The VIP Room Revisited

Compelling Evidence or Dubious Forgery?

By Joe G. Biles

In the controversy surrounding the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, one of the most interesting but overlooked items of evidence was the allegation that Shaw, in the winter of 1966 (prior to questioning by the D.A.), signed the VIP book at Moisant Airport under his alleged alias--Clay Bertrand. To Garrison critics like Patricia Lambert and Dave Reitzes, the signature in that book is an obvious forgery and one of the more dubious areas of evidence delved into by Garrison and his staff. [1] The VIP room evidence was even largely written off by those in the Garrison camp until the work of William Davy in 1995 produced some interesting new twists on an old story.

To summarize, in 1967, NODA investigators learned that someone using the name "Clay Bertrand" had signed the guest book in the VIP room at Moisant Airport in New Orleans. In early September of that year, the signature was located and photographs were made of the book on the morning of September 2. [2] Ten days later, the hostess of the VIP room, an unassuming African American woman named Jessie Parker, made out a sworn affidavit stating the previous December two white men and four foreigners (from Caracas, Venezuela) had visited the VIP room and identified a picture of Clay Shaw as the one that signed the VIP book. [3]

In her book False Witness, Patricia Lambert makes the following argument against Parker:

[Parker] claimed that on December 14, 1966, she saw Clay Shaw sign the name "Clay

Bertrand" in the guest book. The prosecution offered no theory to explain why Shaw, if

he had conspired to murder the president using this alias, would have continued to use it

afterwards. The signature appeared on the last line of a page, where it could have been

added at any time by anyone. [4]

Shaw's alleged alias did not necessarily revolve around the assassination. Even if it did, new evidence renders Lambert's point moot. Besides, at that point Shaw hadn't even been questioned by the D.A.'s office nor did he have any idea Perry Russo would come forward with his story (it's validity is another story for many other articles). Lambert's second argument is flawed as well. The signature wasn't added at the bottom of a page, it was on the last line. There's a difference. By Lambert's reasoning, any signatures on the last line of any page in the VIP book could have been added to support a wrongful prosecution against anyone. This argument also depends on the coincidence that Garrison's men were able to forge a signature immediately prior to that of four men from Caracas (who also recorded their visit as happening on the 14th) and after that of Arthur Q. Davis (who also recorded his as visit as happening on the 14th).

Lambert's other mention of the VIP room incident is her treatment of defense witness Charles Appel, a handwriting expert who determined that the signature was not Shaw's. [5] Lambert lauds Appel as being "nationally known for breaking the Lindbergh kidnapping case."[6] In defending Appel, Lambert, it seems, is one of the few in this country who still believe that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wasn't framed and was in fact guilty. [7] We are informed in passing that Appel "waived his fee when told the defendant couldn't afford it."[8] Why was the fee waived? In Appel's own words, because he wanted to prevent "an injustice occurring."[9]

To rebut the testimony of Appel, the prosecution called another handwriting analyst, Elizabeth McCarthy. Dave Reitzes argues against McCarthy's credibility in his article "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?," noting that she had "no formal training" and that her presentation was less detailed than McCarthy's. [10] On the same note, Lambert writes that "None of her degrees had included handwriting analysis classes...."[11] Is this really an issue? Not according to Lambert's favorite analyst, Charles Appel.

Q. Now, what training have you had in this field, Mr. Appel?

A. I just described it. [He described researching the subject and studying under other experts.] There are no courses in colleges concerning this. [12]

In fact, McCarthy's training was remarkably similar to Appel's. The skill of McCarthy's presentation is, of course, highly subjective. Reitzes also attacks McCarthy because she only studied photographs of the signature (not the originals), she first worked on the case the previous evening and expected to be paid for her work. As far as the pay issue goes, McCarthy is way ahead of Appel.

Appel does no better on the other issues either. He too only studied photographs and did not see the original until his trial testimony [13] This was not a real issue with the analysis of the handwriting "if the evidence in this case you are dealing with concerns the design of the letters, the quality of the lines, because these show very well even in Xeroxed copies." Such was the case at the Shaw trial. [14] Under cross-examination, Appel admitted that he was not present when Shaw made the samples he compared to the VIP signature. He was given other samples from letters Shaw wrote in 1966, but curiously the only one blown-up for his presentation was one that Shaw made specifically for his analysis. [15] It was only at the request of the prosecution that the other signatures were made available for the Jury to view. [16] If McCarthy is to be criticized for only beginning her work the previous evening, it should be noted that she took four hours to analyze the signatures in question. [17] Appel testified it took him two hours. [18]

Reitzes also tells us that the state also contacted Gilbert Fortier about analyzing the signature, noting that he was the expert most frequently called upon by the prosecution in such matters. [19] Fortier, of course, never testified at the Shaw trial. If this is a sin on Garrison's part, Dymond and co. are no worse. The Shaw trial transcript reveals that on February 7, 1969, Dymond asked Judge Haggerty "for permission to withdraw ... from evidence ... the document referred to by the State in its opening statement as the "VIP Book of Eastern Airlines" for the purpose of having Mr. Gilbert Fortier, a duly qualified handwriting expert, make an examination of the purported signature in that book." Fortier never testified for the defense either. [20]

When Dymond was asked by James DiEugenio about the switch from Fortier to Appel, Dymond stated that the defense changed their mind when they were contacted by Appel offering to work for free. However, it was Appel that was first contacted by Shaw's partner Lloyd Cobb. Cobb, interestingly enough, was cleared for access to a CIA "cleared attorneys panel."[21] As far as why the state never used Fortier, Garrison is, after a fashion, unavailable for comment. Perhaps his critics should respect his well-justified silence. [22]

Witness Parker is criticized because she did not identify Shaw as the man who signed the book until offered the chance to take a polygraph test. Though critics have said she was threatened, Parker herself said, "They didn't threaten me, they asked me."[23] The prosecution apparently felt comfortable about her polygraph results; they mentioned it in closing arguments.

The only witness offered to dispute Parker's recollection was Arthur Q. Davis, the gentleman who signed the VIP book immediately prior to the "Bertrand" signature. Davis, who knew Shaw for more than 10 years and was friendly with him, testified that he didn't see Shaw in the VIP room that day. [24] It is possible the defense called him thinking he might be the second white man Parker saw with Shaw and the Venezuelans. Under cross-examination, Davis admitted that he was only in the VIP room for 20-30 minutes, that during that time no one other than him signed the VIP book and that the "Bertrand" signature had not been there when he left, rendering his testimony essentially moot. [25] Nevertheless, Davis was used by Reitzes in his arguments against Parker, though Lambert left him out of her book.

Although it was irrelevant, Davis' story seems quite damning at first glance. A friend of Shaw's was there and said he didn't see Shaw. It is then ironic that the exact opposite should prove true when, in 1995, William Davy discovered buried in CIA documents what may amount to the smoking gun on the identity of Clay Bertrand.

In November 1967, the NODA questioned a man named Alfred Moran. He was also in the VIP room that day, and told Alcock that Shaw, whom he knew (like Davis), was definitely not there. [26] A recently declassified CIA memo reveals that the next evening Moran hosted a cocktail party at his home. One of those there was Hunter Leake of the New Orleans CIA office who was a friend of Moran's. That evening Moran told Leake about his experience the previous day with the NODA, and, in addition, told him that Clay Shaw was in the VIP room contrary to his statement to Garrison's staff. He also told Leake that "Garrison had 'an ironclad' case against Shaw."[27]

Since this came to light, only one author, Dave Reitzes, had attempted to rebut Moran. His argument is based on two facts. The first, that the CIA memo on the subject says Moran told Leake that he did identify Shaw's presence to Alcock, is obviously flawed. Reitzes says, of course, that one of the memos (Alcock's or Lloyd Ray's) was mistaken. If Alcock was mistaken, then he let one of Garrison's best potential witnesses just slip away, after hearing his very damning testimony. If Ray was mistaken, he inadvertently misrepresented Leake's recollection of the evening or Leake simply misheard Moran. I'll leave it to the reader to decide.

Reitzes' second argument is that both the Ray memo and a later one from CIA Attorney Lawrence Houston both indicate that the authors are not aware that Shaw and Bertrand are supposed to the same man (it is probable Moran just didn't see it when Shaw signed the book). For instance:

It makes no sense for Clay Shaw to use the name Clem Bertrand at such a meeting

so we assume they were two different people, but if Moran could confirm this it

might be a very important point. [28]

This, Reitzes argues, indicates the possibility that Shaw might not have been the Bertrand that signed the VIP book. This doesn't make much sense as Gene Davis, Clem Sert nor anyone else was seen signing the book as "Bertrand." It is plainly obvious that the CIA people writing these memos are merely ignorant of the details of Garrison's theories. Both use the 'Clem' variation on the alias that Alcock apparently miscommunicated to Moran (the signature clearly reads 'Clay'). Besides, these memos were never followed up so no evidence ever developed to indicate that the Clay Bertrand in the VIP room was anyone but Shaw.

I will grant Reitzes the possibility that Houston's speculation was accurate (as noted, Moran did not witness the actual signing of the book), though I do not put much credence in it. The important thing is that Reitzes' arguments against Moran are intended to disprove the notion that Shaw perjured himself in denying using the "Bertrand" alias. Therefore, an alternative is that the Shaw and Bertrand of the VIP room were different people. Does this mean Clay Shaw did not lie under oath? From the Shaw trial transcript:

Q. Now, Mr. Shaw, I take it you are familiar with Moisant Airport here in New Orleans,

are you not, sir?

A. Yes, I am familiar with it.

Q. Are you familiar with a room known as the VIP Room in Moisant Airport?

A. No, I didn't know that room existed until this trial. [29]

The previous facts considered, it is the conclusion of this author that Clay L. Shaw signed the VIP Book on 14 December 1966 using the alias Clay Bertrand. The reader is invited to consider the evidence and draw his or her own conclusion.

Endnotes

1. If the feelings of Lambert and Reitzes are correct, the VIP room evidence bears similarity

to another incident encountered during the Garrison probe--a library card under the name Clem

Bertrand, with the business listed "International Trade Mart" and the home address given as 3100

Louisiana Avenue Parkway (two blocks or so from Ferrie's apartment). Garrison received it

anonymously and wrote it off as a (bad) forgery. The signature was nothing like Shaw's and the

address in question (at least presently) does not exist. It is likely someone meant to put

Ferrie's 3330 address.

2. Handwritten note accompanying photos taken of the book by Clancy Navarre.

3. Davy, Bill. Let Justice Be Done. (Reston: Jordan Publishing, 1999) 178

4. Lambert, Patricia. False Witness. (New York: M. Evans and Company, 1999) 145

5. Ibid 151-152

6. Ibid.

7. For more details on this issue, see Davy 181.

8. Lambert 152

9. Testimony of Charles Appel, 24 February 1967 at the trial of Clay Shaw.

10. Reitzes, Dave. "Who was Clay Bertrand?" Who Speaks for Clay Shaw? Online Internet.

http://www.jfkassassination.net/shaw2.htm

11. Lambert 156 footnote.

12. Appel Testimony at Shaw trial.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Rebuttal arguments of James Alcock, 28 February 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw.

17. Testimony of Elizabeth McCarthy, 28 February 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw.

18. Appel Testimony at Shaw trial.

19. Reitzes "Who Speaks?"

20. Shaw transcript 2/7/69, immediately prior to the testimony of William E. Dunn, Sr.

21. DiEugenio, James. "Inside Clay Shaw's Defense Team: The Wegmann Files," Probe, May-June 1997,

p. 15.

22. Garrison died in 1992.

23. Reitzes "Who Speaks?"

24. Testimony of Arthur Davis, 26 February 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw.

25. Ibid. The defense should have known better. Davis was essentially used in an attempt at proving a negative. As far as the other white man, the NODA had already learned his identity. He was Captain Henry C. Spicer. See Davy 180.

26. Davy 178

27. 11/15/67 Memo from Lloyd A. Ray to DCS Director.

28. 11/30/67 Memo from Lawrence Houston. Another portion of this memo reads that should Moran identify Shaw and Bertrand as different people that "we [the CIA] have means of getting this information on to Dymond for use in preparing Shaw case without involving Hunter or Agency."

29. Testimony of Clay Shaw, 27 February 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw. Other questions and answers included:

Q. Mr. Shaw, have you ever been known as Clay Bertrand?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you ever been known as Clem Bertrand?

A. No, I have not.