The Harold Weisberg/Dean Andrews claim

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Garrison staffer Tom Bethel explained Garrison's belief in propinquity as follows:

"In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.

Dang, WT.  Just when you think Fred is finished with the hits, they just keep on comin' !!!  Riveting stuff, huh?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Garrison staffer Tom Bethel explained Garrison's belief in propinquity as follows:

"In Dallas, at the time of the assassination there lived a Russian-émigré oil geologist named George De Mohrenschildt who had befriended Lee Harvey Oswald after Lee returned from the Soviet Union in 1962 (whither he had defected in 1959). There was another member of the Dallas émigré community named George Bouhe, who knew De Mohrenschildt (who knew Oswald). And city directories showed Bouhe lived right opposite … Jack Ruby! (he shot Oswald, just in case you had forgotten.) And there you have the long-sought Oswald-Ruby link—based on propinquity.

If you start with a belief in a conspiracy and then "reverse engineer" the event you can find these connections - however tangential - between/among individuals that are related, directly or indirectly, to the assassination. Then you can claim that these connections show a conspiracy; and demand to be proven wrong. On one level, it's convincing; or at least plausible. But only if you start with the original conclusion of a conspiracy occurring. It's a kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking with confirmation bias thrown in.

This type of thinking is what Garrison did all of time; and is what his acolytes also do (that's why they're acolytes after all). It's what Fonzi and others in that "first" HSCA investigation did as well.

It's why since Garrison the conspiracy "community" has been lost, adrift in this "the government killed JFK" sea of paranoia and fantasies. E.g, Oliver Stone, "JFK".

[Tom Scully]

....
So I decided to have a little read of what Fred Litwin made of this claim. Here is the link from his website: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-dean-andrews-admit-that-clay-shaw-was-clay-bertrand
It turns out Dean Andrews made no such statement. Instead Andrews said to Weisberg (and this was during the Clay Shaw trial at a time when Garrison was putting pressure on Andrews) the following:

"If the Green Giant gets past that, he is home clear."

Yes. You read that right. The above gibberish was being interpreted as Dean Andrews definitively saying that Shaw was Bertrand.

All this makes me wonder if I should chuck Reclaiming Parkland in the bin and buy Fred Litwins book instead.

.....

Dang, WT.  Just when you think Fred is finished with the hits, they just keep on comin' !!!  Riveting stuff, huh?

Shaw had a reputation for being, rehabbing and flipping houses in the French Quarter. He owned a house there with one of the first swimming pools I thought he lived in. He was no stranger to the quarter but meeting places at midnight might have made a "fake name" useful.

Are there no researchers here? Search term "home clear" on the Weisberg archive served up this, in a 2001 letter to Joan Mellen, second page. In the first page, Weisberg concurs with me... Garrison helped the government by discouraging further inquiry as a result of his "prosecution" of Clay Shaw.

Weisberg reminded author Mellen, "I was there..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%206-78ff/Item%2028.pdf

[Dan O'meara]

.....

Shaw had a reputation for being, rehabbing and flipping houses in the French Quarter. He owned a house there with one of the first swimming pools I thought he lived in. He was no stranger to the quarter but meeting places at midnight might have made a "fake name" useful.

Are there no researchers here? Search term "home clear" on the Weisberg archive served up this, in a 2001 letter to Joan Mellen, second page. In the first page, Weisberg concurs with me... Garrison helped the government by discouraging further inquiry as a result of his "prosecution" of Clay Shaw.

Weisberg reminded author Mellen, "I was there..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%206-78ff/Item%2028.pdf

As I'm still a novice here, and slightly dense, can you explain to me how Andrews' statement about the "giant" identifies Shaw as Bertrand.

[Gerry Down]

As I'm still a novice here, and slightly dense, can you explain to me how Andrews' statement about the "giant" identifies Shaw as Bertrand.

I think the argument the CTers are trying to make is that Dean Andrews was saying that if Garrison could prove Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand then he would be in the home clear, meaning he would have success. But that's not at all clear from the line and in any case Andrews was under pressure at the time from Garrison to stop saying Betrand was not Clay Shaw. So Harold Weisbergs line means nothing in effect.

The line of course could also mean that if Garrison "gets past that" meaning "forgets that", he is in the home "clear" meaning "success". Dean Andrews could just as well have been telling Harold Weisberg that Garrison was barking up the wrong tree in thinking Shaw was Bertrand.