Talk:David Ferrie

"In 1978, William Gaudet, a twenty-year CIA veteran…"

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed Gaudet's CIA file, but found no record reflecting any contact between him and the CIA after 1961. A CIA memorandum from 1976 said that,

The Domestic Collections Division (DCD) has an inactive file on William George Gaudet, former editor and publisher of the Latin American Report. The file shows that Gaudet was a source of the New Orleans DCD (Domestic Contacts Division) Resident Office from 1948 to 1955 during which period he provided foreign intelligence information on Latin American political and economic conditions resulting from his extensive travel in South and Central America in pursuit of journalistic interests. The file further indicates that Gaudet was a casual contact of the New Orleans Office between 1955 and 1961, when, at various times, he furnished fragmentary intelligence.

The implication of "twenty-year CIA veteran" overstates Gaudet's relationship. I recommend, "an informant to the CIA between 1948 and 1961" or "a CIA domestic contact between 1948 and 1961."

Gaudet testified in a deposition for the HSCA in 1978 that he had never met Oswald, although he had known of him prior to the assassination because Oswald had distributed literature near his office. Gaudet also stated that on one occasion he saw Oswald speaking to Guy Banister on a street corner. As to what he told author Anthony Summers in 1977, here is what Summers wrote,

For a man who declared himself plagued by mere coincidence, William Gaudet was strangely knowledgeable. While denying any involvement in the Oswald visit to Mexico, he made one remarkable admission. He said he had "known" Oswald in New Orleans. This once said, Gaudet quickly adjusted his statement, insisting now that he had merely observed Oswald handing out leaflets in the street, on several occasions, but always fleetingly. (Not in Your Lifetime, p. 266)

In his 1978 interview with Summers, Gaudet repeats what he told the HSCA, that he once saw Oswald talking with Banister. He also says, without further explanation, "I suppose you are looking to Ferrie. He was with Oswald … " (ibid.) Whether that ellipsis mark means that Gaudet had more to say that wasn't included, or that Gaudet just trailed off and left the sentence uncompleted, is not explained. With Oswald in 1963, or when? Gaudet may have been referring to Ferrie's and Oswald's participation in the local Civil Air Patrol in the 1950s. In any case, nowhere does Summers quote or paraphrase Gaudet as saying that he knew David Ferrie, or that Ferrie, Oswald and Banister had a working relationship. — Walloon 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't looked at this page in a long time or I would have gotten back to you. Suffice to say the points you make are valid, alter the text or delete the whole thing if you want to, experience has shown that you always use fine judgement. Joegoodfriend 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it's ten years later, per the above, I am removing the following section from the article:

In 1978, William Gaudet, a 20-year CIA informant who had worked out of an office at the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, told investigator Anthony Summers that Ferrie "was with Oswald," although Gaudet did not state where or when, or whether he knew this directly or by hearsay. Gaudet also said, "Another vital person is Sergio Arcacha Smith. I know he knew Oswald and knows more about the Kennedy affair than he ever admitted."^[2]

The former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA, Victor Marchetti, has claimed that David Ferrie was connected to the CIA. Marchetti told author Anthony Summers that "...he observed consternation on the part of then CIA Director Richard Helms and other senior officials when Ferrie's name was first publicly linked with the assassination in 1967." Marchetti said that he asked a CIA colleague about this who told him that "Ferrie had been a contract agent to the Agency in the early sixties and had been involved in some of the Cuban activities."^[3]

Marchetti's claim, however, is contradicted by internal CIA documents that state that the Agency never contacted Ferrie at any time,^{[4][5][non-primary source needed]} and that there had been no documented Agency utilization of Ferrie.^{[6][non-primary source needed]}

This material falls under WP:REDFLAG so we need to have "multiple high-quality sources" reporting on it. Cobbling together primary source material in an attempt to support Summers is a form of OR. - Location (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And I disagree. I wrote much of that material ten years ago, and hammered out a hard-won compromise consensus of the editors. Now you do the same. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of that other than what is above, but I'm happy to have another one. Should I start it at the bottom or continue it here? - Location (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think will work. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. See below. - Location (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Good job. Make the change :) Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the RfC, I have removed the material pertaining to William Gaudet. I plan to address the other claim in the near future. -Location (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This section is not neutral unless it discusses Martin's history of mental illness and his retraction of his claims. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. What "retraction of his claims" are you referring to? Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a reference to it. Even if my memory is faulty on that point, the article should discuss Martin's long history of mental illness, alcoholism (Garrison initially called him "an undependable drunk" before embracing his account), and unreliability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin never retracted his statements, but the history of mental illness, and alcoholism should be placed in this article in a sentence or two-- for balance. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the editors. I'll take a stab at this and get back to you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the tag disappeared. Care to put it back?Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ciravolo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See: image description page

Mtracy9 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As Ferrie has no notability outside his involvement in the Shaw trial. I suggest creating a new article called "Persons related to the Shaw trial" or something to that effect, and merging this article into it along with the ones on Russo, Bannister, Martin, etc. Any opposition? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Trial of Clay Shaw article. I think most of the figures you mention can be covered there. This article is better separate I think. Ferrie does have some notability just for his Marcello ties. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, I'll leave this one alone. But for size issues I will be taking out the Key Witnesses and Person section from the Trial article and creating an entirely separate article if I don't hear opposition in the next couple of days. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think this is a good idea after all. I've been wanting to work Dean Andrews into an article for some time, but couldn't think of a good way to do it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I contest that the words written or spoken by Jim Garrison are not an acceptable source given the lies contained in On the Trail of the Assassins (See http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Only twice in this article is anything referenced specifically to Garrison. The first is his alleged conversation with Senator Long. I don't recall Long ever denying the conversation. The second is about Banister's activities. Since no one doubts that Guy Banister was assisting anti-Castro Cubans in running guns to Cuba, what's your point? And by the way, why do you refuse to sign your posts? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only evidence for what you think "no one doubts" is Garrison't unsupported claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcadams1 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but without Jim Garrison, no one would have ever heard of David Ferrie (along with many others) and his connection to Oswald. So Garrison IS a prime source. He lost the Shaw trial but we all know he was onto something. He probably already found it and pieced it together until some broke part of the puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"We all know he was on to something ... " BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... obviously the jury didn't. Dean Andrews, who started all the "Clay Bertrand" stuff with his BS, admitted on the stand it was BS; Perry Russo later said all his testimony was extracted via drugs and threats; when the Clinton witnesses were asked why they hadn't come forward in four years, they replied "nobody asked"; Garrison called a "sneak witness" who had his daughter fingerprinted when she went off to college lest somebody try to plant a ringer on him when she came back; and Jack Martin was so obviously bogus that Garrison didn't even TRY to use him in court. Open and shut case? Indeed. MrG 63.227.5.169 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In several sentences of this article, editors state as facts, items that were recited in the HSCA appendix. This is problematic since these appendices are simply staff reports which were often contradicted by other reports. Many of these items were eventually deemed unworthy to put into the final report, while others were found to be false. For example although Ferrie did make some controversial comments about Kennedy at the MOWW speech, and was asked to leave the podium, they did allow him to finish the speech after he cooled down. Without that context, it travels close to the line of violating NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an easy subject to tackle. If you're willing to do this research, more power to you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about reliable sources in the context of a neutral point of view:

Biased or opinionated sources

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

"Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." BrandonTR (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe there is no mention about the book Mafia Kingfish, Ferrie is probably mentioned on at least 100 pages. He set Oswald up as the patsy for the JFK murder while working with Carlos Marcello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.222.8 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the hundreds pro-conspiracy books mentioning Ferrie, Mafia Kingfish is a small fish in a big pond. Is there a unique point in the book that needs to be made? Location (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This article uses Garrison's book On the Train of the Assassins and his Playboy interview as sources. Garrison is absurdly unreliable on this case.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm

Note that latter-day Garrison supporters have pretty much tried to sanitize (by failing to discuss it) a lot of wild and wacky notions that Garrison had. But those notions reflect on his credibility:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon1.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon2.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon3.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon4.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm

Nothing should be stated as a fact in the article unless a source much more reliable than Garrison confirms it.

John McAdams

Garrison is used as a citation five times in the article. 2 of those 5 references also cite other sources. I don't think any of the text associated with these five references is considered controversial in terms of the facts. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you should be using Warren Commission apologist John McAdam's website as a source for claiming that Garrison is unreliable, when Wiki policy prohibits using a web site [remove per BLP] as a reliable source. BrandonTR (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Brandon, I believe this post was started by the actual John McAdams himself. Far out eh? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does prohibit using Wikipedia pages as a forum for name-calling directed at living individuals. You've been warned about this many times. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is name calling? I'm just expressing an opinion. As for the post being started by John McAdams, all I can say is, "that figures." I guess McAdams needs to be informed that his website is not considered a reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy. BrandonTR (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jim Marrs is a WP:FRINGE source, widely known as one who embraces any number of fringe theories on Bigfoot, 9/11, UFOs, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) Until this author is demonstrated to have met WP:RS criteria and to not violate FRINGE criteria, I will be removing citations of him from the article. Traditionally on Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to add information to demonstrate its acceptability under Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

While Jim Marrs may have embraced what some might consider fringe theories on certain subjects, it does not logically follow that what Marrs has written on the JFK assassination is fringe. BrandonTR (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does mean that he has a significant burden to overcome to be considered a reliable source in one particular area since he is in general such an unreliable and fringe source by Wikipedia standards. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show that Marrs is an unreliable source regarding the JFK assassination, since you are the one making the claim. BrandonTR (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the 2nd clause of the Wiki sentence: "... and [the burden of evidence] is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." BrandonTR (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

and where is your reliable source demonstrating that Marrs meets RS criteria? Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a tough call for me. On the one hand, he's clearly among those "researchers" who embrace every fringe theory that comes down the road. However, I'm not aware that Marrs has said anything about the JFK assassination that's considered so outlandish by the research community that he can definitely be called unreliable on the subject. But I think this is easily solved - just use other sources for the same text. David Ferrie's suicide note is quoted many other places. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are abundant reliable sources on the JFK assassination, and there's nothing essential in Marrs' account that requires we cite an unreliable work. There's no reason we should waste any further time on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, the fact is that this article is based almost entirely on the HSCA documents. That is a very one-sided presentation of events. There is a voluminous literature out there concerning the JFK assassination, including much information on David Ferrie. Some of it is wacky, some delusional, but also much of it is objective, intelligent discussion, even if at times it is at odds with the HSCA findings. Readers of an encyclopedia deserve to see all sides of an issue of this importance. For example, nowhere in this article is mention made of the fact that David Ferrie was a competent classical pianist, whose concerts were well received. This is important, because it provides insight into his character, intelligence, and talent. We should not gloss over the fact that he "got a job with Eastern Airlines," as if he landed a menial position changing tires at Goodyear. In fact, he was a Lockheed Constellation Captain, a remarkable achievement in aviation. The Constellation had four Wright 3350 engines, the most complex piston engines ever in mass production. The Constellation cockpit had hundreds of gauges, instruments, levers, switches, etc. with which the pilot had to be completely familiar, as well as being familiar with all the complex aircraft systems: hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic, etc. Not to mention the raw piloting talent required just to handle the airliner in all phases of flight. David Ferrie received excellent appraisals for his abilities, he was fired because in those years, you could not be publically gay. No mention is made also of his college degree or his PhD in psychology, although the latter was obtained from a non-accredited institution in Italy. Nevertheless, interesting information which serves to give a fuller portrait of the man. Someone who has the time should delve deeper into this most fascinating of all characters in the JFK saga and revise this article.98.183.30.108 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. I'll be looking forward to your edits. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me! Unfortunately I'm not skilled in editing Wikipedia, nor do I have the time to do this subject justice. Perhaps some other interested person may accomplish this. Thanks for your interest and response to my post.98.183.30.108 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The article previously included the statement that Joe Pesci's film portrayal of David Ferrie was 'critically acclaimed' and cited Daniel Hopsicker's Mad Cow Morning News website to support this. Hopsicker's website is emphatically not a reliable source, and Hopsicker is not any kind of film critic. I have removed the link. Rgr09 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Any good sources on his supposed LGBT activities? 2600:1005:B0CB:CAED:0:19:193A:2101 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)