Opening statement by Jim Garrison, continued



MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I wish to call the Court's attention to the case of State vs. (Peterson) --

THE COURT: What is the name of it?

MR. DYMOND: -- cited at 95 So. 2d 608; State vs. White, cited in 153 So. 2d 401, and State vs.Mann, cited in 202 So. 2d. 259, all three of which cases are to the effect that when the State answers an application for a bill of particulars setting forth certain particulars in connection with an alleged crime, that the State is bound by this answer for an application, cannot go outside the scope --

THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. ALCOCK: The State is bound, and the State -- and Mr. Dymond knows that, we have argued this point many times in the picking of this Jury -- the State is as a matter of fact bound by its answers to the bill of particulars. The State must prove one or more of those overt acts, but, as this Court rightly points out, the State may overprove its case all it wants to. If it underproves its case it is out of court, but if it overproves it, that is its own wishes and its own will. Additionally, these facts are certainly corroborative of a conspiracy which talked of triangulation of cross fire, or a scapegoat and of a patsy. These facts are purely corroborative, and I would cite to the Court State vs. Kelly, a Louisiana case which may be found at 112 So. 2d 694. There is no dispute between myself and Mr. Dymond as to the State being bound on the answers to the bill of particulars. This Court has no dispute with that, as I appreciate its comments during the picking of the Jury. The sole issue is are we going to be circumscribed by Mr. Dymond's wishes or are we going to be allowed to prove our case, and, if we want to overprove it, to overprove it, and I think the Court has properly ruled that this area may be gone into as one to be corroborative, and, No. 2 if the State wishes to overprove its case, it may.

Mr. DYMOND: If the Court please, I am not asking that the State be circumscribed by my wishes, I am asking that they be circumscribed by the law. Your Honor stated from this bench during the voir dire that the state is definitely bound and restricted by the answer to the application for particulars. Your Honor would have to make a 180-degree turn on your rulings on the voir dire to the effect that we could not even go into the question of what prospective jurors felt about what happened in Dallas, whether President Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I can remember vividly Mr. Dymond on at least two occasions, perhaps more, asking this Court point blank and directly, are you going to deny the State the right to go into Dallas? And this Court repeatedly said, "I cannot do such a thing. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. If the State wants to overprove its case, the State may overprove its case." The Court has consistently held that, contrary to what Mr. Dymond is now saying.

MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, unfortunately, there was one bridge we had to cross before we came to it, and that was the selection of a jury, and your Honor would not permit us to go into Dallas at all on the voir dire, and I submit that that ruling is absolutely contrary to any contention at this time that the State has a right in their evidence to go into this question.

THE COURT: I don't know if you cited the d'Ingianni Case, but I tried the d'Ingianni Case and I remember specifically the Supreme Court stating although the State is limited in its proof, if the State were to prove, say, nine other overt acts but did not prove one of the six, I would have to grant you a directed verdict, but I will agree with the State's position that they can corroborate their evidence, and I therefore overrule your objections.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of Exception, making the opening statement being made by Mr. Garrison, Counsel's objections to the content of the openinq statement, together with the reasons therefor and the ruling part of the bill.

THE COURT: Your point is, "As to the planning -- "

MR. GARRISON: As to the planning -- the conspiracy -- our jurisdiction is limited to New Orleans, although we will later offer evidence concerning the assassination in Dealey Plaza in Dallas because it confirms the existence of a conspiracy and because it confirms the significance and relevance of the planning which occurred in New Orleans.

It is the position of the State of Louisiana that, regardless of the power which might bring about the execution of a President of United States, whether it be initiated by a small group or the highest possible force, neither the planning of his murder nor any part of it, will be regarded in Louisiana as being above the law.

And so, with DAVID FERRIE now dead and LEE OSWALD now dead, the State is bringing to trial CLAY SHAW for his role -- as revealed by evidence -- in participating in the conspiracy to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY.

Returning our attention to the cluttered apartment Of DAVID FERRIE: The evidence will show that PERRY RUSSO had been a fairly close friend of DAVID FERRIE for some time prior to the meeting between the defendant, FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD The evidence further will show that PERRY RUSSO first met LEE HARVEY OSWALD at DAVID FERRIE's apartment shortly before the principal meeting between the named conspirators took place. At this meeting OSWALD, who was cleaning a bolt-action rifle with a telescopic sight, was introduced to RUSSO by FERRIE as LEON. PERRY RUSSO saw LEE HARVEY OSWALD at FERRIE's apartment at least once after the meeting of the conspirators. On this occasion OSWALD appeared to be having some difficulty with his wife and he gave RUSSO the impression he was leaving town.

RUSSO also had seen the defendant, SHAW, once before the meeting. This was at the Nashville Street Wharf at the time PRESIDENT KENNEDY was speaking there in the Spring of 1962. The defendant, SHAW, also was seen by RUSSO with DAVID FERRIE subsequent to the assassination at FERRIE's service station in Jefferson Parish. The State will also introduce other evidence to show that CLAY SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID FERRIE knew each other.

In connection with the testimony of PERRY RUSSO, the State will introduce into evidence pictures of the defendant, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD, as well as pictures of the exterior and interior of DAVID FERRIE's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, and other corroborating evidence. In connection with photographic evidence the State will qualify PETER SCHUSTER of the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office as an expert in the field of photography.

The evidence will further show that the defendant in accordance with the plan and in furtherance of it, did in fact head for the West Coast of the United States -- ostensibly to make a speech -- on November 15, 1963. He remained there until after PRESIDENT KENNEDY's assassination on November 22, 1963, thereby establishing an alibi for himself for the day of the shooting.

The State will offer into evidence a ledger sheet of travel consultants and testimony which reflects the arrangements made by the defendant, SHAW, to go to the West Coast. This travel consultant firm -- which in 1963 was located in the International Trade Mart -- was the same firm which arranged for LEE OSWALD to go to Europe, from which he went to Russia, several years earlier. The State will show that FERRIE drove to Houston on the day of the assassination, departing from New Orleans on the evening of November 22nd -- some hours after the President was killed and two days before LEE OSWALD was killed. FERRIE drove, with two young companions, through a severe storm for the ostensible purpose of going ice skating in Houston. Upon arriving in Houston, FERRIE and his companions went to the Winterland Skating Rink where FERRIE loudly and repeatedly introduced himself to the manager of the rink. Despite the fact that he had driven all the way from New Orleans to Houston for the purpose of ice skating, DAVID FERRIE never put on any ice skates at all. While his young friends skated, FERRIE stood by the public pay phone as if waiting for a call. The evidence will further show that earlier, after LEE OSWALD's departure from New Orleans, he took a short trip to Mexico and then made his way to Dallas. On October 14, 1963, he rented a room at 1026 N. Beckley Street under the fictitious name of O. H. Lee. Two days later he went to work at the Texas School Book Depository, which was located at the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas, Texas. At the Book Depository, BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER was employed in the order filling department. FRAZIER lived in Irving, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, and was a co-worker of OSWALD's. OSWALD's wife and baby daughter also lived in Irving with MRS. RUTH PAINE, a friend of the OSWALDS. FRAZIER's sister, LINNIE MAY RANDLE, was a neighbor of MRS. PAINE's in Irving. Since OSWALD had an apartment in Dallas, he made arrangements with FRAZIER to ride to Irving with him only on weekends. OSWALD thereafter rode to Irving with BUELL FRAZIER every Friday except the one immediately preceding the assasination. OSWALD did not go to see his wife and daughter on that weekend because he said, he was working on getting his driver's license. However, that next week OSWALD once more broke his ritual with FRAZIER. On Thursday, November 21, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD asked FRAZIER if he could ride to Irving that night for the purpose of picking up some curtain rods for his apartment. On Friday morning, November 22, 1963, BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER drove OSWALD from Irving to the Texas School Depository. OSWALD had with him a package wrapped in brown wrapping paper. When he inquired as to its contents, FRAZIER will testify, OSWALD replied that the package contained the curtain rods he had returned home to pick up the night before. FRAZIER will further testify that OSWALD told him that he would not be returning to Irving that night, Friday, November 22, 1963. BUELL FRAZIER will testify that he entered the Texas School Book Depository building that morning about 50 feet behind LEE OSWALD. OSWALD was still carrying the package. FRAZIER will testify that he saw OSWALD a couple of times that morning, but never saw the package again. Around noon of that day, FRAZIER went to the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository to watch the presidential motorcade which was due to pass directly in front of the Book Depository as it made its turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street. While the motorcade was passing, FRAZIER heard three shots which sounded like they came from the area of the underpass -- near the grassy knoll -- in front of the President. At the conclusion of FRAZIER's testimony, the State will introduce into evidence pictures of a paper sack found in the Texas School Book Depository, as well as pictures of Dealey Plaza as it appeared on the day of the assassination. With regard to the assassination itself, the State will establish that on November 22, 1963, President JOHN F. KENNEDY and Governor JOHN CONNALLY, who was riding in the same limousine were wounded as a result of gunshot fired by different guns at different locations.

Furthermore, the State will show that PRESIDENT KENNEDY himself was struck by a number of bullets coming from different guns at different locations -- thus showing that more than one person was shooting at the President. The evidence will show that he was struck in the front as well as the back -- and that the final shot which struck him came from in front of him, knocking him backwards in his car. Once again, since LEE OSWALD was in the Book Depository behind the President this will show that a number of men were shooting and that he was, therefore, killed as the result of consipracy.

The State, in showing that a number of guns were fired during the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY, will offer, in addition to eyewitnesses, various photographs and motion pictures of what transpired in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. First, the State will offer an 8mm color motion picture film taken by Abraham Zapruder, commonly known as the Zapruder film. This film which has not been shown to the public, will clearly show you the effect of the shots striking the President. In this connection we will also offer slides and photographs of various individual frames of this film. The State will request permission from the Court to allow you, the jury, to view this material. Thus, you will be able to see -- in color motion picture -- the President as he is being struck by the various bullets and you will be able to see him fall backwards as the fatal shot strikes him from the front -- not the back but the front. Also, the State will introduce as evidence certain other photographs and motion picture films, taken during the assassination, as listed below:

1. The "Moorman picture" which is a polaroid photograph taken by Mary Moorman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. In addition to this picture, but in connection with it, the State will offer various blow-up prints of this photograph.

2. Various photographs taken by Mr. Philip Willis in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

3. Various photographs taken by Miss Wilma Bond in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

4. A motion picture film with slides and photographs taken by Mr. John Martin on November 22, 1963.

The State will qualify ROBERT H. WEST, the County Land Surveyor for Dallas County, Texas, as a licensed registered public surveyor and thus competent to testify as an expert as to the topographical aspects of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. In conjunction with the testimony of Mr. WEST, the State will offer into evidence a certified survey, an aerial photograph and a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. The State will also qualify Dr. ROBERT SHAW as an expert in the field of medicine, and in connection with this tesimony we will offer x-rays and medical records concerning GOVERNOR CONNALLY's wounds and treatment at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.

The State will qualify and offer the testimony of DR. JOHN NICHOLS, a medical expert in the field of forensic medicine and pathology. In connection with his testimony the State will offer certain exhibits, x-rays and photographs into evidence. Furthermore, during the presentation of this case, the State will qualify and offer the testimony of Special Agent ROBERT A. FRAZIER of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an expert in the field of ballistics. Special Agent LYNDAL SHANEYFELT as a photographic expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be qualified and will testify.

The State also will present eyewitness testimony, corroborating what is shown in the Zapruder film: that the President's fatal shot was received from the front and that he was thrown backward -- not forward -- from the force of this fatal shot. The eyewitness testimony will also show that the shooting came from a number of directions and that, therefore, the President was murdered, not by a lone individual behind him but as the result of conspiracy to kill him.

We will then show that a few minutes after the shooting LEE OSWALD came running down the grass in front of the Book Depository, that he climbed into a station wagon with another man at the wheel and that this station wagon pulled away and disappeared into the traffic on Elm Street.

The evidence will further show that shortly after the assassination of PRESIDENT KENNEDY, on November 25, 1963, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed DEAN A. ANDREWS, JR. in his room at Hotel Dieu Hospital in New Orleans. As a result of this interview with DEAN ANDREWS, a local attorney, the Bureau began a systematic and thorough search for a "CLAY BERTRAND." A man who identified himself as "CLAY BERTRAND" called ANDREWS the day after the President's assassination requesting him to defend LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who by then had been formally charged with the murder of JOHN F. KENNEDY. The State will introduce evidence in the course of this case showing that the defendant, CLAY SHAW, and the "CLAY BERTRAND" who called DEAN ANDREWS on behalf of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, are one and the same person.

The evidence will further show that sometime during the year 1966 the defendant CLAY SHAW, requested the U.S. Post Office to deliver mail addressed to him at his residence at 1313 Dauphine Street to 1414 Chartres Street, the residence of a long-time friend, JEFF BIDDISON. This change of address order was terminated on September 21, 1966. During the period that the change of address remained in effect, the U.S. Post Office letter carrier for that route delivered at least five letters to 1414 Chartres Street addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND," the name used by the defendant at the meeting between himself, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD in FERRIE's apartment in mid-September, 1963. None of the letters addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND" were ever returned to the postal authorities for any reason. The period during which these letters addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND" were delivered to 1414 Chartres Street preceded by at least six months the publication of the fact that the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office was investigating the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY. In fact, it preceded the start of the investigation by the District Attorney's office. In connection with this evidence, the state will offer into evidence the US Post Office forms reflecting the change of address initiated by the defendant and testimony showing the delivery to that address of mail delivered to "CLEM BERTRAND."

It will be shown that in December 1966 the defendant, CLAY SHAW, visited the VIP room of one of the airlines at Moisant Airport and that, while there, he signed the guest register in the name of "Clay Bertrand." Eyewitness testimony will be presented and the guest book which he signed will be introduced into evidence.

The State of Louisiana will ask you to return a verdict of guilty as charged against the defendant, Clay Shaw.


Back to the top




Back to Shaw trial testimony

Search trial database chronologically

Additional resources on the trial of Clay Shaw


Search this site
    powered by FreeFind

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page