Quantcast

Thursday, June 30, 2011

THE LUDIVICO TREATMENT

During our last meeting (Concentration Camp of the Mind), we discussed Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments at Yale, the trivialization of audience manipulation in Hollywood, and the exceptions to this, being primarily exercised by the late Stanley Kubrick and the very much alive Oliver Stone. Today we will look at some political films and have a blast examining their use of cinematic authority over their audiences, all on our way to a healthy discussion about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Rubenstein.




    Hundreds of major motion pictures have been made that have had strong political messages, or that were weighted with political connotations. Some of the more familiar ones are On the Waterfront, Patton, Silkwood, The China Syndrome, The Candidate, All the President's Men, American Beauty, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Salvador, Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, Network, An American President, Primary Colors, Red Dawn, Rambo, and Top Gun. Lots of other films could have been on this list. These, however, will do well to explicate the different visions filmmakers can convey when creating movies whose meanings go beyond psychotic car chases and unconventional love stories.
    On the Waterfront wastes no time announcing that it is not merely a love story, unconventional or otherwise. 




    A political film does not require a mono-dimensional story-line and can in fact have multiple subtexts occurring simultaneously. To that end, On the Waterfront becomes even more political in the fact that it addresses moral choices of genuine consequence that may have something incidental to do with boy-girl love, but more importantly have to do with social responsibility. It is also a political movie in that it not so much suggests as insists that there is propriety in selling out friends for the greater good. Naturally, the movie does not even hint that people who have sold out their friends tend to heavily amplify just what that greater good is. Elia Kazan, the director whose name is synonymous with this film, did sell out his friends when he testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) about his associates in the motion picture industry who might have been communists. Such allegations resulted in those writers, actors and directors being blacklisted by the movie studios, meaning that because of alleged or real political affiliation, Americans in the entertainment industry could not get work. And so the film takes on an interesting irony not lost on Victor Navasky, in Naming Names


A story is told that in 1955, after Arthur Miller had finished A View From the Bridge, his one-act play about a Silcilian waterfront worker who in a jealous rage informs on his illegal immigrant nephew, Miller sent a copy to Elia Kazan, who had broken with him over the issue of naming names before HUAC. "I have read your play and would be honored to direct it," Kazan is supposed to have wired back. "You don't understand," Miller replied. "I didn't send it to you because I wanted you to direct it. I sent it to you because I wanted you to know what I think of stool pigeons." They had planned to collaborate on a movie about the waterfront called "the Hook," but now Kazan went on to do his own waterfront picture, On the Waterfront, in which Terry Malloy comes to maturity when he realizes his obligation to fink on his fellow hoods. And Miller wrote View, which tried simultaneously to understand and condemn the informer. Kazan emerged in the folklore of the Left as the quintessential informer, and Miller was hailed as the risk-taking conscience of the times.  


    In its annual celebration of itself, in 1999 the Motion Picture Academy chose to honor Kazan with a lifetime achievement award, albeit, a posthumous one. The movement to honor Kazan was led by National Rifle Association chairman Charleton Heston. Many of those in attendance sat on their hands rather than applaud Heston's attempt to commemorate Kazan.
    In 1970, the reactionary icon at the box office was a dead man. The movie of his life, Patton, was brilliant. Aside from its masterfully artistic pseudo-docudrama stylings, the film was hugely popular among critics and general public alike in large part because actor George C. Scott, as the title character, General George S. Patton, dwarfed the flag in front of which he paraded. The film was an artistic success in even larger part because Scott's portrayal was so extreme that the Left could misinterpret the film as a potently wicked satire while the Right could consider it a validation of their own deepest desires. 




    The character of general Patton and the makers of the two nuclear power films on our list looked at the world in different ways. The motion picture about Karen Silkwood, an actual worker at an actual nuclear reactor plant who herself was contaminated by radiation, was important, if not altogether timely. Brave in many respects, the title character of Silkwood, played by Meryl Streep, was a warts-and-all performance that involved drinking, swearing and smoking, as well as a hint at a lesbian relationship and an aversion to unstable reactor maintenance. The verisimilitude of Silkwood's persona was well handled. The difficulty some critical viewers had with the film was in the destruction of the real life protagonist. In the film, Karen Silkwood is murdered by as-yet unnamed assailants. (The film, however well-acted, was directed by the estimable Mike Nichols, whose fondness for the touch of the hand that feeds him is so strong he doesn't bite it; he gums it. There really isn't much indication of foul play in the film, at least not not indication to rock the system Nichols only pretends to distrust. As a postscript to the story, I quote here from the remarkably pro-system PBS Online: "The saga of Karen Silkwood continued for years after her death. Her estate filed a civil suit against Kerr-McGee for alleged inadequate health and safety programs that led to Silkwood's exposure. The first trial ended in 1979, with the jury awarding the estate of Silkwood $10.5 million for personal injury and punitive damages. This was reversed later by the Federal Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, which awarded $5,000 for the personal property she lost during the clean-up of her apartment. In 1986, twelve years after Silkwood's death, the suit was headed for retrial when it was finally settled out of court for $1.3 million. The Kerr-McGee nuclear fuel plants closed in 1975.") The movie quite logically leads the viewer to suspect that forces within the nuclear industry arranged for this to happen. What was not suggested by the filmmaker was a far more sinister shadow over the tragic business, one which Mark Lane intimates in Plausible Denial


David Burnham had covered nuclear energy stories for the New York Times. Karen Silkwood, knowing of his specialty, had arranged a secret meeting with him to deliver documents to the Times. almost no one knew of the planned trip save Silkwood and Burnham. She never met him; she was apparently murdered on the way to see him and her documents disappeared.




    Somewhat less interesting was The China Syndrome, a film that had going for it only Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon, along with a release that coincided with the accident at Three Mile Island in which poisonous gases were released into the skies of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (The John Birch Society found this to be more than coincidence, strongly implying that Fonda had arranged for the accident to happen in order to boost ticket sales, quite a feat for a Hollywood starlet.) Lemmon was the real star, playing a man caught between the desire to be a loyal employee and an urge to prevent a reactor core to melt through to the water table, thereby creating a toxic geyser. The facts are painted clearly and the science is made disturbingly understandable, all the actors are comfortable in their roles, and the story works. There are realistic bits where plant workers wonder how Jane will get the power to operate her blow dryer and the reporters run into the normal diabolic resistance from PR flacks, as well as from freaks within the news organization. But somehow one simply does not quite get the idea that this could be the end of the world, at least when taken out of the historic context of President Carter inspecting Three Mile Island in ridiculously bright yellow boots.

    However uneasy Carter may have appeared throughout most of his Presidency, it paled to Robert Redford's character in The Candidate. Redford joined with director Michael Ritchie to form a production team. In 1972 they released one of the most intricately fascinating motion pictures of all time. Redford stars as a Jerry Brown-style man of the beautiful people, one who is pro ecology, pro choice, and pro small labor. He even has a father who held the political power in the state of California (a la Pat Brown). The screenplay was written by Jeremy Larner, a talented writer who had created speeches for Eugene McCarthy four years earlier, witnessing first hand how the business of getting elected is a real business. But this is not just another take on the selling of the president. Where Larner's screenplay earned the Academy Award that it won and where Redford's talents as an actor truly sparkle are in the depiction of the candidate Bill McKay, struggling to be one with the people. On the one hand he cares so much about social justice that he rebels against his staff for coaching him on an up-and-coming press conference. On the other hand, when he initially mingles with workers, students, and urban dwellers, he appears vastly uncomfortable shaking hands, making eye contact and even commanding attention. Like Carter, like Brown, and like McCarthy, what Bill McKay does best is in expressing himself on issues about which he cares. It is easy to consider The Candidate as a product of the times, what with all the major progressive politicians in America neutralized either by murder or by condescension. In fact the film remains highly instructive and is in many ways a much better "Clinton movie" than any of those more closely related to the 42nd commander in chief's presidency.




    Far more vulnerable and equally strong was All the President's Men. Can a movie that relies as much as this one does on public knowledge of the web-like complexities of Watergate, and of Watergate's role in sculpting the political future of the United States--can such a movie be successful decades later? 
    Tune in tomorrow, Constant Readers, and we will find out together.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

THE THIRD THIRD OF CLAY SHAW TRIAL

Transcripts of Clay Shaw Trial
transcripts of Clay Shaw trial

EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 19, 1969

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"

. . . . Pursuant to the recess, the proceedings herein were resumed at 1:30 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 1969, appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .

THE COURT: Let it be noted that the Jury is back, all counsel are present for the State and the Defense. Are you ready to proceed?

MR. ALCOCK: We are ready, Your Honor.

MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready.

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of Mrs. Parker, the State offers, files and introduces into evidence the document previously marked for identification as "S-55."

THE COURT: Is there any objection?

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

THE COURT: Let it be received as offered and filed in evidence in this case.

MR. ALCOCK: Can I open it at the page?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Exhibit S-55 exhibited to the Jury.)

MR. ALCOCK: May I approach the bench with Counsel?

THE COURT: You may.

(Bench conference off the record.)

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, before calling the State's next witness, I might announce to the Court that the matter we are now going into, by law is required to be gone into outside the presence of the Jury, so at this time I would ask the Court to excuse the Jury so that we might enter this area in accordance with the law.

THE COURT: Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs, please.

(Jury excused.)

MR. ALCOCK: The State calls Louis Ivon.

THE COURT: I might state for the record, Mr. Alcock, that prior to taking the bench at 1:30 I was requested by Mr. Panzeca, Associate Defense Counsel, to issue an instanter subpoena for Louis Ivon.

MR. DYMOND: We will cancel it as long as the State is calling him.

MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He is here now, no use to subpoena him.

LOUIS WILLIAM IVON, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: For the record, would you state your full name, please.

A: Louis William Ivon.

Q: Mr. Ivon, by whom are you employed?

A: New Orleans Police Department.

Q: And how long have you been employed by the New Orleans Police Department?

A: Since 1955.

Q: And at this time, Mr. Ivon, are you assigned to the District Attorney's Office?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: In what capacity?

A: As Chief Investigator.

Q: And how long have you been Chief Investigator for the District Attorney's Office?

A: Since 1966.

Q: Am I correct then, Mr. Ivon, that though you are assigned to the District Attorney's Office, you are still a member of the New Orleans Police Department?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Ivon, directing your attention to the date of March 1, 1967, did you have occasion on that date to see the Defendant Clay Shaw?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see Clay Shaw in the courtroom?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Point to him, please.

A: (Indicating) The man with the glasses right there in the blue suit.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has identified the Defendant Clay Shaw.

THE COURT: All right. Let it be so noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, approximately, if you can recall, what time of the day on March 1, did you first see the Defendant?

A: I would believe between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. on the 1st.

Q: And at the time you first saw the Defendant, in whose presence was he, if you can recall?

A: Andrew Sciambra.

Q: Did you have occasion to see him at any time after that first view of him on that date, the 1st?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you see the Defendant on that date?

A: In the office, the Investigator's office.

Q: And is that in the District Attorney's Office proper?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Did you have occasion to have a conversation with him at that time?

A: I did.

Q: And in whose presence was the conversation had with the Defendant?

A: Andrew Sciambra.

Q: Can you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conversation lasted?

A: Probably half an hour, 45 minutes.

Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, after this conversation to see the Defendant again?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you see him?

A: In the District Attorney's Office.

Q: Now, specifically in what room or office did you see him after this conversation, if you can recall?

A: In a smaller officer directly across from the Investigator's office.

Q: Did you have a conversation with him in that office?

A: Yes.

Q: And approximately, Mr. Ivon, what time did that conversation take place?

A: This was approximately 5:00 p.m.

Q: Mr. Ivon, to your knowledge, do you know where the Defendant was between, say, 1:00 o'clock and 5:00 o'clock p.m.?

A: In the District Attorney's Office.

Q: Do you recall what physical location he was in the office?

A: In the Investigator's office, out in the front office, the main office.

Q: Did you personally, or, to your knowledge, did any other member of the District Attorney's Staff question the Defendant during that entire five-hour period?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you personally question the Defendant?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: During the entire five-hour period?

A: No, no.

Q: Other than the first questioning that you have related to the Court that took approximately a half hour to 45 minutes, did you have occasion again to question the Defendant?

A: No.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, do you know Salvatore Panzeca when you see him?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Do you see him in the courtroom?

A: (Indicating) The gentleman that just sat down.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated Defense Counsel Mr. Salvatore Panzeca.

THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you see Mr. Panzeca at all in the District Attorney's Office on the date of March 1, 1967?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you recall approximately what time you saw him?

A: Between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.

Q: And at the time you saw Mr. Panzeca, was anyone with him? That is, the first time you saw him.

A: No.

Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Panzeca con- ferred with the Defendant at that time?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Did he confer with the Defendant in your presence?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: Do you know what physical location within the District Attorney's Office that they conferred in, if you can recall?

A: No, I can't recall.

Q: Can you approximate for us, Mr. Ivon, about how long they conferred?

A: No.

Q: To your knowledge, and only to your knowledge, Mr. Ivon, do you know why Mr. Panzeca was present in the office?

A: He was called by Mr. Shaw.

Q: Was this call made in your presence?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Do you recall approximately what time that call was made?

A: The call was made right after I finished speaking with Mr. Shaw, I would say roughly -- I am approximating -- probably two.

Q: 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall whether or not after this call was made and prior to the arrival of Mr. Sciambra (sic), whether or not you or any other member of the staff questioned Clay Shaw?

A: To my knowledge, no.

Q: In your presence, had he requested assistance of counsel?

A: Yes, and I advised him to have counsel.

Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon -- and again I realize this would be an approximation on your part -- do you recall approximately how long it was between the call made by the Defendant Shaw to Panzeca, before Mr. Panzeca arrived?

A: It was some time -- I just don't know how long -- because he attempted to locate Mr. Wegmann at first; as a last resort he called Mr. Panzeca.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, did you see Mr. Edward Wegmann in the District Attorney's Office on the evening of March 1, 1967?

A: I seen one of the Wegmanns, (indicating) the gentleman sitting next to Mr. Shaw.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated the counsel Mr. Edward Wegmann.

THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recall approximately what time Mr. Wegmann arrived at the office?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Do you recall whether or not it was prior to Mr. Panzeca's entrance into the office or subsequent to that?

A: I believe he came after Mr. Panzeca.

Q: Mr. Ivon, do you know as a matter of your own personal knowledge whether Mr. Wegmann was permitted to confer with Mr. Shaw?

A: Yes, sir, he was.

Q: Do you recall where in the office this conversation took place?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conference was?

A: No.

Q: Was Mr. Panzeca still in the District Attorney's Office, to the best of your recollection, at the time that Mr. Wegmann appeared?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with their client?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with their client together?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing your attention again to the date of March 1, 1967, and more specifically to the evening hours, did you have occasion to place the Defendant Clay Shaw under arrest?

A: Yes.

Q: And where were you physically, and where was he physically, at the time the arrest was effected?

A: He was in the small office directly across from the Investigator's office.

Q: Would this have been the same office that you referred to prior in your testimony?

A: Yes.

Q: At the time that you placed the Defendant under arrest, were either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann present?

A: I believe both were present.

Q: At the time you placed the Defendant under arrest, did you advise him of his Constitutional rights?

A: Yes.

Q: Subsequent to placing the Defendant under arrest, Mr. Ivon, did you have occasion to take him anywhere?

A: No.

Q: At the time you advised the Defendant of his Constitutional rights, can you recall now, or at least essentially recall now, what rights you advised him of at that time?

A: I advised him of his right to remain silent, that anything he might say could possibly be used against him. Of course, his attorneys were present at that time, and interjected into this, and advised me that the client did not wish to speak.

Q: Do you recall which of the attorneys interjected this?

A: I think it was Mr. Wegmann, I am not sure.

Q: Now I take it then, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Wegmann was close at hand at the time that you advised him of his rights?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, subsequent to the placing of the Defendant under arrest, to take him to the Central Lockup?

A: Yes.

Q: And who was with you when you took him to the Central Lockup?

A: Officer Loisel, Al Oser, Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Wegmann, and Mr. Shaw.

Q: Mr. Ivon, did you walk over to the Central Lockup or ride over in an automobile?

A: In an automobile.

Q: Do you recall whose automobile it was?

A: The District Attorney's.

Q: Do you recall who was in the automobile?

A: Yes. Myself -- I was driving it -- Mr. Oser was sitting in the front with me, Lynn Loisel in the back seat, Mr. Wegmann and Mr. Shaw.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State 56," and I ask you if you recognize the scene depicted in this picture?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Where have you seen that scene before?

A: This is when we were taking Mr. Shaw to Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-56.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize any of the persons depicted in that picture?

A: All of them.

Q: Do you see any of the persons depicted in the picture in the courtroom today?

A: Mr. Shaw and Mr. Wegmann.

Q: Who is the other person in the picture?

A: Officer Loisel.

Q: Do you know where this picture was taken?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Mr. Ivon, do you recall whether or not, to the best of your knowledge, this was the seating arrangement in the back seat of the automobile on the way to the Central Lockup?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Did you go directly to the Central Lockup?

A: Yes.

Q: During the course of your ride from the Criminal District Court Building to the Central Lockup, were there any questions asked of the Defendant?

A: No.

Q: Now, what, if anything, did you do, Mr. Ivon, when you arrived at the Central Lockup?

A: Well, we drove around the rear of the Central Lockup, drove in the Central Lockup itself and took him into the Central Lockup.

Q: Mr. Ivon, did you personally have anything to do with the booking of the Defendant on that occasion?

A: No, I did not.

Q: While at the Central Lockup, did you have occasion to question the Defendant any further?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Can you tell me, Mr. Ivon, what rooms, if any, you entered into personally while over at the Lockup on that occasion?

A: Well, the area where you take prisoners at there, also the area where they fingerprint the prisoners, and behind the booking cage of the Central Lockup.

Q: Were you in a position, Mr. Ivon, to see the actual booking of the Defendant in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you in a position to see the fingerprinting of the Defendant in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see the entire fingerprinting procedure?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Did you recognize the officer who fingerprinted the Defendant in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: What is his name?

A: Aloysius Habighorst.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "S-57," and ask you if you recognize the area and the scene depicted in this picture?

A: Yes. This is the doorway to the B of I where they fingerprint the prisoners.

Q: Is that in the Central Lockup?

A: Yes, it is.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-57.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating to your activities on that night, that is, the night of March 1, 1967, did you ever have occasion to go through that doorway and on into the room that it leads to?

A: Yes.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State-58," and I ask you if you recognize this scene.

A: Yes, this is the booking area in Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-58.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you have occasion on the night of March 1 to be in this area at all?

A: Yes.

Q: Is this the area that the Defendant was booked in?

A: Yes.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State-59," and I ask you if you recognize the area depicted in that photograph.

A: Yes. This is the B of I where they fingerprint prisoners in Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-59.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating your testimony back to the night of March 1, 1967, did you have occasion at any time during the fingerprinting of the Defendant to be in that room?

A: I was in and out.

Q: Could you estimate for us the longest period of time that you were in during the fingerprinting of the Defendant?

A: Five, ten minutes.

Q: Do you recall whether or not the physical objects in this picture, that is, the desk and the other objects, were positioned in this position on the night of March 1, 1967, to the best of your recollection?

A: I would think so, because this desk is in the same place. I sat down there to fill out some forms.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing you attention again to State-58, which purports to be, by your testimony, a picture of the booking area of the Central Lockup, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1, 1967, the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within the area shown in S-58?

A: Yes, Mr. Wegmann came into the booking area with us when we drove in.

Q: Now with reference to State-59, which, according to your testimony, is the area in which the Defendant was fingerprinted, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1 the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within this room?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Again referring you to S-59, which you have testified is the area of the fingerprinting, or the fingerprinting room, do you recall at any time on that night seeing any Assistant District Attorney in that room?

A: No.

Q: Do you recall seeing any member of the New Orleans Police Department assigned to the District Attorney's Office at that time, in this room?

A: No. I believe I was the only one.

Q: Do you recall, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, where Mr. Loisel went when you were over there at the Central Lockup?

A: No, I don't.

MR. ALCOCK: I tender the witness.

THE COURT: Take this for the record -- I should have placed it there before: The evidence being elicited out of the presence of the Jury is for the purpose of laying a predicate for an inculpatory oral statement. I wanted that to go in the record. You may proceed, Mr. Dymond.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, is it not a fact that Mr. Shaw's attorneys on March 1 in the District Attorney's Office instructed him to make no statement at all, and advised you and the other law enforcement officers present that he was to make no statement?

A: He advised me.

Q: I see. Was anyone else within earshot when he advised you?

A: I believe Andrew Sciambra.

Q: I see. And of course Mr. Sciambra was participating in the investigation at that time, was he not?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, you say that during the fingerprinting procedure you were in and out of the Bureau of Identification room in the Central Lockup?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how long did the fingerprinting and mugging procedure take?

A: I have no idea.

Q: Well, were you there during the entire procedure, I mean in the building?

A: I was back in Central -- no, I wasn't there the whole time, I believe I left before he was actually put on the books.

Q: Where were you when he first went into the B of I room, that is, to be printed and mugged?

A: I believe I was right alongside of him.

Q: Did you go in with him or not?

A: I am not sure; I think I did.

Q: Then how long did you stay in there on that occasion?

A: A couple of minutes, in and out.

Q: A couple of minutes in and out. I mean how long did you stay in there upon your first trip in?

A: A couple of minutes.

Q: Then where did you go?

A: Out into the outer room where they book the prisoners.

Q: For any particular reason?

A: No. Actually the prisoner was in custody of the Police Department Central Lockup at that time.

Q: So you were actually finished with the arrest procedure, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, did you have any particular reason for staying around there after he had been turned over to the Central Lockup?

A: To fill out some forms.

Q: What forms did you have to fill out?

A: Arrest Sheet, Rights of Arrestee form.

Q: How about the Field Arrest Report? Did you fill that out?

A: Not in -- I believe the officer in Central Lockup fill those out.

Q: You are familiar with the Field Arrest Report form, are you not, sir?

A: No, not really.

Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for identification "D-14," purporting to be the New Orleans Police Department Field Arrest Report, and I ask you whether you are familiar with that.

A: I have seen these forms before.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-14.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Have you made arrests before, Mr. Ivon?

A: Many times; not since these forms have been in operation.

Q: In other words, would I be correct in saying that you have never filled out one of these forms?

A: I may have. There is no way I would know.

Q: You don't remember ever having filled one out? Is that right?

A: No.

MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we have sent outside for the original Field Report form on this case, which a witness has outside.

MR. PANZECA: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?

MR. DYMOND: The original Field Arrest Report on Mr. Shaw.

THE COURT: Do you have it in your presence?

MR. DYMOND: Right out in the hall. Captain Curole has it. We subpoenaed it.

THE COURT: Is it under subpoena duces tecum?

MR. DYMOND: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Can't we ask Captain Curole to come in and let him make his return on the subpoena?

MR. DYMOND: Yes, we can. We would like to do that.

THE COURT: Ask Captain Curole to step in.






BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, did Mr. Clay Shaw make any statements to you before you took him over to the Central Lockup and delivered him there?
A: Answers to questions I may have asked him?
Q: That is correct.
A: No.
Q: Did you ever examine the original Arrest Register in connection with his arrest?
A: Have I examined it?
Q: That is correct.
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: Did you ever look at it and read it over?
A: I may have.
Q: Do you know what an Arrest Register Sheet looks like?
A: Is that what you just showed me?
Q: No, it is not.
A: Probably I have seen them, I may have even filled some out.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which we have marked for identification "D-17," purporting to be an original Arrest Register Sheet, and I ask you if you are familiar with that form?
A: I have seen them before.
(Whereupon, the document referred to be Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-17.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you examine the original Arrest Register Sheet on Clay Shaw at any time?
A: I don't know if I did.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I now show you an exhibit marked for identification "D-15," being the Field Arrest Report on Clay Shaw, which purports to bear your signature, and I ask you whether or not that is your signature on the document.
A: It is.
Q: Now, in view of your previous testimony that you did not know whether you had ever filled out one of these forms and were not familiar with the form, do you now recall having filled out this form?
A: Yes, I filled it out, it is in my handwriting.
Q: When did you fill that out?
A: The night of the arrest.
Q: Before or after you delivered him to Central Lockup?
A: This was after I delivered him to Central Lockup. I believe I got the form from Central Lockup.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if this was after Central Lockup delivery, this is on a predi- cate, this isn't relevant.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you remember where you went --
MR. ALCOCK: I made an objection, Mr. Dymond.
THE COURT: Let me see if I understand your objection. Would you repeat it, please?
MR. ALCOCK: The objection is, No. 1, whether he filled these out or not is really irrelevant to the predicate on freeness and voluntariness of any inculpatory statement, especially as he has just testified he probably filled it out after the booking procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, he said he didn't know when he filled it out, whether before or after. The only way to find out is to pursue it.
THE COURT: I remember Officer Ivon stated -- this is out of the presence of the Jury -- the only reason he hung around, to use the vernacular, in Central Lockup was to fill out reports after -- this report after he had been turned over to the Police.
MR. DYMOND: He didn't even know what this document --
MR. ALCOCK: That is irrelevant to the predicate, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you alleging certain information made and information filled out prior to him being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department?
MR. DYMOND: I am not alleging anything, Your Honor, I am just examining the witness.
THE COURT: The kind of predicate they are laying, or attempting to lay, as I understand at this moment occurred prior to the time Mr. Shaw was physically turned over to the New Orleans Police Department.
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: If you are questioning the witness about some events which occurred after Mr. Shaw being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department, it is immaterial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the predicate.
Is that your objection?
MR. ALCOCK: No, Your Honor, I would like to clarify for the Court, if I may. As the Court knows, the law has been changed and of course you cannot mention any confession or inculpatory statement in the opening statement. If the State could put that in, the Court would be more oriented as to the time the State is alleging the statement was made. This alleged statement was made during the fingerprinting procedure of the Defendant, so he had been turned over, as I appreciate Officer Ivon's testimony, to the New Orleans Police Department, the alleged statement being made to Habighorst, not to Ivon. My objection is to the relevancy of how he filled out forms when that forms no basis or gives this Court no indication of whether or not the Defendant made the alleged statement freely and voluntarily and after having been advised of his Constitutional rights, which is the sole purpose for the laying of a predicate.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we have no way of knowing as of right now when the form was filled out. That is what we are trying to find out. The Officer has stated in his testimony that probably it was after Mr. Shaw was turned over to Central Lockup. He has not been positive in it, and I think we are entitled to inquire into it.
THE COURT: Let me ask the witness one or two questions that may clarify the situation.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Officer Ivon, since you have been attached to the District Attorney's Office, you do not act -- normally or ordinarily the scope of your business affairs is not the same as ordinary police officers, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: So that you would not have the opportunity, as other officers do, to fill out these forms?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, this particular night in question of March 1, 1967, were you present when Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting Mr. Shaw?
A: No, I was not.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Alcock, why, except out of an abundance of precaution, why are you using this witness on a predicate if he wasn't there when the statement was made?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am simply using this witness to show the presence of counsel throughout any questioning that might have taken place, to destroy any possible taint that might creep into the alleged statement because of prior abuse or coercion. I am merely attempting to give this Court a complete picture of what transpired on that night, to show the Court that any statement that might have been made was made freely and voluntarily and after the man had been duly advised of his Constitutional rights.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, if the State is going to give the Court a complete picture, we are certainly entitled to cross-examine on that complete picture.
MR. ALCOCK: Not unless it deals with relevancy to the predicate, and not unless it deals with whether or not he gave the statement freely and voluntarily after being duly advised of his rights. That is the only issue before the Court at this time.
THE COURT: There is no question about that, I think we all agree.
MR. DYMOND: There is no argument about that, we all know that.
THE COURT: Are you seeking, Mr. Dymond, to find out when the Officer filled out the report?
MR. DYMOND: Correct.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Can you come up with an answer? I am not trying to force you, but can you tell us when you made this report out?
A: I made it out on March 1.
Q: That is a whole day; we want to know the hour and minute if possible.
A: No, I can't remember.
Q: Well, how would you have gotten the information that was on that report unless you had to speak to somebody to get it? Right?
A: No, not necessarily. I had enough information about Mr. Shaw I believe to fill out a form, get it from the Booking Sergeant at the Central Lockup.
Q: Wouldn't you have filled out this report prior to you turning Mr. Shaw over physically to the New Orleans Police Department?
A: No, it was after I turned him over to Central Lockup.
Q: That is what I have been trying to get you to say, was it before or after.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, isn't it a fact that a prisoner isn't booked until you fill out this Field Arrest form?
A: I don't know the procedure back there -- they gave me that form that night to fill out -- I don't know what procedure they have back in Central Lockup.
Q: Did you also sign the affidavit for a search warrant in this case?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will permit it at this time, out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: It is outside of the scope of the predicate also.
THE COURT: I know it is. What does the search warrant have to do with a free and voluntary --
MR. DYMOND: Are you going to permit it? You said you would permit it.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you also make the affidavit for the search warrant in connection with this case?
A: For Mr. Shaw's house?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't remember if I did or not.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object to any questions relative to this document. An application for a search warrant has no relevancy in the matter before the Court at this time.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor --
MR. ALCOCK: -- unless they can establish that it was made out at approximately the same time that Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting the Defendant.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please --
THE COURT: What is the purpose of going into the search warrant at this time?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor said he would permit the question as to whether he made the search warrant out. He answered that, said he didn't know whether he had or not. I want to now submit the warrant to him and ask him whether his signature is on it.
THE COURT: I will permit that, but I am not going to permit you to go into details of the application.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for identification "D-18," purporting to be an application for a search warrant to search the home of the Defendant, being under date of March 1, 1967, and I refer you to the last page of this document and ask you whether you executed that.
A: Yes, that is my signature.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-18.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, was this search warrant executed -- at what time on March 1?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, unless this man was present when it was executed. You mean exe- cution of the search or --
MR. DYMOND: No, the affidavit.
THE COURT: What time of day was the application signed?
MR. DYMOND: By this witness?
THE COURT: When did you sign that?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember what time it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was it before or after Mr. Shaw was delivered to Central Lockup?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Was it in the daytime or nighttime?
A: I believe it would have to be in the afternoon, I am not sure.
Q: Mr. Ivon, you say you were in and out of the B of I room while the fingerprinting and the mugging was taking place, is that right, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Mr. Edward Wegmann present in the Bureau of Identification room during this procedure?
A: I seen him by the door; I don't know if he was in the room himself.
Q: Was Mr. Panzeca in the Bureau of Identification room at this time?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know of any of Mr. Clay Shaw's attorneys who were present in the B of I room when he was being printed and mugged?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down. Call your next witness.
(Witness excused.)
MR. ALCOCK: Call Officer Habighorst.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we would ask that Mr. Ivon remain under the subpoena.
THE COURT: You are still under the subpoena.
MR. ALCOCK: We have to put him back on before the Jury anyway.
MR. DYMOND: As long as that is going to be done, it is all right.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Judge, at this time we would move for an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III, V-o-g-t.
THE COURT: Draw up an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III. Let the Sheriff call the Personnel Office of the New Orleans Police Department. I think they can do it by telephone quicker than running him down.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I agree with you. He may be over in Central Lockup.
THE COURT: Put down on the instanter subpoena the address of the person as possibly or probably the Central Lockup. Are you ready to proceed with this witness?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.





CLAY L. SHAW, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You are Mr. Clay L. Shaw, the Defendant in these proceedings?
A: That is correct.
Q: Mr. Shaw, is it a fact that you were arrested on March 1, 1967?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And where did this arrest take place?
A: In the offices of the District Attorney in this building.
Q: At that time, Mr. Shaw, who was your attorney?
A: Mr. Panzeca and Mr. Wegmann.
Q: Now, by "Mr. Wegmann," which Mr. Wegmann do you mean?
A: Mr. Edward Wegmann.
Q: Which of these two attorneys were you successful in contacting, if either one of them?
A: First Mr. Panzeca.
Q: Did Mr. Panzeca then come to the District Attorney's Office?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Upon arriving at the District Attorney's Office and seeing you, did he give you any legal advice?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: To what effect?
A: That I was to speak to no one except himself.
Q: Did you follow this advice?
A: I did, completely.
Q: Now, Mr. Shaw, referring to after you were taken by Mr. Ivon from the District Attorney's Office to the Central Lockup of the New Orleans Police Department, did you have an attorney with you at that time?
A: Yes, I did, Mr. Wegmann, Mr. Edward Wegmann.
Q: Edward Wegmann?
A: That is right.
Q: Had Mr. Edward Wegmann given you any legal advice?
A: Yes, he told me the same thing Mr. Panzeca had told me, not to answer questions, not to talk to anyone except to him or to Mr. Panzeca.
Q: Now, Mr. Shaw, at that time did you -- and throughout the time that you were at the Central Lockup -- did you have any desire to remain within the presence of your lawyer?
A: Yes, I wanted my lawyer with me at every stage.
Q: Were you able to have your lawyer with you at every stage?
A: No, I was not.
Q: Why not?
A: Upon being taken into the Bureau of Identification I was told that Mr. Wegmann, he was not to be permitted to accompany me and I would have to go in alone.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Mr. Shaw, I show you an exhibit which has been marked for identification "State 60," and which purports to bear your signature, and I ask you whether you remember signing this card.
A: Yes, I do, I do.
Q: Would you tell me when you signed that card, what, if any, material other than the printed material was on it?
A: Nothing, neither fingerprints nor typewriting.
Q: Would it be correct then to say that you signed this fingerprint card in blank?
A: That is correct, yes.
Q: How did you come to sign this fingerprint card, Mr. Shaw?
A: I was told it was necessary procedure for getting bail.
Q: Now, who told you to sign the card?
A: The patrolman who was taking the fingerprints.
Q: What did he say?
A: He said, "This is a fingerprint card and you must sign it. This is essential for you to get bond."
Q: Now, Mr. Shaw, do you recall having been booked in the Central Lockup?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you a document which has been marked for identification "D-16," and I ask you whether you recognize this and can tell us when that was filled out.
A: It was filled out by the booking clerk who was asking me -- the booking clerk I suppose is the title -- who asked me questions and entered my answers in typewriting on this slip, on the machine.
Q: Were you at any time ever asked by anyone at the Central Lockup whether you had an alias or a name other than Clay Shaw by which you were known?
A: I was certainly not.
Q: Did you ever tell anybody in the Central Lockup that you had an alias or another name?
A: I did not.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Mr. Shaw, I show you a document which has been marked for identification "D-19," and I ask you whether you recognize that document.
A: Yes. This was a copy given to me by the booking clerk.
Q: I now ask you to examine that document and tell me whether there is anything con- cerning an alias on it.
A: No, nothing.
MR. DYMOND: We tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, isn't it a fact that when you made this call to Mr. Panzeca, it was made at the suggestion of Mr. Sciambra to my right here?
A: Not exactly. I said I decided I wanted an attorney and Mr. Sciambra concurred. He did not suggest it.
Q: I see. In other words, you were the one suggested you wanted an attorney?
A: That is correct.
Q: Did he have a conversation with Mr. Panzeca on the telephone in your presence at that time?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Would that have occurred during the same call that you made to Mr. Panzeca?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, up until that time had you been in any way physically abused by any member of the District Attorney's Staff?
A: No, no, certainly not.
Q: Had you been promised any reward or immunity for making any statement to the District Attorney's Staff?
A: No, no.
Q: Who, if anyone, if you can recall, spoke to you prior to the arrival of Mr. Panzeca?
A: Mr. Sciambra and Mr. Ivon interviewed me for some considerable period of time.
Q: Now, during the course of this interview did either one of these gentlemen abuse you?
A: No, they did not.
Q: Did either one of these gentlemen offer you any reward or make you any promises should you make any statement?
A: They did not.
Q: Now, I take it then that any statement you may have given them at that time was given freely and voluntarily?
A: Correct.
Q: When was it that you felt you needed the presence of an attorney?
A: At the time Mr. Sciambra said that he was going to charge me with conspiracy to murder the late President of the United States.
Q: Did you have any conversation with either one of these men before Mr. Panzeca arrived, after the telephone call?
A: No. They left the room after the telephone conversation and I was left alone until Mr. Panzeca arrived.
Q: Then I take it no one attempted to question you after the telephone call?
A: No, no, no.
Q: Now, subsequent to the arrival of Mr. Panzeca, did you have occasion to speak with him?
A: Yes.
Q: And for approximately how long would you say?
A: We communicated largely by writing, as he has specified, but I -- for, I would think, about 20, 25 minutes.
Q: And, to your knowledge, was anyone else in the room?
A: No.
Q: Now, after this conversation with Mr. Panzeca, were you questioned any further by either Mr. Ivon or Mr. Sciambra?
A: No, I was not.
Q: Were you in any way abused by either one of these men?
A: No, I was not.
Q: -- or any member of the District Attorney's Office?
A: No.
Q: Now, on the way over to the Central Lockup do you recall whether or not you were sitting in the back seat as described by Officer Ivon?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that an accurate description of the seating position as you recall it?
A: Yes. I recall it.
Q: Did anyone attempt to question you during that ride?
A: Did not.
Q: Did anyone abuse you during that ride?
A: Did not.
Q: Did anyone offer you any promises or offer you any reward for making any statement during that ride?
A: No.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that at the time the Arrest Register was made, no mention of an alias was mentioned?
A: It was not.
Q: They didn't ask you an alias?
A: No.
Q: Were you answering questions in the office?
A: Beg your pardon?
Q: Were you answering questions as the officer typed on the Arrest Register?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see the officer refer to any other documents while he was making the Arrest Register?
A: He may well have been, I don't know.
Q: Of your own knowledge you don't know? Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Would it be a fair statement that most of the information that he typed, if not all, came from you?
A: I don't know whether that is a fair statement or not. He asked me several questions; I gave him the answers. Where the other came from I don't know.
Q: Were you observing what he was doing?
A: I thought he was typing of course.
Q: Did he type at the time you responded to questions?
A: Correct.
Q: Did he ever type when you weren't responding to questions?
A: I think not.
Q: You think not. Do you think it is a fair assumption to say that the only time he typed was when you were responding to questions? Is that correct?
THE COURT: I don't think he can answer the question unless he was looking over his shoulder.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, he just testified he was watching the man.
THE COURT: I know what he testified to, but I can't see how I can look at a person typing and know that he is putting down everything I said.
MR. ALCOCK: I didn't say that. The question was whether or not -- the Defendant has answered that he typed only when he was responding to questions. It seems to me quite obvious then that, as far as the Defendant knows, the only thing he put down was what he told him. I am not saying he can say what was being put down, I am saying wouldn't it be a fair statement that anything he told him was what went into the Arrest Register, because he was typing --
THE COURT: You are speculating. It is impossible for him to answer the question un- less he was looking over his shoulder after giving an answer and seeing what he types.
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: How far were you away from the man doing the typing?
A: Oh, three or four feet I suppose.
Q: Was there anything between you and him, any object or obstruction?
A: There was a large counter there with papers on the counter.
Q: Papers?
A: Yes, papers on the counter. I could not actually see what was being typed, I couldn't see in his typewriter.
Q: I see. But you could see his fingers moving and hear the clicking of the typewriter? Is that correct?
A: Surely.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Now referring you to "State 58," do you see on here where you were standing approximately on that night?
A: I would say in the second or third cubicle here (indicating).
Q: Now, did you have any trouble seeing over the top of the counter?
A: No. That is not a problem for me.
Q: Was there anyone else standing nearby or close to the officer doing the typing at that time?
A: Mr. Wegmann was standing beside me, Mr. Edward Wegmann.
Q: I see. But was there anyone standing next to or close to the man doing the typing?
A: There was another man there; I don't know who he was or what his function was.
Q: Has he testified today, to your knowledge?
A: I don't know.
Q: Was he providing the man doing the typing with any information, to your knowledge?
A: I don't honestly know.
Q: Now, was the man who was standing next to the man doing the typing, would that have been either Mr. Sciambra, Mr. Oser, Mr. Ivon or Mr. Loisel or any member of the District Attorney's Staff that you are familiar with?
A: No, it was no one that I knew.
Q: Was it a uniformed policeman?
A: My recollection is it was.
Q: Now, when you were taken into the B of I room, I take it your testimony is that Mr. Wegmann was not allowed to accompany you? Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: While in the B of I room were you abused in any way physically?
A: No.
Q: Were you offered any reward or made any promises for any statement you might make?
A: I was not.
Q: Did you provide the officer who did the fingerprinting with any information at all?
A: He asked me no questions.
Q: No questions?
A: No, none.
Q: No questions at all?
A: No.
Q: He didn't ask your name?
A: No.
Q: He didn't ask your height?
A: No.
Q: He didn't ask your weight?
A: No.
Q: He didn't ask your place of birth?
A: No.
Q: -- or date of birth?
A: No.
Q: Is it your testimony that Officer Habighorst didn't ask you one question? Is that your testimony?
A: That is correct.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) This is your signature, is it not?
A: That is correct.
Q: Did you see Officer Habighorst sign this card?
A: I did not see him do it.
Q: You did not?
A: No.
Q: Is it your testimony now that you did not utter one word the entire time that you were in the B of I?
A: That is not my testimony. I said I did not answer any questions. I was told by Officer Habighorst I was going to be fingerprinted, it was essential, had to be done for me to make bond.
Q: What word did you utter?
A: I said in that case of course I would do it.
Q: And that is all you said the entire time?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you hear Officer Butzman testify earlier?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Is it your testimony that Officer Habighorst did not ask you any questions at all?
A: That is my testimony.
Q: Then Officer Butzman was incorrect when he said at least that he heard Officer Habighorst ask you the correct spelling of your name?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I object on the ground that it is asking one witness to pass upon the testimony of another witness.
THE COURT: The objection is well taken.
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did Officer Habighorst at any time ask you how to spell your name?
A: To my recollection, no.
Q: Your middle name?
A: No.
Q: Well, now you are fairly certain he didn't ask you any questions? Is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: That is your testimony?
A: That is my testimony.
Q: Approximately how long were you in the room?
A: Fifteen minutes perhaps.
Q: Do you recall seeing Mr. Ivon in the room at any time?
A: I don't recall seeing him.
Q: Do you recall seeing Mr. Butzman in the room at any time?
A: I did not recognize him today as having been there, but undoubtedly he was. I don't say he wasn't.
Q: Do you recall seeing or speaking to -- or not speaking to, because you said you didn't speak to anybody -- do you recall seeing Officer Habighorst?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall seeing Mr. Oser?
A: I don't recall his being there.
Q: Do you recall seeing Mr. Loisel?
A: I don't know Mr. Loisel when I see him.
Q: What did you do these 15 minutes that you were in there?
A: There was some waiting when nothing went on, and then I was asked to wash my hands, which I did. I was then given a card and then I was told that this was a fingerprinting procedure which had to be done in order that I could make bond. Also in this same room I believe I was photographed, but the other end of the room. I was then given the card to sign and the fingerprints were taken.
Q: Were you given the card before you washed your hands or after you washed your hands?
A: After I washed my hands is my recollection.
Q: And you signed it?
A: I signed the card, yes.
Q: And it was blank when you signed it?
A: It was blank.
Q: When did Officer Habighorst sign, as you recall?
A: I do not know.
Q: Did you see any other officer in there at all?
A: There was another uniformed officer as I recall.
Q: Did you see him sign the card?
A: I did not.
Q: Do you know how many cards you signed?
A: To the best of my recollection, only one.
Q: And you made no statements the entire time?
A: I made no statement at all.
MR. ALCOCK: I have no further questions.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Do I understand, Mr. Garrison, that you wish to address the Jury?
MR. GARRISON: Yes.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. GARRISON: May it please the Court: Gentlemen of the Jury, I am not going to dignify Mr. Dymond's personal inferences about my staff, because I think you have seen them for some days and I think you have seen me here, and I will leave it to your judgment whether or not we would take advantage of any human being in order to try and get any gain of any sort; and I will address myself to the remaining issue of the case which have been posed by Mr. Dymond.
Now I know you are very tired and you have been very patient, and this final day has been a long day, so I will speak only a few minutes and I will probably make one of the shortest closing arguments that has been made in this court, because I think most of the issues are clear to you and I feel that you probably have an understanding of the case by now.
But Mr. Dymond has posed in his last argument one final issue which in a sense raises a question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. So let me talk to you about whether there is government fraud in this case. Now, a government is a great deal like a human being: It is not necessarily all good, and it is not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country, and I love it and you do, too, but we have nevertheless a government which is not perfect, and there have been indications since November 22 of 1963 -- and that was not the last indication -- that there is excessive power in some areas of our government -- and that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things that have happened, some of the assassinations that have occurred, and particularly with regard to the assassination of John Kennedy. Going back to when we were children, I think most of us, probably all of us here in this courtroom, felt that justice came into being automatically, that virtue was its own reward and good would triumph over evil, that it occurred automatically. And later when we found that it wasn't quite so, most of us felt that, hopefully, that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord, but now I think that almost all of us world have to agree that there is really no automatic machinery, not on this earth at least, which causes justice to happen automatically. Men have to make it occur, individual human beings have to make it occur, otherwise it doesn't come into existence, and this is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it is always hard, because justice presents a threat to power, and in order to make justice come into being you often have to fight power.
Mr. Dymond raised the question: Why don't we say it is a fraud and charge the Government with fraud, if this is the case? Well, then let me be explicit and make myself very clear on this point. The Government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud, it was the greatest fraud in the history of our country, it was probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. So that is where I stand on that point. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We are not forced to either leave this country or accept the authoritarianism that is developed, which tells us that in the year 2039 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.
The government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals, the government consists of people. The government consists of people, and our Government consists of juries. And cases of murder, whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land, should be looked at openly in a court of law where juries can pass on them, and not hidden, not buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for 75 years.
Now, you men in recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard, and you have seen what happened to your President, and I suggest to you that most of you know right now that in that area at least a fraud has been perpetrated. That does not mean that our Government is entirely black, and I want to emphasize that. It doesn't mean that the President is bad, it doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is bad. It does mean that in recent years, through the development of excessive power, because of the cold war, forces have developed in our Government over which there is no control, and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice, meaning they will let you know what justice is.
Well, my reply to them is, we already know what it is. It is the jury system. In the issue which is posed by the Government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case, in the issue of humanity as posed to power, I have chosen humanity, and I will do it without any hesitation, and I hope every one of you will do the same, and I do that because I love my country and I want to communicate to the Government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live 75 years longer we may be given more data.
In this particular case, our efforts to look into it -- and it was our duty when we found out that part of the assassination planning occurred in New Orleans -- massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom as it has. The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry, the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, was demonstrated in this case. The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from witnesses about the assassination. Why? Because today in our Government we have a problem area in which too much emphasis is given to secrecy with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis has been given to the question of justice, to the question of humanity.
These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or leave the country. I don't accept that alternative. I don't intend to leave the country, and I don't intend to accept power without truth. I intend to fight for the truth, and I suggest that not only is this not un-American but it is the most American thing we can do, because if the truth does not endure then our country will not endure -- not in the way it was supposed to. In our country the worst of all crimes is when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons if they should dare to fight for freedom, and then announce that they were killed in an industrial accident or shot by the enemy, or God knows what.
But in this case finally it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law, not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens. Now I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you are passing on is equivalent to a murder case. It has the same essential characteristics, and the difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant, and it is very difficult to identify with someone you can't see; and sometimes it is hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems. In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane, is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight, and I suggest to you that if you do your duty you also are not free to forget the victims who is buried out of sight. You know, Tennyson once said that authority forgets the dying king. This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the Government after his murder began while his body was warm and has continued for five years.
In a sense, you have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of some part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed. We presented a number of eye-witnesses, as well as an expert witness, as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out steps Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to see that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.
Now, in this conflict between power and justice -- to put it that way -- just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is the way I don't want my country to be. When our President is killed, he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the state of Louisiana. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth from coming to the people.
But in this case, before the next morning when the sun rose, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And five years later in this courtroom it is continuing in the same way.
We presented eye-witnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense.
MR. DYMOND: Object to this, if the Court please. Mr. Frazier was subpoenaed here as a State witness.
THE COURT: He testified for the Defense. He was called by the Defense, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: He was subpoenaed here from Washington as a State witness.
THE COURT: It makes no difference who subpoenaed him; it is who put him on the stand.
MR. DYMOND: We didn't have anything to do with his coming here on a plane from Washington.
MR. GARRISON: Now, the issue I'm sure every one of you understands is whether or not the Government has created a fraud, and I call your attention that Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness and after eyewitness [sic] -- his explanation is that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well. And I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range, and most of you probably have in the Service -- you were shooting rifles in which the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound, and I ask you to recall if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the firing line and they would say, "Ready on the left, ready on the right, ready on the firing line, commence firing," you heard the shots coming from the firing line to the left of you and to the right of you, and if you had heard, as the result of Frazier's fictional sonic booms, firing coming at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction and you would still remember it. It simply doesn't exist. It is a part of the fraud, a part of the government fraud, and the best way to make this country the kind of country it is supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how powerful it may be, we do not accept fraud, we do not accept false announcements, we do not accept the concealment of evidence with regard to the murder of President Kennedy.
Who is the most believable -- a Richard Randolph Carr seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth, or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we have to actually reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig, and the testimony of all those honest witnesses -- reject that and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country? I suggest to you that there are other alternatives, and one of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana, and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding, where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied, and where a jury of citizens can pass on it, and where there is no government secrecy, where you do not have evidence concealed for 75 years in the name of national security.
All we have in this case are the facts -- facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President, and that the President was subsequently killed in ambush. The reply of the defense has been the same as the earlier reply of the government in the Warren Commission, has been authority, authority, the President's seal outside of a volume of the -- each volume of the Warren Commission, made necessary because there is nothing inside of these volumes. Men of high position and prestige sitting on a board and announcing the results to you but not telling you what the evidence is, because that has to be hidden for 75 years.
You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks eye-witness after eye-witness after eye-witness, and, above all, you saw an eye-witness which was indifferent to power -- the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is indifferent to power, and it tells you what happened, and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They should know what you know now. Why hasn't this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has. But I am telling you that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism: the government's insistence on secrecy, the government force used in counter-attacks against an honest inquiry; and when we do that we are not being un-American, we are being American, because it isn't easy, and you are sticking your neck out in a rather prominent way, but it has to be done, because truth does not come into being automatically. Justice does not happen automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen, and individual men like you have to make justice come into being, because otherwise it doesn't happen. And what I am trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like that, as long as such forces can get away with these kind of actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.
The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence, but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.
Now, you are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw, but you as men represent more than jurors in an ordinary case, because of the victim in this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against government power. You represent humanity which yet may triumph over excessive government power, if you will cause it to be so in the course of doing your duty in this case.
I suggest that you "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people; and if you do that, as long as you live nothing will every be more important than that.
Thank you.


AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: The jury has returned. Gentlemen, have you arrived at a verdict? Don't state what it is, just say yes or no.
(The Foreman nodded affirmatively.)
THE COURT: Sheriff, will you give it to me, please.
(Verdict handed to the Court.)
THE COURT: Stand up, Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Clerk, you may read it, sir.
THE CLERK: (Reading) "March 1, 1969, New Orleans, Louisiana.
"We the Jury find the defendant not guilty."
THE BAILIFF: Order in court, please.
THE COURT: Read the rest of it.
THE CLERK: Signed "Sidney J. Herbert, Jr."
THE COURT: Does the State wish to poll the Jury?
(NO RESPONSE)
THE COURT: The State has not requested a poll of the jury, so let the verdict be recorded as a legal verdict. Will you just have a seat, Mr. Shaw. I will order you discharged without date; I would like you to just have a seat until I get rid of the jury.
Sheriff, I have the discharge certificates for the twelve jurymen, and I have put a memorandum of service January 21 to March 1, and this will be a memento of your service, and I am further writing an order to the Jury Commissioners ordering your names removed from the wheel for the rest of your lives.
Now on behalf of all concerned I want to thank you citizens for having discharged such an onerous burden without cost to the City. Let everybody have a seat, Sheriff, and let the jurors be escorted out of the court.
Quiet, please.
Gentlemen of the Jury, you are herewith discharged from the case, and I thank you for your citizenship. Let the jurors leave first, and after they leave then the press can leave after that.
This court stands adjourned until next Wednesday morning, March 5.
.... Thereupon, at or about 1:15 o'clock a.m., the proceedings herein were concluded ....

CONCENTRATION CAMP OF THE MIND

    [Yesterday (Shooting Oswald) we introduced (or reintroduced) the reader to Billy Jack, Stanley Kubrick, and Stanley Milgram. We pick up where we left off, with the obedience experiments conducted by Milgram at Yale in 1962 and 1963.]




    Milgram came under substantial criticism for his experiments, mainly because they tended to reveal unsettling things about how people are so easily able to exert power over willing "victims." After all, if we knew that the power came from us, we might choose to withhold it. Fed up with distracting questions about his ethics, Milgram replied:


I started with the belief that every person who came to the laboratory was free to accept or to reject the dictates of authority. This view sustains a conception of human dignity insofar as it sees in each man a capacity for choosing his own behavior. And as it turned out, many subjects did, indeed, choose to reject the experimenter's commands, providing a powerful affirmation of human ideals.


Click HERE for the video Milgram made.

    Milgram was pleased that not everyone went to the final level. He describes one such encounter.


The subject, Gretchen Brandt, is an attractive thirty-one-year-old medical technician who works at the Yale Medical School. She had emigrated from Germany five years before. On several occasions when the learner complains, she turns to the experimenter cooly and inquires, "Shall I continue?" She promptly returns to her task when the experimenter asks her to do so. At the administration of 210 volts she turns to the experimenter, remarking firmly, "Well, I'm sorry. I don't think we should continue."
Experimenter: The experiment requires that you go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly.
Brandt: He has a heart condition. I'm sorry. He told you that before.
Experimenter: The shocks may be painful but they're not dangerous.
Brandt: Well, I'm sorry. I think when shocks continue like this they are dangerous. You ask him if he wants to get out. It's his free will.
Experimenter: It is absolutely essential that we continue.
Brandt: I'd like you to ask him. We came here of our free will. If he wants to continue I'll go ahead. He told you he had a heart condition. I'm sorry. I don't want to be responsible for anything happening to him. I wouldn't like it for me either.
Experimenter: You have no other choice.
Brandt: I think we are here on our own free will. I don't want to be responsible if anything happens to him. Please understand that.


She refuses to go further. And the experiment is terminated. The woman's straightforward, courteous behavior in the experiment, lack of tension, and total control of her own action seem to make disobedience a simple and rational deed. Her behavior is the very embodiment of what I envisioned would be true for almost all subjects.




    Unfortunately, most of the time, what Milgram encountered was the horrifying scenario recounted below.


Fred Prozi's reaction, if more dramatic than most, illuminate the conflicts experienced by others in less visible form. About fifty years old and unemployed at the time of the experiment, he had a good-natured, if slightly dissolute, appearance, and he strikes people as a rather ordinary fellow. He begins the session calmly but becomes tense as it proceeds. After delivering the 180-volt shock, he pivots around in the chair and, shaking his head, addresses the experimenter in agitated tones:


Prozi: I can't stand it. I'm not going to kill that man in there. You hear him hollering?
Experimenter: As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, but. . .
Prozi: But he's hollering. He can't stand it. What's going to happen to him?
Experimenter: The experiment requires that you continue, Teacher.
Prozi: Aah, but, unh, I'm not going to get that man sick in there. Know what I mean?
Experimenter: Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on, through all the word pairs. 
Prozi: I refuse to take the responsibility. He's in there hollering.
Experimenter: It's absolutely essential that you continue, Prozi.
Prozi: There's too many left here. I mean, Jeez, if he gets them wrong, there's too many of them left.  mean, who's going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?
Experimenter: I'm responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue, please.
Prozi: All right. The next one's "Slow--walk, truck, dance, music." Answer please. Wrong. A hundred and ninety-five volts. "Dance."
Learner: Let me out of here! My heart's bothering me!
Experimenter: We must continue. Go on, please.
Prozi: You mean keep giving him that? Four hundred fifty volts, what's he got now?
Experimenter: That's correct. Continue. The next word is "white."
Prozi: "White--cloud, horse, rock, house." Answer, please. The answer is "horse." Four hundred and fifty volts. Next words, "Bag--paint, music, clown, girl." The next answer is "paint." Four hundred and fifty volts. Next word--
Experimenter: Excuse me, Teacher. We'll have to discontinue the experiment.


    If filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was unaware of Milgram's test on obedience, he apparently drew the same conclusions. People can be controlled in a democracy as long as they bestow authority or responsibility upon the person directing their behavior. For a film director such as Kubrick, his repudiation alone is nearly enough to persuade an audience to obey. Add to that the celebrity of his actors, the magnificence of his craft, along with the dark black confines of a movie theatre, and one has sufficient conspiring elements to twist the moviegoer's ear in favor of endowing the director with unconditional power.


    Such cinematic exercises have been trivialized since the 1980s. Now audience manipulation is unsubtle and direct in ways that would have embarrassed the makers of Billy Jack. In a film such as Speed, for example, the good guys and bad guys are grossly two-dimensional, the plot is action, the conflict is mechanical, character development is inherent in the good or bad looks of the character, and whatever minimal audience manipulation does exist can only be measured in a reduction of alpha waves.
    A few noteworthy and refreshing exceptions to this trivialization do exist. In 1991, Oliver Stone released JFK. Stone is possibly the only big money filmmaker working in America today who can approximate the Kubrick-style conditioning, and JFK proves the point. Predictably, the movie was bludgeoned by much of the media and was attacked by American intellectuals and nincompoops alike for the agreed-upon charge of distorting history.
    Stone argued that some of his attackers had a vested interest in maintaining the myth of the Warren eport. That may well be true, but no one would have cared at all what the film was saying had it not been said with such authority. In the context of the film, the theory that forces within the U.S. Government conspired to kill John Kennedy because he supposedly deserted the cause of anti-Castro Cubans and was signaling an end to U.S. involvement in Vietnam is a sharply convincing one. JFK is a motion picture that leads the viewer to consider his or her own programming while being programmed to do so. Or, as Stone himself said, "It is a counter myth." Or, as Kevin Costner, in the role of prosecutor Jim Garrison, says in his closing remarks to the jury:


I believe we have reached a time in our country, similar to what life must've been like under Hitler in the 1930s, except we don't realize it because fascism in our country takes the benign disguise of liberal democracy. There won't be such familiar signs as swastikas. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. "Fascism will come," Huey Long once said, "in the name of anti-fascism." It will come with the mass media manipulating a clever concentration camp of the mind. The super state will make you believe you are living in the best of all possible worlds, and in order to do so will rewrite history as it sees fit. 


Jim Garrison


    It is not always a simple matter to determine what constitutes a political film. Is it more political to challenge authority than to support it? Is a political film one that strives to unearth some secreted fundamental facts about the nature of society, or is it one that champions the individual psychology as true political enlightenment? Or is a political film only one that is about politics or politicians?


    The problem with such questions lies in assuming that a movie can only be political, as opposed to being romantic, thrilling, action-packed, or comedic. The fact is that hundreds of major motion pictures have been made that had very strong political messages, or that at least were weighted with political connotations. 


Marlon Brando


The Ludivico Treatment

    If you stop by tomorrow, we will continue this discussion and examine some of the more noteworthy political films of our age. But don't come alone. This may get messy.