passed the word he was hot and I was looking for him, but I have never been able to figure out the reason why he would call me, and the only other part of this thing that I understand, hut apparently I haven't been able to communicate, is I called Monk Zelden on a Sunday at the N.O.A.C. and asked Monk if he would go over -- be interested in a retainer and go over to Dallas and see about that boy. I thought I called Monk once. Monk says we talked twice. I don't remember the second. It's all one conversation with me. Only thing I do remember about it, while I was talking with Monk, he said, "Don't worry about it. Your client just got shot." That was the end of the case. Even if he was a bona fide client, I never did get to him; somebody else got to him before I did. Other than that, that's the whole thing, but this

Page 125

boy Bertrand has been bugging me ever since. I will find find him sooner or later.

Mr. Liebeler: Does Bertrand owe you money?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I ain't looking for him for that, I want to find out why he called me on behalf of this boy after the President's assassination.

Mr. Liebeler: How come Bertrand owes you money?

Mr. Andrews: I have done him some legal work that he has failed to pay this office for.

Mr. Liebeler: When was that?

Mr. Andrews: That's in a period of years that I have -- like you are Bertrand. You call up and ask me to go down and get Mr. X out. If Mr X doesn't pay on those kinds of calls, Bertrand has a guarantee for the payment of appearance. One or two of these kids had skipped. I had to go pay the penalty, which was a lot of trouble.

Mr. Liebeler: You were going to hold Bertrand for that?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Did Oswald appear to you to be gay?

Mr. Andrews: You can't tell. I couldn't say. He swang with the kids He didn't swish, but birds of a feather flock together. I don't know any squares that run with them. They may go down to look

Mr. Liebeler: When you say he didn't swish, what do you mean by that?

Mr. Andrews: He was not effeminate; his voice isn't squeaky, he didn't walk like or talk like a girl; he walks and talks like a man

Mr. Liebeler: Did you notice anything about the way he walked? Was there anything striking about the way he carried himself?

Mr. Andrews: I never paid attention. I never watched him walk other than into and out of the office. There's nothing that would draw my attention to anything out of the ordinary, but I just assumed that he knew these people and was running with them. They had no reason to come The three gay kids he was with, they were ostentatious. They were what we call swishers. You can just look at them. All they had to do was open their mouth. That was it. Walk, they can swing better than Sammy Kaye They do real good. With those pronounced ones, you never know what the relationship is with anyone else with them, but I have no way of telling whether he is gay or not, other than he came in with what they call here queens. That's about it.

Mr. Liebeler: You have never seen any of these people since that first day they came into your office with Oswald, that first day and when you saw them down at the police station?

Mr. Andrews: The three queens? The three gay boys? No; I have never seen them.

Mr. Liebeler: There were just three of them?

Mr. Andrews: The Latin type. Mexicanos will crop their hair and a Latin won't, so I assume he is a Mex.

Mr. Liebeler: So altogether there were five of them that came into the office?

Mr. Andrews: Five. The only other thing that shook me to my toes -- you have the other part -- the Secret Service brought me some things They don't have the complete photograph. They have another photograph with the two Realpey sisters. They are actually in the office, and that shook me

Page 126

down to my toes pretty good.

Mr. Liebeler: (handing picture to witness). The picture you refer to might be Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B. Is that the one?

Mr. Andrews: Yes, this it. Victoria Realpey-Plaza and her sister Marguerite Realpey-Plaza, and I can't recall this young lady's name here at all (Indicating).

Mr. Liebeler: You are pointing to the three women who are standing --

Mr. Andrews: The one facing, standing as you look at it.

Mr. Liebeler: That's the one you can't identify?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I have her file in the office. Uncle is a warden at the Parish Prison here In New Orleans.

Mr. Liebeler: And you are referring to the three women that are standing at the right side of Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B?

Mr. Andrews: The girl carrying the pocketbook.

Mr. Liebeler: That's the one whose name you can't remember at the moment?

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Mr. Liebeler: Now this little fellow standing on the far left side of the picture, have you ever seen him before? Is he one of those gay boys who were in the office?

Mr. Andrews: No; these were all Americanos, these boys. He may be, but he is Latin looking.

Mr. Liebeler: He looks like a Latin?

Mr. Andrews: Right. This boy should be able to be found. I wanted to look for him but I didn't have a picture of him.

Mr. Liebeler: Who is that?

Mr. Andrews: The one you just asked me about. If you put some circulars around to have the Latin American people squeezed gently, he has got to be found. They are very clannish. There are only certain places they go. Somebody has to remember him. He can't just come into New Orleans and disappear. As long as he walks the street, he has to eat and he has to have some place to sleep and -- but I didn't have a picture of him, and nobody -- you just can't do it. But a lot of water has run under the stream. He may or may not be here, but it wouldn't be too hard to locate him, you know, with the proper identification.

Mr. Liebeler: Well, your friends down the street have been trying to find him and haven't come up with him yet.

Mr. Andrews: Debrueys?

Mr. Andrews: Sometimes the stools on that are not too good. They need Latin stools for that boy.

Mr. Liebeler: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Liebeler: Did you just indicate that you would like to find Mr. Bertrand and he did run off? Did you see him run off?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; I chased him, but I couldn't go.

Mr. Liebeler: This was when you saw him 6 weeks ago?

Mr. Andrews: Yes this barroom is right adjacent to -- the street -- as you go in, there are two entrances, one on the block side and one on the corner. I had no more idea of finding him than jumping off the bridge. I went in there hoping, and the hope came through. I was so surprised to see him there. I kept working my way there to go to the front when he recog -

Page 127

nized me and he sprinted out the door on the side of the street and was gone. I had to go past him to go to the phone. I should have conked him with the beer bottle.

Mr. Liebeler: He took off as soon as he saw you?

Mr. Andrews: No; but I was moving to go to the phone. He thought I was moving towards him.

Mr. Liebeler: (handing picture to witness). I show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A and ask you if you can recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. Andrews: The one that has a brief case under his arm, full face towards the looker, appears to be Lee Oswald. This boy back here (Indicating) appears to be familiar, but I would have to blow his face up to be sure. He is in between. See, this one here (indicating) ? I have never seen this picture before.

Mr. Liebeler: Between Oswald, who has the cross mark over his head and the man who has the arrow over his head?

Mr. Andrews: He is a local boy here, a face I recall. It would take me a while to place it, but the face appears to be familiar.

Mr. Liebeler: You haven't seen this picture before, is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: I don't believe.

Mr. Liebeler: The Secret Service and the FBI have shown you various pictures, but you don't recall this one?

Mr. Andrews: I don't recall seeing that one. There was one of a series where -- one of an attorney in town was there -- where we all knew him They may have shown me this, but I don't remember. We used to have a club back in 1946 called Lock (?) Fraternity, and he resembles a boy that was a member.

Mr. Liebeler: I don't think I have any more questioning, Mr. Andrews. I want to thank you very much for coming in and I appreciate the cooperation you have given us.

Mr. Andrews: I only wish I could do better.

Andrews could have done better, if Wesley Liebeler had wanted him to do better. Liebeler had some of the names and reports Andrews did not recall. But like the FBI before it, the Commission wanted only not to believe Andrews. By the time the members of the Commission read his deposition (as I assume they did), their minds had been fixed, if not poisoned, by the mass of prejudice in which they were submerged.

The job was done on Andrews when the deposition transcript showed conflicts between his sworn testimony and the Secret Service and FBI reports of their interviews with him. In a court these conflicts are resolved by the production of witnesses who can go to jail if they are untruthful. In a court each of the Secret Service and FBI agents would have been subject to

Page 128

direct and cross-examination. In this investigation, very few agents in all were called. Not one of those who questioned Andrews was a witness.

Had there ever been any possibility that Andrews's testimony could have led to further investigations, and those really familiar with the Commission's record and procedures know there never was any such intention, certainly no probability of it, the late time it was taken, again not an accident, effectively precluded it. The Commission had originally intended to finish its work by the end of June. It did hand its 900 page Report to the President two months after Andrews testified. In those two months this massive document had to be written or in part rewritten, checked, edited, footnoted, indexed, set in type, proofread, printed and bound. Long before it heard a single word from Andrews, the Commission was engaged in ending, not starting, lines of inquiry.

It never wanted any evidence that did not tend to show Oswald was the solitary murderer. It never seriously looked for any. It avoided almost all the obvious proofs of the error of the doctrine with which it undertook its task. That it ignored Andrews's testimony and the inevitable shocking disclosures, had it been pursued, is in line with standard Commission practice and policy.

It is in no way exceptional.

Moreover, there are quite a few Andrews-Bertrand exhibits that could have been printed in the millions of words the Commission did publish. The extent of what is still suppressed is unknown, but there is a considerable amount that I have obtained. Examination of it may indicate why the Commission did not make it public.

One of these is from File 87. It is another report by Rice, dated December 3, 1963. It makes reference to some of what had been doctored out of Exhibit 3104, that it was not until a week after the assassination that

Page 129

"Deputy Chief (of the Secret Service) Paul J. Paterni" on November 29, 1963, "instructed that complete investigation be made in New Orleans covering Lee Harvey Oswald's employment, education, background, associations, bank accounts, etc., also addresses " This report is listed under two headings, "Oswald, Lee H., Post Russian Period 2-3" and "Other Individuals and Organizations Involved or Interviewed." Neither reflects any special interest in anti-Castro Cuban groups. Rather than showing that an investigation of any of these Cuban groups was contemplated, this document indicates they were the source of the Secret Service's information, that the Secret Service trusted them and depended upon them. When it wanted a tape of the Oswald-Bringuier debate, it did not go to Radio Station WDSU or its reporter, Bill Stuckey, or to the Information Council of the Americas," which staged it. Rice "secured the tape from Carlos Bringuier."

Paterni knew about this debate "from the' mother-in-law of Arnesto Rodriguez who operates a Spanish language school in New Orleans." Rice reported "that Arnesto Rodriguez was in the process of furnishing us with a copy of transcription of the tape, from which copies would be made immediately." Aside from the question of how many generations removed from the original this "transcription" was and whether or not there conceivably might have been some tampering with the tape -- and there was -- why did the Secret Service have to indebt itself to those it should have been investigating?

Secret Service Agent Vial identified two Arnesto Rodriguezes, father and son, as authorized to sign checks for two groups, "The Crusade to Free Cuba" and the "Cuban Revolutionary Council" -- the latter being the return address on some of Oswald's literature. Rice drafted a lengthy report, for himself, Gerrets and Counts, covering their investigations between December 1-5. Much of the information in it comes from

Page 130

Rodriguez Sr. It reveals how the Secret Service permitted him to focus their attention where he desired, like the mother-in-law. As Bringuier was later to do with Liebeler and quite possibly had already done with others by this time, Rodriguez directed the investigation.

The Commission put a transcript of this tape into evidence as "Stuckey Exhibit No. 3" (21H633-41). Albert Jenner conducted the interrogation at the Commission's offices in Washington on June 6, 1964 (11H156-78). He entered into evidence as "Stuckey Exhibit No. 2" a transcript of Stuckey's earlier interview with Oswald and identified it as having been supplied by Stuckey (11H163). When he got to the debate transcript (11H169), Jenner identified it as being from Commission File 87b. He then said, "We have obtained from the radio station, WDSU, a duplicate of this tape itself." He did not say who made the transcript or from what tape. Stuckey claimed it was "very unfair" because an unnamed "these people" had "put in all of Oswald's hesitations, his 'er's', and that sort of thing." Jenner's rejoinder leaves something to be desired. He said, before going on to other matters, merely, "I will say it is a transcript."

A transcript it is, but whose and of whose tape?

File 87b is one of five very large ones that constitute a massive early January Secret Service report. From this it would seem that the source of this debate used by Jenner is Cuban.

Hal Verb, a West Coast writer and researcher, has obtained a literal transcription of this tape. In his testimony Stuckey (11H169) seems to identify the Commission's version as having been distributed by the Associated Press. Verb's copy, which I have, came from the electronic media.

One paragraph is of particular interest. As printed by the Commission (21H639), it has but a single "er." In the original there are eight. But the Commission ver-

Page 131

sion has something added to replace these missing seven "er's," something that changes the sense entirely. Here is the Commission version:

Oswald: Well, as I er, well -- I will answer that question directly then as you will not rest until you get your answer. I worked in Russia I was not under the protection of the -- that is to say I was not under protection of the American (sic) government. but as I was, at all times considered an American citizen I did not lose my American citizenship.

Hal Verb's transcript, which is confirmed by an actual tape I had, is as follows:

Oswald: Er, well, as I er, well, I will answer that question directly then as you will not rest until you get your answer er, I worked in Russia er, I was er under the protection er, of the er, that is to say I was not under protection of the American government but as I was at all times er, considered an American citizen. I did not lose any American citizenship.

That's quite a swap -- seven "er's" for one "not." This swap is exactly what Stuckey called it, "very unfair" -- not because of a disparity in the weight or values of "er's" as compared with "not's" but because of the 180 degree change in the meaning of Oswald's statement. He actually slipped and said, "I was, er, under the protection of the" American government, then corrected himself. The Commission's editing here has him saying, "I was not under the protection of the American government."

With the connections of the Cuban groups in New Orleans and elsewhere with the American government and the assassination, this is quite a change. It certainly is interesting in that its possible source, from this unpublished Secret Service "Andrews" report, is these same Cuban groups, especially Carlos Bringuier, who had known Oswald and was his opponent in the debate. If anyone knew what Oswald had really said, it is the sharp Bringuier.

File 126 has a collection of "Andrews-Bertrand" reports. They are consistent with Andrews's testimony

Page 132

and with the tendentious and disputatious character of the other reports. Pages 21-5 are the December 3 account of FBI Agents Kennedy and Reed W. Jensen of their lengthy interview that day. In the most intimate detail it says what Andrews testified to seven months later. But it also argues against what he said, revealing the basis of his complaint to Liebeler that he just had to get rid of the agents, who were pestering him -- the technique repeatedly used by the FBI.

This report identifies a witness to the Oswald-International Trade Mart handbill distribution. Her name was known to Andrews, obviously, because in his testimony he described her as a "client," although he could not recall it. She is an employee of M. L. Queen, Room 338 of the Trade Mart. Her name is Clemencia Almeida. She then lived at 929 Gravier Street. She was never called as a witness. Her name is not mentioned in the Report. It is not, in fact, mentioned a single time in the 15 large volumes of testimony. The two Realpey Plaza (sic) sisters Andrews did identify are not mentioned elsewhere.

This report is also the beginning of the FBI effort to make Andrews recant, the effort to undermine what he wanted the government to know, what could have and should have changed the entire course of the so called investigation of the assassination, the Report and subsequent history. At the top of page 25 it reads:

Mr. ANDREWS requested at the end of the interview that this entire incident could have been dreamed by him in view of the physical condition he was in at that time.

Pointing up the consciousness of selection in what was printed, the conscious act of those on the staff who decided what to include in the record and what to suppress from it, the brief Bucaro reports quoted above, Exhibit 2899, come next, pages 27-30. Then comes the Kennedy report about which Liebeler needled Andrews. It is four pages long. The interview was

Page 133

on December 5. The report was dictated and typed the next day. It is undiluted poison. It begins in the first paragraph by saying that Andrews "had verified from his physician that he was under extremely heavy sedation," which is a considerable exaggeration. All he got, as page 27 proves, is phenobarbital. Next, it quotes him as saying that, as a result of his conversations with Davis and his secretary (neither of whom was called as a witness), "he has determined that there are a number of variances in his independent recollections" and those of his employees, which is also not less than a major exaggeration, for they confirm his statements in even the biased versions of the FBI.

Kennedy goes on and on this way. On page 32 he quotes Andrews as saying of himself he was "obviously out of his mind . . ." On this same page 18 a repetition of the canard about the search of the files. "He advised that after a careful and extensive search of his files he has been unable to locate the name CLAY BERTRAND . . ." This is followed by an argument entirely at odds with reality as Andrews testified to it, that he could not have accepted a case brought in by Bertrand because, "what authority did Bertrand have?"

The exaggeration of the amount of sedation administered to Andrews is repeated before the close of the report. The second paragraph of the last page emphasizes, with no more concern for accuracy, "Andrews advised that his physician has confirmed to him that he was a very sick man and under extremely heavy sedation and in fact, told him that he was not physically able to use the telephone."

Here Kennedy was swept away by his dedication, for that Andrews "was not physically able to use the telephone" is a redundant lie. He did call Sam "Monk" Zelden twice, each of his employees, the Secret Service and a TV station! Of the fact of this, well known to Kennedy, the FBI and the Commission staff, there is not now and never has been any question.

Page 134

In Whitewash where for the first time Andrews's sensational testimony was brought to public light and its probable meaning set forth, I pointed out that one simple way of confirming part of his testimony or disproving it would have been to call Zelden as a witness and ask him if Andrews had phoned to request him to defend Oswald. This was not done. Had Wesley J. Liebeler been dedicated to the integrity of the Commission's information, if not its completeness, he need not have called Zelden as a witness. He might have done as he and most of the Commission's other lawyers did for a short-cut when it served their purposes. He could have used an FBI report instead of Zelden.

Kennedy and Claude L. Schlaeger did interview Zelden immediately, the very first weekday, November 25. He told them, in their own words, that the day before, when Andrews phoned him to ask that he represent Oswald, "ZELDEN advised that he was surprised and not interested in defending OSWALD and he told ANDREWS that he would have to think about it and about this time he heard on television that Oswald had been shot." This is exactly, not approximately but exactly, what Andrews, despite his "extremely heavy sedation," said, that Zelden heard the news of Oswald's murder while they were talking.

Liebeler's reason for omitting all mention of this in his lengthy interrogation of Andrews and the Commission reason for not finding space for these 140 words of this brief report among the millions it printed are obvious and not suggestive of an honest, unbiased search for the truth or an assassin or with professional integrity.

When he questioned Andrews about the difference in Bertrand's estimated height standing and sitting, Liebeler referred to this particular Kennedy report.

Kennedy drafted his December 5 report with the skill of a novelist. One can imagine its impact on those

Page 135

who read it and its possible effect on the entire course of the investigation. Nor is he without knowledge of literary devices. Still again he emphasized that "sedation," saying Andrews admitted that what he had said "under sedation" was "a figment of his imagination."

Despite Kennedy's best effort and they were very good -- there persists in this report Andrews's reiteration of what he had said before, with not a single detail in conflict with his previous statements to the FBI or Secret Service or his subsequent testimony. Considering that Regis Kennedy, FBI agent, drafted this report, what I have said is a not inconsiderable endorsement of Andrews's recollection and its integrity.

The next three pages of this file actually confirm Andrews. They are printed by the Commission as Exhibits 2900 and 2901 in an effort to refute him, and they are in this manner invoked by the Commission. The truth is contrary. Note also that these are part of a series, beginning with Exhibit 2899, that represents a prejudicial culling of the file in which what is hurtful to the argument of the Commission and would help establish the truth and reveal the way the FBI works is what is suppressed from the printed record.

The account of what Investigator Davis told Kennedy on December 5 begins and ends with the same deception about the files:

He advised that be and ANDREWS have spent hours looking through the files and discussing with each other and ANDREWS' secretary, EVA SPRINGER, the various aspects of the call received from CLAY BERTRAND and he has no doubt that ANDREWS is now convinced that the call he received at the hospital was a dream . . . DAVIS advised that he has extensively searched ANDREWS' office for information which would identify CLAY BERTRAND and has been unsuccessful in locating any record.

But even Kennedy could not totally hide the affirmation of Oswald's visit to Andrews's office about his discharge and Marina's immigration status. Davis

Page 136

recalled that it was in June, exactly what Andrews independently said, what it was about, that Andrews had told him "on various occasions that an individual named OSWALD had been in ANDREWS' office," and that Oswald's face is "familiar."

In a too superficial questioning of Eva Springer, she confirmed Andrews's phone call to her from the hospital about defending Oswald, her reaction ("she was not going to Dallas with him and she wanted nothing to do with the case"), and his mention of the name "Bertrand," with no first name.

While "she does not recall LEE HARVEY OSWALD," which is not surprising, because Andrews had made it clear Oswald, with or without his "gay" companions, always came to the office after work, when she was not in the office, "she recalls ANDREWS speaking to her briefly" about the discharge.

Neither of these reports, on analysis, is the denial of Andrews's testimony that the Commission pretends. Each, despite the dissembling and distortion of the FBI, constitutes support and reinforcement of his statements.

For its own and not presently clear reasons, the FBI included this and what follows in an entirely different file identified in the Commission's records as No. 75.

Kennedy had interviewed Davis earlier. On November 27 (page 195) he filed a report that in its entirety reads:

R. M. DAVIS, investigator for DEAN ANDREWS, attorney-at-law, Audubon Building, New Orleans, Louisiana, advised upon the instruction of his employer, DEAN ANDREWS, he has made extensive searches of the files of ANDREWS' office, and has been unable to locate any record of CLAY BERTRAND or any record of a LEE HARVEY OSWALD. He advised that he recalled OSWALD visiting ANDREWS' office and ANDREWS had mentioned to him that OSWALD was desirous of obtaining a hearing on his bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps. DAVIS advised that he could not recall or identify any of the individuals with whom OSWALD had come to the office.

This is hardly an investigation or the report of an

Page 137

investigation. Nor is it what Kennedy soon thereafter represented Davis as saying when the pressure was blatantly on. It is interesting that this abbreviation of an incompetent inquiry makes no allusion to whether or not Davis recognized a picture of Oswald, which in his subsequent report Kennedy did go into with some evasiveness. It is not likely that when the FBI investigated the assassination of the President, its agents were not armed with multiple pictures of the accused assassin. It seems a fair inference that Davis said more than Kennedy reported and that a reasonable identification of Oswald was one of these things.

After the New Orleans States-Item broke the story of the Garrison investigation on Friday, February 17 1967, Bob Scott, one of the enterprising reporters for Radio Station WNAC in Boston, phoned Andrews for an interview and any information he could provide. A few days later he called Andrews again. On the first call, Andrews was almost uninhibited but predicted his memory might fail. On the second call, Andrews made good his prediction. What he could not avoid, he said he did not recall.

Harv Morgan; an experienced radio reporter who has conducted information programs since before the assassination and a man who, with remarkable success, as made his daily three hours on KCBS in San Francisco a modern "town meeting of the air," phoned Andrews on Sunday, February 26, while I was broadcasting by telephone from my Maryland home. It was not immediately clear to Andrews, who had not been home when Morgan called earlier and left a message, that this was being broadcast, although Morgan so said.

Morgan read Andrews quotations from his testimony as I had incorporated them in Whitewash. Andrews denied having made such statements. Suddenly he asked, "Say, is this being taped?"

Morgan was speaking at the same time and did not

Page 138

understand Andrews, but I did.

"Is being broadcast," I told him.

From Maryland to San Francisco and more than halfway back across the continent to New Orleans, these three words went in a fraction of a second. Andrews's comprehension was as fast.

"Somebody's out of his mind!" he exclaimed. Then, "Click!" and the conversation was again two-way. Andrews was no more "out of his mind" that Sunday than he was when Regis Kennedy interviewed him in Hotel Dieu Hospital. He wants to live.

He put it in his characteristic forceful style in talking to Scott. He "just loves to breathe." At the same time, he predicted almost to the day when that all-encompassing memory, after holding exquisitely fine detail for 45 months, would suddenly fail. That failure just happened to coincide with the call from his friend Garrison for questioning in the New Orleans investigation.

Because of his bravery before the Commission and his determination not to be intimidated or diverted by the FBI, Andrews's indictment in the Garrison probe is a special kind of tragedy. It is also a measure of Garrison's dedication, for he and Andrews are friends.

The first of Andrews's grand-jury appearances was on March 1. In advance, he told the press, when asked if Shaw and Bertrand were the same man, "I don't know if he is and I don't know if he isn't." Subsequently, he pretended disinterest and was quoted as saying, "I should care less" (sic), about this identification; Oswald, he said, had become "just a vague memory." He volunteered the prediction that he would be indicted and announced he had bet that he would be. His prediction was good and he won his bets on Thursday, March 16. The charge was perjury.

When Sam Monk Zelden, Andrews's friend and lawyer, alleged a lack of specific detail in this indictment, on Wednesday, April 12, Andrews was rein-

Page 139