Author: Paul Bleau

  • The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK, Part 2

    The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK, Part 2


    Case linkage and patsy casting for regime change operations

    Case linkage, also called linkage analysis or comparative case analysis, is an offender profiling process that helps crime investigators determine whether a series of crimes were committed by the same offender.

    The Warren Commission and the investigative agencies at their service never performed this type of standard research for the JFK assassination.

    In The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians’ Guide on how to Research his Assassination published in 2016, I did some data mining from the works of reputable authors and original source documents (mostly from the Mary Ferrell Foundation) which centered on three previous plots (L.A., Chicago and Tampa) to assassinate JFK within the six months that preceded the murder and six potential patsies (Vaughn Marlowe, Richard Case Nagell, Thomas Arthur Vallee, Harry Power, Santiago Garriga and Policarpo Lopez). (Before reading this follow-up, it is strongly recommended that you read the original article by following the above hyperlink.)

    What we can conclude from this analysis is that the peculiarities that one can find in their personas, associations and actions is hardly a haphazard collection of traits and behaviors. I have argued that there is a ZR/Rifle (CIA Executive Action) signature at play that points the finger straight at its signatories and the reliable executors of this regime-change M.O., namely: David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales and their long established network of assassins and frame-up artists which includes Mafiosi and Cuban exiles.

    Crucial to this line of inquiry will be the use of data visualization which will play a determining role in a summation phase of our quest to correct history book and mainstream media falsities in their accounts of November 22, 1963.

    In this article, we will push the analysis even further by covering a fourth failed plot, add some information about one of the potential patsies already profiled, and add two more to our already impressive list. We will begin, however by discussing how the use of data visualization should be considered more often by authors in order to help synthesize this complex case.

    Numerical data may be encoded using dots, lines, or bars, to visually communicate a quantitative message. Effective visualization helps users analyze and reason about data and evidence. It makes complex data more accessible, understandable and usable. (Wikipedia)

    In Oswald’s Intelligence Connections: How Richard Schweiker clashes with Fake History, I chronicle some 64 characters (soon to be updated to over 75) that Oswald had touch points with that either certainly (over 30) or plausibly had intelligence connections. They were fluffed off by the Warren Commission instead of being mapped out in a diagram and analyzed for who they really were and who they linked up with—exactly what the Mueller Probe is doing for anyone with a direct or indirect relation with the Trump camp.

    In my CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban-American mechanism” article, the chart below is used to showcase Santo Trafficante’s links with CIA, Mafia and Cuban exile persons of interest. Of particular interest are the persons with their names in red: No fewer than six for certain and two plausibly are directly involved in the Oswald set-up, murder or cover story and also are connected to Trafficante. The Trafficante, Roselli, Harvey, Morales, and Robertson links should also stimulate a lot of research:

    Also in this article, readers can inspect a table that singles out David Atlee Phillips as a person of extreme interest.

    In all, Oswald and Phillips shared 23 touch points—20 of which took place within the year in and around the assassination. It is simply impossible to ignore this number of connections between a CIA officer and a lone drifter!


    The Phantom Plot in Nashville, May 1963

    After reading the Previous Plots article, researcher Frank Cassano sent me information about another plot that failed in Nashville which had been covered by Bill Adams in 1993 for The Fourth Decade:

    Synopsis of Assassination Attempt Against JFK, May 18, 1963, in Nashville TN

    A few years ago I began looking into other assassination sites as well as other potential assassins and potential patsies. I was able to track a potential JFK assassin to the general area (Knoxville, TN) of a planned JFK motorcade in May of 1963. The trip was altered prior to the actual day of the trip and JFK instead made a visit to Nashville, TN. His visit, on May 18, 1963, included several motorcades.

    In early 1992 I was shocked to see a tabloid print a story about an assassination attempt against JFK during the Nashville trip! Congressman Bob Clement of Tennessee had made a startling revelation. He said his father, the late Gov. Frank Clement (governor of Tennessee in 1963) told him of a strange incident while JFK awaited a helicopter after visiting the Governor. The tabloid quoted Congressman Bob Clement of Tennessee as stating, “While the President waited for the helicopter, a man approached with a gun hidden underneath a sack. Secret Service agents spotted him and grabbed him”.

    I called and interviewed the congressman in the early summer of 1963. I also obtained actual Nashville news stories about the congressman’s revelation in January of 1992. As a result of reading the news stories and talking to Congressman Clement, I have been able to piece together the following story:

    President Kennedy arrived in Nashville on May 18, 1963. He rode in a motorcade to Vanderbilt University where he gave a speech outside in the football stadium. JFK left the stadium in another motorcade and drove to the governor’s mansion. Somewhere between the Governor’s mansion and the helicopter landing site at Overton High School, a man approached JFK with a handgun under a sack. It is unclear whether JFK was in his limousine or not at the time. The governor witnessed this event and the subsequent capture of the suspect by the Secret Service. The man was held at the High School for some time. Nothing more is known about the man. The Secret Service asked the governor to keep the event out of the press for fear it would lead to more assassination attempts.

    I have also found some writings about a gun found in a paper bag in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza, however the foundation for this aspect of the story is not solid.

    While this failed plot is by far the thinnest of the four looked into, it is worth noting for the following reasons:

    1. As with the Chicago plot, a suspect was picked up and released without any trace: no names, fingerprints, photos, reports, etc.
    2. The Nashville attempt, as was the case for all of the other failed plots, was revisited by neither the Secret Service nor the FBI after the JFK assassination.
    3. The Secret Service once again took steps to keep media from publicizing it.
    4. None of the four failed plots were known to the Warren Commission.

    Over and above underscoring this pattern of secrecy, it may be worth pursuing whether or not there are still files or witnesses that could shed light on the incident and the suspect. Who were the arresting agents? Are they alive? What can we learn about this suspect? Was he also communist leaning? Was he linked to the FPCC? Did he have Cuban contacts? Why was he let go? Was he at least placed on an FBI watch list? Perhaps an FOIA request would be in order.


    More on Harry Power

    In the “Three Previous Plots” article, the alternate patsy that had the skimpiest profile was Harry Power. Other snippets of information about him have since surfaced.

    Here is how Harry Power was originally covered:

    San Antonio, November 21, 1963

    Because of the code of omertà surrounding the JFK assassination, Harry Power’s story is perhaps the sketchiest of the potential scapegoat cases we will have discussed. But since no stone should be left unturned when investigating a murder, especially a president’s, it is worth identifying and earmarking for more analysis.

    Harry Power was yet another ex-marine who checked in to a Terre Haute House Hotel room in Indiana on November 25, 1963 with a long package. When he checked out, he left behind a rifle … a Mannlicher-Carcanno, according to a retired Chief of Police Frank Riddle … a Mauser, according another unidentified source.

    A United States Government Memo in 1967 describes the allegation. Riddle claimed San Antonio authorities informed him that Power was a member of the Young Communist League and an expert rifle marksman. An ex-co-worker described him as anti-Kennedy. He had held a job in San Antonio Texas in 1962.

    Riddle stated that all information had been turned over to the Warren Commission and that the rifle was taken by Secret Service agents. The Secret Service claimed to have only found out about this incident in 1965. Their key source is none other than the head of the Washington Secret Service, Chief Rowley himself, who you will recall played a key role in keeping the Chicago plot as secret as possible. The FBI did confirm, however, that the Terre Haute Police department had in fact followed up on this lead around when Riddle claimed it happened … which would indicate further Secret Service and Warren Commission complacency.

    According to Dick Russell, Richard Nagell told Jim Garrison that Power was a Trotskyite who had met Oswald.

    Given that JFK motorcaded in San Antonio on November 21 and that Power could easily be linked to that city, it is not a major leap to see similarities between Power, Oswald and the other scapegoat candidates that seem to have been lined up before the assassination. [slightly edited]

    The Indiana Rifle story had received little interest until journalist Sheldon Inkol researched it in 1993 (The Third Decade, Volume 9, Issue 5: “The Indiana Rifle,” by Sheldon Inkol) and updated his findings in 1995 for The Fourth Decade. From his research and FBI file 62-109060 JFK HQ, we can now add the following points:

    1. The rifle found in Indiana was most likely a Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcanno.
    2. Because of an NSF check written by Power, we know that at one time he was in New Orleans.
    3. An ex-co-worker of Power’s who was the witness Riddle referred to was Roger Dresch, who also stated that Power was a hunter who sighted a rifle with a scope at a shooting range, that he had been a paratrooper who complained about his father being an alcoholic, and who occasionally talked about becoming a hermit in the wilderness.

    According to Inkol, it is Dick Russell who first revealed the name of Harry Power in The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1992. There had been only small articles about the incident before this. Inkol credits veteran researcher Larry Haapanen, who interviewed Riddle, for having confirmed the name of Power after following up on an article in 1970.

    Dick Russell provided the following to the Harry Power profile:

    A National Archives document about the affair was declassified in 1970 … a file reports that Power had been investigated in connection with the shooting attempt on General Walker in Dallas, a shooting that the WC falsely claimed to have been by Oswald and his Mannlicher-Carcano. Other files associated with the Power rifle claim that it was a 7.65 Mauser. CIA agent Richard Nagell told Garrison investigators in 1967 that Power was a Maoist or Trotskyite and “had known Lee Harvey Oswald and had been seen with him …”

    Inkol adds the following points, based on police investigations:

    1. There were no fingerprints on the Mauser.
    2. Indiana Police indicated that the hotel where the rifle was found was right across from the Democratic and Republican headquarters.
    3. According to Riddle, the FBI tried to link Power’s presence to a political rally going on the night before in proximity to the Terre Haute hotel.
    4. The editor of the Indianapolis News and the NRA, who had found out about the incident, were asked to keep it silent by authorities.
    5. Power seemed to have a troubled marriage.
    6. He had financial difficulties.
    7. He was described as a “Smart Aleck”, “Trouble Maker” and person with a warped outlook on life.
    8. He had failed at one point to get a driver’s license.
    9. He may have been from Chicago.

    According to Inkol, Frank Riddle insisted that Power was a suspect in the attempt on General Walker’s life the previous April—something the Warren Commission tagged on Oswald. In 1964, Secret Service Chief James Rowley confirmed to Riddle that the FBI and the Secret Service had files on Power.

    Inkol tempers Riddle as a source as he points out that some have qualified him as a “blow-hard”.

    Inkol is not convinced that Power was even in the hotel. He argues that the description given (age, height and weight) of the person with the rifle in the hotel is very different from the San Antonio description of Power.

    He believes that one possibility that merits further investigation is that he was being set up as an alternate patsy or part of a subversive pro-communist group intent on attacking the U.S. Government—who could have been pinned as the shooter from the knoll if a front shot had to be admitted to.

    He also points out that had the assassination taken place in San Antonio where Kennedy motorcaded a day earlier, the patsy might have been Power instead of Oswald.

    Inkol ends the first article with a fleeting comment about the Indiana rifle being perhaps linked to a seventh potential patsy according to David Lifton who twice interviewed the next subject we will discuss, but revealed very little to Inkol about him. I decided to contact Lifton to follow up on this tantalizing clue about yet another alternate scapegoat (not to be confused with the famous astronaut), who even without a link to the rifle is, in terms of his profile, an Oswald dead ringer!


    John Glenn

    Unlike most of the other potential fall guys that figure in this analysis, the case of John Glenn and his wife Marcia is quite well documented. This, however, has nothing to do with the FBI, CIA, or Warren Commission’s efforts to scrutinize this Oswald semi-replica.

    According to the WC, Oswald opening an FPCC chapter in New Orleans was a demonstration of his ego trip … period! Fortunately for researchers, the FPCC was under intensive scrutiny by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

    Through their reports and the writings in 1993 of Jerry Rose (The Third Decade, “Red Summer of ‘63”), we can paint a better picture of Glenn and the role the FPCC came to play in making our cast of puppets easy to frame for the crime of the century.

    The FPCC was characterised as “Castro’s Network in the USA” by the HUAC. Membership within this anti-U.S. organization was described during hearings as an effective door-opener to enter Cuba via the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and Cubana Airlines.

    Though the HUAC had been seriously rattled by the McCarthy era witch-hunts, Castro was breathing some new life into this outfit for political showcasing of American patriotism.

    One area that got their attention was the travel to Cuba by American students despite a travel ban. On June 25, 1963, 58 students left New York and transited through Russia satellite Czechoslovakia on the way to Cuba where they were apparently well received by the Castro regime. This group had been infiltrated by an informant named Barry Hoffman who had gotten approval from agencies that were tied to the FBI, CIA, and State Department. During hearings in September of 1963, he painted the students as pro-Cuba and anti-U.S.A. and talked about rumors that Cuba had not dismantled the nuclear installations on the island.

    Evidently, he was a poor spy who was not trusted by the other students. He was “number 3 on their fink list”. Numbers 1 and 2 were John Glenn and his wife Marcia.

    On November 18, 1963—four days before JFK’s assassination, the Glenns’ testimony before the HUAC had the effect of smearing the FPCC. Transcripts of the hearings point out striking similarities with Oswald:

    John Glenn joined the U.S. Air force in 1950.

    While in the service, Glenn received training in the Russian language at Syracuse University and became a Russian linguist for Air Force Intelligence, with security clearance for secret, top secret, and cryptographic information. Meanwhile, he continued his regular college studies through night school and correspondence courses. Glenn, while still receiving regular military service pay, including food and housing allowances, returned to full-time studies at the Indiana University where he obtained a degree in business administration in January 1954.

    He then resumed active duty with Air Force Intelligence for 2 more years, including 16 months overseas, before being discharged in January 1956, after reaching the rank of staff sergeant.

    During the summer of 1958, he visited the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland for about 40 days as a guide for the Tom Maupintour Associates, an American travel agency. The next summer he toured the same countries, plus Yugoslavia and Rumania, in a similar capacity for another travel organization.

    The witness confirmed information obtained through an investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities that he had traveled to Mexico in the spring of 1962 in an attempt to get a Cuban visa. He was unsuccessful.

    It was at about this time, the fall of 1962, Glenn told the subcommittee, that he joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He had been a sympathizer of the group much earlier, he said. He admitted having written a letter printed in an Indiana University publication, dated February 10, 1962, in which he said that “the people in Fair Play are willing to argue to anyone who will listen that our government and our press are lying through their teeth [about Cuba].”

    The witness admitted that, without having applied for U.S. validation, he traveled to Cuba with the group of alleged students who departed from New York on a BOAC plane on June 25, 1963. Glenn acknowledged the accuracy of the subcommittee’s information that on the return trip, after arriving in Spain with the main body of U.S. “students” on August 26, 1963, he left the group and traveled to Morocco. He said that after he and his wife had learned they could stay abroad for a while, they had decided to travel to Algeria to observe the political developments there, which were supposed to be similar to what they had witnessed in Cuba.

    When the Glenns arrived in Morocco from Spain, the witness testified, they received an entry permit to Algeria from the Algerian Government. While hitchhiking their way to Algeria, however, they were arrested by the Moroccan police and ordered deported to Spain as undesirables. He said he learned from both the American consul in Rabat, Morocco, and the Moroccan police that the deportation was ordered by the United States Government.

    On October 15, 1963, according to investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities, Glenn reported to the American Embassy in Madrid, Spain, that he and his wife did not have a ticket for return transportation to the United States. The embassy purchased a ticket for them, and they were flown to the United States on an Iberian Air Lines plane.

    Their landlord testified that the Glenns possessed communist literature, including The Militant, which Oswald also subscribed to, that connected them to the Socialist Worker Party and its affiliate YSA.

    In his article, Jerry Rose speculates that “given the possibility that Glenn was connected somehow with a rifle in Indiana which was believed to be related to the assassination, it is possible as well that Glenn, like Oswald, was being groomed as pro-communist patsy if Oswald for any reason did not work out in the role.” Rose advances that Glenn’s forced return and appearance before the HUAC suggest (but do not prove) control from high places … an interpretation he felt at the time that was worth pursuing.


    David Lifton

    When I first reached out to David Lifton through some of my contacts who know him, I was a bit apprehensive. But after some email exchanges, David Lifton generously shared some of his observations.

    Here are the preliminary questions I sent David:

    1. Can you summarize when the interviews took place, where, how long they lasted, who was present?
    2. What led you to want to interview Glenn in the first place and how did you set them up?
    3. What were the topics covered and what were the main things he had to say and that you observed?
    4. Glenn’s learning of the Russian language, links to the FPCC, the way he entered Morocco and came back. Some point out the similarities to Oswald and the fingerprints of intelligence—what did your interviews (and other research) bring out in this area?
    5. Inkol mentions that you said that Glenn had a link to the Indiana Rifle (which is the one that links to William Power I believe). Can you discuss this?
    6. Do you think Glenn was being set up as a potential patsy?—please explain.
    7. You mentioned you knew about William Power. How? and if you do read my article, you will see that what I have on him is quite thin (I have found a few more bits of information that I will add). If there is anything you can add I would be most grateful.

    Without going into details, David’s preamble to answering my questions deals with how the passage of time and moving his office unfortunately cloud his recollection of his meetings with Glenn. What follows here are his responses:

    So… that having been said, and based on current recollection.

    RESPONSE TO Q1-3: Glenn’s name came up in connection with my embarking on a comprehensive search of all print (i.e., newspaper) coverage of the JFK assassination, using a set of microfilms I purchased from University Microfilms in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    I believe that it was the San Antonio papers—either the San Antonio Light, or the News—Express (there were only two San Antonio papers) —that carried stories about what happened on 11/21/63. About a “mystery car” parked at a curb, and some remarks made by one of the occupants of that car, to the effect that “He’ll never get through this city.” Something like that. That led to the San Antonio Police dispatcher putting out a call for that vehicle to “call in to your headquarters” or some such thing. Then, 24-36 hours later, after JFK was assassinated in Dallas, this incident (call it the “San Antonio incident”) then resulted in significant “follow-up” coverage, and that led to the name John Glenn and the story of the San Antonio rifle, linked to the Indiana (Bloomington, IN, I think) rifle.

    Anyway, I clipped those stories, then obtained the House (or Senate? not sure) hearings that took place on or about Nov 18, 1963, at which Glenn testified, as I recall.

    With that as background, I then sought contact with Glenn, who—I somehow learned—lived in Venice, California.

    My first meeting with Glenn was at the UCLA Student Union. What I remember is that it was dark outside, and the SU cafeteria was crowded, and that was how I met him.

    I questioned him closely and established—to my satisfaction (again, “as I presently recall”) —that he did not fit the profile of an “alternate” patsy because there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any third party in his life influencing where he was living, or what he was doing, or asking him to do anything.

    Of course, I was disappointed in the result, but that’s what I found.

    Subsequently, when Robert Sam Anson (who I came to know) was writing about the JFK assassination (for Esquire, I think), he wanted to follow-up on this. Again, as I recall. And, again, as I recall, the two of us actually went to John Glenn’s Venice apartment and spoke with him.

    I do not remember the details at all. What I do remember is being in John Glenn’s apartment, and having the sense that he was “just like Oswald,” something like that. I believe I had that sense because he had either a poster of, or paraphernalia connected with, The Militant. Again, I don’t remember. What I do remember is the UCLA Student Union “first meeting” and my sense of disappointment that my

    hypothesis wasn’t panning out.

    RESPONSE to Q4: See answer to Question 1. FYI: I kept a very imperfect “journal” of my daily work; and I would often write letters home, but I don’t believe they would have contained any relevant information.

    Anyway, that material is stored “elsewhere.”

    RESPONSE to Q5: I believe that the “primary source” for these “links” comes from the San Antonio newspaper coverage—again, I was using microfilmed records of the S A Light and/or News Express for the period 11/20 —11/25/1963.

    RESPONSE to Q6: That was my hypothesis, but what I remember is being (very) disappointed that my questioning of him failed to unearth any supporting data. (Could he have been deceiving me? I suppose he “could have,” but I’m pretty confident that I was not being fooled, and that he was who he “appeared to be.”)

    RESPONSE to Q7:

    1. Please send me the link to your article (or anything else you wish me to read) again. I’m not sufficiently “organized” to lay my hands on it at this moment.
    2. As I recall, it all stemmed from my work with the microfilmed records of the two San Antonio newspapers.

    Also, and this may be of interest to you—or maybe not—I think that some of this “San Antonio” stuff may have been covered in the Dallas Morning News in the day or two after JFK was assassinated.

    David followed up shortly after with this following point:

    P.S.  What I forgot to mention in my memo …

    That the San Antonio newspaper (one of them) reported after the assassination of JFK on Friday 11/22/63, that the “mystery car” was a Secret Service vehicle.

    And that’s what made the whole incident so very important.


    Harry Dean

    Harry Dean is one of those characters I put into the category of unreliable witnesses who may have important knowledge, but that have made many statements that are easily contestable and that have had researchers chasing their tails. Unfortunately, in the JFK assassination soap opera—we are faced with a whole slew of personalities who mislead yet can sometimes be decoded to a certain degree. Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming come to mind, as they along with others tried to send HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi and other researchers on wild goose chases. They nevertheless give us a better picture of the decadent setting Oswald immersed himself in.

    When dealing with such characters, without fully dismissing them, it is prudent not to waste much time on them and only go with what can be corroborated.

    Before reading some of Dean’s forum posts, I looked at what other researchers had to say about him.

    For over 50 years, Dean made claims in letters and forums that he had been recruited, selected, and led by American Intelligence forces to take on special missions such as spying on Castro while in Cuba, the John Birch Society, and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Only in 2017 would he finally admit that he was not an official FBI informant.

    In a 2005 post on The Education Forum, he came up with the following claim:

    But among the widespread ‘rightist’ movement were assassin-minded persons that would take action to aid in seizing control of the U.S. government if only given the word.

    Even being tight-knit with the individuals involved, except for bits and pieces of confusing information I failed to timely detect a clearer picture of the real and more subtle plot to kill the president … the plan move relentlessly … but a ‘need-to-know’ method of secrecy was being applied among my radical associates.

    When the name of a Fair Play For Cuba Committee communist was broadcast throughout the rightist circuit after the airing of an August, 1963 radio program from Station WDSU, New Orleans, Louisiana, Lee Oswald was ‘selected’ by another of our {JBS} associates, retired U.S. Army General E.A. Walker of Dallas, Texas.

    The subject was chosen by ‘Guy” Gabaldon as ‘the fall guy’ in the secretive plot against Kennedy. None of us objected, and found it humorous to frame a communist. I quietly considered it as goofy as the weird, but hazy, arrangements to kill the president.

    When Kennedy visited Mexico City in late June of 1962, Gabaldon, in league with some rightist Mexican Federal Police Officials, was set to shoot president Kennedy. Only a last minute escape problem aborted that assassination scheme … Two other of our associates … Lawrence John Howard—aka Alonzo Escruido, and Loran Eugene ‘Skip’ Hall—aka Lorenzo Pacillo, were dispatched by Gabaldon to enlist Oswald in {a phony CIA, Central Intelligence Agency set-up} at Gabaldon’s Mexico City area office.

    General Walker did not orchestrate the assassination, nor the framing of Oswald! Nor did the Mafia, the Cuban exiles, Birchers, etc. Walker could not have organized the weakening of security, the botched autopsy, the Mexico City Oswald imposter episode, the Warren Commission failures, the propaganda offensives. The framing of Oswald began before he left Dallas for New Orleans.

    This goes a long way in explaining why some have suggested that I not include Dean in a comparative analysis of potential patsies.

    However, when researching the documentary trail about Harry Dean on the Mary Ferrell site, as well as on forums and websites (see: https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/harrydean) that provide an in-depth analysis of Dean’s statements and pertinent documents—we can nevertheless find information about the FPCC, Dean himself and other characters that seem to be part of a model:

    A 1962 Los Angeles FBI File reveals the following about Dean:

    LAX advised Chicago FBI office about phone conversation which Harry had with SA William J. McCauley.   During that phone conversation, Harry “confided that he had been an informant for the Chicago Office, having been a Secretary of the Chicago chapter of the FPCC, but that largely because his wife had become very upset over his activities on behalf of the FBI, he had discontinued his informant activities and had come to the LAX area about one year ago, and is now employed as a plasterer operating out of the Union Office on Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles. He added that he has, since his arrival in Los Angeles, had casual contact with Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck, whom he had previously known in the Chicago area, and from them has learned that Marjorie Swabeck is secretary of the LAX chapter of the FPCC at the present time. He said that he otherwise has taken no particular interest in the FPCC, and that while he himself is personally not averse to resuming informant activities in behalf of the FBI, he hesitates to do so because of his wife’s feeling in the matter. The Chicago Office is requested to verify and furnish a brief summary of the subject’s background, particularly his activities as an informant and his reliability while known to the Chicago office.”

    Another L.A. 1962 FBI file goes on further:

    SAC Chicago to SAC LAX

    Dean first called the Chicago Office in August, 1960, to report that he had been elected Recording Secretary, Chicago Chapter, FPCC. He did not divulge his name and address at this time. Later in the same month he called this office, stating his name and advising he was residing at 1540 Central Avenue, Whiting, Indiana, and that he owned his own business, the Whiting Plastering Company. He told of his connections with the FPCC, furnished information concerning the leadership of this organization, and said he would be amenable to an interview with an agent of the FBI.

    The Indianapolis Office conducted an inquiry in Whiting, Indiana, in September 1960. Detective Captain Edward Grabovac, Whiting, Indiana Police Department, advised that Dean, whose real name he believed to be Gordon Hunt and who had used the name George R. Baker, had skipped town and the Whiting PD had a warrant for his arrest on bad check charges. Grabovac said Dean was a self-employed plasterer.

    The Whiting, Indiana PD procured an identification record from the Detroit, Michigan PD under FBI #4657880. This record revealed that Dean had been committed as a mental patient in Canada in 1948 and was sentenced at Chatham, Ontario, for breaking and entering to ‘one year indefinite’. At this time, Dean had one arrest by the Detroit PD for disturbing a religious meeting and two arrests for using indecent and obscene language.

    He was also AWOL from Fort Knox, Kentucky in 1949. In December 1960, Dean again called this Office to report that he had been residing in Detroit for the past two months. At that time he said he was living in Chicago but he refused to divulge his local address. He continued to telephonically contact this office on several occasions until June 1961.

    He furnished information concerning Cuban nationals connected with the 26th of July Movement and on local persons connected with the FPCC. He was last contacted by two agents of the Chicago Office on June 7, 1961, at which time he was told that this office did not desire his assistance. Former CG___-S advised in August 1960, that Dean was a white male, age about 25 (in 1960), stocky build and black hair. While Dean voluntarily furnished info to the Chicago Office over a period of nearly a year, he was never considered a PSI or informant by this Office.

    Even though Dean does not seem like a highly prized asset for the FBI, the paper trail on Dean also confirms the following: Dean had been committed as a mental patient in Canada in 1948 and was sentenced at Chatham, Ontario.

    An OSI file (NARA Record Number: 104-10404-10041) confirms that Harry Dean was in the U.S. Army in 1945 and then again in 1948 using the name George Robert Baker and that the Office of Naval Intelligence has three files on him. It also states that he had been arrested by the RCMP and the Detroit Police under the Registration Act.

    In 1958 he became a member of the 26th of July Movement, a group led by Fidel Castro.

    In late 1959 and early 1960 he received three letters from Juan A. Orta, the Director of the Prime Minister’s Office of Cuba.

    He visited Cuba in June 1960.

    In August, 1960, he had been elected Recording Secretary, Chicago Chapter, FPCC.

    He soon after became a voluntary informant to the FBI (who nevertheless considered him a Fruitcake).

    In 1961, he moved to Los Angeles, where he had casual contact with Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck, whom he had previously known in the Chicago area, and from them learned that Marjorie Swabeck is secretary of the LAX chapter of the FPCC at the present time. (Which perhaps brought him into the realm of Vaughn Marlowe and Richard Case Nagell).

    In 1962 he joined the John Birch Society.

    He also claims to have known Larry Howard and Loran Hall whose names come up with respect to the assassination, and he warned the Los Angeles FBI about a plot to murder JFK that emanated from General Walker which was discussed during a John Birch Society meeting where Oswald was identified as the patsy.

    In one of his posts Dean states that the Swabecks may have been setting him up. The NARA documents do confirm a relationship that would have begun in 1960 when Harry met Edgar Swabeck during his travels to Cuba. According to Dean they played a role in getting him to set up the Chicago FPCC branch.

    By 1961, the Swabecks were now part of an L.A. FPCC chapter when Dean reconnected with them. They tried once again to involve him in the FPCC. It would not be a great leap to conclude that the Swabecks probably knew Vaughn Marlowe.

    Edgar Swabeck’s father seems to have been Arne Swabeck, one of the founding members of the Communist Party in the U.S. In the late 1920s, he was expelled from the party as a Trotskyist and worked together with James P. Cannon and other American Trotskyists to create the Socialist Workers Party. Swabeck visited Leon Trotsky in his exile in Turkey in 1933. He made a cameo appearance in the movie Reds. He was also reference person for The Militant, published by the SWP.

    It is also worth asking: If the murder had taken place in L.A., would a link to the cast of FPCC characters have also caused the downfall of the SWP which was very close to the FPCC management in L.A.?


    Potential patsy analysis: a new perspective

    When I completed the first article, I felt we could deduce that the subjects discussed where being actively groomed to become patsies; in other words, that operatives maneuvered easily discarded freelance assets or other malleable figures into assuming weaponized, pro-Castro and/or communist, anti-Kennedy misfit personas, and placed them in the proximity of the kill zone with abundant incriminating evidence. The string-pullers were also fully prepared to pounce with propaganda initiatives to put the blame of the assassination on Castro! While this seems to fit well—admittedly to varying degrees—in the cases of the first seven subjects profiled, the analysis of our two latest characters suggests something similar but with certain caveats.

    In the cases of Dean (pending more research) and Glenn, we can state that the credentials are also very suspicious, but that certain elements fit less well the claim that they were being groomed to take the fall: Their FPCC links predate when the winning stratagem was being mapped out, which arguably had its origins no earlier than when the ZR/Rifle (executive action) architect and disgraced CIA officer William Harvey met with mobster John Roselli in late Winter 1963. It was after these meetings that definite attempts on JFK’s life began multiplying and that the subsequent incriminating behavior and travels of Oswald, Nagell, Lopez, Vallee, Power and Garriga were too well timed to be considered mere coincidences.

    So how we interpret the profiles of Dean, Glenn, Nagell, and Marlowe with respect to their FPCC links needs to be more nuanced. While we cannot state at this point that they were maneuvered into joining the FPCC in order to be groomed as patsies, their connections to this organization, which was being heavily infiltrated by intelligence, when combined with their other traits, are nevertheless very telling and more in line with the role of informants who had patsy credentials. Some of the other subjects required fine-tuning of their personas and logistical maneuvering in the months leading up to the hit. The analysis of all the candidates on the short list bolsters the case that a cash-strapped Oswald did not leave his young daughter and pregnant wife in the lurch so he could pursue his ideological dream of opening an FPCC chapter in one of the most hostile places imaginable towards this dwindling organization.

    Senator Richard Schweiker of the Church Committee famously stated that the fingerprints of intelligence were all over Oswald. As we can see in the updated chart, Oswald has company!

    • Eight of the nine subjects profiled are connected to cities visited by Kennedy during the six months that preceded his assassination.
    • Each of these cities were territories exploited criminally by Mafiosi of interest in the assassination.
    • At least three moved to the cities and got employment in strategically located buildings along the motorcade route shortly before the planned presidential visit.
    • Seven were ex-military.
    • Eight of them exhibited behavior that can very plausibly be linked to intelligence gathering or Cuban exile interaction.
    • Seven were directly linked to the FPCC. Seven of them had visited Mexico City.
    • Six attempted to visit Cuba, three of them successfully.
    • Seven had links to Cuban/Latino exiles.
    • Six were described as having psychological problems.
    • Seven exhibited anti-Kennedy behavior.
    • None were probed seriously by the Warren Commission.
    • Intelligence services, notably the Secret Service, kept crucial information about these subjects as well as the prior plots totally secret from the Warren Commission.

    Potential alternative patsy comparison chart

    patsies


    More on the FPCC

    In the original article, much was written to underscore just how unlikely it would be for the subjects analyzed to be involved in 1963 with a dying FPCC. The timing was not right, their profiles contrast with the students and intellectuals who were most ideologically attracted to this outfit before the missile crisis, and the opening of chapters in hostile locations like New Orleans and Miami in 1963 can simply be described as mindless … unless, of course, other stratagems were at play: perhaps its infiltration by informants, which was rampant by then, and patsy grooming ploys.

    It stands to reason that the persons in a position to lead the infiltrators and monitor their movements deserve our utmost attention and that the FPCC should be turned upside down by the research community, because when Oswald joined the failing FPCC, he was most likely on a mission.

    In this respect, John Newman’s research into the FPCC infiltration and David Atlee Phillips’ role is worth noting. From his 2013 countercoup article here are some key points:

    • In early 1961, eleven weeks before the Bay of Pigs invasion, the CIA seized an opportunity to become more actively involved in running operations against the FPCC. CIA Security Office and Western Hemisphere elements identified an Agency employee who knew Court Wood, an American student just returned from Cuba under the sponsorship of the FPCC. This opportunity to surveil Court Wood, which developed at the end of January, was irresistible in the judgment of the person in the CIA’s Security Research Service (SRS) of the Security Office who conceived and authorized the operation. That person was James McCord, the same James McCord who would later become embroiled in the (Watergate) scandal during the Nixon Presidency.
    • It is fitting that one of the Agency’s legendary disinformation artists, David Atlee Phillips, should have been in charge of the CIA’s CI and propaganda effort against the FPCC. Phillips would reappear in Mexico City at the time Oswald visited there, taking over the anti-Castro operations of the CIA station in Mexico City during the very days that CIA headquarters and the CIA Mexico City station exchanged cables on Oswald’s visit to the Mexican capital.
    • “At the request of Mr. David Phillips” wrote the fortunate CIA employee picked to spy on his neighbor, “I spent the evening of January 6 with Court Wood, a student who has recently returned from a three-week stay in Cuba under the sponsorship of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” The employee said that Court and his father both were pro-Castro and “extremely critical” of American foreign policy. “I’ve been advised by Mr. Phillips to continue my relationship with Mr. Wood and I will keep your office informed of each subsequent visit.”
    • What the operation tells us is that, by 1960, CIA was sufficiently interested in countering the FPCC to engage in an illegal domestic operation. The fact that controversy would follow the two men in charge, McCord in connection with Watergate and Phillips in connection with the Kennedy assassination, cause this page in CIA’s anti-Castro operations to stand out in hindsight.
    • We have in the past utilized techniques with respect to countering activities of mentioned [FPCC] organization in the U.S. During December 1961, New York prepared an anonymous leaflet which was mailed to select FPCC members throughout the country for the purpose of disrupting FPCC and causing a split between FPCC and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) supporters, which technically was very effective.
    • These tactics dramatize the lengths to which the FBI was willing to go to discredit the FPCC, whose chapters in Chicago, Newark, and Miami were infiltrated early on by the Bureau. As we will see in Chapter Sixteen, during Oswald’s tenure with the FPCC, FBI break-ins to their offices were a regular occurrence.
    • According to FBI records, on April 21, 1963, Dallas confidential informant “T-2” reported this letter to the FPCC, in which Oswald said he had passed out FPCC pamphlets in Dallas with a placard around his neck reading HANDS OFF CUBA, VIVA FIDEL.
    • Whether Oswald had stood on a street corner or not, important undercover FBI assets in New York were in motion against the FPCC during the time or shortly after Oswald wrote the letter. As we already know, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was the subject for intense FBI and CIA interest and counterintelligence operations. A major FBI Chicago office investigation of the FPCC appeared on March 8, four days before Oswald ordered the rifle from Chicago. This study was transmitted to the CIA.
    • By picking such an organization to correspond with and carrying out actions on its behalf, Oswald—by default or by design—had insinuated himself into the gray world of the watchers and the watched.

    The SWP

    Because of the Socialist Workers Party’s strong links to the FPCC and with at least four of the subjects we have profiled, and because it published The Militant, the newspaper being clutched by Oswald in his infamous backyard photo, it is worth researching this political outfit which was considered subversive by intelligence agencies.

    In 2005, its national leader between the early 1960s to the mid 1980s, Barry Sheppard, wrote a political memoir about this organization.

    The SWP had its roots in the 1930s and was officially founded in 1938. It quickly became an active supporter of leftist causes and the maligned Labor Movement—a target of Hoover’s FBI. Its existence was marked with volatility and controversy. It was a target of the McCarthy era witch-hunts in the fifties—these flared up again under the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1960s, when a certain Lee Harvey Oswald and at least three of the alternate patsies decided to join. The SWP also supported The Nation of Islam and later Malcolm X, The Freedom Riders, Algerian Independence, Peace movements—many of the issues Kennedy haters were boiling mad about!

    It was an enthusiastic supporter of the Castro revolution:

    Reflecting our own growing confidence in the revolutionary leadership, The Militant began to carry speeches by Castro and other Cuban leaders, which were among the best popular explanations of what the revolution was doing. In one of the first speeches we published, Fidel explained that the US-inspired counter-revolutionary fronts would fail because, unlike the guerrillas of the July 26 Movement, they could never build a base in the peasantry with their program of returning the land to the exploiters. Over the next years, others on the US left also came to support the Cuban revolution, but The Militant was always the best and most consistent US source providing truthful news about Cuba and publishing the ideas of the Cuban revolutionaries in their own words.

    The SWP was very involved with the FPCC:

    We came to be part of the leadership of the FPCC partly as the result of a crisis in the organization. The original FPCC leadership was somewhat timid, and shied away from forthright defense of the revolution as it radicalized. In response, Cuban members of the July 26 Movement living in the US blocked with the SWP and some other militants, and took over the leadership of the Committee. It was while he was staying at the Theresa that Castro met Malcolm X. A few years later, I would interview Malcolm for the Young Socialist in his office at the Theresa. The revolutionary Black nationalist was attracted to the Cuban Revolution from the start and supported it until he was murdered in 1965.

    When Castro was refused lodging during his New York U.N. visit in 1960, he received support from the SWP:

    Castro declared that the delegation would camp out in Central Park. Berta Green, a member of the SWP who was also the Executive Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), got in touch with the Hotel Theresa in Harlem, which agreed the Cubans could stay there.

    Sheppard’s memoir shows that the SWP was much larger than the FPCC when he describes protest mobilization during the missile crisis in 1962:

    We stood up to it. The PC discussed and approved the thrust of a statement to appear in the next issue of The Militant. It ran under the headline, “Stop the Crime Against Cuba!” We alerted SWP branches and YSA chapters that night to mobilize to support the broadest possible actions against the threat. In New York, there were two major demonstrations. One was called by Women Strike for Peace and other peace groups. We joined some 20,000 protesters at the United Nations on this demonstration. Then the Fair Play for Cuba Committee held its own action, more specifically pro-Cuba in tone, of over 1,000 people, also near the UN.

    The following points concerning the July 1963 convention cast even more suspicion around the timing and motives of openings of FPCC chapters in the deep south by Santiago Garriga and Oswald and the continued involvement with the FPCC by the other subjects:

    At the convention, a meeting of pro-Cuba activists discussed the situation in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Cubans living in the United States who supported the July 26 Movement had helped us build the FPCC. Now most of them had returned to Cuba. In most areas, the FPCC had dwindled down to supporters of the SWP and YSA. Since we did not want the FPCC to become a sectarian front group, the meeting decided to stop trying to build it. The FPCC then existed for a while as a paper organization, until the assassination of President John Kennedy dealt it a mortal blow.

    Sheppard’s account of the SWP reaction when the Kennedy assassination was announced is noteworthy:

    We were listening to the news when the announcement came. I said, “I hope it’s not that nut who tried to join the party, that guy who is a one-man Fair Play for Cuba Committee chapter in New Orleans.” Imagine how I felt when it turned out he was the one charged with the act. The SWP and YSA had received letters from a Lee Harvey Oswald, asking to join. His letters, as I remember them, were politically confused, and the photo that was sent with them was strange. In it, the person who was supposedly Oswald held copies of The Militant and the Communist Party’s Worker. He also sported two or more rifles and hand guns sticking out of his belt. A similar picture appeared on the cover of Life magazine after the assassination. Oswald, it turned out, had posed for similar photographs holding the Communist Party’s paper and the Workers’ World Party’s Workers’ World. One look at the picture and everyone in the leadership of the party and YSA thought we were dealing with a nut or a provocateur. Oswald purchased subscriptions to The Militant and Young Socialist. But no one in our leadership thought we should accept him as a member. In any case, our policy was not to accept at-large members in places where there was no party branch or YSA chapter, for the reason that there was no real way of evaluating the applicant. The press featured Oswald’s connection with the FPCC and speculated that Castro or some unspecified “reds” were behind the assassination. We were a potential target because we were well known as supporters of the Cuban revolution …

    The New York Daily News, attempting to fire up the atmosphere against the left, stated in an editorial: “The fact remains that Oswald was a Marxist and proud of it. The fact remains that the Communist Party continually preaches death to imperialism, capitalism, etc. It is only natural for lamebrains such as Oswald to conclude that this means killing your enemies wherever and whenever you can reach them defenseless. Ideas have consequences.” This was all a pack of lies. As The Militant pointed out a few days later, the editorial was also an attempt to cover up the fanatical hatred that the right wing had for Kennedy, particularly because of the concessions the government was being forced to make to the fight for Black rights. In Dallas during the days before the Kennedy visit, for example, the rightists had posted leaflets displaying a photo of Kennedy and the words: “Wanted for Treason.”


    Dan Hardway’s 2016 declaration

    HSCA investigative attorneys Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez co-authored a section for the HSCA’s Final Report on the CIA and LHO in Mexico City which remained classified in full until 1996. The draft, after further declassification in 2003, was published by the Mary Ferrell Foundation Press as Oswald, The CIA, And Mexico City: The Lopez-Hardway Report, and shed light on missing/ destroyed tapes and photos, Oswald impersonations, lying CIA officials and peculiar behavior by Oswald or a frame-up artist—all completely fluffed over by the Warren Commission.

    In 2016, Dan Hardway prepared a written declaration in a support of a Jefferson Morley Freedom of Information civil action which should really trouble historians who describe JFK conspiracy proponents as flakey opportunists. In his own words, here is who media and historians have chosen to snub:

    From July of 1977 until December of 1978, I was employed as a researcher on the staff of the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). In that capacity I had a top secret security clearance and, during a major portion of my employment, had access to un-redacted Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) records. My primary area of responsibility in research for the HSCA was the possibility of any relationship of any nature between the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), with special focus on the CIA’s awareness of, and reporting on, LHO’s activities in Mexico City. Implicit in that focus was the issue of whether the evidence from Mexico indicated any operational connection between LHO and the CIA.

    My research for the HSCA also covered areas related to people of interest, including David Atlee Phillips and William Harvey, among others, and CIA assassination programs. I was also tasked with research and analysis of the response of the CIA’s Mexico City Station LHO’s trip to Mexico City and to the assassination.

    The following are some of the most damning statements made in this very important affidavit:

    • Beginning in May of 1978, the CIA assigned George Joannides to handle liaison with Edwin Lopez and me. In the summer of 1978, Mr. Joannides began to change the way file access was handled. We no longer received prompt responses to our requests for files and what we did receive no longer seemed to provide the same complete files that we had been seeing. The obstruction of our efforts by Mr. Joannides escalated over the summer, finally resulting in a refusal to provide unexpurgated access to files in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding previously agreed to by the HSCA and the CIA.
    • I did not do any research aimed at George Joannides, or his activities in 1963, because, while working for the HSCA in 1977-1978, I was not informed that he had had any involvement with any aspect of the Kennedy case and I had no basis to even suspect that he had. In researching possible connections between post-assassination stories about LHO and David Atlee Phillips, I did little, if any, research that I recall into the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE) because, among other reasons, the CIA had firmly represented to the HSCA that all ties between the DRE and the CIA had been terminated prior to 1963.
    • … to review CIA 201 files on many of the individuals who had been sources for stories that appeared in the immediate aftermath of the assassination tying LHO to Castro or the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I was able to establish that most of the sources of the stories were, or had been, agents or assets used at one time or another by David Atlee Phillips.
    • Before our unexpurgated access was cut off by Joannides, I had been able to document links between David Phillips and most of the sources of the disinformation that came out immediately after the assassination about Oswald and his pro-Castro proclivities. I confronted Phillips with those in an interview at our offices on August 24,1978. Phillips was extremely agitated by that line of questioning, but was forced to admit that many of the sources were not only former assets that he had managed, in the late 50’s and early 1960’s, but were also assets whom he was personally managing in the fall of 1963. Mr. Phillips was asked, but could not explain, why the information that came from anti-Castro Cuban groups and individuals pointing to Cuban connections all seemed to come from assets he handled personally, but acknowledged that was the case. Mr. Phillips also acknowledged that back-channel communication methods existed, but denied that any were used in Mexico City.
    • We have, since 1978, learned that George Joaimides was running the propaganda shop at the CIA’s Miami JMWAVE Station in 1963. It is extremely unlikely that Mr. Joannides could have occupied that position and not have known, and worked with, David Atlee Phillips. In addition, in 1963, as we now know, George Joannides was the case officer handling the DRE. In 1977 the CIA specifically denied that DRE had a case officer assigned when asked that question by the HSCA.
    • One possible inference from the known data, at this point, is that the CIA brought someone out of retirement who knew where to not let us look and he impeded and, eventually, shut down our research. His specific work in regard to my research was commended by his superior in his annual performance review from 1978.
    • In addition to being a primary source of stories about LHO in the days after the assassination, the DRE also had a highly visible encounter with LHO in New Orleans in September 1963. George Joannides’ s performance evaluation dated July 31,1963, reports that Joannides has “done an excellent job in the handling of a significant student exile group which hitherto had successfully resisted any important degree of control.”
    • David Phillips recruited a group of students in Havana to work against Castro while Phillips was serving under deep cover in Havana in the late 1950s. At the time, the group was known as the Directorio Revolucionario, or DR. Phillips was the DR’s first case officer. When the DR’s leadership fled Cuba in 1960, William Kent, who was very close to Phillips and worked with him, organized them into an effective organization in Florida, known as the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or DRE.
    • In August, 1963, LEO had an encounter with DRE representatives in New Orleans. That encounter resulted not only in widespread publicity in New Orleans at the time, including newspaper articles, television coverage and radio interviews, it also resulted in the first reports trying to tie LEO to Castro after the assassination of John Kennedy. DRE released their information the day of the assassination and it was covered in both the Miami Herald and the Washington Post the next day.
    • The CIA never told the Warren Commission about their support of, and work with, the DRE in 1963. The CIA never told the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”) about it. The Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) asked the Agency about DRE. The CIA initially told the ARRB the same thing they told the HSCA: the Agency had no employee in contact with DRE in 1963. The ARRB, however, in examination of Joannides’s CIA personnel file, discovered its clear indication that Joannides was the DRE case officer in 1963.
    • In the early 1960’s, David Phillips was working at Headquarters where he, along with Cord Meyer, developed the first disinformation operations aimed at the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
    • To summarize what we now know: the DRE originated as the DR under the tutelage of David Phillips in Havana in the late 1950’s. William Kent took over running the group, now known as the DRE, once they had fled from Havana to Miami. In his position, he was responsible to Phillips. Crozier came in to assist Kent with his workload. Kent and Crozier were not too successful with the hard-to-control group and Richard Helms gave the DRE an officer responsible directly to him, which officer was Joannides. But Joannides’s performance evaluations indicate that his immediate supervisor, prior to October 1963, was Kent. We do not know what working relationship Joannides had with Phillips either directly, or indirectly through Kent. It is unlikely that Phillips did not continue to be involved in, or at least kept apprised of, operations of a group that he had started and nurtured, both directly and indirectly, which continued to be directly active in his primary area of responsibility: anti-Castro propaganda. Indeed, it would be in keeping with what is known if he used that group in operations against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, or that he continued to be involved in disinformation operations aimed at the group, having designed the first one.
    • After David Atlee Phillips testified a second time before the HSCA in Executive Session on April 25,1978, several staff members, myself included, sought to have the Chief Counsel recommend to the Committee that it refer Mr. Phillips to the Justice Department for prosecution for lying to Congress.
    • On September 16, 1963, the CIA informed the FBI that it was considering action to counter the activities of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FFCC) in foreign countries. In New Orleans, on September 17,1963, Oswald applied for, and received, a Mexican travel visa; on September 27, Oswald arrived in Mexico City. On that day, and the following day, Oswald, or someone impersonating him, may have visited the Cuban Consulate. On those same days, the Mexico City CIA Station was testing an impulse camera in their photo surveillance operation aimed at the door of the Cuban Consulate. Sometime in late September Phillips left Mexico City on a temporary duty assignment at CIA Headquarters. It is at this time that Phillips was promoted to chief of anti-Castro operations in Mexico City—the Cuba desk. On October 1, the Mexico City Station sent bulk materials to Headquarters.

    Dan Hardway’s state of mind can be inferred by the open-ended questions he poses near the end of his declaration:

    • Were the promotions rewards for a successful disinformation operation aimed at the FPCC in New Orleans, an operation that the Agency thought it could export to Mexico? While TDY, did Phillips meet with Kent at HQ? Did he meet with Joannides in Miami? Did they review the results of a disinformation and “dangle” operation they had just run in Mexico City?—their first attempt to export the successful domestic anti-FPCC disinformation operation? Did they review the production from the impulse camera? Was that camera’s production the “bulk material” in the pouch? We don’t know the answers because the questions were never asked; George Joannides shut down the HSCA investigation into this area before this level of detail could be discovered and connected. Given all this, a reasonable researcher has to ask whether the Oswald visit in Mexico City was part of an intelligence operation that had both counterintelligence and propaganda purposes? It also, in this context, becomes appropriate to ask whether there has been an active cover-up and whether George Joannides’ undercover assignment to work with the HSCA was part of that cover-up.

    Hardway’s concluding remarks do not give the impression that he believes that Oswald was simply a drifting malcontent or a pro-Castro ideologue, and that Joannides and Phillips could be counted on for knowing what really happened:

    • In regard to the issues of 1963 there would be great public benefit to knowing whether LHO had been involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in an intelligence operation. Even without settlement of that ultimate question, additional information about what George Joannides was doing in 1963, in particular with the DRE in New Orleans, would go a long way to providing insight into that ultimate question. Similarly, being able to explore the relationship between David Atlee Phillips and George Joannides would benefit the public by either confirming or disproving vital aspects of the events of 1963.

    Conclusion

    Dan Hardway’s declaration is recent, blistering, and completely demolishes the history books’ stenographic claims that Oswald the Lone Nut killed JFK. Hardway underscores many disturbing observations that cannot be explained by mere happenstance. His position is nevertheless soft-pedalled compared to what Schweiker and Gaeton Fonzi have stated. It is now possible to go a lot farther in our deductions.

    Case comparison analysis of the potential patsies and prior plots to assassinate JFK would bring investigators to study common traits, behavior patterns, entity links, chronological sequences in order to develop a profile of the offenders. The perpetrators in this case were able to:

    1. recruit dreamy, malleable ex-marines or Cuban exiles who were drawn to the world of espionage;
    2. have access to a network of Mafiosi and Cuban exiles who shared regime change objectives and could work in proximity with the potential patsies while providing layers of separation for the decision-makers;
    3. use propaganda to create pro-Castro, anti-Kennedy, misfit, violent, and dangerous personas;
    4. lead the subjects into joining left-wing, subversive organizations, visiting Mexico City, and trying to enter Cuba;
    5. move some of them near the kill zones and cause them to behave suspiciously in visible, controversial, and timely manners;
    6. ensure a weak investigation and keep incriminating evidence secret;
    7. place the blame on communists or Castro himself with the help from friends in the media.

    Only a select few had the means to carry all this out.

    They wrote up the technique in a playbook called “ZR/Rifle” and applied it, or versions of it, a number of times in foreign countries. Some of them hated Kennedy so much that it is quite plausible that they went rogue. A few of them even admitted the existence of a conspiracy, their involvement, or their knowledge of it.

    William Harvey’s links with other CIA persons of interest, Johnny Roselli and Santo Trafficante and their network of Mafiosi, Jack Ruby and Cuban exiles who hovered around Oswald during the last months of his life, his links to the FPCC infiltration programs, travel to Dallas shortly before the assassination and role in ZR/Rifle tactics qualify him as a person of extreme interest in the coup.

    Visual data shows how David Atlee Phillips’ universe overlaps with Oswald’s through over 20 common touch points involving Cuban exiles, propaganda tools, the FPCC, Mexico City, Oswald babysitters, etc. Case linkage shows that no fewer than six of the eight alternate patsies were also marked as pro-Castro with their bizarre FPCC links, the very organization Phillips was turning inside out in his plots to counter Castro sympathizers. Throw in his lies, quasi-confessions, and his being thrown under the bus by colleague E.H. Hunt, and we have a strong case to make about who some of the leading plotters were.

    If we accept that these are some the fingerprints of intelligence that Richard Schweiker referred to, the offender profile suggests quite strongly that at least a few of the fingers the prints came from belonged to David Atlee Phillips and William Harvey! In the late 1970s, after the HSCA asked the Justice Department to re-open the case, these two suspects, and their networks of assassins, operatives and propaganda assets who have been discussed in previous articles, should have been rounded up, and would have been in a normal murder investigation. The fact that this one was presidential seems to have lowered the bar of diligence and motivation. It should still be done posthumously, for the sake of correcting what is related to unsuspecting high-school history students, and of preventing future attacks on a democracy.

    The next question we can ask ourselves, is who provided the brains and handled upper management tasks for the Big Event? The entity link diagram and a chronology analysis point so far to a group of like-minded, discarded and/or disgruntled CIA officers who were all loyal to a disgraced Alan Dulles who, after being removed from his functions by the victim, remained committed to his worldviews, well connected and a man on a mission. Stay tuned!


    Go to Part 1

  • The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism” and the JFK Assassination

    The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism” and the JFK Assassination


    KUsomething:

    “Jesus, you don’t look so good!”

    WOsomething:

    “Look who’s talking, I’ve never seen you so baggy-eyed.”

    KUsomething:

    “I don’t handle the heat very well. I wonder how the Old Man is doing. Apparently, it’s a lot hotter a few floors down.”

    WOsomething:

    “Tell me, have you seen AMHINT-24 around?”

    KUsomething:

    “You mean the one who bumped into GPFLOOR in the courthouse after his rumble on…”

    WOsomething:

    “No that was AMSERF-1.”

    KUsomething:

    “Then was it the guy who got all those articles written about him with the help of AMHINT-5? … I thought he was AMDENIM-1.”

    WOsomething:

    “AMHINT-24 was in on the brouhaha on … uh, Canoe  Street; he also helped Don Santo Junior recruit AMLASH with the help of their friend AMWHIP-1. It gets a little confusing because many were part of AMSPELL… Then when you throw in the 30 or so AMOTs living here… Maybe AMSHALE-1 will help clear things up when he joins us.”

    KUsomething:

    “I don’t think we will be seeing him here, he seems to have gotten most of his shit together… I doubt he would even speak to me anyway, after getting shot at and all…”

    WOsomething:

    “Well, I can think of only a few others who might be soon joining us. Hopefully, they won’t blame us like the others do.”

    KUsomething:

    “Man it’s hot!”


    Introduction

    In 2013, just before the fiftieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination, this author completed a study on how North American history books describe the JFK assassination and how their authors justify their writings. The most distributed books overwhelmingly portrayed the crime as one perpetrated by a lone nut, and their key sources are the Warren Commission along with a few authors who re-enforce this notion.

    After corresponding with the historians, it became clear that almost all were unfamiliar, if not completely unaware, of critical information that came out in the half-century that followed. Many of the post-Warren Commission sources cannot simply be fluffed off as conspiracy theorist machinations. These include five subsequent government investigations; one civil trial; a number of mock trials; three foreign governments’ analysis of the assassination; and some groundbreaking work by a number of dedicated, independent researchers.

    In a subsequent article, it was demonstrated that most government investigations that followed (and therefore should have trumped) the Warren Commission, as well as the only civil trial about the case, proved that a conspiracy took place and that the Warren Commission hardly even investigated this possibility.

    When one considers the written conclusions from many of the reports, jury decisions and comments from investigation insiders, which contradict the Warren Commission report, it is clear that many of these historians were in breach of their own code of conduct by woefully disrespecting the official record. Furthermore, they showed no effort in following the proper historical research methodology that can be summarized as follows:

    1. Identification of the research problem (including formulation of the hypothesis/questions);
    2. Systematic collection and evaluation of data;
    3. Synthesis of information;
    4. Interpreting and drawing conclusions.

    By stopping all research beyond the obsolete Warren Commission report and limiting themselves to a few discredited authors, historians never made it to step two in their work. In fact, the impeaching of the Warren Commission by both the Church Committee and the HSCA should have stimulated investigators, journalists and historians to start anew with one of the hypotheses being that there was a probable conspiracy.

    Over and above underscoring historians’ ignorance of the work of their own institutions, this author sought to contribute to the data collection step in the research by analyzing previous plots to assassinate JFK and bringing out patterns that should have been impossible to ignore and that clearly pointed the finger at persons of interest in the case. In a fourth article, Oswald’s touch-points with some sixty-four plausible or definite intelligence-connected characters (since updated to seventy-five) underscored the Warren Commission’s hopelessly inaccurate and simplistic description of him as a lone malcontent.

    Another source of valuable information that historians are oblivious to comes from what foreign governments knew about the conspiracy. Cuba in particular was very motivated to monitor many of the persons of interest in the Kennedy assassination; for them their survival was at stake!

    Gaeton Fonzi, as an investigator for both the Church Committee and the HSCA, was perhaps the first to sink his teeth into the confusing world of Cuban exiles who were involved in plots to remove Castro. This allowed him to better connect the dots with CIA and Mafia forces that were influencing them. In doing so, researchers who were effective in disproving Warren Commission conclusions would now be better prepared to identify the plotters. Malcolm Blunt, John Newman, Bill Simpich and others began deciphering CIA cryptonym codes related to a hornet’s nest of secrets and covert operations that Allen Dulles kept hidden from his Warren Commission colleagues. In doing so, he deprived them of crucial information that could well have brought the spotlights right back on him.

    On the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, we can now find a database of CIA cryptonyms and pseudonyms carefully designed to designate people, organizations, operations and countries. For example, cryptonyms that begin with the letters AE relate to Soviet Union sources, in particular defectors and agents, and those that start with LI refer to operations, organizations, and individuals related to Mexico City. The category, which has by far the most cryptonyms, is the one that starts with the letters AM, which were used for protecting the identity of operations, organizations, and individuals relating to Cuba. As we will see, an impressive number of crypto-coded jargon revolves around the world of Oswald and the Big Event.

    In this article, we will: first, assess what some foreign intelligence services concluded about the assassination; second, explore how seemingly different factions came together to form one of America’s most ruthless team of covert operators, assassins, saboteurs and terrorists that wreaked havoc abroad and on American soil for decades; third, describe the make-up and some of the covert actions of what the Cubans called The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism”; and finally, see how this obscure, misunderstood entity came to play a role on November 22, 1963.


    France, Russia and Cuba nix the Warren Commission report

    It is important to preface this section by recognizing that the quality of foreign government data is sometimes difficult to evaluate. Some would argue, perhaps rightly, that it does not always come with primary source information, that the data is old and that there could be hidden biases. On the other hand, we will see that foreign intelligence also had different sources that would logically have been well connected and positioned to observe the goings-on in and around the persons of interest, including Oswald himself; that they may in fact have had fewer biases than those controlling U.S. investigations; and that their research is much more recent than the sources lone-nut backers rely upon. As a matter of fact, Cuban analysis takes into account key ARRB declassified documentary trails that Warren Commission backers’ hero Gerald Posner could not do when he wrote Case Closed just before the ARRB vaults of classified documents were opening. In an open-ended investigation, not looking into what these sources can reveal is simply derelict.

    It was not only foreigners who suspected foul play the minute Ruby terminated Oswald; dark thoughts were omnipresent in the U.S. The very first media reactions clearly indicated that Oswald was bumped off in order to seal his lips.

    In an article written for the Washington Post, and published one month after the assassination, former president Harry Truman, who had established the CIA in 1947, opined that the CIA was basically out of control:

    For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment… This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue– and subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

    He said the CIA’s operational dutiesshould be terminated.” Allen Dulles, then sitting on the Warren Commission, tried unsuccessfully to get Truman to retract the story. Some have speculated that the timing of the writing of this article was linked to the assassination.

    Shortly after the media congratulations greeted the Warren Commission Report release, valiant independent researchers such as Vincent Salandria, Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher and Mark Lane played key roles in debunking it. Some foreign governments were also forming their own opinions about what really took place.

    Neither Jackie Kennedy nor Bobby Kennedy believed the Warren Commission, nor did they trust U.S. intelligence to find the underlying cause of what really happened. According to the late William Turner and Jim Garrison investigator Steve Jaffe, they received information from French intelligence, which had monitored Cuban exiles and right-wing targets in the U.S. (perhaps because they felt some of the attempts on De Gaulle’s life stemmed from the U.S.). They reported that the president had been killed by a large rightwing domestic conspiracy.

    As for the Russian reaction to the JFK assassination, the most recent ARRB releases leave no doubt about where they stood on the matter. In 2017, a CIA note describing Nikita Khrushchev’s feelings about the assassination was declassified. It revealed a May 1964 conversation between the Soviet leader and reporter Drew Pearson, where the head of state said he did not believe American security was so “inept” that Kennedy was killed without a conspiracy. Khrushchev believed the Dallas Police Department to be an “accessory” to the assassination. The CIA source “got the impression that Chairman Khrushchev had some dark thoughts about the American Right Wing being behind this conspiracy.” When Pearson said that Oswald and Ruby both were, “mad” and “acted on his own … Khrushchev said flatly that he did not believe this.”

    The research community also gained access to a J. Edgar Hoover memo sent to Marvin Watson, Special Assistant to the President on December 2, 1966, which described what Russian intelligence believed about the murder:

    The Memo also adds this explosive point made after two years of Russian intelligence efforts that had been intended for internal use only:

    We can safely guess that this only hardened Khrushchev’s opinions.

    When interviewed by NBC’s Megyn Kelly in 2017, Vladimir Putin stated, “There is a theory that Kennedy’s assassination was arranged by the United States intelligence services,” Putin told Kelly. “So if this theory is correct, and that can’t be ruled out, then what could be easier in this day and age than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means to organize some attacks, and then pointing the finger at Russia?”

    Though one can question his motives, there is no doubt that the ex-lieutenant colonel in the KGB had easy access to the intelligence on which he could base such a tantalizing statement.

    The most vocal foreign leader about the assassination was Fidel Castro.

    The Cuban leader was perhaps the first person to remark publicly that something was awry in the JFK case. He learned of the assassination on the day it happened while engaging in diplomatic discussions with one of JFK’s secret envoys, a French journalist named Jean Daniel. Immediately upon getting the news, Castro remarked to his visitor: “This is an end to your mission of peace. Everything is changed.” Later Castro commented: “Now they will have to find the assassin quickly, but very quickly, otherwise, you watch and see, I know them, they will try to put the blame on us for this thing.” A day later, after frantically following all the cables about the subject, the early ones linking Oswald to pro-Communist and Cuban interests, he felt it confirmed a plot to blame him so as to give the U.S. the excuse it needed to invade his country.

    Cuba was plunged into crisis-mode, the overthrow of the Island was already a clear and present danger and it would be under assault for decades. Its security and intelligence forces went into even higher gear. Among them, some Cuban exiles in the U.S. who had access to privileged information on plots to remove Castro, which intersected with the one to remove Kennedy— perceived to be the biggest roadblock into regaining an empire to be plundered once again by ruthless opportunists.


    The hit team: Was it a mosaic of diverse groups and organizations, or a well-tuned, synchronized network?

    One of the biggest problems researchers have in convincing skeptical audiences that there was, in fact, a large-scale conspiracy behind the coup d’état is that the involvement of so many different factions would have been too complex to pull off. In fact, here is what two historians remarked in their correspondence with me when I challenged their writings:

    • Was it Cubans, the CIA, the Mafia, Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Reserve . . . many of the villains contradict each other?
    • I’m always reminded of the headline in the comedy newspaper, The Onion, which read something like: JFK ASSASSINATED BY CIA, FBI, KGB, MAFIA, LBJ, OSWALD, RUBY, IRS, DEA, DEPT OF ED, DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND MORE! That about sums up the feeling from professional historians about those proposing we rethink the JFK assassination.

    Of course, it would have helped to ask who the persons and groups of interest were. Something the Cubans did. Out of all the foreign governments that looked into the assassination, Cuban intelligence efforts were the most persistent and the best connected. Their findings were eventually revealed. Thanks to some of their writings and exchanges with serious assassination researchers, we can better understand how interrelated some of the suspects were before, during and after the assassination. Their stories begin in the early part of the twentieth century.


    Cuba pre-revolution: Enrique Cirules, The Mafia in Havana, a Caribbean Mob story, 2010

    Enrique Cirules (1938 – 18 December 2016) was a Cuban writer. His books include Conversation with the last American (1973), The Other War (1980), The Saga of La Gloria City (1983) Bluefields (1986), Ernest Hemingway in the Romano Archipelago (1999) The Secret life of Meyer Lansky in Havana (2006) and Santa Clara Santa (2006).
    Enrique Cirules  

    His The Mafia in Havana won the Literary Critic’s Award in 1994, and its 2010 edition is the basis for most of this section.

    This book goes significantly farther than what its title suggests, as it chronicles how a network of imperialist-exploiters from 1930 to the revolution in 1959 plundered the Island. It sheds light on how the foursome of the Mafia, U.S. intelligence, Captains of U.S. industry and the Cuban elite ran a rigged system with an invisible government pulling the strings using Cuban figureheads for the benefit of so few.

    The Mafia actually began running alcohol in Cuba in the early 1920s; however, the creation of a large criminal empire began in 1933 when Lucky Luciano tasked Meyer Lansky, the top Mafia financier, to begin a relationship with Fulgencio Batista who by then controlled Cuba’s Armed Forces. Batista used this position to influence Cuban presidents until he was elected president in 1940 and would go on to become a long-lasting American puppet dictator who made off with some 300 million dollars by the time he was forced to leave as Castro and his band of rebels were closing in on Havana.

    Cuba was an ideal location for the Mafia: only ninety miles off U.S. shores, virgin territory, with neither laws nor taxes to worry about, and Cuban leaders in their pockets. For a long time the Mafia operations were organized under Lansky who was the number one chieftain in Cuba, drug tsar Santo Trafficante Sr., Amadeo Barletta, and Amletto Batisti who actually established a bank to finance his Mafia interests. By the 1940s, the Mafia was careful to select Cuban nationals to participate in their operations. One wealthy Cuban who did well under this regime was Julio Lobo (AMEMBER-1) who was an important player in the sugar and banking industries. He also connects well with some of the Cubans of interest in the JFK assassination.

    By the end of World War II, the Mafia controlled casinos, prostitution, and the drug trade. Cuba was a stopping point for heroin destined to the U.S. and a key market for cocaine. They also began taking over banks they used to finance shady deals, get their hands on Cuban subsidies and launder Cuban and U.S. based rackets. At around the same time they took over important parts of the media. Trafficante even began training undercover agents within Cuban political groups. Barletta at one point was the sole representative of General Motors in Cuba. He also owned media outlets and many businesses.

    By far the most powerful of the foursome was Lansky, who is said to have been aware of everything that went on in Cuba. He intimidated all the leaders, including Batista. Lansky always kept a low profile, but he was well known by all the power brokers and key operators who governed the country. He was suspected of having maneuvered to block his ex-boss Luciano from gaining entry on the Island after his expulsion from the U.S. His high rank in the pecking order could be seen by his refusal to allow credit to the Vice-President of the republic in one of the casinos, his snubbing of the Minister of the Interior who sought to exchange greetings with him and by even pressuring Batista himself into protecting Mafia-friendly policies. An invisible government was now in charge of Cuba where profits of the Mafia empire were greater than the rest of the Cuban economy.

    By 1956, other U.S. mobsters, including Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello, wanted in, which led to a bloody mob battle in the U.S. coined the Havana Wars.

    U.S. industry leaders took their share of the spoils as the Rockefellers used their banks to quickly take over large segments of the economy in the early 1930s. By the 1950s, Rockefeller interests owned much of the sugar, livestock and mining industries.

    Where one could find American imperialism thriving, not far away was Sullivan & Cromwell, the leading international lawyer/lobbyists of the era who joined their clients on Cuban soil and opened doors for others like the Schroeder Bank. Through the Dulles brothers, who were partners in the firm, the symbiosis with U.S. intelligence and government was ensured as John Foster Dulles later became Secretary of State and Allen Dulles would go on to head the CIA.

    The free reign in Cuba could not have worked without the efforts of U.S. intelligence, who became the gatekeepers of the Island as early as 1902 when they infiltrated the Cuban military. By the 1930s, they were using Mafiosi, journalists, lawyers, businessmen, politicians all over the Island. During the war years, Franklin Roosevelt became alarmed by the trend towards Marxism and was particularly worried about Cuba. The key diplomat he designated to ensure that Batista would squash any rebellion was no other than Meyer Lansky, because of his excellent relations with the dictator.

    Fearing a revolt, the U.S. took steps to fake a demonstration of democracy to give the Cuban people the impression that they had a voice. They convinced Batista to call an election in 1944 that the U.S. rigged to place another puppet, Doctor Ramon Martin (AMCOG-3), in power. The new leader could not take two steps without a Batista henchman breathing down his neck. During this era, Carlos Prío would have a stint as prime minister while Tony Varona was second in command—both of whom would go on to become key leaders of Cuban exiles in Miami. The invisible government later created a crisis around these political leaders so that Batista could come back in 1952 and save the day—so many smoke screens all marketed to the populace as a showcase of democracy by the Mafia and CIA-run media.

    By 1955, when a rebellion threat was growing again, Lyman Kirkpatrick, inspector general of the CIA, was making repeated trips to Cuba to help Batista, who had been scouted by the U.S. in the early 1940s. Cirules produced a letter from Allen Dulles to Batista where he reminds him of their recent meeting and the decision to have the new head of the Bureau of Repression of Communist Activities, General Tamayo, come to Washington to receive special training.

    In 1958, Castro took over and the Imperialist-Finance-Intelligence-Mafia network was forced out with many of their Cuban protégées. But not without a futile last stand from Tony Varona, who haplessly tried to lead the police forces.

    As we will see, many of the persons of interest in the JFK assassination did not just join forces sometime around 1962 to develop a plot to remove JFK. They were part of a well-connected network of very cunning people in existence for many years, if not decades, who desperately shared the same goal to regain their former power and wealth, who were very secretive, who planned the removal of Castro and who came to see JFK as an obstacle and a traitor. For some of them, their obsessions and their violence persisted for decades.

    Journalists and historians never asked themselves who these people whose names kept popping up from deep event to deep event were. If they had looked into their backgrounds, they would have discovered a ruthless cast of characters, who were linked to the Mafia and/or intelligence and/or U.S. imperialist forces and/or the Cuban elite. This network, which scattered away from Cuba in 1958, would quickly coalesce again in Miami and spread to New Orleans, Dallas and other American cities. What followed was an onslaught of assassination attempts against Castro, acts of terrorism that would span 40 years and a regime change in the U.S. on November 22, 1963, during lunchtime in full public view on a sunny day.


    American style state-sponsored terrorism

    The network of many of the persons of interest in the JFK assassination had its origins some thirty years before the revolution, and while many faces changed over time, the gangs lived on for decades with a moral compass that was pointed towards hell.

    Before discussing this partnership and Dealey Plaza, it is worth underscoring the forty years of fury unleashed on Cuba, and its friends, in the form of covert action according to the perpetrators, terrorist acts according to the victims. We will let the reader decide. The following is a partial list:

    • In March 1960, the Belgian steamship La Courbe loaded with grenades was blown up in Havana, killing 101 and injuring over 200;
    • In 1961, a volunteer teacher and a peasant were captured and tortured to death;
    • Also in 1961, explosives in cigarette packages were used to blow up a store;
    • In 1962, the Romero farming family were murdered by counter-revolutionaries;
    • In 1964, a Spanish supply ship was attacked;
    • In 1965, led by Orlando Bosch, terrorists bombed sugar cane crops;
    • In 1970, two fishing vessels were hijacked and their crews of 12 kidnapped;
    • In 1981, dengue fever broke out in Cuba killing 151 people, including 101 children; terrorist Eduardo Arocena admitted to the crime in a federal court in New York;
    • In 1994, terrorists from Miami entered Cuba and murdered a Cuban citizen;
    • In 1997, explosives were detonated in the Copacabana, killing an Italian tourist;
    • In 2003, the Cuban vessel Cabo Corriente was hijacked.

    The targets were not only confined to Cuban territory:

    • During the years that followed the revolution, British, Soviet and Spanish ships carrying merchandise to and from Cuba were attacked;
    • In 1972, Cuban exiles blew up a floor where there was a Cuban trade mission in Montreal killing one person;
    • In 1974, Orlando Bosch admitted sending letter bombs to Cuban embassies in Lima, Madrid and Ottawa;
    • The terrorists were particularly active in 1976: explosions were set off in the Cuban embassy in Madrid and the offices of a Cuban aviation company; two Cuban diplomats were kidnapped, tortured and assassinated; two other Cuban diplomats were murdered in Lisbon; a bomb exploded in a suitcase just before being put on a Cuban airline in Jamaica; terrorists downed a Cuban airliner that had departed from Barbados, killing all 73 aboard.

    Even U.S. soil was fair game for the terrorist cells:

    • In 1975, a Cuban moderate living in Miami was shot and killed;
    • Cuban diplomats were killed in New Jersey and New York City in 1979 and 1980;
    • In 1979, a TWA plane was targeted, but the bomb went off in a suitcase before departure.

    Overall, Cuba counted 3500 who died and 2000 who were injured because of these acts of aggression to go along with billions of dollars in damage.

    The terrorists, who had become full-fledged Americans, were well known to authorities but acted with impunity:

    • Orlando Bosch (AMDITTO-23) told the Miami press that “if we had the resources, Cuba would burn from one end to the other.”
    • There was not much remorse if we base ourselves on what Guillermo Novo Sampol had to say after a Cuban airline exploded in midflight, killing 73 passengers: “When Cuba pilots, diplomats or members of their family die—this always makes me happy.”
    • Convicted terrorist Luis Posada Carilles (AMCLEVE-15) confirmed in a New York Times interview that they had received training in the use of explosives by the CIA.

    Fabian Escalante’s investigation

    Fabian Escalante joined the Department of State Security in 1959. Escalante was head of a counter-intelligence unit and also part of a team investigating a CIA operation called Sentinels of Liberty, an attempt to recruit Cubans willing to work against Castro. At the request of the U.S., he presented the HSCA with a report on Cuban findings about the JFK assassination that was never published by the committee because of some of the information it contained. He is recognized as a leading authority on the CIA in Cuba and Latin America.
    Fabian Escalante  

    Some of his critics state that he seems to base most of his analysis on the work of American researchers and that he is biased. In his defense, it is important to note that very few American investigators have gone through as much committee-based research as Escalante. While it is true that some of his sources like Tosh Plumlee and Chuck Giancana are not convincing for many, he himself tempers his observations by often emphasizing that more research should be done to follow-up on leads ignored by U.S. media and intelligence. His exchanges with people like Dick Russell and Gaeton Fonzi helped push the analysis forward. As we will see, some of his insights certainly go an awful lot farther than what we can see on CNN. In the following sections, we will look at Escalante’s work, which will be at times bolstered by findings from other sources that dovetail with his analysis.

    Cuban intelligence, though lacking in structure during the days that followed the revolution, had privileged access to informants in the U.S. and Cuba who at times penetrated exile groups in the U.S. and their antennas on the Island. They also captured combatants who revealed secrets they kept about the assassination. Furthermore, they were able to obtain information from their Russian counterparts. Finally, they kept abreast of all U.S. research in the subject to a degree far superior to what historians or mainstream media ever did. By 1965, a Cuban spy, Juan Felaifel Canahan, had infiltrated CIA special missions groups in Miami and won Cuban exile leader Manuel Artime’s confidence. Artime was involved in the plot to assassinate Castro code-named AMLASH, which brought together the CIA, Mafia, and Cuban exiles in the master plan. It was only after 1975, after the publication of a Church Committee report, that they suspected that this partnership was behind the assassination of JFK.

    In 1993, during his retirement, after launching a security studies center, he again put together all the pieces of the puzzle he could put his hands on. His research would be enriched by ARRB releases. Even Escalante admits that he does not have full access to all the Cuban files, but what he does know is worth listening to.

    In 1995 Wayne Smith, chief of the Centre for International Policy in Washington, arranged a meeting on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, in Nassau, Bahamas. Others in attendance were: Gaeton Fonzi, Dick Russell, Noel Twyman, Anthony Summers, Peter Dale Scott, John M. Newman, Jeremy Gunn, John Judge, Andy Kolis, Peter Kornbluh, Mary and Ray LaFontaine, Jim Lesar, Russ Swickard, Ed Sherry, and Gordon Winslow. In 2006, his book analyzing the assassination, JFK: The Cuba Files, was published. While some of Cuba’s sources are deemed contestable by some reputable researchers, it is clear that they had access to sources that not even the FBI could have tapped. Their findings may not be perfect but they certainly are more fact-based and up to date than anything a historian will find in the Warren Commission report.


    The network factions

    In JFK: The Cuba Files, Escalante describes how the departure of Cuban exiles, CIA operators and Mafiosi from the Island, where they had originally joined forces, gave birth to what he called the CIA and Mafia’sCuban American Mechanism”. Its members were based mostly in Miami and were trained to do a lot of the dirty work to get their empire back in a manner that was plausibly deniable by their supervisors.

    Most researchers are aware of the influence the business elite had on U.S. foreign policy. It is now fully accepted that regime change in the 1950s in the Middle East was for the benefit of U.S. and British oil magnates, and the removal of Arbenz in Guatemala was asked for by United Fruit and made good on by Dulles and a cadre of CIA officers who mastered the art of delivering a coup. Many of these specialists were involved in covert actions against Cuba and some became persons of interest in the JFK assassination.

    Escalante demonstrates the importance of the corporate elite in dictating U.S. policy by quoting a statement made by Roy Robottom, Assistant Undersecretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs: “… In June 1959 we had taken the decision that it was not possible to achieve our objectives with Castro in power … In July and August, we had been drawing up a program to replace Castro. However, certain companies in the United States informed us during that period that they were achieving some progress in negotiations, a factor that led to a delay …” By the end of 1959, J.C. King, head of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division, recommended the assassination of Castro. In March 1960, Eisenhower approved the overthrow under a project codenamed Pluto.

    The Mechanism assumed a life of its own after the failed Bay of Pigs in 1962, and held JFK responsible for the debacle.


    Structuring the Cuban exiles

    The author describes how “venal officials, torturers, and killers from the Batista Regime fled Cuba and sought refuge in the United States” to escape justice in Cuba, and began forming groups with an eye to re-taking the Island. In this chaos, the Mafia, the CIA, and the U.S. State Department would quickly aid them. This is what also gave birth to the Miami Cuban Mafia. Some of the prominent leaders were of course Batista puppets, including Carlos Prío Socarrás, who was President of Cuba from 1948-52, and Tony Varona, who was Vice President under Prío, also a Mafia associate. They led the Revolutionary Democratic Front (FRD) (AMCIGAR), an umbrella group for hundreds of smaller groups. The FRD was eventually replaced by the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) (AMBUD) which was conceived by the CIA as a government in waiting.

    The command structure of the Cuban exiles was focused at first on the Bay of Pigs invasion. After this fiasco, in 1961, the management of the Cuban exiles centered on acts of sabotage and terrorism under the Operation Mongoose program led by Edward Lansdale and William Harvey. Harvey was later exiled to Rome after almost messing up the delicate Missile Crisis negotiations when he intensified covert actions against Cuba.

    In the early 1960s, JMWAVE in Miami became the largest CIA station with over 400 agents overseeing some 4000 Cuban exile assets, Mafia partnerships and soldiers of fortune. The Cuban exile counter-revolutionary organizations were so numerous (over 400) and weirdly connected that Richard Helms of the CIA had to send Bobby Kennedy a handbook to explain the situation. Some groups were more political in nature, others military. Many had antennas in Cuba.

    The handbook describes the unstable structure as follows:

    Counter-revolutionary organizations are in fact sponsored by Cuban intelligence services for the purpose of infiltrating “unities” creating provocations, collecting bona fide resistance members into their racks and taking executive action against them. It is possible that the alleged “uprising” on August 1962, which resulted in the well-nigh final declination of the resistance ranks, was the result of just such G-2 activities.Guerrilla and sabotage activities have been further reduced by lack of external support and scarcity of qualified leadership. Exile leaders continue to hold meetings, to organize to expound plans of liberation, and to criticize the United States “do nothing policy.”But it is the exceptional refugee leader who has the selflessness to relinquish status of leadership of his organization or himself by integrating into a single strong unified and effective body. “Unidades” and “Juntas” are continually being created to compete with one another for membership and U. S. financial support. They print impressive lists of member movements, which in many instances are only “pocket” or paper groups. Individuals appear to leadership roles in several or more movements simultaneously, indicating either a system of interlocking directorates or pure opportunism.

    In order to place in perspective the hundreds of counter-revolutionary groups treated herein, it is necessary to understand the highly publicized CRCConsejo Revolucionario Cubano—Cuban Revolutionary Council). The CRC is not included in the body of this handbook because it is not actually a counter-revolutionary group, but rather a superstructure, which sits atop all the groups willing to follow its direction and guidance in exchange for their portions of U. S. support for which the CRC is the principal channel.

    The CRC was originally known as the FRD (Frente Revolucionary Democratica) and was not officially called CRC or Consejo until the fall of 1961.The Consejo has always been beset with factionalism and internal dissension. It and its leader Dr. Jose Miro Cardona have been continually criticized by Cuban exile leaders for a “do nothing” policy. The CRC does not participate in activities within Cuba but acts as a coordinating body for member organizations. It has delegations in each Latin American country as well as in France and Spain. Besides the main office located in Miami, it has offices in Washington, New York, and New Orleans. CRC gives financial support to member groups for salaries, administrative expenses and possible underground activities in Cuba.

    The following is a list of the groups (the handbook gives additional information on each group-membership numbers in U.S. and Cuba, key members, year of foundation etc.):

    Part I: Leading Organizations [7 groups]

    1. Movimiento Revolucionario 30 de Noviembre – 30 Nov, MRTN, M-30-11 — 30 November Revolutionary Movement
    2. Movimiento de Recuperacion Revolucionario – MRR — Movement for Revolutionary Recovery
    3. Unidad Revolucionaria – U. R., Unidad — Revolutionary Unity
    4. Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil D.R.E. — Students Revolutionary Directorate (DRE) (
    5. Rescate Democratico Revolucionario RDR — Revolutionary Democratic Rescue
    6. Movimiento Revolucionario del Pueblo — Revolutionary Movement of the People
    7. Movimiento Democrata Cristiano MDC — Christian Democrat Movement

    Part II describes those organizations currently judged to be above average in importance. [52 groups]. See appendix 1 (note: in this author’s opinion Alpha 66 in this group became very important).

    Part III describes those judged to be of little apparent value, paper organizations, or small disgruntled factions.

    The CIA ensured funding to the tune of $3 million a year according to CIA operative E. Howard Hunt. U.S. militia forces recruited some of the other Cuban exiles. Two CIA stations were key in the destabilization efforts: one in Mexico City, where David Phillips played a key role; the other in Madrid, headed by James Noel. Both spies were very active in Cuba before the revolution.

    Captain Bradley Ayers trained commandos. Training grounds could be found in Florida and near New Orleans, where Guy Banister, David Phillips, and David Ferrie were seen in the company of Cuban exiles and soldiers of fortune. According to Escalante, the Mafia, represented by John Roselli, exercised control as an executive and got involved as a supplier of weaponry. The Mafia could even count on CIA watercraft to bring in narcotics and arms. Finally, as Escalante continues, organizations created by private citizens interested in freeing “Cuba” popped up in various cities seeking additional and illegal funds for the huge cost of the operation and lobbying effort. Escalante cites as examples: in his native Texas, George H. W. Bush as one of those “outstanding Americans”, along with Admiral Arleigh Burke and his Committee for a Free Cuba; and in New Orleans, there was the Friends of Democratic Cuba.

    A repressive police and intelligence apparatus, called Operation 40, was formed to cleanse captured territories of communists and other adversaries. Mercenaries like Gerry Patrick Hemming, through his group called Interpen, and Frank Sturgis and his International Anticommunist Brigade, offered their services for waging the secret war. Private citizens and corporations joined the Mafia by getting involved in financing operations and launching NGOs such as the Friends of Democratic Cuba in New Orleans, located at 544 Camp Street. Here, Lee Harvey Oswald would eventually set up his Fair Play for Cuba Committee office and hob-nob with Cuban exiles he was supposedly at odds with.

    Operation Tilt, undertaken in 1963, and sponsored by Clare Boothe Luce (Life Magazine) and William Pawley (QDDALE), who were two close friends of Allen Dulles, is a clear example of how big business, Mafia, Cuban exiles and intelligence teamed up on an anti-Castro mission that went against JFK policy. Described by Gaeton Fonzi, among others, the scheme can only be seen as reckless and quasi-treasonous. In the winter of 1962, Eddie Bayo (Eduardo Perez) claimed that two officers in the Red Army based in Cuba wanted to defect to the United States. Bayo added that these men wanted to pass on details about atomic warheads and missiles that were still in Cuba despite the agreement that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bayo’s story was eventually taken up by several members of the anti-Castro community, including Nathaniel Weyl, William Pawley, Gerry P. Hemming, John Martino, Felipe Vidal Santiago and Frank Sturgis. Pawley became convinced that it was vitally important to help get these Soviet officers out of Cuba. William Pawley contacted Ted Shackley at JMWAVE. Shackley decided to help Pawley organize what became known as Operation Tilt or the Bayo-Pawley Mission. He also assigned Rip Robertson, a fellow member of the CIA in Miami, to help with the operation. David Sanchez Morales, another CIA agent, also became involved in this attempt to bring out these two Soviet officers.

    On June 8, 1963, a small group, including William Pawley, Eddie Bayo, Rip Robertson, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, John Martino. Richard Billings and Terry Spencer, a journalist and photographer working for Life Magazine, boarded a CIA flying boat. After landing off Baracoa, Bayo and his men got into a 22-foot craft and headed for the Cuban shore. The plan was to pick them up with the Soviet officers two days later. However, Bayo and his men were never seen again. It was rumored that he had been captured and executed. However, his death was never reported in the Cuban press.

    William Pawley’s background is particularly revealing. Gaeton Fonzi points out in his book, The Last Investigation: “Pawley had also owned major sugar interests in Cuba, as well as Havana’s bus, trolley and gas systems and he was close to both pre-Castro Cuban rulers, President Carlos Prío and General Fulgencio Batista.” (Pawley was one of the dispossessed American investors in Cuba who early on tried to convince Eisenhower that Castro was a Communist and urged him to arm the exiles in Miami.)


    Lee Harvey Oswald and the subterfuge according to Escalante

    Like most Americans, the Cubans found Oswald’s murder by a nightclub owner in the basement of the Dallas Police headquarters simply too convenient. His immediate portrayal as communist and pro-Castro made them strongly suspect that this was all a ruse to attack Cuba.

    Within days of the assassination, Castro stated the following: “ … It just so happened that in such an unthinkable thing as the assassination a guilty party should immediately appear; what a coincidence, he (Oswald) had gone to Russia, and what a coincidence, he was associated with FPCC! That is what they began to say … It just so happens that these incidents are taking place precisely at a time when Kennedy was under heavy attack by those who felt his Cuba policy was weak …”

    When Escalante analyzed all they could find on Oswald (post-assassination cryptonym: GPFLOOR), he was led to the following hypothesis:

    1. Oswald was an agent of the U.S. intelligence service, infiltrated into the Soviet Union to fulfill a mission.
    2. On his return, he continued to work for U.S. security services.
    3. Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963 and formed links with Cuban organizations and exiles.
    4. In New Orleans, Oswald received instructions to convert himself into a sympathizer with the Cuban Revolution.
    5. Between July and September 1963, Oswald created evidence that he was part of a Cuba-related conspiracy.
    6. In the fall of 1963, Oswald met with a CIA officer and an agent of Cuban origin in Dallas, Texas, to plan a covert operation related to Cuba.
    7. In September 1963, Oswald met with the Dallas Alpha 66 group and tried to compromise Cuban exile Silvia Odio.
    8. Oswald attempted to travel to Cuba from Mexico.
    9. Oswald was to receive compromising correspondence from Havana linking him to the Cuban intelligence service.
    10. The mass media, directed by the CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism,” was primed to unleash a far-reaching campaign to demonstrate to the U.S. public that Cuba and Fidel Castro were responsible for the assassination.

    Through his investigation, he found evidence of the parallel nature of plans of aggression against Cuba and the assassination of Kennedy. The Cubans simply found that there were too many anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Oswald’s realm, suggesting a role in a sheep dipping operation. They show that his history as a provocateur in his pre-Russia infiltration days was similar to his actions in New Orleans, and that James Wilcott, a former CIA officer in Japan, testified to the HSCA that “ … Oswald was recruited from the military division with the evident objective of turning him into a double agent against the Soviet Union …” Escalante also received material on Oswald in 1977 from their KGB representative in Cuba, Major General Piotr Voronin. Then, in 1989, while in the Soviet Union, he met up with Pavel Iatskov, colonel of the first Directorate of the KGB, who had been in Mexico City during Oswald’s visit.

    Iatskov stated the following: “At the end of the 1970s, when the investigation into the Kennedy assassination was reopened, I was in Moscow, and at one point … one of the high-ranking officers from my directorate … commented that Oswald had been a U.S. intelligence agent and that his defection to the Soviet Union was intended as an active step to disrupt the growing climate of détente …” They speculated that Oswald was there to lend a blow to Eisenhower’s peace endeavors by giving away U-2 military secrets, which dovetailed into the downing of Gary Powers a few short weeks before a crucial Eisenhower/ Khrushchev summit.

    It was through some of their intelligence sources in the U.S. that the Cubans found out about the formation of the Friends of Democratic Cuba and its location in the famous Camp Street address. They identified Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos Bringuier and Frank Bartes as exiles who were often there and who were visited by Orlando Bosch, Tony Cuesta, Antonio Veciana, Luis Posada Carilles, Eladio del Valle, Manual Salvat, and others. This same source recognized Oswald as someone who was in a safe house in Miami in mid-1963. Escalante believes that Oswald did in fact visit Mexico City with the intention to try to get into Cuba, to push the incrimination of Castro even further.


    Letters from Cuba to Oswald—proof of pre-knowledge of the assassination

    In JFK: the Cuba Files, a thorough analysis of five bizarre letters that were written before the assassination in order to position Oswald as a Castro asset is presented. It is difficult to sidestep them the way the FBI did. The FBI argued that they were all typed from the same typewriter, yet supposedly sent by different people. Which indicated to them that it was a hoax, perhaps perpetrated by Cubans wanting to encourage a U.S. invasion.

    However, the content of the letters and timeline prove something far more sinister according to Cuban intelligence. The following is how John Simkin summarizes the evidence:

    The G-2 had a letter, signed by Jorge that had been sent from Havana to Lee Harvey Oswald on 14th November, 1963. It had been found when a fire broke out on 23rd November in a sorting office. “After the fire, an employee who was checking the mail in order to offer, where possible, apologies to the addressees of destroyed mail, and to forward the rest, found an envelope addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald.” It is franked on the day Oswald was arrested and the writer refers to Oswald’s travels to Mexico, Houston and Florida …, which would have been impossible to know about at that time!

    It incriminates Oswald in the following passage: “I am informing you that the matter you talked to me about the last time that I was in Mexico would be a perfect plan and would weaken the politics of that braggart Kennedy, although much discretion is needed because you know that there are counter-revolutionaries over there who are working for the CIA.”

    Escalante informed the HSCA about this letter. When he did this, he discovered that they had four similar letters that had been sent to Oswald. Four of the letters were post-marked “Havana”. It could not be determined where the fifth letter was posted. Four of the letters were signed: Jorge, Pedro Charles, Miguel Galvan Lopez and Mario del Rosario Molina. Two of the letters (Charles & Jorge) are dated before the assassination (10th and 14th November). A third, by Lopez, is dated 27th November, 1963. The other two are undated.

    Cuba is linked to the assassination in all the letters. In two of them an alleged Cuban agent is clearly implicated in having planned the crime. However, the content of the letters, written before the assassination, suggested that the authors were either “a person linked to Oswald or involved in the conspiracy to execute the crime.”

    This included knowledge about Oswald’s links to Dallas, Houston, Miami and Mexico City. The text of the Jorge letter “shows a weak grasp of the Spanish language on the part of its author. It would thus seem to have been written in English and then translated.

    Escalante adds: “It is proven that Oswald was not maintaining correspondence, or any other kind of relations, with anyone in Cuba. Furthermore, those letters arrived at their destination at a precise moment and with a conveniently incriminating message, including that sent to his postal address in Dallas, Texas …. The existence of the letters in 1963 was not publicized or duly investigated, and the FBI argued before the Warren Commission to reject them.”

    Escalante argues: “The letters were fabricated before the assassination occurred and by somebody who was aware of the development of the plot, who could ensure that they arrived at the opportune moment and who had a clandestine base in Cuba from which to undertake the action. Considering the history of the last 40 years, we suppose that only the CIA had such capabilities in Cuba.”


    Jack Ruby’s links to Trafficante

    Escalante is of the opinion that Jack Ruby and Trafficante were acquainted and that Ruby did in fact visit Trafficante when the latter was detained in Cuba in 1959. Here is his rationale:

    1. Ruby’s close friend Louis McWillie ran Trafficante’s Tropicana Casino;
    2. Ruby’s visits to Cuba after accepting invitations from McWillie, coincide with the detention of Trafficante and other Mafiosi;
    3. McWillie told the HSCA that he made various visits to the Tiscornia detention center during Ruby’s visits;
    4. After Ruby’s stays in Miami, he met with Meter Panitz (partner in the Miami gambling syndicate) in Miami. McWillie spoke with Panitz shortly before the visits. Trafficante was a leading gangster in Florida. Ruby kept this hidden from the Warren Commission;
    5. Ruby’s entries and exits logistics dispel any idea that he went to Cuba for vacation purposes;
    6. Ex-gun-runner and Castro friend Robert McKeown told the HSCA that Ruby approached him to try and get Castro to meet him in the hope of getting the release of three prisoners. McKeown also had contacts with Prío before and after the revolution and had met Frank Sturgis;
    7. John Wilson Hudson, a British journalist, was also detained in Tiscornia at the same time as Trafficante (confirmed by Trafficante). Wilson gave information to the U.S. embassy in London recalling an American gangster-type called Ruby had visited Cuba in 1959 and had frequently met an American gangster called Santo. Prison guard Jose Verdecia confirmed the visits of Trafficante by McWillie and Ruby when shown a photo. He also confirmed the presence of a British journalist.

    Operation 40

    “We had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.”

    ~ President Johnson

    In 1973, after the death of Lyndon Johnson, The Atlantic published an article by a former Johnson speechwriter named Leo Janos. In “The Last Days of the President,” LBJ not only made this stunning statement but also expressed a highly qualified opinion that a conspiracy was behind the murder of JFK: “I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” Johnson thought such a conspiracy had formed in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Fidel Castro; he had found after taking office that the government “had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” It is very likely that Johnson garnered this information from reading the CIA Inspector General Report on the plots to kill Castro.

    There is compelling evidence that it is through Operation 40 that some of the assassins that Johnson may have been referring to received their training and guidance. The existence of this brutal organization of hit men was confirmed to the Cuban G-2 by one of the exiles they had captured: “The first news that we have of Operation 40 is a statement made by a mercenary of the Bay of Pigs who was the chief of military intelligence of the invading brigade and whose name was Jose Raul de Varona Gonzalez,” says Escalante in an interview with Jean-Guy Allard:

    In his statement this man said the following: in the month of March, 1961, around the seventh, Mr. Vicente Leon arrived at the base in Guatemala at the head of some 53 men saying that he had been sent by the office of Mr. Joaquin Sanjenis (AMOT-2), Chief of Civilian Intelligence, with a mission he said was called Operation 40. It was a special group that didn’t have anything to do with the brigade and which would go in the rearguard occupying towns and cities. His prime mission was to take over the files of intelligence agencies, public buildings, banks, industries, and capture the heads and leaders in all of the cities and interrogate them. Interrogate them in his own way.

    The individuals who comprised Operation 40 had been selected by Sanjenis in Miami and taken to a nearby farm “where they took some courses and were subjected to a lie detector.” Joaquin Sanjenis was Chief of Police in the time of President Carlos Prío. Recalls Escalante: “I don’t know if he was Chief of the Palace Secret Service but he was very close to Carlos Prío. And, in 1973 he dies under very strange circumstances. He disappears. In Miami, people learn to their surprise—without any prior illness and without any homicidal act—that Sanjenis, who wasn’t that old in ‘73, had died unexpectedly. There was no wake. He was buried in a hurry.”

    Another Escalante source concerning Operation 40 was one of its members and a Watergate burglar: “And after he got out of prison, Eugenio Martinez came to Cuba. Martinez, alias ‘Musculito,’ was penalized for the Watergate scandal and is in prison for a time. And after he gets out of prison—it’s the Carter period, the period of dialogue, in ‘78, there is a different international climate—Eugenio Martinez asks for a contract and one fine day he appears on a boat here … and of course he didn’t make any big statements, he didn’t say much that we didn’t know but he talked about those things, about this Operation 40 group, about what they had done at the Democratic Party headquarters …”

    In the Cuba Files, Escalante underscores a reference to Operation 40 by Lyman Fitzpatrick, CIA Inspector General, in his report on the Bay of Pigs: “…the counter-intelligence and security service which, under close project control, developed into an efficient and valuable unit in support of the FRD, Miami base, and the project program. By mid-March 1961, this security organization comprised 86 employees of whom 37 were trainee case officers, the service having graduated four classes from its own training classes, whose instructor was (censored) police officer. (Probably Joaquin Sanjenis)”

    A memo by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. refers to this organization and its dark mission:

    Schlesinger’s Memo June 9, 1961
    MEMORANDUM FOR MR. RICHARD GOODWIN

    Sam Halper, who has been the Times correspondent in Habana and more recently in Miami, came to see me last week. He has excellent contacts among the Cuban exiles. One of Miro’s comments this morning reminded me that I have been meaning to pass on the following story as told me by Halper. Halper says that CIA set up something called Operation 40 under the direction of a man named (as he recalled) Captain Luis Sanjenis, who was also chief of intelligence. (Could this be the man to whom Miro referred this morning?) It was called Operation 40 because originally only 40 men were involved: later the group was enlarged to 70. The ostensible purpose of Operation 40 was to administer liberated territories in Cuba. But the CIA agent in charge, a man known as Felix, trained the members of the group in methods of third degree interrogation, torture and general terrorism. The liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40 was to “kill Communists” and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right-wing dictatorship, presumably under Artime. Varona fired Sanjenis as chief of intelligence after the landings and appointed a man named Despaign in his place. Sanjenis removed 40 files and set up his own office; the exiles believe that he continues to have CIA support. As for the intelligence operation, the CIA is alleged to have said that, if Varona fired Sanjenis, let Varona pay the bills. Subsequently Sanjenis’s hoods beat up Despaign’s chief aide; and Despaign himself was arrested on a charge of trespassing brought by Sanjenis. The exiles believe that all these things had CIA approval. Halper says that Lt Col Vireia Castro (1820 SW 6th Street, Miami; FR 4 3684) can supply further details. Halper also quotes Bender as having said at one point when someone talked about the Cuban revolution against Castro: “The Cuban Revolution? The Cuban Revolution is something I carry around in my check book. Nice fellows.

    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

    Frank Sturgis, one of its members and a Watergate burglar, allegedly told author Mike Canfield: “this assassination group (Operation 40) would upon orders, naturally, assassinate either members of the military or the political parties of the foreign country that you were going to infiltrate, and if necessary some of your own members who were suspected of being foreign agents … We were concentrating strictly in Cuba at that particular time.”

    In November 1977, CIA asset and ex-Sturgis girlfriend, Marita Lorenz gave an interview to the New York Daily News in which she claimed that a group called Operation 40, that included Orlando Bosch and Frank Sturgis, were involved in a conspiracy to kill both John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro. “She said that they were members of Operation 40, a secret guerrilla group originally formed by the CIA in 1960 in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion … Ms. Lorenz described Operation 40 as an ‘assassination squad’ consisting of about 30 anti-Castro Cubans and their American advisors. She claimed the group conspired to kill Cuban Premier Fidel Castro and President Kennedy, whom it blamed for the Bay of Pigs fiasco … She said Oswald … visited an Operation 40 training camp in the Florida Everglades. The idea of Oswald, or a double, being in Florida is not far-fetched. The 1993 PBS Frontline documentary “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?” had a photo of Oswald in Florida, which they conspicuously did not reveal on the program.

    In Nexus, Larry Hancock not only provides another confirmation of this outfit’s existence but describes part of its structure and its role: Time correspondent Mark Halperin stated that Operation 40 members “had been trained in interrogation, torture, and general terrorism. It was believed they would execute designated Castro regime members and Communists. The more liberal and leftist exile leaders feared that they might be targeted following a successful coup.”

    Hancock also asserts that “documents reveal that David Morales, acting as Counter-intelligence officer for JMARC, had selected and arranged for extensive and special training of 39 Cuban exiles, designated as AMOTs …. Sanjenis was the individual who recruited Frank Sturgis … They would identify and contain rabid Castroites, Cuban Communists …” A final confirmation of Operation 40 comes from Grayston Lynch (a CIA officer involved in the Bay of Pigs): “The ship Lake Charles had transported the men of Operation 40 to the Cuban landing area. The men had been trained in Florida, apart from the regular Brigade members, and were to act as a military government after the overthrow of Castro.”

    Other than Morales, Sanjenis, Sturgis, and Felix (probably Felix Rodriguez), it is difficult to pin down names of actual members with certainty. This author has not found any documentary traces. But there is no doubt that it existed and that it was a Top Secret project that was rolled over into the Bay of Pigs so that President Kennedy would not know about it. It was so secret that, according to Dan Hardway’s report for the HSCA, Richard Helms commissioned the study on Operation 40 to be done by his trusted aide Sam Halpern. Hardway wrote that only one person outside the Agency, reporter Andrew St. George, ever saw that report. Exactly who was in Operation 40 is a moot point; what is important to retain is that the most militant and violent Cuban exiles were recruited and trained by the CIA to perform covert operations against Cuba, Castro, and anyone who would get in their way no matter what country they were in and no matter who they were.


    The Mechanism’s Team Roster: The Big Leagues

    Out of the thousands of Cuban exiles living in the U.S., only a select few could be counted on to be part of the covert activities that would be used to remove Castro, and that became useful for the removal of Kennedy. These received special training in techniques used for combat, sabotage, assassinations and psychological warfare. The training would be provided by people such as Morales, Phillips and perhaps some soldiers of fortune.

    When analyzing these figures, it is easy to see how many were, or could easily have been, linked to one another before and after the revolution and during the November 22, 1963, period. It is only by understanding the universes of the factions that worked together on that dark day that we can explain how Oswald and Kennedy’s lives came to their tragic ends.

    The first 18 persons profiled were considered the most suspicious by the Cuban researchers. Because the Cuban data precedes 2006, we will enrich some of the pedigrees with more current information.

    Table 1

    Other persons of interest come from JFK: The Cuba Files and various other sources:

    Table 2


    Aftermath of the assassination

    “Operation 40 is the grandmother and great-grandmother of all of the operations that are formed later.”

    ~ Fabian Escalante

    The assassination of JFK was a landmark moment in American history. The country would go on to be rocked by a series of scandals that would see public confidence in politicians and media go into a tailspin. LBJ gave us Vietnam and Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy and John Lennon saw their freedom of speech rights contested, with extreme prejudice. Watergate, Iran/Contra, George Bush Junior’s weapons of mass destruction, and the Wall Street meltdown would follow. Now even U.S. grounds are the target of foreign rebels who have mastered the art of using terrorism tactics similar to those that were used against Cuba.

    The role some of the members of the Mechanism played in future deep events adds credence to what is alleged about them regarding the removal of JFK. Their murderous accomplishments have their roots in the Dulles brothers’ worldviews. Allen Dulles’ protégé E. Howard Hunt became one of Nixon’s plumbers. In 1972, after Arthur Bremer attempted to assassinate presidential candidate George Wallace, Nixon aide Charles Colson asked Hunt to plant evidence in Bremer’s apartment that would frame George McGovern, the Democratic opponent. Hunt claims to have refused. Hunt, with his ex-CIA crony James McCord, and Cuban exiles Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, together with Frank Sturgis, would all be arrested, and then let off rather easily for their roles in Watergate. Hunt would even demand and collect a ransom from the White House for his silence. In 1985, Hunt would lose the Liberty Lobby trial that, in large part, verified the infamous CIA memorandum from Jim Angleton to Richard Helms stating that they needed to create an alibi for Hunt being in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

    Recruited by David Morales in 1967, Felix Rodriguez succeeded in his mission to hunt down and terminate Che Guevara in Bolivia. Rodriguez kept Guevara’s Rolex watch as a trophy. He also played a starring role in the Iran/Contra scandal. In the 1980s, Rodriguez was the bagman in the CIA’s deal with the Medellin cartel and often met with Oliver North. He was also a guest of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush at the White House.

    In 1989, Loran Hall and his whole family were arrested for drug dealing.

    As discussed earlier, Novo Sampol, Carilles (who also had links to Iran Contra), and Orlando Bosch continued in their roles in American-based terrorist activities for decades. Arrested in Panama, Luis Posada Carriles and Guillermo Novo were pardoned and released by Panama, in August, 2004. The Bush administration denied putting pressure on for the release. The Bush administration cannot deny providing safe haven to Bosch after an arrest in Costa Rica, which saw the U.S. decline an offer by the authorities to extradite Bosch to the United States.

    Veciana continued for a while to participate in attempts to assassinate Castro. He eventually outed David Atlee Phillips. For his candor, he was possibly framed and thrown in jail on narcotics trafficking charges. He was also shot at. The Mafia may not have regained their Cuban empire, but they no longer had the Kennedys breathing down their necks. American imperialists and captains of industry set their sights on the exploitation Vietnam, Indonesia, the Middle East, Africa and cashed in on conflicts.


    Risky Business

    Being a member of the Mechanism also came with its share of professional risks—namely, short life expectancies. When the Warren Commission whitewash was taking place, there were few worries. When the more serious Garrison, Church and HSCA investigations were in full swing, the word cutoff took on a whole new meaning. Intelligence did not seem to bother too much about being linked to rowdy exiles and Mafiosi when it came to removing a communist; the removal of JFK … well, that must have been a different matter. There were many deaths that occurred before 1978 which were timely and varied from suspicious to murderous:

    William Pawley died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, in January 1977.

    Del Valle was murdered in 1967 when Garrison was tracking him down, shortly after David Ferrie’s suspicious death.

    Sanjenis simply vanished in 1973.

    Artime, Prío, Masferrer, Giancana, Hoffa, Roselli and Charles Nicoletti were all murdered between 1975 and 1977.

    Martino, Harvey and Morales all died of heart attacks.

    Out of some 45 network members discussed in this article, 18 did not survive the end of the HSCA investigation, 8 were clearly murdered and 7 of other deaths were both timely and suspicious.


    Trafficante’s links

    The unholy marriage of the CIA and the Mafia with the objective of removing Castro was initiated by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell. They had Sheffield Edwards go through Robert Maheu (a CIA cut-out asset), to organize a partnership with mobsters Giancana and Trafficante using Johnny Roselli as the liaison. The CIA gave itself plausible deniability and the Mafia could hope to regain its Cuban empire and a have the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card in their back pockets.

    William Harvey, author of executive action M.O. ZR/RIFLE, eventually oversaw the relationship between himself and Roselli, which involved assassination expert David Morales as Harvey’s special assistant.

    Trafficante, who spoke Spanish, was the ideal mobster to organize a Castro hit because of his long established links on the Island. He was also seen as the CIA’s translator for the Cuban exiles. Through Tony Varona and Carlos Tepedino (AMWHIP-1), they tried to get Rolando Cubela (AMLASH) to murder Castro. Trafficante and his friends have very close ties to the Kennedy assassination, to the point where Robert Blakey (head of the HSCA) became convinced the mob was behind it. Blakey now seems to be open to the idea that the network was a lot larger.

    Trafficante’s links to persons of interest

    Victor Hernandez connects to Trafficante through his participation in the attempts to recruit Cubela, a potential hitman who had access to Castro. He wound up joining Carlos Bringuier in a Canal Street scuffle with Oswald that the arresting officer felt was for show. This was a key sheep-dipping moment of the eventual patsy. Loran Hall met Trafficante when the two were in jail in Cuba. He ran into him a couple of times in 1963. When the Warren Commission wanted the Sylvia Odio story to go away, Hall helped in the pointless tale that he in fact was one of the people who had met her.

    Rolando Masferrer had links with Alpha 66, Trafficante and Hoffa. According to William Bishop, Hoffa gave Masferrer $50,000 to kill JFK. Frank Sturgis connects with so many of the people of interest in the JFK assassination that it would require a book to cover it all. He likely received Mafia financing for his anti-Castro operations. He is alleged to have links with Trafficante. So does Bernard Barker, who some think may have been impersonating a Secret Service agent behind the grassy knoll.

    Fabian Escalante received intelligence (in part from prisoner Tony Cuesta) that Herminio Diaz and Eladio del Valle were part of the hit team and were in Dallas shortly before the assassination. Robert Blakey had the Diaz story corroborated by another Cuban exile. Diaz was Trafficante’s bodyguard and a hitman. Del Valle worked for Trafficante in the U.S. and was an associate of his in Cuba. It is important to note that Diaz’ background fits well with what is alleged, however some doubt the hearsay used to accuse him.

    John Martino showed pre-knowledge of the assassination and admitted a support role as a courier. He also helped in propaganda efforts to link Castro with Oswald. He worked in one of Trafficante’s Cuban casinos.

    As we have seen in an earlier section, Jack Ruby’s links to Trafficante are many. He is known to have spoken often with underworld personalities very closely linked to Trafficante, Marcello and the Chicago mob during the days leading up to the assassination. These include McWillie, James Henry Dolan and Dallas’ number two mobster Joe Campisi. We all know what he did two days after the coup. His seeming nonchalance in implicating others may have led to his demise while in jail.

    The following excerpts from the HSCA report should leave no doubt in the historians’ minds about the significance of just who Ruby’s friends were, what he was up to, and just how badly the Warren Commission misled the American people by describing him as another unstable loner:

    … He [Ruby] had a significant number of associations and direct and indirect contacts with underworld figures, a number of whom were connected to the most powerful La Cosa Nostra leaders.

    … Ruby had been personally acquainted with two professional killers for the organized crime syndicate in Chicago, David Yaras and Lenny Patrick. The committee established that Ruby, Yaras and Patrick were in fact acquainted during Ruby’s years in Chicago.

    … The committee also deemed it likely that Ruby at least met various organized crime figures in Cuba, possibly including some who had been detained by the Cuban government.

    … The committee developed circumstantial evidence that makes a meeting between Ruby and Trafficante a distinct possibility …

    … The committee concluded that Ruby was also probably in telephonic contact with Mafia executioner Lenny Patrick sometime during the summer of 1963.

    … The Assassinations Committee established that Jack Ruby was a friend and business associate of Joseph Civello, Carlos Marcello’s deputy in Dallas.

    … Joe Campisi was Ruby’s first visitor after his imprisonment for murdering the President’s alleged assassin. (Incredibly, the Dallas Police did not record the ten-minute conversation between Oswald’s murderer and a man known to be a close associate of Carlos Marcello’s deputy inDallas.)

    … The committee had little choice but to regard the Ruby-Campisi relationship and the Campisi-Marcello relationship as yet another set of associations strengthening the committee’s growing suspicion of the Marcello crime family’s involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy or execute the President’s alleged assassin or both.

    As for Jack Ruby’s connections with the Marcello organization in New Orleans, the committee was to confirm certain connections the FBI had been aware of at the time of the assassination but had never forcefully brought to the attention of the Warren Commission.

    Jack Ruby’s connections to the mob and his actions before, during and after the assassination were obviously a chokepoint for HSCA investigators. If we analyze Trafficante’s points of contact with very suspicious figures, one can easily argue that we have another.

    All these relationships should be enough to suggest that Trafficante played a role in the hit, at the very least in the recruitment of Ruby to eliminate Oswald. Over and above being tightly connected with key leaders of the Cuban exile community, he has at least nine (seven definite) links with people who became actors in the Kennedy assassination and/or Oswald’s universe (five definite and four plausible). Any serious investigator cannot file this away as coincidental or innocuous.


    David Phillips’ links to Oswald

    For a historian, pushing data collection further in this area and synthesizing the data would lead them to a new hypothesis: They would concur with Blakey that the mob was involved in the assassination.

    This would lead to a completely new area of investigation (that Blakey sadly dismissed) regarding who was complicit with the mob, which would invariably lead to data collection around CIA mob contacts such as William Harvey and David Morales who link up with our next subject. David Phillips’ overlap with the world of Oswald left some investigators from the Church and HSCA Committees with the feeling that they were within striking distance of identifying him as one of the plotters. That is when George Joannides and George Bush came in and saved the day.

    For exhibit 2, we can lazily accept that the entwinement of Phillips’ world with Oswald’s was mere happenstance, or conclude logically that it was by design:

    Phillips’ links to Oswald

    If Oswald was in fact a lone malcontent who somehow drifted by chance into the Texas School Book Depository, how can one even begin to explain so many ties with a CIA officer who just happened to be in charge of the Cuba desk in Mexico City, running the CIA’s anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee campaign, and one of the agency’s premier propaganda experts? The perfect person to sheep-dip Oswald and to apply ZR/RIFLE strategies of blaming a coup on an opponent, ties into over 20 different events that were used to frame Oswald, blame Castro or hide the truth. He also connects well with up to six other patsy candidates who, like Oswald, all had links with the FPCC and made strange travels to Mexico City. It is no wonder the HSCA and Church Committee investigators found him to be suspicious and lying constantly, even while under oath.

    He made no fewer than four quasi-confessions, and his close colleague E. Howard Hunt confirmed his involvement in the crime.

    David Phillips’ name does not appear anywhere in the Warren Commission report. Nor in the 26 accompanying volumes. Which is especially startling in light of the fact that he was running the Agency’s anti-FPCC crusade.


    Conclusion

    JFK’s assassination has been partially solved. The arguments that can satisfy the skeptics are not yet fully streamlined and the willingness of the fourth estate and historians to finally shed light on this historical hot potato is still weak.

    Blue-collar and violent crimes perpetuated by individuals get the lion’s share of the publicity and serve to divert attention away from what is really holding America back. Behind the Wall Street meltdown, there were scores of white-collar criminals who almost caused a full-fledged depression. How many went to jail? Who were they? It is pure naiveté to believe that such crimes will get the attention of politicians, yet the limited studies on the matter indicate that they cost society over ten times more than blue-collar crime.

    State-crimes are almost never solved, let alone investigated. Politicians, media and the power elite fear being dragged into the chaos that would be caused by a collapse of public trust and avoid these issues like the plague. However, every now and then, a Church Committee does come along and exposes dirty secrets that, instead of hurting the country, will help straighten the course. The catalyst often comes from the youth who were behind the downfall of Big Tobacco and are now taking on the NRA.

    This article helps dispel the notion that the Cuban exiles, Mafia and CIA partnership was too complicated to have taken place. There is still explaining to do on how the Secret Service and Dallas Police Department were brought in to play their roles, but researchers like Vince Palamara have already revealed a lot in these areas. At least four of the people Oswald crossed paths with in the last months of his life had cryptonyms (Rodriguez, Hernandez, Bartes and Veciana). If the alleged sightings of him with other Cuban exiles are to be believed and other cryptonyms were to be decoded, that number would more than triple. Still other crypto-coded figures, who may not have met him, played a role in framing him. Still others are persons of interest in the assassination itself. By really exploring Oswald’s universe, we can get a glimpse of who some of the first line players and their bosses were. It is world of spooks, Mafiosi, Cuban exiles and shady businessmen who were part of, or hovered around, the “Cuban-American Mechanism”.

    If we were to push this exercise even further and explore the universes of Phillips, Morales and Harvey, we would fall into the world of Allen Dulles, a world brilliantly looked into by David Talbot in The Devil’s Chessboard and also by Fletcher Prouty. Understanding Dulles’ CIA and Sullivan & Cromwell’s links to the power brokers of his era would probably go a long way in explaining how the plot was called.

    It is this author’s opinion that today’s power elite are not far away from having the conditions needed to let this skeleton out of the closet. Their cutoff is time: most of the criminals have already passed away. Another cutoff may be Allen Dulles himself: he is long dead and he was not a formal part of the CIA when the crime took place. But as Talbot showed, the trails to him are still quite palpable.

    He may end up being the one who takes the most heat. And deservedly so.


    Appendix: Cuban exile groups judged to be of average importance in CIA handbook

     

    Asociacion de Amigos Aureliano AAA — Association of Friends of Aureliano

    Asociacion de Amigos de Aureliano – Independiente AAA-I — Association of Friends of Aureliano – Independent

    Accion Cubana AC — Cuban Action

    Asociacion Catolica Universitaria ACU – Catholic University Group

    Agrupacion de Infanteria de Combat AIC — Combat Infantry Group

    Alianza para la Libertad de Cuba ALC — Alliance for the Liberty of Cuba

    Agrupacion Montecristi (AM) — Montecristi Group

    Buro Internacional de la Legion Anticomunista BILA — International Bureau Anti-Communist Legion

    Batallon de Brigada BB — Brigade Battalion

    Bloque de Organizaciones Anti-Comunista BOAC — Bloc of Anti-Communist Organizations

    Comite Anti-Comunista de Ayuda a la Liberacion Cubana CACALC — Anti-Communist Committee to Aid Cuban Liberation

    Comite Coordinador de Organizaciones Democraticas Cubanas en Puerto Rico CCODC — Coordinating Committee of Democratic Organizations for Cuban in Puerto Rico

    Cruzada Femenina Cubana CFC — Cuban Women’s Crusade

    Confederacion Profesionales Universitarios Cubanos en el Exilio — Confederation of Cuban University Professional in Exile

    Confederacion de Trabajadores de Cuba en Exilio CTCE — Confederation of Cuban Workers in Exile

    Directorio Magisterial Revolucionario DMR — Revolutionary Teachers Directorate

    Ejercito Invasor Cubano EIC — Cuban Invading Army

    Ejercito Libertador de Cuba ELC — Liberating Army of Cuba

    Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN) — National Liberation Army

    Frente Anticomunista Cristiano FAC — Christian Anti-communist Front

    Fuerzas Armadas de Cuba En El Exilio (FACE) — Armed Forces of Cuba in Exile

    Fuerza Anticomunista de Liberacion (in US) FAL — Anti-Communist Liberation Force

    Fuerzas Armadas y Civiles Anticomunistas FAYCA — Armed Forces and Civilian Anti-Communists

    Federacion Estudiantil Universitaria FEU — University Students’ Federation

    Frente de Liberacion Nacional FLN — National Liberation Front

    Frente Nacional Democratica Triple A (FNDTA) — National Democratic Front (Triple A)

    Frente Organizado Anticomunista Cubano FOAC — Organized Anti-Communist Cuban Front

    Frente Obrero Revolucionario Democratico Cubano FORDC – Labor Revolutionary Democratic Front of Cuba

    Frente Revolucionaria Anti-Comunista FRAC — Anti-Communist Revolutionary Front

    Frente Unido de Liberacion Nacional FULN — United Front of National Liberation

    Gobierno Interno de Liberacion Anticomunista GILA — Internal Government of Anti-Communist Liberation

    Ingenieros de Combate Commando 100 — (Commando 100 Combat Engineers)

    Juventud Anticomunista Revolucionaria JAR — Revolutionary Anti-Communist Youth

    Junta Nacional Revolucionaria JNR — National Revolutionary Unity

    Junta Revolucionaria Cubana JURE — Cuban Revolutionary Unity

    Movimiento de Accion Revolucionaria MAR — Revolutionary Action Movement

    Movimiento Democratica Liberacion MDL — Democratic Movement for Liberation

    Movimiento Democratico Martiano MDM — Marti Democratic Movement (also Frente Democratico Martiano)

    Movimiento Masonico Clandestino MMC — Masonic Clandestine Movement

    Movimiento Revolucionario Accion Cubana MRAC — Cuban Action Revolutionary Movement

    Movimiento Recuperacion Revolucionaria Cubano — Cuban Revolutionary Recovery Movement

    Organizacion Autentico OA – Authentic Organization

    Operacion ALFA 66 — Operation ALPHA 66

    Organizacion del Ejercito Secreto Anticomunista OESA — Organization of the Anti-Communist Secret Army

    Pro-Gobierno Constitucional de Cuba en Exilio PGCC — Pro-Constitutional Government of Cuba

    Partido Revolucionario Cubana (Autentico) PRC — Cuban Revolutionary Party (Autentico)

    Resistencia Agramonte RA — Agramonte Resistance

    Segundo Frente Nacional de Escambray SFNE — Second National Front of the Escambray

    Unidad Cubana de Accion Libertadora UCAL — Cuban Union of Liberating Action

    Unidad de Liberacion Nacional (de Cuba) ULN — National Liberation Unity

    Union Nacional Democratica “Movimiento 20 de Mayo” UND — Democratic National Union “May 20”

    Union Nacional de Instituciones Revolucionarias UNI — National Union of Revolutionary Institutions


    The author wishes to express his thanks to Kennedys And King and to Chris La May for their proofreading and assistance with graphics.


    Addendum

    The following FBI teletype shows how the cooperation between the Mafia and the anti-Castro Cubans continued right up to the month of the assassination, despite JFK’s orders to cease and desist. The FBI informant states that Trafficante offered to pay for the arms and ammo purchased from the mob by the Cubans through him, provided they could demonstrate it would be used in efforts against Castro. [The editors]

    fbi trafficante

  • Oswald’s Intelligence Connections: How Richard Schweiker clashes with Fake History

    Oswald’s Intelligence Connections: How Richard Schweiker clashes with Fake History


    “We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere 

    you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence.”

    ~Senator Richard Schweiker, The Village Voice, 1975


    Introduction

    There are many statements from official sources that contradict Warren Commission findings and most history books’ description of the JFK assassination. They are on the record in the numerous reports following other governmental investigations of the JFK assassination or they were captured in interviews and writings of many of those directly involved in them, but Schweiker’s was perhaps the most damning. Not only because of what he said, but also because of who he was.

    Schweiker was a well-respected Republican politician who served under President Reagan from 1981 to 1983 as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He served over 20 years as a Pennsylvania U.S. Representative (1961–1969) and U.S. Senator (1969–1981). In 1976, he had an unsuccessful run to become Vice President in Reagan’s losing presidential campaign.

    Most crucial for the purposes of this essay, from 1975 to 1976, Schweiker was a member of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Which, in deference to its chair Senator Frank Church, was commonly known as the Church Committee. This famous investigative body issued fourteen reports after interviewing hundreds of witnesses and studying thousands of files from the FBI, CIA and other agencies.

    Thanks to its work, this is when most Americans were first told about the infamous U.S. assassination plots against foreign leaders, which were a key component of CIA regime control or “change operations”. Targets included the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Diem brothers in Vietnam, General Schneider of Chile and President Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. Ex CIA director Allen Dulles’ pact with the mob to assassinate Castro was also part of their findings. This information, which could have had an impact on the Warren Commission investigation, was kept secret by Dulles while he served on the Commission –– something CIA historians now refer to as a benign cover-up.

    Under senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker, the Church Committee also conducted a focused investigation (Book 5) of the Kennedy assassination, concentrating on how the FBI and CIA supported the Warren Commission. Its report was very critical of these agencies:

    “… developed evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission. This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient.”

    To say the least, Schweiker was quite vocal in his views. Consider the following instances:

    In 1976 he told CBS News that the CIA and FBI lied to the Warren Commission and that the case could be solved if they followed hot new leads. He also claimed that the White House was part of the cover up.

    In a BBC documentary, The Killing of President Kennedy, he made the following blistering statement about the Warren Commission investigation:

    “The Warren Commission has in fact collapsed like a house of cards and I believe it was set up at the time to feed pabulum to the American people for reasons not yet known, and one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of our country occurred at that time.”

    In this revealing documentary, he goes on to say that the highest levels of government were behind him and his committee being mislead. They were continuing the cover-up, and also that Oswald was clearly involved with pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups, which smacked of an intelligence role as a double agent, and that these relationships were not investigated.

    In his Kennedys and King article, JFK and the Unforgivable, this author chronicled some thirty examples of other investigation insiders who contradict the Warren Commission’s conclusions about Oswald being a Lone Nut assassin, which is still the basis of what we can find in most of today’s history textbooks.


    Donald Trump and the Mainstream Media’s double standard

    Since Donald Trump’s election, CNN has featured non-stop coverage of the President and the ongoing probe into Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. elections and possible connections to Team Trump. The Washington Post and New York Times are also piling on with a vengeance. Concerning whether Trump and his network of advisors were complicit, the recent quote from Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, kind of summarized the position mainstream media is going with: “We do not have enough evidence to bring to a jury yet but there is enough smoke that warrants an investigation.” And this was before anyone knew of the actual meetings between Russian point-people and Donald Trump, Jr. The smoke that has often been talked about seemed to revolve around six or seven people close to Trump who had contact with Russian persons of interest before the election.

    CNN pundits, specialists and reporters are going through each word of each tweet made by the president; each statement made by him and others in his surroundings; and every single touch point between them and the Russians going back for years. At least three separate government bodies are spending millions in investigating the case.

    And then, during a rare non-Trump related show on CNN, there it was: on their series The Sixties, re-broadcast in the middle of the Trump cavalcade, we were given their take on the JFK assassination: Krazy Kid Oswald did it alone. It was all explained to us up by their panel of experts: Max Holland, the late Vincent Bugliosi, and Priscilla Johnson McMillan were earnestly telling the audience this discredited tale, in spite of what had been revealed by the Church, HSCA and ARRB investigations. And in spite of what actual participants like Schweiker, Gary Hart, Senator Richard Russell, House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, Schweiker-Hart investigator Gaeton Fonzi, HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tanenbaum and many, many other investigation insiders had to say. CNN was doing exactly what Trump has been Tweeting to his cast of fiercely loyal followers: Peddling fake news! Which certainly bolstered historians’ egos around their shameful role in perpetuating fake history about this landmark, trust-breaking event.

    In his article The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians’ Guide on how to Research his Assassination, this author showed how historians, journalists and investigators could learn a lot by investigating the failed plots that preceded the assassination and no less than six other potential patsies who had many similarities with Oswald. In this article we will try to decode the famous lines that make up the epigraph to this essay, and point out a whole area of investigation that the Warren Commission was almost completely shielded from and that journalists and historians have turned a blind eye to. Namely, the cast of characters Oswald crossed paths with who were plausibly, and in many cases definitely, connected to intelligence. These names originate with the work of some of the very best researchers in the field. We are at a point where we can now take stock of what has already been done, crosscheck work and ask ourselves: What does this mean? This author would like to underline the incredible travails of determined independent researchers who did a lot of the grunt work and represent many of the key sources for this article. Hopefully this will serve as a small testament to what they have accomplished.

    If you think that seventy-one-year-old billionaire Trump connects well with Russian meddlers according to CNN and others, wait until you see just who twenty-four-year-old Lee Oswald, the truant/loner/murderer, connects with. It should make serious historians pause and ask themselves if they may have missed something.


    Oswald and Intelligence: Odds and Ends

    Before getting to who Oswald links up with let us look at general points where we can find fingerprints of intelligence. From Jim Marrs’ Crossfire we can read about how Oswald:

    1. Possessed a Minox spy camera.
    2. Had a notebook that included microdots.
    3. Loved James Bond and the spy program I Led Three Lives.
    4. Worked at Atsugi air base in Japan as a radar operator with possible security clearance. This was the base where the CIA’s U2 top-secret high altitude surveillance program was housed.
    5. Was discharged from the Marines, entered Russia through a favorite spy-friendly crossing point in the middle of a false defector program, threatened theatrically to give away U2 secrets to the Russians in the U.S. embassy, and returned easily to the U.S. with his Russian wife, who herself had ties to Russian intelligence. All this with financial support in ways that could have only been state-sponsored.
    6. Learned Russian in a way which New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, himself an ex-marine, concluded could only have been through special training for an intelligence assignment. He also discovered that Oswald’s base for his Fair Play for Cuba activities was right in the heart of New Orleans’ intelligence establishment, and that he was most probably playing an agent-provocateur role. He grew convinced that intelligence assets were obstructing his investigation into Oswald’s links, something that was confirmed by the HSCA and ARRB releases.
    7. Applied, while in the Marines, to a very obscure Swiss college called Albert Schweitzer that appears to be CIA-linked.

    Researcher Mae Brussell argued that Oswald’s mission in Russia was to help the Russians bring down Gary Powers’ U2 flight over Russia and therefore sabotage Eisenhower’s attempt at rapprochement with the Russians at an upcoming summit meeting. Others have pointed to those who were convinced Oswald was a spy, including Marines Oswald served with, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Oswald’s mother and others.

    According to Gaeton Fonzi, former CIA Director Richard Helms told reporters during recess of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 that “no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald … represented.”  Asked whether the CIA knew of any ties Oswald had with either the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused and with a laugh said, “I don’t remember.”

    According to author and intelligence specialist John Newman, a CIA propaganda associate of David Phillips, William Kent, intimated to his daughter at a family Thanksgiving gathering: “Oswald was a useful idiot.” 

    It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency … .  Right after the President was killed, people in the Tokyo station were talking openly about Oswald having gone to Russia for the CIA.  Everyone was wondering how the Agency was going to be able to keep the lid on Oswald.  But I guess they did.

    ~ interview of Jim and Elsie Wilcott, former husband and wife employees of the Tokyo CIA Station, San Francisco Chronicle, “Couple Talks about Oswald and the CIA,” September 12, 1978

    Jane Roman, who in 1963 was the senior liaison officer on the Counterintelligence Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia, gave Jefferson Morley and John Newman this revealing answer to the following question during a seventy five-minute taped interview in 1994: is this indicative of some sort of operational interest in Oswald’s file?” This was the key question of the interview, and Roman took it head on. “Yes,” she replied.  “To me it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.”

    John Newman is one of the researchers who did the most work in analyzing intelligence files on Oswald, and has uncovered, along with Malcolm Blunt, content and patterns that can only be explained by Oswald being used for intel purposes. This includes the very late opening of a standard CIA 201 file that would have been normally immediately opened upon a defection.

    Lisa Pease wrote for Probe magazine in 1997 about Otto Otepka, who was the very competent head of the State Department’s Office of Security (SY) during much of the Oswald saga. He would have been the one who was behind initiating a study of defectors to Russia in 1960. The CIA –– probably James Angleton, who is suspected of running Oswald at this time –– gave instructions not to delve into Lee Harvey Oswald. That may be the reason Otepka was fired a few weeks before the assassination.

    By the time Oswald returned from Russia, his days were numbered. However, during the year remaining in his life, the additional traces he would leave linking him to intelligence would be omnipresent: Only later dug into by serious researchers but ignored by mainstream media and historians.

    During the summer of 1963, Oswald would ostensibly abandon his expecting wife and young baby to open an FPCC Chapter for which he was the lone member in the very hostile environment of New Orleans. In his previous article (The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK), this author presents the case that Oswald was more likely involved in an intelligence operation to counter this has-been, informant-infested outfit, publicize his Marxist legend and weed out communists. The similarities with six other potential patsies profiled in the article reinforce this notion.

    A clue to Oswald’s real loyalties came during a televised interview he gave in August 1963 with a revealing Freudian slip he made when he said he was (while in Russia) “under the protection of the government,” which he quickly corrected –– but it was too late.   The “Hands Off Cuba” flyers that he distributed with the now infamous Camp Street address represented a major gaffe, as it placed him directly in the presence of his anti-Castro friends and blew his cover to people willing to investigate this like Jim Garrison and Senator Schweiker.

    Thanks to the HSCA and the ARRB record releases, we know for sure that intelligence networks played very important roles in hiding key facts from the Warren Commission and obstructing the HSCA, Garrison, and ARRB activities which were getting close to linking Oswald to the world of intelligence.

    Perhaps the most explicit links came in the form of the Lopez Report written up for the HSCA and kept secret for many years. Because of the diligent work of HSCA investigators Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez, we now know that Oswald was, at the very least, partly impersonated in Mexico City under the watchful eye of CIA operatives there –– who later played starring roles in covering this incident up. Perhaps the most explicit links came in the form of their report, “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City” (aka the Lopez Report), written up for the HSCA and kept secret for many years.  


    Oswald’s Intelligence Touch Points

    The Warren Commission portrayed Lee Oswald as a lone-nut, Marxist, and drifter who was not on anyone’s radar. The New York Times coverage of the Warren Commission’s Report release includes the following statement:

    The Warren Commission also rejected, after complete access to the files of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, the claim that Oswald may have been some kind of American undercover agent.

    This conclusion of course has today proven to be founded on quicksand. Far from their having “complete access”, it has been confirmed that intelligence agencies played a key role in keeping information about Oswald hidden away from the Commission, for example regarding Oswald in Mexico City. Schweiker’s bombshell assertion clearly advances that Oswald had intelligence connections. The Church Committee and the HSCA both impeached the Warren Commission by unequivocally concluding that, among other inadequacies, it had not properly investigated the possibility of a conspiracy. (For more, see this author’s article on the historical record of Government investigations).

    Based on the standards we are currently witnessing with the barrage about Trump and friends in Moscow, let us look at who should have been turned inside out in a serious investigation about a far more serious crime. In the following section we will briefly go over a long list of persons with definite or plausible intelligence credentials/links who crossed paths with Oswald in one way or another. Some of the links are loose, others are solid; of course not all are involved in the assassination. All, however, would merit an in-depth analysis by true investigators. For the purpose of this article we will provide short snapshots. To know more about an individual, the author encourages the reader to follow the links/sources.

    If we were to add persons with indirect intelligence connections, Cuban exiles of interest, Mob-related personalities, the number of persons of interest that would give insight into who Oswald really was and what he and others were up to would more than likely double.   Seen in their entirety, we can conclude that if there is smoke around the current Russia meddling intrigue, what we have here is a forest fire and a cover-up that was more than just “benign.”


    New Orleans, Atsugi, California, Russia, Dallas

    Let us look at who Schweiker could be plausibly referring to when he confirmed that Oswald had intelligence connections. (Next to the name, we will list the source material in the literature.)


    David Ferrie (Jim Garrison)

    The young David Ferrie

    Oswald’s first Intel connection is one of the most important for confirming Schweiker’s assertion. David Ferrie plays an important role in Oswald’s fate during two phases of Oswald’s short life. In 1955, both Ferrie and Oswald were members of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol where Ferrie taught aviation. Author Greg Parker, in Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War, makes the case for the CAP being linked to the CIA’s recruitment activities and Texas School Book Depository’s owner Harold Byrd –– an oil-man known for his deep hatred of JFK and who is connected with many persons of interest, as well as the world of espionage. Ferrie later became a contract CIA agent flying bombing missions over Cuba at the request of Cuban-exile Eladio Del Valle, who was himself intelligence connected and a person Jim Garrison was pursuing concerning the assassination until Del Valle was killed, within 24 hours of Ferrie’s own mysterious death.

    During the summer of 1963, Ferrie and Oswald link up once again at 544 Camp Street. This location was an address on some of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba literature. The building was a hub for right-wing, anti-Castro activities centered around the office of FBI- and CIA-connected Guy Banister, as well as intelligence-backed Cuban exiles. During this period, Ferrie was frequently seen in the building and elsewhere, in the company of Banister, CIA agent Clay Shaw, CIA-connected Sergio Arcacha Smith, Oswald and others of this ilk who became key suspects in the Garrison investigation, which was sabotaged by special interest groups. The HSCA and ARRB findings clearly confirm as much. Ferrie confessed a lot about the assassination to Garrison’s investigator Louis Ivon, but died mysteriously before he could be taken to trial.


    Gerard Tujague (Destiny Betrayed – JFK: The Cuba Files)

    In early 1956, Oswald joined Gerard Tujague’s shipping company. Tujague was also vice-president of the Friends of Democratic Cuba (FDC), which is believed to be a CIA and FBI front that was largely created by Guy Banister and Sergio Arcacha Smith, and was also linked to Clay Shaw. Cuban intelligence identified this organization as a perpetrator of hostile acts against Cuba.

    In a strange incident in 1961 while Oswald was in Russia, the FDC used Oswald’s name in an attempt to buy 10 Ford pick-up trucks at the Bolton Ford lot in New Orleans.


    Richard Case Nagell (The Man who Knew too Much – Destiny Betrayed Jim Garrison)

    Richard Case Nagell

    While in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald met up with Army Intel agent Richard Case Nagell for the first time. Nagell began a CIA career in 1955-56, which eventually brought him into the world of Black ops where CIA people like E. Howard Hunt and Tracy Barnes excelled.

    In 1962, he served as a double agent in Mexico City. He hinted to a friend that he knew the CIA’s David Phillips who, as we will see, became a key suspect for many researchers with respect to the Oswald sheep-dipping operations. By October 1962, the Soviets advised him that the violent Cuban exile group Alpha 66 was plotting to assassinate Kennedy. They thought this would be blamed on them. So they hired him to investigate, and possibly abort the plot. His investigations allowed him to identify Arcacha Smith, Ferrie, Carlos Quiroga, Tony Cuesta and a Leopoldo as possible conspirators. In 1963, he tried to convince Oswald he was being set up to be the fall guy. He failed. Nagell eventually faked a bank robbery so as to be in jail when the assassination took place.   His interviews with researcher Dick Russell, his material links to Oswald when he was arrested, and his pre-assassination warnings go a long way in proving his credibility.


    Colonel Nikolai Eroshkin

    According to what Nagell told Russell, while Oswald was in Atsugi, he met with GRU agent Colonel Eroshkin: a CIA defection target.


    Kerry Thornley (Destiny Betrayed)

    Kerry Thornley

    When Oswald was moved back to California in 1959, few Marines bought into his communist-leaning persona. Also, many described him as quite a poor marksman.   It is here that fellow-Marine Kerry Thornley met him for the first time. He wrote a book about him before the assassination called the Idle Warriors, and then another in 1965. He became the go-to Marine for the Warren Commission in their attempt to paint Oswald as unpatriotic.

    In the summer of 1963, Thornley popped backed into the picture in New Orleans where several witnesses saw him with Oswald either in public or at Oswald’s apartment. There is evidence that Thornley picked up Fair Play for Cuba flyers for Oswald. An FBI memo states that Thornley and Oswald went to Mexico together. And despite preliminary denials, he eventually admitted links to David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler –– all intelligence-connected persons of interest who will be covered in this article. He also eventually confirmed his utter hatred of Kennedy. Thornley was actually indicted by Jim Garrison for perjury because of his lies about this association with Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Further, two witnesses told Garrison that Thornley had said that Oswald was not a communist. Which makes his performance before the Warren Commission quite suspicious.


    Rosaleen Quinn (Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War)

    In 1959, fellow Marine Henry Roussel set up a date between Oswald and his aunt Rosaleen Quinn, an airline stewardess who studied Russian with a Berlitz tutor for the State Department exam, as she was interested in working in the American embassy in Russia. She is suspected by some as having monitored Oswald’s skills with the Russian language, which she qualified as very good. This coincided with Oswald’s imminent departure from the infantry and the beginning of his Russian adventure. In Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War, Greg Parker underscores an intelligence angle to her that he thinks should be explored.


    Gerry Patrick Hemming (Oswald and the CIA)

    Gerry Hemming

    Hemming has been a difficult nut to crack for many of the researchers who interviewed him. He was someone who seems to have known something about the assassination, but is difficult to read.

    Hemming was in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1954 to 1957. He was honorably discharged and became a soldier of fortune who eventually fought for Castro’s revolutionary army with another person of interest, Frank Sturgis. They both came back quickly after feeling disillusioned by Castro. Hemming also spent some time in Atsugi. Though the CIA has denied any relationship with Hemming and Sturgis, this has been contradicted by files that show that Hemming frequently interacted with the CIA. Frank Sturgis’ later association with CIA’s E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, along with Cuban exiles, during the Watergate scandal, further contradicts this claim.

    Hemming eventually founded Interpen in 1961. This was a paramilitary exile group that specialized in the penetration of revolutionary forces. Interpen is linked to many people involved in the training of Cuban exiles and persons of interest in the assassination. Interpen set up shop right in the midst of the Miami CIA JM/WAVE station and Cuban exile communities. HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi came to believe that much of the brainwork behind the plot came from disillusioned rogue CIA officers associated with this Miami nexus and involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

    It is quite possible that some of Hemming’s contacts with the CIA took place in Los Angeles in early 1959 when he would have met Lee Harvey Oswald who, along with his El Toro base friend Nelson Delgado, showed interest in joining the Castro forces before he had become persona non grata in the United States. Hemming claims that Oswald bumped into him at the Cuban consulate in Los Angeles and inquired about joining up with him. Hemming thought of him as a snitch and later met him at the base gate where he confronted him. He says he relayed this information to James Angleton. There is some corroboration of these meetings to be found in CIA files, and from Nelson Delgado, who confirmed that Oswald was at the Cuban consulate for discussions about their project and met a civilian for almost two hours at the base gate at the times Hemming states these took place.

    Hemming, in later interviews, went on to express his opinion that Oswald was a patsy.


    Gregory Golub (Destiny Betrayed)

    The logistics involved in getting Oswald into Russia in October 1959 has been found by many to be perplexing. The nature and speed of his discharge, his financing, his route through Helsinki, his stay in expensive five-star hotels, and finally, the expedient issuing of a visa into Russia within 24 hours of his application –– these all seem too complex for an uneducated former truant. Golub, who issued Oswald’s visa, may have had direct ties to the American State Department.

    Here is how the HSCA describes the visa situation:

    HSCA Report Findings on the Issue of Oswald’s Visa:

    In an effort to resolve this issue, the committee reviewed classified information pertaining to Gregory Golub, who was the Soviet consul in Helsinki when Oswald was issued his tourist visa. This review revealed that, in addition to his consular activities, Golub was suspected of having been an officer of the Soviet KGB. Two American Embassy dispatches concerning Golub were of particular significance with regard to the time necessary for issuance of visas to Americans for travel into the Soviet Union. The first dispatch recorded that Golub disclosed during a luncheon conversation that:

    MOSCOW had given him the authority to give Americans visas without prior approval from Moscow. He [Golub] stated that this would make his job much easier, and as long as he was convinced the American was “all right” he could give him a visa in a matter of minutes …

    The second dispatch, dated October 9, 1959, 1 day prior to Oswald’s arrival in Helsinki, illustrated that Golub did have the authority to issue visas without delay. The dispatch discussed a telephone contact between Golub and his consular counterpart at the American Embassy in Helsinki:

    … Since that evening [September 4, 1959] Golub has only phoned [the U.S. consul] once and this was on a business matter. Two Americans were in the Soviet consulate at the time and were applying for Soviet visas through Golub. They had previously been in the American consulate inquiring about the possibility of obtaining a Soviet visa in 1 or 2 days. [The U.S. consul] advised them to go directly to Golub and make their request, which they did. Golub phoned [the U.S. consul] to state that he would give them their visas as soon as they made advance Intourist reservations. When they did this, Golub immediately gave them their visas …

    Thus, based upon these two factors, (1) Golub’s authority to issue visas to Americans without prior approval from Moscow, and (2) a demonstration of this authority, as reported in an embassy dispatch approximately 1 month prior to Oswald’s appearance at the Soviet Embassy, the committee found that the available evidence tends to support the conclusion that the issuance of Oswald’s tourist visa within 2 days after his appearance at the Soviet consulate was not indicative of an American intelligence agency connection.  Note: If anything, Oswald’s ability to receive a Soviet entry visa so quickly was more indicative of a Soviet interest in him.

    Author’s comment: If this is what it did in fact indicate, why wasn’t a CIA 201 file immediately opened after Oswald’s defection? It was not opened until one year later.


    Richard Snyder (Destiny Betrayed)

    John McVickar & Richard Snyder

    In early November of 1959, Oswald decided to pay a visit to the American Embassy in Moscow to renounce his citizenship. He met with former CIA recruiter Richard Snyder, who was probably working under diplomatic cover as a consular official. He had previously spotted student talent for the CIA who could travel to Russia under operation REDSKIN. Some of his notes while in Russia refer to false defectors. Snyder used well-studied delay tactics to avoid having Oswald fill out the necessary forms to renounce his citizenship. This made Oswald’s re-entry to the U.S. a lot easier and demonstrated Snyder’s knowledge of the fake defector programs in place.

    In his exchange with Snyder –– which researcher Malcolm Blunt refers to as theatrical and designed to be picked up by Russian eavesdropping –– Oswald threatened to give away military secrets. This most likely was a reference to the U2 surveillance operations. This makes the opening of a 201 file only a full-year later incredible, as Oswald now should have also been considered a traitor. Unless, of course, something else was going on.


    John McVickar (Oswald and the CIA)

    While Oswald was going through his charade with Snyder, they were being observed by embassy official John McVickar. He is the one who alerted and then set up intelligence-linked journalist Priscilla Johnson to interview Oswald in his Moscow hotel room. He was then was later debriefed by her. She would go on to make a career out of endorsing the Warren Commission line.


    Priscilla Johnson (Oswald and the CIA)

    In 1959, Johnson was a correspondent for the North American News Association (NANA). Her November 13th interview with Oswald was the basis for news reports that would publicize Oswald the defector to a U.S. audience. In 1977 she published her book Marina and Lee after building a relationship with Marina Oswald, who by then was still very cooperative with authorities. She went on to become a staple in pro-Warren Commission propaganda and one of the first in a long line of intelligence friendly so-called JFK assassination experts.

    Marina Oswald & Priscilla Johnson

    Her job and relationship with the U.S. embassy at the time of Oswald’s defection already made her a natural ally for intelligence organizations. She identified propaganda specialist Cord Meyer as one of the CIA recruiters who took an interest in her. Documented cases of her passing on information to the CIA, her access to CIA space and resources, her own writings and her role in hosting star-defector Svetlana Stalin, daughter of Joseph Stalin, in 1967, represent strong evidence of her ties to intelligence. She was even given permission to live with heavily guarded Marina Oswald for months in 1964 while they worked on the book.

    The release of intelligence files in 1993 by the ARRB seal the deal, as the following information from a contact report reveals. CIA recruiter Donald Jameson reported this about her in 1962, after a ninety minute interview: “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want … .”   We also know that the CIA had a 201 file opened on her in the mid-1950s and that she was considered to be knowledgeable about Soviet affairs.


    Leo Setyaev (Oswald and the CIA)

    Lev Setyaev

    According to John Newman, Oswald had a name he could contact while he was in Russia if he needed anything. Leo Setyaev is a name that appears in Oswald’s address book, and, according to Marina, is who Oswald intended to call in 1961 when visiting the American embassy. She also stated that he had met Oswald in the Hotel Metropole in Moscow shortly after his arrival and had helped Oswald get on a Radio Moscow show, where he criticized the U.S. for a Russian audience. The FBI and CIA had files on Setyaev, who was quite possibly an informant for the CIA.


    Robert Webster (Destiny Betrayed)

    Robert Webster

    Webster is another person some researchers suspect was a false defector who entered Russia and returned to the U.S. at around the same times Oswald did. He worked with the CIA-linked Rand Corporation, which was known for its high-tech products, which were of interest to Russia. Oswald, when planning to leave Russia in 1961, inquired about Webster’s status to a U.S. embassy official.

    Strangely, Webster had met Marina Prusakova in 1959 before she married Oswald, and Webster’s Leningrad address was found in Marina’s address book after the assassination. It appears Webster spoke English with her, a language she claimed to not understand. All this suggests that Russia was aware of the false defector program and that Marina may have been assigned Russian intelligence tasks to identify some of them. Webster also brought back a Russian spouse some feel was linked to Russian intelligence.


    Marina Oswald (Destiny Betrayed – Richard Schweiker)

    Marina’s uncle worked for the Russian version of the FBI. Her interactions with both Oswald and Webster and the ease by which she was allowed to leave Russia are among the reasons that some researchers believe Marina was intelligence-linked, and that Oswald’s and Webster’s suspected false defector roles are why she was made to cross paths with them in the first place.

    Schweiker was onto this:

    The key is why did they let him (Oswald) bring a Russian-born wife out contrary to present Russian policy, he had to get special dispensation from the highest levels to bring his Russian-born wife out, that in itself says somebody was giving Oswald highest priority either because we had trained and sent him there and they went along and pretended they did not know to fake us out, or they had in fact inculcated him and sent him back and were trying to fake us out, but he had gotten a green light no other American had gotten.


    Francis Gary Powers (Oswald and the CIA)

    Francis Gary Powers

    Powers is the U2 pilot whose plane was shot down over Russia while Oswald was there after threatening to give away U2-related secrets. This scuttled Eisenhower’s upcoming summit meeting with Khrushchev and is what probably contributed to Eisenhower’s warnings about the power of the military industrial complex in his farewell address to the nation. There has been some speculation that Oswald was at his trial in Russia. Powers and others have blamed Oswald for his being shot down. Oswald, while in Russia, wrote a letter to his brother, Robert, in which he says that he saw Powers in Moscow.


    Spas Theodore Raikin (JFK and the Unspeakable)

    Spas Raikin

    Since the ARRB cleared the release of a large number of classified documents, a number of CIA files have shed light on the person assigned by the U.S. State Department to greet the Oswald family on June 12, 1962 when they stepped off the ocean liner Maasdam in Hoboken, New Jersey. Raikin was a representative of the Traveler’s Aid Society who helped them pass smoothly through immigration and customs.

    Here is how James Douglass describes what the Warren Report did not reveal about him: “Raikin was at the same time secretary-general of the American Friends of the Anti-Bolshevik Nations, an anti-communist organization with extensive intelligence connections –– like the American government, an unlikely source of support for a traitor.”


    Andy Anderson/Eleanor Reed (Joan Mellen)

    The Agency claims that they did not debrief Oswald upon his return to the USA from Russia. On the surface, this seems ridiculous. But he may have been when he went through Copenhagen on his way back to the United States. In 1978, Donald Denesyla told the HSCA that he had in fact received a report about a defector who returned from Russia in 1962 who had worked in a radio factory. This report, written by Andy Anderson, went to Robert Crowley, a close friend and colleague of James Angleton. Crowley also handled the Webster case.

    Joan Mellen argues that the actual de-briefer may have been Eleanor Reed.

    Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false defectors is contained in a document that I have just discovered that the CIA released “as sanitized” in 1998. The document resides in Robert Webster’s file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can await, with reasonable expectation, that a parallel document of Oswald’s debriefing by Reed (with, perhaps, her frequent debriefing partner, Rudy (“Valentino”) Balaban, may well surface. This document demonstrates beyond doubt that Reed (“Anderson”) was an SR6 debriefer.

    In other words, Reed used the Anderson name at times.


    John Fain (The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend)

    In Dallas, Fain was the first FBI agent who interrogated Oswald in June and then in August 1962. He was interested in finding out if the Russians were using him or his wife. He described Oswald as impatient, insolent and secretive during the first meeting. Though more cooperative during the second, he was still not fully transparent. Fain showed his suspicions around the subject of Oswald wanting to be part of a country that represented the biggest threat to the U.S.

    There is more to Fain’s involvement in the Oswald saga than this however, as he is probably the agent that Oswald’s mother Marguerite interacted with while her son was in Russia and he also made certain the FBI was in in sync with the CIA in the administration of Oswald’s files.


    George Bouhe, Max Clark and the White Russians of Dallas (Destiny Betrayed)

    In the summer of 1962, Oswald settled in Fort Worth, where he was greeted by White Russians. This group was very cooperative with intelligence forces, especially in welcoming anti-communist immigrants to their fold. These are the people our supposed pro-Marxist traitor cozied up with in what Jim Garrison referred to in his memoir as “The Social Triumphs of Lee Oswald”. Of course, the Warren Commission’s curiosity was not even piqued by these relationships of direct adversaries: a communist dealing with White Russians who wanted to overthrow the Red regime and bring back the czar. Probably many in this group had direct contacts with intelligence. Let us single out two: The leader George Bouhe kept files on the White Russians and just happened to be a neighbour of Jack Ruby. It is he who introduced Oswald to Max Clark, a retired Air Force Colonel who Bouhe suspected was involved with the FBI and security work. It was Clark and Dallas CIA Station Chief J. Walton Moore who would connect Oswald with one of his most prominent intelligence contacts …


    George DeMohrenschildt (Destiny Betrayed – Family of Secrets – Spartacus – I’m a Patsy)

    George DeMohrenschildt

    DeMohrenschildt came from a family of Russian nobility; his father was governor of Minsk and director of the Baku oil fields before the Russian Revolution. Some family members became involved in intelligence activities against the communist regime that took over the country and relocated in foreign countries. There is even correspondence between George’s brother Dimitri, a CIA asset in Europe, and Allen Dulles that goes as far back as 1953. It goes without saying that Dulles kept these relations hidden from his Warren Commission colleagues.

    George moved to the U.S. in 1938. The British suspected he worked for German intelligence at the time. Through his studies, work in the oil industry and involvement with the Texas Crusade for Freedom and other associations, he came into contact with George H. W. Bush, Clint Murchison, Harold Byrd, H.L. Hunt (all oilmen) and Dallas mayor Earle Cabell. His international travels dovetail with CIA relations for which he received favors.

    He is perhaps the person who interacted the most with the Oswalds before Lee’s move to New Orleans. In the fall of 1962, he persuaded Oswald to move to Dallas. DeMohrenschildt helped Oswald gain employment by January 1963 at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. This is surprising, as JCS was a graphics art house that seems to have done some work related to U2 flights over Cuba, and Oswald’s notebook lists it with the words micro dot beside it. While there he showed co-worker Dennis Ofstein photos of Soviet military headquarters he had taken and gave him detailed descriptions of military related observations he was able to make while in Russia. DeMohrenschildt is also the one who introduced the Oswalds to Ruth Paine in February. It has become apparent to many that DeMohrenschildt was a CIA-designated baby-sitter who had numerous meetings with Moore, which Moore tried to cover up. In March of 1963, George got a contract from the Haitian government, which he attributed to his relationship with the CIA. While he probably had nothing to do with the JFK assassination itself, according to Jim Garrison, he did help paint Oswald as a sociopathic communist before the Commission.

    In Family of Secrets, Russ Baker chronicles DeMohrenschildt’s relations with George H. W. Bush, who most probably was a CIA operative orally briefed by Hoover shortly after the assassination. In 1976, as the JFK case was heating up again, DeMohrenschildt corresponded with his friend Bush, who was CIA director at the time, asking for help to get the FBI off his back, as he felt he had perhaps spoken too much about Oswald.

    In his book I’m a Patsy, he expresses his opinion that Oswald was innocent and incapable of such a violent act. This is pretty much a reversal of what his testimony was before the Warren Commission. On March 29, 1977, just when he was about to be interviewed by the HSCA, he became another person of interest among many to die mysteriously during intense investigative activity.


    Ruth Paine and Michael Paine (Destiny BetrayedSomeone Would Have TalkedSpartacus)

    By the time they met the Oswalds, the Paines, who were Quakers, had separated but remained on friendly terms. From the beginning, Ruth Paine would be omnipresent in Marina’s life and seemed purposeful in separating her from her husband. After dropping Marina off to join Lee in New Orleans, she corresponded with her throughout the summer of 1963.

    Ruth & Michael Paine

    Towards the end of the summer, Ruth Paine picked up Marina to be with her when she delivered her second child in Dallas. This is when the Oswalds separated and Marina moved in with Ruth in Irving, Texas. It is in her garage that Lee Oswald stored many of his belongings. Ruth Paine’s roles in Lee Oswald’s demise were varied and numerous. She helped Oswald get his job in the Texas School Book Depository. Her garage became the go-to place to find convenient, and often suspicious, clues linking Oswald to the murder. She would go on to become one of the Warren Commission’s most important witnesses. In fact, she was asked more questions than any other single person.

    Michael Paine might have played perhaps as important a role. A suspicious event involving the Paines occurred on the day of the assassination. At 1:00 pm on November 22, 1963, Michael Paine placed a collect call to his wife to discuss Oswald’s involvement in the assassination. While the telephone operator remained on the line, Michael Paine told his wife that he “Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but was not responsible.” Rather ominously he added, “We both know who is responsible.” (FBI report of Robert C. Lish, November 26, 1963, JFK Document No. 105-82555-1437) The most extraordinary thing about this call is that it took place one hour before Oswald’s arrest. For obvious reasons, the Warren Commission wanted to sweep this little problem under the rug. So when junior counsel Wesley Liebeler questioned Michael about the call, he stated the date of the call as November 23rd, giving Michael an easy way to deny its implications.

    According to a report written by Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers on the day of the assassination, upon searching Paine’s garage, officers found “a set of metal file cabinets that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban Sympathizers.” (19H520). These metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets and were never entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald’s belongings. By the time the Warren Commission got them, they had been reduced in number and attributed to Ruth Paine. And if Ruth and Michael Paine had a “set of metal file cabinets” containing “the names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”, then they were most certainly involved in the same intelligence activities that most researchers believe Oswald was involved in during the summer of 1963: rooting out “Un-Americans”.

    Here is how long-time researcher Jim DiEugenio interprets these findings:

    This cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism. (Hancock notes how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler forced Walthers to backtrack on this point and then made it disappear in the “Speculation and Rumors” part of the report.)

    The Paines were painted as Good Samaritans by the Warren Commission. Kept hidden were their eyebrow-raising associations with intelligence, beginning with their links to Russian expatriates. To begin with, the father of a witness who vouched for their character, Frederick Osborne Jr., was a close associate of Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles’ mistress was Mary Bancroft. Her best friend, Ruth Forbes Young, was the mother of Michael Paine. Forbes’ husband Arthur Young was one of the creators of Bell Helicopter where Michael worked and had a security clearance. Arthur Young also had worked for the CIA-linked Franklin Institute. Michael’s grand-uncle Cameron Forbes sat on the board of United Fruit with the members of the Cabot family. United Fruit was an important client of the Sullivan and Cromwell law firm where the Dulles brothers were partners. Michael’s cousin Thomas Cabot was United Fruit’s former president. Thomas’ brother John exchanged information with attorney Maurice Gatlin (who links up closely with Guy Banister) to help the overthrow of Jacob Arbenz of Guatemala.

    In April 1963, some students at Southern Methodist University identified Michael Paine as a person who regularly would visit Luby’s Restaurant, a popular college hangout. While there he tried to root out those with Castro sympathies. In his pitch, he brought up his links to a communist-Marine who came back from Russia with a Russian bride.

    Ruth Paine’s father William Hyde had worked for the OSS in World War II and stayed connected with the CIA later on through his work for the Agency for International Development (AID), which was infested with CIA operatives. Before picking up Marina in New Orleans, she had paid a visit to her sister who worked for the CIA. This is something that Ruth seemed intent on keeping from Jim Garrison in her appearance before the Clay Shaw grand jury. Her brother-in-law also worked for AID. Ruth seemed to have a penchant for weeding out communists as, later in her life, she is alleged to have played a role in identifying Americans who opposed U.S. policy when she was in Nicaragua during the Contra war.


    James Hosty (Destiny Betrayed – Oswald and the CIA)

    James Hosty

    March 1963 is when FBI agent James Hosty was asked to monitor the Oswalds in Dallas. He lost track of Lee Oswald when he moved to New Orleans. By November 1st, he had interviewed Ruth Paine and Marina in order to locate him. When Oswald found out about this, he left Hosty a note in an envelope at the FBI office in Dallas. What was on the note is still unclear. When Oswald was assassinated, Hosty’s boss Gordon Shanklin ordered him to destroy the note and Hosty’s memorandum about the event. Hosty’s name was in Oswald’s address book, something the FBI kept hidden from the Warren Commission.

    This created great consternation when it was publicly disclosed in the seventies. Hoover had been very worried that Oswald’s possible role as an informant who infiltrated the Fair Play for Cuba Committee would blow up in the FBI’s face. Based on Oswald’s links to New Orleans FBI agents, which will be reviewed later, this role seems more than plausible.

    Hosty was also present during Oswald’s interrogations after Kennedy’s murder. Hosty took heat for the security lapse that allowed someone like Oswald to be present on the infamous motorcade route in Dallas.


    Return to New Orleans, Mexico, Return to Dallas

    Victor Thomas Vicente

    In the article The Three Failed plots to Kill JFK, the author shows how Oswald’s starting a Fair Play for Cuba Committee Chapter in New Orleans was more likely part of a covert operation than his demonstration of bonding with Marxism. By then the FPCC was infested with informants and linked closely to infiltration and sabotage programs overseen by prominent CIA operatives David Atlee Phillips, James McCord and William Harvey.

    When Lee Harvey Oswald wrote his first letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee HQ in New York in April 1963, he asked for “forty to fifty” free copies of a 40-page pamphlet.

    The author of the pamphlets, Corliss Lamont, turned out to be holding a receipt for 45 of these pamphlets from the CIA Acquisitions Division. These pamphlets were mailed to Oswald by FPCC worker Victor Thomas Vicente. Vicente was a key informant for both the CIA and the FBI’s New York office.


    Novo Sampol brothers, Tony Cuesta, Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada (JFK: The Cuba Files)

    Orlando Bosch

    The CIA and FBI were not the only intelligence agencies tapping into Cuban exiles living in the U.S. Cuban Intelligence also had their share of informants. Fabian Escalante was put in charge of Castro’s security and later became Head of State Security. He directed the investigations that the Cuban government carried out at the request of the U.S. Select Committee of the House of Representatives. He also wrote a book called JFK: The Cuban Files. Having read the book, I was struck by how cautious he was in talking about potential leads.

    Here are some of the people of interest who met Oswald according their files and analysis. By mid-1963 there was a meeting between Oswald and group of terrorists in a CIA safe house on the outskirts of Miami. Also present were:

    Tony Cuesta

    Orlando Bosch who among other things participated in the downing of a Cuban airliner, for which he was eventually incarcerated, and the murder of Chilean ambassador Orlando Letellier. He was considered such a threat to JFK that the Secret Service had him under special surveillance during JFK’s visit to Miami in November, 1963. According to Gaeton Fonzi, Antonio Veciana considered him a good friend.

    Tony Cuesta was a higher-up in Alpha 66 and a close colleague of Veciana. He was indicated by Richard Case Nagell as a suspect in the assassination. He also confessed to Escalante his role in the assassination after being captured during a failed raid in 1966. He identified Herminio Diaz and Eladio Del Valle (a key suspect of Garrison) as conspirators.

    The Novo brothers, Posada and Bosch were all allegedly part of team of assassins called Operation 40.


    John Martino (Someone Would Have Talked)

    From Larry Hancock we learned about another person who may have crossed paths with Oswald:

    John Martino

    Martino certainly did have CIA connections in 1963, primarily (David) Morales and Rip Robertson …

    John Martino had pre-knowledge of the plan to kill John Kennedy in Texas. John Martino “talked” in a very believable and credible fashion. At first, he talked only to his immediate family, nervously, hesitantly, and excitedly. Shortly before his death, he talked with two long time friends –– part confession and part simply recollection. He made no grand claims, downplayed his own role and limited his statements to things he would have personally come in contact with in playing the role he described with the Cuban exiles whose cause he was demonstrably devoted to at the time. His story is certainly consistent and totally in context with his documented activities and personal associations in 1963.

    Martino also admitted observing Oswald during the summer of 1963.


    William Monaghan and Dante Marichini (Deep Politics)

    Reilly Coffee Co.

    During the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, Oswald gained employment at the Reilly Coffee Company, an organization of interest because of its links to Caribbean anti-communist politics. The Reilly brothers backed Ed Butler’s INCA (the CIA-linked Information Council of the Americas which factors heavily in Oswald’s later Marxist PR activities) and the CRC (Cuban Revolutionary Council).

    William Monaghan was the V.P. of Finance there who ended up firing Oswald. He was also an ex-FBI agent. He was listed as a charter member of INCA in a 1962 bulletin. He is believed by some to have played a role in the friendly hosting of Oswald at Reilly’s during his covert Intel-linked mission.

    Other employees there of interest to researchers included four of Oswald’s co-workers who joined NASA during the summer of 1963. Dante Marichini who was a friend of David Ferrie’s and the neighbour of Clay Shaw was one of these.


    Guy Banister (Destiny Betrayed – Jim Garrison – Ed Haslam – Spartacus – How JFK was killed)

    FBI investigators did not take Jim Garrison’s suspicions about David Ferrie seriously. Garrison had turned over Ferrie because of his incriminating behaviour on the day of the assassination. The FBI then let Ferrie get away with numerous lies during their questioning of him. If they had not done so, they would have been able to link Oswald to a network of informants, CIA-backed anti-Castro Cuban exiles and other intelligence assets who had in common their hatred of Castro and, by then, Kennedy. This violent, right-wing hub of anti-Castro activity just happened to be where Oswald set up shop for his Fair Play for Cuba Committee office, which became central in his renewed relationship with Ferrie and Thornley and the development of new contacts like Sergio Arcache Smith, Carlos Quiroga, Frank Bartes, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, Guy Banister and who knows who else. It is no wonder the Warren Commission investigators and pro-lone-nut mouthpieces have felt extremely uncomfortable about Oswald’s flyers with the 544 Camp Street address on them.

    Guy Banister

    Garrison’s investigation led him to this nest of anti-Castro intelligence activity that was at the antipode of Oswald’s new found pro-Castro hobby. Over and above working in very close proximity to one another and Banister’s close ties to Ferrie, proof that Banister and Oswald were working together is overwhelming:

    1. An important number of Banister’s colleagues confirmed seeing Oswald with Banister and other persons of extreme interest.
    2. Recall that the Banister-linked organization Friends of Democratic Cuba used Oswald’s name while he was in Russia.
    3. There was evidence in Banister’s files that he kept tabs on Oswald.
    4. Writer Ed Haslam discovered that Ed Butler, who played an important role in a radio interview of Oswald, kept the deceased Banister’s files hidden. We will get back to Butler later.

    Banister’s ties to intelligence are well summed up even in the very early work of Joachim Joesten, How Kennedy Was Killed (1968):

    Guy Banister, a former FBI official and onetime assistant superintendent of the New Orleans police department, had had a ‘stormy’ career, according to the New Orleans States-Item of May 5, 1967. After he had left police work officially, if not earlier, Banister was active for years as a top U.S. intelligence agent in the South and in Latin America. His spacious office, at 531 Lafayette Street, in New Orleans, served both as a rallying point for Minutemen, Cuban exiles and assorted right-wing and intelligence operatives and as an arms distribution centre for these elements. This has been brought out with dazzling clarity both by the Garrison investigation and through independent research by the local press.

    A close friend and adviser of Banister’s told the States-Item the veteran FBI agent was a key liaison man for U.S. government-sponsored anti-Communist activities in Latin America, the New Orleans paper reported and added: “Guy participated in every important anti-Communist South and Central American revolution which came along while he had the office on Lafayette Street,” the source reported. The paper also stated that Banister is believed to have worked in cooperation with a U.S. military intelligence office here.

    What emerges from all of this is that Oswald was assisting Banister, a known communist hunter, in identifying Castro-sympathizers and that Banister was deeply involved in activities supplying weapons to anti-Castro groups like Alpha 66 –– a key organization of interest in the assassination.


    Clay Shaw (Jim Garrison – Joan Mellen – Destiny Betrayed)

    Thanks to New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, we were introduced to a key person of interest in Clay Shaw. For his profile let me quote from a one of my previous articles:

    Perhaps no other person who believed there was a conspiracy was vilified more than Jim Garrison. He has been called a charlatan, a publicity-seeker and crazy, among other things. With time however, many of his claims have been vindicated. While some described his case as a farce, it is often overlooked that Garrison had presented his evidence beforehand to a three-judge panel who concluded that he was justified to bring it to court, and that the subsequent HSCA investigation concluded that Garrison and his office “had established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, a suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy, and Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald” –– a devastating blow to Garrison detractors. Many witnesses have confirmed this.

    Clay Shaw

    Other information from later investigations reveals that his efforts were sabotaged by adversaries who infiltrated his volunteer team and weakened his efforts; well-orchestrated propaganda attacking both his case and reputation; refusals to his subpoenas for out-of-state witnesses and the harassment, turning and untimely deaths of some of his key witnesses, including the suspicious deaths of star-witness David Ferrie and the murder of Eladio Del Valle. Other irrefutable documentary evidence that began to emerge showed that Clay Shaw, despite his denials, was in fact a CIA asset and part of a CIA organization of interest called Permindex.

    In Destiny Betrayed, Jim DiEugenio underscores other Shaw links with the CRC and with Banister, CIA-cleared doctor Ed Ochsner, and Ed Butler, who are all connected to The Information Council of the Americas which appears to have played a role in the sheep-dipping of Oswald (see Ed Butler). He also shows that Shaw was cleared for a project called QK/ENCHANT during the Garrison investigation. Howard Hunt also belonged to this project , which was part of the CIA’s Domestic Operations Division, according to CIA insider Victor Marchetti.


    William Gaudet (Destiny Betrayed)

    William Gaudet

    Gaudet had worked for the CIA before he crossed paths with Oswald. He most likely continued freelancing for it. He worked virtually rent-free out of Clay Shaw’s International Trade Mart. He told the HSCA that he observed Oswald and Banister talking on a street corner on a number of occasions. Gaudet links up with many in the Banister network.

    And then there is this little plum, according to author Anthony Summers: Gaudet … happened to be next in line to Oswald when Oswald applied for his Mexican tourist visa.

    It seems plausible that Gaudet played a part in monitoring Oswald, perhaps for the benefit of Clay Shaw.


    Dean Andrews (Jim Garrison)

    Lawyer Dean Andrews was called by Shaw under the pseudonym Clay Bertrand, and given instructions to represent Oswald, as told by Garrison in his famous interview with Playboy:

    A New Orleans lawyer, Dean Andrews, told the Warren Commission that a few months before the assassination of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald and a group of “gay Mexicanos” came to his office and requested Andrews’ aid in having Oswald’s Marine Corps undesirable discharge changed to an honorable discharge; Oswald subsequently returned alone with other legal problems.

    Dean Andrews

    Andrews further testified that the day after President Kennedy was assassinated, he received a call from Clay Bertrand, who asked him to rush to Dallas to represent Oswald. Andrews claims he subsequently saw Bertrand in a New Orleans bar, but Bertrand fled when Andrews approached him. This was intriguing testimony, although the Warren Commission dismissed it out of hand; and in 1964, Mark Lane traveled to New Orleans to speak to Andrews. He found him visibly frightened. “I’ll take you to dinner,” Andrews told Lane, “but I can’t talk about the case. I called Washington and they told me that if I said anything, I might get a bullet in the head.” For the same reason, he has refused to cooperate with my office in this investigation. The New York Times reported on February 26th that “Mr. Andrews said he had not talked to Mr. Garrison because such talk might be dangerous, but added that he believed he was being ‘tailed.’” Andrews told our grand jury that he could not say Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand and he could not say he wasn’t. But the day after NBC’s special, Andrews broke his silence and said, yes, Clay Shaw is not Clem Bertrand and identified the real Clay Bertrand as Eugene Davis. The only trouble is, Andrews and Davis have known each other for years and have been seen frequently in each other’s company. Andrews has lied so often and about so many aspects of this case that the New Orleans Parish grand jury has indicted him for perjury. I feel sorry for him, since he’s afraid of getting a bullet in his head, but he’s going to have to go to trial for perjury. [Andrews has since been convicted.]


    Sergio Arcacha Smith (Destiny Betrayed – Jim Garrison – JFK: The Cuba Files)

    Arcacha Smith is considered by many to be one of the leading organizers of the Cuban exiles who probably played a role in the assassination. He is perhaps also the Cuban exile with the most links with suspected participants from the mob, intelligence and business communities. He was sprung from Cuba by New Orleans lawyer Guy Johnson, an Office of Naval Intelligence reserve Officer and friend of both Guy Banister and Clay Shaw. The CIA selected him to be a key leader of Cuban exiles as a representative of the Cuban Revolutionary Council that was created by Howard Hunt as an umbrella organization of many Cuban exile groups such as Alpha 66 and the DRE. It is in this role that he befriended David Ferrie who he worked with in CIA Bay of Pigs training of Cuban exiles. According to Richard Case Nagell, Arcacha Smith, along with his right-hand man Carlos Quiroga, were among those setting Oswald up to take the fall.

    Sergio Arcacha Smith

    When in New Orleans he associated closely with Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Doctor Alton Ochsner. Gordon Novel, who later played a role in sabotaging the Shaw trial, claims that David Phillips participated in at least one meeting where Smith and Banister were in attendance. Arcacha Smith helped found the Friends of Democratic Cuba, the organization that borrowed Oswald’s name when he was in Russia and connects Arcacha Smith to Banister, Shaw and Ferrie. Jim Garrison discovered that this group worked closely in sync with New Orleans FBI agents Regis Kennedy and Warren DeBrueys, who were also monitoring Oswald. Jack Martin, who worked for Banister, claimed that he had been introduced to Oswald in the presence of Arcacha Smith.

    Arcacha Smith also interacted with mobster Carlos Marcello and oilman H.L. Hunt, who saw him as a good contact for when Cuba would be won back. Cuban intelligence placed him in the top twelve suspects in the conspiracy.

    After David Ferrie’s mysterious death, Garrison tried to extradite Arcacha Smith out of Texas for questioning under oath. This was blocked by Texas Governor John Connally, and the world never heard from one of the assassination’s most important witnesses.


    Carlos Bringuier, Carlos Quiroga, Celso Hernandez and Frank Bartes (Destiny BetrayedThe Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend – Spartacus)

    Bringuier was part of the DRE, a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy group. Bringuier, based in New Orleans, was placed in charge of DRE publicity and propaganda. According to Bringuier, the following summarizes his strange encounters with Oswald:

    Carlos Bringuier

    On August 5, 1963, Oswald walks into Carlos Bringuier’s shop and starts up a conversation with him about wanting to help in the fight against Castro. Bringuier does not trust him and refuses his help. The next day Oswald drops off a copy of a Marine manual; on August 9. 1963, Oswald, while leafleting FPCC flyers on Canal Street, drew the ire of Bringuier and his Cuban associates Celso Hernandez and Miguel Cruz. Bringuier did the swinging while Oswald tried to block his blows. Within a few minutes all four were arrested for disturbing the peace; Oswald spent the night in jail while the other three were quickly let go; Oswald is then interviewed on a Bill Stuckey show along with Bringuier where his Marxist and FPCC credentials were discussed for all to hear.

    Through this episode Oswald’s persona was archived on tape for strategic distribution on the day of the assassination. Bringuier himself wrote up an article that was published the day after the assassination that described this experience which he used as a call to arms against Castro. Oswald had actually described this event on August fourth, before it happened, to the head office of the FPCC, proving that it was staged. Bringuier’s links to intelligence were numerous. According to E. Howard Hunt, the DRE was started by David Phillips, who we will see is the CIA career employee who has the most links with Oswald. The DRE was eventually overseen in 1963 by George Joannides, a fact which was kept hidden from the HSCA when he became the CIA liaison to that committee and directly sabotaged investigation efforts.

    Arcacha Smith, Manuel Gil,
    & Carlos Quiroga

    According to Richard Case Nagell, a Bringuier colleague who played a role in setting Oswald up as a patsy was Carlos Quiroga. A Jim Garrison polygraphed interrogation of Quiroga and other research proved that Quiroga knew Banister and Sergio Arcacha Smith, had met Oswald more than once, and had supplied Oswald with Fair Play for Cuba literature on the orders of Carlos Bringuier. Quiroga was shown to be lying when he claimed to have met Oswald only once in an attempt to infiltrate the FPCC New Orleans Chapter.

    One of the Cuban exiles arrested during the so-called skirmish was Celso Hernandez, who may have met Oswald before.   According to Bill Simpich’s research, the CIA examined Celso Hernandez as a Castro penetration agent:

    There is an intriguing report of FPCC member Oswald being arrested with Celso Hernandez in New Orleans in late 1962. The ID of Hernandez was made years later and is admittedly shaky. The ID of Oswald is more substantive, as he id’d himself to the police as an FPCC member –– but he was living in the Dallas area. The story is that the two men were picked up at the lakefront in Celso’s work truck, owned by an electronics firm that was Celso’s employer. 

    The most important thing is that right about this time, Bill Harvey –– who worked both the wiretapping side and the Cuban beat for the CIA during 1962 –– was tipped off on 10/1/62 that Celso Hernandez might be a communist.  This kicked off an investigation that revealed in the autumn of 1963 that there was a left-wing Celso and a right-wing Celso, and a brother and sister who couldn’t agree on who was who. Oswald and Celso Hernandez were arrested together again in August 1963.  What we do know is that throughout this era, Hernandez was under close scrutiny as a possible pro-Castro infiltrator.

    While Oswald and Bringuier were in court after their altercation, a sympathizer and friend of Bringuier’s, Frank Bartes showed up to offer moral support. This Cuban exile went on to conduct anti-Castro press relations.

    Bartes just happened to be the CRC leader of New Orleans based in a building near Banister. He was suspected of holding meetings later on Camp Street, with perhaps Oswald present and other persons of interest like Sergio Arcacha Smith. While this is mind-boggling enough, in 1993 the ARRB released files confirming that Bartes was an informant to the FBI agent who just happened to be monitoring Oswald, Warren DeBrueys.

    (Author’s comment: This takes the cake!)


    Jesse Core (Destiny Betrayed)

    Core was Clay Shaw’s right-hand man who was present during the incident on Canal Street and Oswald’s leafleting near the Trade Mart. He contacted Shaw’s friends at WDSU TV. He also is the one who warned his team about the blunder by Oswald of placing Banister’s address on some of the literature he was handing out.

    John Quigley and Warren DeBrueys (Destiny Betrayed – Joan Mellen – Sylvia Meagher)

    After the altercation with Bringuier, it was New Orleans police Lieutenant Frank Martello who questioned Oswald first. The Warren Commission seemed to dismiss his testimony that Oswald: “… seemed to have set them up, so to speak, to create an incident …”.

    While under arrest, Oswald made a bizarre request. He asked to see an FBI agent. One would think a true Marxist/FPCC recruiter would want to avoid such an encounter at all costs. It’s more likely that Oswald knew he would be joined by a friendly party he could pass on information to and who might spring him from jail without him having to pay bail. Just as interesting, the FBI sent agent John Quigley, who spent between ninety minutes and three hours with Oswald. It’s safe to say that they were not discussing Bringuier simply being mean to the alleged communist.

    Quigley stated that Martello told him that Oswald wanted to pass on information about the FPCC to him. Joan Mellen’s research finds that Oswald actually asked specifically for Warren DeBrueys. DeBrueys, who ran Bartes as an informant, would further nail down the real reason Oswald started an FPCC chapter in a hostile place like New Orleans. William Walter, an employee at the New Orleans FBI office, claimed to have seen an FBI informant file of Oswald with DeBrueys’ name on it.

    Warren DeBrueys

    Coupled with the communist witch-hunts taking place out of Banister’s office, the FBI and CIA FPCC penetration operations that were in full-swing, and the fact that Quigley’s colleague, Warren DeBrueys, was in charge of monitoring the New Orleans FPCC chapter –– whose one and only member was Oswald –– it is only normal that this event has been interpreted by many as an intelligence officer interacting with an informant. The same informant who was helping Banister and would later give a note to Dallas FBI agent James Hosty that was so provocative that Hosty was asked to destroy it, and which became an explosive topic for the Church Committee.

    In his questioning of DeBrueys, Schweiker clearly showed disbelief in Oswald the communist having a Camp Street address for his FPCC activities, something the FBI agent fluffed off by saying that perhaps Oswald had a sense of humor.


    Arnesto Rodriguez (Joan Mellen)

    The number of links between DeBrueys and Oswald are to say the least impressive. For our next Oswald intel contact let us return to a Joan Mellen essay:

    124 Camp Street

    Supporting the conclusion that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assassination is the fact that in New Orleans Oswald associated only with people with intelligence connections, beginning with Arnesto Rodriguez, an FBI informant with family members rooted in the CIA’s clandestine services. Rodriguez was one of FBI Special Agent Warren DeBrueys’ informants. One day Oswald appeared at Rodriguez’s office at the International Trade Mart building at 124 Camp Street. He wanted to help the Cubans, Oswald said. He wanted to be part of the training camps. Rodriguez was suspicious. Who had sent Oswald to him? he wondered. How did Oswald know that there was “a training camp across the lake from us, north of Lake Pontchartrain?” It was top secret at the time, yet Oswald knew about it.

    Author’s Note: This writer does not agree at this point that this gives evidence that the CIA, as an organization, was behind the assassination. The relationships indicated here show so far that Oswald was linked to intelligence-related covert activities (such as infiltrating the FPCC to discredit it or to identify Castro sympathizers or to gain eventual entry into Cuba.)


    Orestes Pena, Joseph Oster, David Smith, Juan Valdes and Wendell Roache (Bill Simpich)

    orestespena
    Orestes Pena

    DeBrueys’ relationship with Oswald reaches a whole other dimension of intensity according to another one of his informants, Orestes Pena. He also connects Oswald with Customs and the INS. Relying on Church Committee testimonies, Bill Simpich wrote the following in the Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend part 9:

    Curiously, the evidence that Oswald collaborated with Customs is stronger than with any other agency. Cuban exile Orestes Pena testified that he saw Oswald chatting on a regular basis with FBI Cuban specialist Warren DeBrueys, David Smith at Customs, and Wendell Roache at INS. Pena told the Church Committee that Oswald was employed by Customs.   Informant Joseph Oster went farther, saying that Oswald’s handler was David Smith at Customs. Church Committee staff members knew that David Smith “was involved in CIA operations.” Orestes Pena’s handler Warren DeBrueys admitted he knew David Smith. Oswald was also frequently seen with Juan Valdes, who described himself as a “customs house broker”. 

    Orestes Pena also claimed that DeBrueys, who admitted arguing with Pena, tried to intimidate him with respect to what he had witnessed.


    Ed Butler and Bill Stuckey (Destiny Betrayed – Ed Haslam)

    Carlos Bringuier with Ed Butler

    Ed Butler was the director of INCA, the Information Council of the Americas, a right-wing, CIA-associated propaganda outfit. Doctor Alton Ochsner and the Reilly Coffee Company were among its chief sponsors.

    The Canal Street incident led to Oswald being part of a debate on WDSU reporter Bill Stuckey’s weekly radio program called Latin Listening Post. Later, Butler and Carlos Bringuier were also invited to debate Oswald about his Marxist views on a show called Conversation Carte Blanche. Stuckey claimed that his show helped destroy the FPCC in New Orleans. It is during this show that Oswald let slip that he was under the protection of the government while in Russia.

    INCA – WDSU
    “Conversation Carte Blanche”

    Both Butler and Stuckey were briefed in advance about Oswald’s defection to Russia: Stuckey by the FBI, Butler by the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC). Therefore they were able to ambush Oswald and expose him as a Soviet defector, which compromised his debate position as one who desired “fair play” for Cuba. The records of this show were used immediately after the assassination (through Butler and Bringuier) to paint Oswald as the lone-nut Marxist. In fact, Butler was flown up to Washington within 24 hours to talk to the leaders of the HUAC.

    Ed Butler is also the one who helped link Gordon Novel to Arcacha Smith and David Phillips. According to author Ed Haslam, he also became the secret custodian of Banister’s files years after his death.


    Leopoldo and Angel (HSCA – Dick Russell – Joan Mellen – Larry Hancock)

    Before commenting on our next two intelligence-linked Oswald contacts, let us review how they may have been involved in the Sylvia Odio incident as described by the HSCA:

    Silvia Odio

    The Commission investigated (Mrs. Odio’s) statements in connection with its consideration of the testimony of several witnesses suggesting that Oswald may have been seen in the company of unidentified persons of Cuban or Mexican background. Mrs. Odio was born in Havana in 1937 and remained in Cuba until 1960; it appears that both of her parents are political prisoners of the Castro regime. Mrs. Odio is a member of the Cuban Revolutionary Junta (JURE), an anti-Castro organization. She testified that late in September 1963, three men came to her apartment in Dallas and asked her to help them prepare a letter soliciting funds for JURE activities. She claimed that the men, who exhibited personal familiarity with her imprisoned father, asked her if she were “working in the underground,” and she replied that she was not. She testified that two of the men appeared to be Cubans, although they also had some characteristics that she associated with Mexicans. Those two men did not state their full names, but identified themselves only by their fictitious underground “war names.” Mrs. Odio remembered the name of one of the Cubans as “Leopoldo.” The third man, an American, allegedly was introduced to Mrs. Odio as “Leon Oswald,” and she was told that he was very much interested in the Cuban cause. Mrs. Odio said that the men told her that they had just come from New Orleans and that they were then about to leave on a trip. Mrs. Odio testified that the next day Leopoldo called her on the telephone and told her that it was his idea to introduce the American into the underground “because he is great, he is kind of nuts.” Leopoldo also said that the American had been in the Marine Corps and was an excellent shot, and that the American said the Cubans “don’t have any guts … because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the freedom of Cuba actually.

    Because this story was corroborated by her sister, and Odio had talked to others about it before the assassination and remained consistent throughout the years, the HSCA concluded that she was credible:

    It appears that Silvia Odio’s testimony is essentially credible. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of corroborating witnesses, there is no doubt that three men came to her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro Cuban organization. From a judgment of the credibility of both Silvia and Annie Odio, it must be concluded that there is a strong probability that one of the men was or appeared to be Lee Harvey Oswald. No conclusion about the significance of that visit could be reached. The possibilities were considered that Oswald actually had some association with JURE, the anti-Castro group headed by Manolo Ray, and that Oswald wanted it to appear that he had that association in order to implicate the group, politically a left-of-center Cuban organization, in the Kennedy assassination.

    Some researchers interpret the goals of this highly incriminating, Warren-Commission-debunking incident as 1) a further attempt to sheep-dip Oswald as anti-Kennedy and 2) a ploy to link the Cuban exile group JURE that Odio was connected to with Oswald. For the Kennedys seemed to favor this left-leaning organization over others that were much closer to the intelligence networks. Richard Case Nagell revealed that Leopoldo and Angel were war names for two Cuban exiles who had also, in the spring of 1963, looked into the possibility of setting up an executive of the Los Angeles chapter of the FPCC called Vaughn Marlowe.

    Joan Mellen’s research has led her to believe that they were Cuban exiles Angelo Murgado and Bernardo De Torres. 

    Angelo Murgado and a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, in September, were the men who traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. (Mrs. Odio testified that the three traveled together although Angelo says that when he and Leopoldo, who drove from New Orleans together, arrived at Sylvia Odio’s, Oswald was already there, sitting in the apartment. That “Leopoldo” and Angelo both knew Oswald, there is no doubt) …

    “Leopoldo” was Bernardo de Torres, who testified before the HSCA with immunity granted to him by the CIA, so that he was not questioned about the period of time leading up to the Kennedy assassination, as the CIA instructed the Committee on what it could and could not ask this witness. Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA buried the anti-Castro theme, and never explored what Bobby Kennedy might have known.

    Bernardo De Torres

    Although her conclusion, to put it mildly, is not shared by all pro-conspiracy researchers, many do consider them –– especially De Torres –– to be persons of interest in the JFK assassination. De Torres’ ties to the CIA were later confirmed by his daughter. Larry Hancock in Someone Would Have Talked identifies other key links: De Torres is known to have associated with several of Hemming’s Interpen members and he was well acquainted with Frank Fiorini/Sturgis. De Torres also had strong operational contacts in Mexico City all the way up to Miguel Nazar Haro in Mexican police intelligence. Haro was later revealed as a key individual in drug trafficking into the U.S. and has been associated with both Sam Giancana and Richard Cain. An FBI report on De Torres from the 1970’s refers to his “high level contacts” with the CIA, but this is otherwise unsubstantiated (unexplained is perhaps a better description).

    After the assassination, De Torres infiltrated the Garrison investigation and played a key role in messing up his efforts. In 1977, the HSCA came to believe that he may have played a role in the assassination: “De Torres has pictures of Dealey Plaza in a safe-deposit box,” a HSCA report states. “These pictures were taken during the assassination of JFK.”


    Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue (State Secret – The Lopez Report)

    Duran worked at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City and received “Oswald” on September 27th 1963 when he talked about his plans to visit Cuba and then move to the Soviet Union and asked for a visa. She was suspicious of him and instructed him to go through the Russian embassy instead. It is during this episode that the CIA Mexico City station used imposters to create phoney telephone calls between a fake Oswald and workers at the Russian embassy exchanging compromising information that could be used to position Oswald as a communist assassin who had received help from either the Cubans, Russians or both.

    Silvia Duran

    Suspiciously, the CIA could not produce any photos of Oswald’s five entrances and exits as surveyed by their cameras. They claim that these were all out of order during the two days of Oswald’s visits. David Phillips lied under oath to HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague by claiming that the tapes of these calls had been recycled. It was proven that several investigators had heard at least one recording on the weekend of the assassination. They confirmed that the voice on the tape had survived and was not Oswald’s. This impersonation, followed by the obfuscation, is one of the most important choke points in the whole case.

    After the assassination, Sylvia Duran was picked up by Mexican police, on order of Win Scott –– chief of the Mexico City station, and forcefully interrogated. The CIA had been monitoring her and knew she had an affair with Cuban ambassador to the United Nations Carlos Lechuga. Furthermore, through a made-up story by CIA operative June Cobb, Duran was accused of have had a fling with Oswald.

    Eusebio Azcue

    It is believed that the CIA had perhaps even recruited Duran according to the Lopez Report: “the circumstantial evidence tends to indicate that Duran had a relationship with Mexican or American intelligence [and] cannot be dismissed.

    Eusebio Azcue, a co-worker of Duran, also met “Oswald” when he was in the office. Curiously, he described him as short and blond, which corresponds to Cuban photograph of the visitor. In State Secret, Bill Simpich makes the argument that Azcue may have been a CIA-linked case officer of another FPCC-related potential patsy called Santiago Garriga who would have penetrated the FPCC for Bill Harvey while David Phillips was running the FPCC monitoring and discrediting project called AM/SANTA.


    Antonio Veciana (Dick Russell – JFK: The Cuban Files – Gaeton Fonzi)

    For our next person of interest let us refer to renowned researcher Dick Russell, who was one of the first to interview Veciana (From “Interview with an assassin”):

    Alpha 66’s Cuban leader Antonio Veciana claimed that at one of his hundred or so meetings with Bishop, Oswald was there. “I always thought Bishop was working with Oswald during the assassination,” Veciana told Russell. Veciana’s cousin worked for Castro’s intelligence service and after the assassination Bishop wanted Veciana to bribe his cousin into saying that he met with Oswald, in order to fabricate an Oswald-Castro connection.

    veciana
    Antonio Veciana

    Investigators never established for sure that Bishop and Phillips were one and the same, but descriptions of Bishop’s appearance and mannerisms mirrored Phillips’. Veciana drew a sketch of his old controller and Senator Richard Schweiker, a member of the assassination committee, recognized it as Phillips.

    When the select committee’s star investigator Gaeton Fonzi finally brought Veciana and Phillips together, the two started acting weird around each other. After a short conversation in Spanish, Phillips bolted. Witnesses to the encounter swear that a look of recognition swept Veciana’s visage, but Veciana denied that Phillips was his case officer of more than a decade earlier.

    Veciana’s reluctance to make the ID, Fonzi theorized, was related to two unfortunate events that had befallen him of late: one, he was convicted of running drugs and suspected that Bishop set him up to silence him; two, he was shot in the head. Veciana’s desire to clear his drug rap and avoid absorbing another bullet may have had something to do with the fact that he would not rat on his old benefactor.

    Fonzi was proven right posthumously by a letter Veciana sent to his widow Marie, interviews Veciana gave and a book he has since written confirming that Bishop and Phillips were one and the same. Schweiker did not find Phillips’ denials of knowing Veciana credible; he was unconvinced by this evidence. He found it difficult to believe Phillips would not have known the leader of Alpha 66. Especially as Phillips had been in charge of covert action in Cuba when Alpha 66 was established. Another CIA agent who worked in Cuba during this period claimed that Phillips used the code name Maurice Bishop.

    According to Veciana, after the assassination, Phillips tried to convince him to get a relative of his in Mexico City to claim he had seen Oswald receiving money from Castro agents.

    (Author’s comment: Because Alpha 66 was the most active and reliable Cuban exile group involved with Castro assassination attempts; because Richard Case Nagell and Cuban intelligence leader Fabian Escalante both fingered Tony Cuesta, another Alpha 66 higher-up, as having been involved in the assassination; and because it is difficult to believe that Phillips would let himself be seen with Oswald by non-participants in a plot; and because of reports of Oswald being present in a Dallas Alpha 66 safe-house, and because of Oswald’s probable links to other prominent people in the Cuban exile community such as Orlando Bosch, this author wonders what other details could be brought forward by Veciana.)


    David Phillips

    Out of all the CIA-linked people that crossed paths with Oswald, Phillips is perhaps the most important. Because of his rank and the multi-faceted way he links with Oswald beyond the Veciana reports, as well as the government investigators belief of Veciana, this author has reserved a special section to cover this highly revealing relationship that most historians do not even have a clue about. They are not aware of what people like Richard Schweiker came to believe, because they are frozen in the Warren Commission era which set in motion what has been perhaps the U.S.’s worst case ever of perpetuated “Fake News” and Fake History.

    Manuel Orcarberrio

    Manuel Rodriguez Orcarberrio (JFK: The Cuban Files)

    According to Escalante, Alpha 66 opened a chapter managed by Orcarberrio in Dallas in September 1963 on Harlendale Street, where Oswald was seen a few days before the crime by an informant of Dallas Deputy Sherriff Buddy Walthers.


    Pedro Charles and friends (JFK: The Cuban Files)

    One rarely discussed subject about the assassination are the letters from Cuba sent to Oswald, media outlets and Robert Kennedy which were received or intercepted shortly after the murder. A “Pedro Charles” (probably a fictitious name) signed one of these letters and is referred to in another as a Castro agent. These letters suggested that Oswald was being assisted by Cuban agents. The FBI found that, though different people signed off on some, they were written from the same typewriter and concluded they were a hoax perhaps perpetrated by anti-Castro rebels in Cuba hoping to encourage a show-down with the U.S.

    Cuban Intelligence had a different take on this mystery. They found it resembled the Mexico City disinformation tactics used by David Phillips and concluded that it was an intelligence operation. Indeed, the letters refer to Oswald’s travels to Dallas, Mexico City, Houston and Miami which would have been known to very few people at the time the letters were sent (“franked” from November 23rd to November 30th). Also analyzed was the Cuban postal system, which presented severe logistical problems around the dates the letters were written, franked and received and were never explained in U.S. investigations.


    John Hurt (Dr. Grover B. Proctor, Jr.)

    On Saturday night November 23rd Oswald placed a call that even the head of the HSCA described as very troublesome. Doctor Grover B. Proctor, Jr. wrote a comprehensive article about that phone call. It shows that Lee Oswald tried to make a phone call on Saturday night that the Secret Service did not allow to go through. Proctor then investigated why:

    Surell Brady, a Senior Staff Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), summarized Mrs. Treon’s version of events this way:

    Mrs. Treon stayed on the line. She said she was therefore able to hear everything Oswald said and she is sure he asked for the name John Hurt and gave the two numbers. She said that as she listened she wrote the information down on a regular telephone call slip. However, since Mrs. Swinney actually handled the call, Mrs. Treon signed her [Mrs. Swinney’s] name to the slip she intended to keep as a souvenir. She said the notations on the slip of “DA” and “CA” stand for did not answer and cancelled, because the call was never actually put through. Mrs. Treon said she never retrieved any paper from the wastebasket on which Mrs. Swinney supposedly entered the information.

    Billie & J. D. Hurt

    Had Mrs. Treon not kept the LD call slip that she filled out as a souvenir, this story would be no more than the most minor of footnotes in the tragedy of the Kennedy Assassination. However, years later, when the identity became known of the man to whom Oswald was trying to place a call, its significance would rise to the “very troublesome” and “deeply disturbing” levels ascribed to it by HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey.

    Grover goes on to write:

    What Mrs. Treon recorded for history on her LD slip is that Lee Oswald requested to call a “John Hurt” in Raleigh, North Carolina. But what would become important is the fact that the John Hurt who had the first phone number on the slip was a former Special Agent in U.S. Army Counterintelligence. In short, Oswald attempted to place a call from the Dallas jail to a member of the American Intelligence community on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, but was mysteriously prevented from completing the call.


    Jack Ruby and Robert McKeown (John Armstrong website)

    As we can see, the claim that Oswald was a loner with no ties with intelligence agencies is one of the largest deceptions put forth by the Warren Commission. The description of his murderer by the Warren Commission as another deranged person with no mob ties comes very close. For example, the phone calls that he was part of in the weeks leading up to the murder and that were analyzed by the HSCA revealed a frenzy of communications with known mobsters.

    1. His first visitor when he was jailed was Dallas head-mobster Joe Campisi.
    2. His idol and acquaintance Lewis McWillie was a mobster who became an associate of Mafia Don Santos Trafficante and Meyer Lansky, leaders in the CIA-mob alliance to take out Castro.
    3. There is strong evidence that Ruby visited Trafficante when the latter was in a Cuban jail and that he tried to free him.

    The use of known-mobsters by the Warren Commission to vouch for Ruby not being linked to the mob is not re-assuring to say the least.

    Ruby’s ties to the mob are what got Robert Blakey, head of the HSCA, to write a book about organized crime being behind the assassination.

    Ruby at press conference

    Did Jack Ruby cross paths with Oswald before he stalked him during his weekend in jail? According to reporter Dorothy Kilgallen, who interviewed Ruby after he was arrested, at least ten people signed affidavits saying they saw Ruby with Oswald. She claimed that she was going to blow the lid off the case before dying mysteriously.

    During a press conference by Dallas attorney Henry Wade, where he claimed that Oswald was part of the Free Cuba Committee, it was Ruby masquerading as a journalist who corrected him by saying it was the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    John Armstrong is the researcher who has done the most investigation on the case of two Oswalds, one he calls Harvey (the patsy) and the other Lee. It is known that Oswald was often times impersonated. He presents the case that while Harvey was in New Orleans, Lee was a frequent client in Ruby’s Carousel Club.

    Another link between Oswald and Ruby comes through their interactions with a gun smuggler and friend of Castro. Robert McKeown, who had been jailed for these activities, at one time got a call from Ruby who tried to use these ties in his efforts to convince the Castro regime to free Trafficante. McKeown did not want to get involved.

    Robert McKeown

    In his website-article, Armstrong describes this stunning event: Robert McKeown watched as a car arrived, parked, and two men got out and walked toward his home. One of the men introduced himself to McKeown as Lee Oswald, and said that he wanted to purchase rifles. McKeown, who was still on a 5-year probation for selling arms, refused to sell guns to Lee Oswald. The two men left but returned a few minutes later and again asked McKeown to sell rifles, but he refused. Lee Oswald’s attempt to purchase rifles from Robert McKeown, who was a very close personal friend of Fidel Castro, was very significant and an obvious attempt by the conspirators to link Lee Oswald to Cuba.  

    Other than his links with Trafficante, what were Ruby’s links to intelligence? Here are some of the arguments John Armstrong brings forth:

    There are indications that Jack Rubenstein, of Chicago and Dallas, may have been hired as an informant for the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) to report on Communist Party activities. A memorandum written by a HUAC staff assistant on November 24, 1947 reads, “It is my sworn statement that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago noted as a potential witness for hearings of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities is performing information functions for the staff of Cong. Richard M. Nixon, Rep. of California. It is requested Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in those aforementioned hearings.”

    As a gun-runner for Cuban revolutionaries, Ruby’s links were monitored by the CIA. Some of his gun-running was done with a CIA operative called Donald Browder at a time when Customs and the CIA were not opposed to Castro’s revolution.

    Thomas Eli Davis III

    His ties with another gun-runner named Thomas Eli Davis brought forth this interesting connection Armstrong wrote about:

    When JFK was assassinated, Davis was in jail in Algiers, charged with running guns to a secret army terrorist movement then attempting to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle. Davis was released from jail through the intervention of the CIA’s foreign agent code-named “QJ/WIN,” who was identified by the top-secret CIA Inspector General’s Report as the “principle asset” in the Agency’s assassination program known as ZR/RIFLE.

    After Ruby’s arrest for killing Oswald, his defense attorney (Tom Howard) asked Ruby if he could think of anything that might damage his defense. Ruby responded and said there would be a problem if a man by the name of “Davis” should come up. Davis was later identified as Thomas Eli Davis III, a CIA-connected gun-runner and “soldier of fortune.” In December, 1963 the Moroccan National Security Police informed the US State Department that Davis was arrested for an attempted sale of firearms to a minor. When Davis was searched, the police found “a letter in his handwriting which referred in passing to Oswald and to the Kennedy assassination.” Ruby told Howard that “he had been involved with Davis, who was a CIA-connected gun runner entangled in anti-Castro efforts and that he (Ruby) had intended to begin a regular gun-running business with Davis.” … Tom Howard died of a heart attack within a year at age 48. The doctor, without an autopsy, said that he may have suffered a heart attack. But some reporters and friends thought Howard had been murdered.

    The HSCA, under Robert Blakey, was intent on covering up any CIA connection or gun-running activities connected with Ruby and failed to investigate the Ruby/Davis connection. They explained, in typical government prose, “Due to limitations of time and resources … it was not possible to confirm these (Seth Kantor’s) allegations.”

    Gerald Ford, in his otherwise uninformative book, Portrait of an Assassin, did reveal that Ruby had been an FBI informant. Before dying, Ruby made the claim that there was a high level conspiracy. The Warren Commission did not even want to question Ruby, when they finally did meet him they were not very probing to say the least!


    Synopsis

    There you have it folks … sixty-four people with whom Oswald had touch points, and, who also had either plausible, probable, or definite intelligence links. The list could be much longer because this author decided not to include certain witnesses who have not yet convinced enough researchers of their credibility. Furthermore, we do not know about all those who Oswald spent time with learning Russian, acquiring a Minolta camera, were connected to his U2 duties, were in Copenhagen on his return, and possibly in Montreal, and so forth.

    In part 2 of his excellent essay “Tokyo Legend? Oswald and Japan,” Kevin Coogan compared the investigation into two genuine defectors who embraced the Soviet Union almost one year after Oswald defected. On September 6, 1960, two former National Security Agency (NSA) employees named Bernon Mitchell and William Martin held a press conference in Moscow. The two mathematician/cryptographers formally announced their defection. As it so happened, the two men had earlier worked at the U.S. military base at Atsugi, Japan.

    Contrary to what happened with Oswald, in this case the level of alarm and degree of scrutiny were off the charts: The Mitchell-Martin defection was a tremendous shock to the NSA, which launched an internal investigation that involved speaking to some 450 witnesses. The FBI, the CIA, and military intelligence all worked the case. The inquiry included a microscopic look at both men’s earlier experiences in Japan.

    As we can see, not one stone was left unturned in getting to the bottom of what happened, something we are now seeing in the Trump-Russia meddling affair. The underlying assumption here is that all leads must be followed to the end no matter how much time it takes or how much it costs. In the case of the JFK assassination, the opposite happened: A lead’s merit needed to be justified in full in order to be followed up, while respecting budget and time constraints.

    Mark Lane found that intelligence’s investigation into Oswald’s defection was very shallow and pro forma. Schweiker added this telling insight: “The most important thing was that the intelligence agencies did all the wrong things if they were really looking for a conspiracy or to find out who killed John Kennedy.”

    Two comments from important witnesses further confirm this:

    Oswald, it was said, was the only Marine ever to defect from his country to another country, a Communist country, during peacetime. …  When the Marine Corps and American intelligence decided not to probe the reasons for the ‘defection,’ I knew then what I know now: Oswald was on an assignment in Russia for American intelligence.

    ~James Botelho, former roommate of Oswald who would later become a California judge, in an interview with assassination researcher Mark Lane

    When Oswald’s commanding officer John Donovan was questioned by the Warren Commission, he noted that they did everything they could to avoid exchanges about Oswald and the U2 program.

    In the next section we will explore where investigators should have gone had they followed up on these leads by focussing on one of the most important ones.


    Where There’s Smoke There’s Fire

    David Phillips (Larry Hancock – Destiny Betrayed)

    Concerning the CIA career officer who left the most intel fingerprints on Oswald, let us refer to Larry Hancock, who has written extensively about him, and from whose work we can conclude the following about his potential involvement in the conspiracy:

    A) He had the perfect credentials.

    David Atlee Phillips

    Phillips joined the CIA in 1950. He played a significant role in the CIA coup that removed Jacobo Arbenz, the president of Guatemala in 1954. An ex ad-man and actor, Phillips was a master at propaganda. According to Hancock, Phillips was part of a cadre of like-minded CIA officers that specialized in regime change. Some of the techniques involved featured use of surrogates, putting the blame on a foe, creating a scenario, including paper trails, files and fabrications that could be plausible, and compartmentalized logistics on a need to know basis. This cadre included persons of interest in the JFK assassination: E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, and William Harvey are some of the key names that also figure prominently in many of the assassination writings.

    There are reports Phillips worked with David Morales out of the JM/Wave Miami CIA station in attempts to remove Castro. Phillips helped launch Alpha 66, one of the most violent and active anti-Castro Cuban exile groups. He worked undercover in Cuba in 1959-60 when he recruited its leader Antonio Veciana. According to Howard Hunt, he was also involved with the DRE.

    B) He had the motive.

    He became one of many disillusioned officers who blamed and resented JFK after the failed Bay of Pigs and the firing of their popular chief Allen Dulles.

    He demonstrated his insubordination to Kennedy:  Phillips’ direction of Alpha 66 to attack Russian targets in Cuba was intended to provoke a direct U.S. –– Russian conflict which would result in the liberation of Cuba. Through Veciana, Phillips independently supported multiple unsanctioned assassination plots against Fidel Castro. Alpha 66, Veciana, Eddie Bayo and Tony Cuesta were not directed by the CIA but personally by Phillips. Phillips specifically told Veciana his goal was to provoke US intervention in Cuba by “putting Kennedy’s back to the wall.”

    C) His quasi-confessions.

    According to Larry Hancock, the author of Someone Would Have Talked, just before his death Phillips told Kevin Walsh, an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations: “My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers.” (Some books wrongly quote Phillips as saying: “My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people.”)

    David Atlee Phillips died of cancer on 7th July, 1988. He left behind an unpublished manuscript. The novel is about a CIA officer who lived in Mexico City. In the novel the character states: “I was one of those officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald … We gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba … I don’t know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the president’s assassination, but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt.”

    In his last conversation with his brother, who suspected him of being a conspirator and was pressing him on it, he refused to confirm his innocence and admitted being in Dallas on November 22nd 1963.

    D) E. Howard Hunt names him.

    In January 2004, E. Howard Hunt gave a taped interview with his son, Saint John Hunt, claiming that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the instigator of the assassination (coded The Big Event) of John F. Kennedy, and that it was organized by Phillips, Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis and David Sanchez Morales.

    E) His lies.

    He claimed to Fonzi that he had never met Veciana. How could the person who coordinated anti-Castro activities not know the Alpha 66 leader?

    He claimed to Richard Sprague (HSCA) under oath that tapes of Oswald had been routinely recycled:

    Phillips’ testimony was that there was no photograph of “Oswald” because the camera equipment had broken down that day and there was no audio tape of “Oswald’s” voice because they recycled their tapes every six or seven days. The problem with his story was, we had obtained a document, it was from the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, it was dated November 23rd, 1963, the very next day after the assassination. This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald for the past 17 hours approximately, have listened to the tape made on October 1st, by an individual identifying himself as Lee Henry Oswald inside the Russian Embassy, calling on the phone to someone inside the Cuban Embassy and the agents can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody.

    He professed ignorance to Dan Hardway (HSCA) about all the disinformation stories trying to link Oswald to Castro agents that were initiated by his assets.

    F) His omnipresence before, during and after Oswald’s demise.

    Oswald’s opening of an FPCC chapter in New Orleans when this organization was spiralling out of control and infested with informants and Oswald’s extremely provocative way of promoting his supposed views smacked of an operational ruse overseen by Phillips who was running a program called AM/SANTA that was designed to infiltrate and undermine the FPCC. In the article The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK, this author identified four other potential patsies who were FPCC-linked and who had travelled to Mexico City.

    Phillips admitted knowing New Orleans-based FBI agent Warren DeBrueys, who was monitoring the FPCC and most likely using Oswald as an informant. Richard Case Nagell’s FPCC-related activities with Oswald, with another potential patsy Vaughn Marlowe, and a few FPCC chapters, combined with his visits to Mexico City and hints he gave to a friend that he worked with Phillips, add further weight to the Phillips-FPCC-Oswald conduit.

    According to CIA-linked electronics wizard Gordon Novel, a person resembling Phillips, masquerading as an employee of the Double-Check Corporation, even attended a meeting along with Guy Banister and Sergio Arcacha Smith in Banister’s offices. Researcher Lisa Pease’s analysis led her to conclude that this person was in fact Phillips and Double-Check was a CIA front.

    Banister, Smith and Ferrie at one time helped train Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs near Lake Pontchartrain north of New Orleans on a CIA controlled site. In 1967, while the CIA was trying to keep this information hidden from Garrison, Phillips wrote a memo describing the status of that operation.

    Related to these training activities is, according to this author, one of the most mysterious pieces of evidence: a training film that was seen by a few HSCA investigators before it eventually disappeared. According to HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tanenbaum, he viewed a film of a CIA training camp in New Orleans. He brought in witnesses to identify certain people in the film. From the work done of it, he said that Oswald, Banister and Phillips were depicted in the film.

    E. Howard Hunt claimed that Phillips was a key person behind the DRE.  Phillips admitted helping it in its PR efforts. Carlos Bringuier of the DRE got into a fight with Oswald on Canal Street in August of 1963. He wrote a press release that was published the day after the assassination to position Castro as being behind Oswald; the fingerprints of Phillips became even more evident. The fact that George Joannides –– who took over DRE coordination activities from Phillips –– was inserted into the HSCA investigation by the CIA as a key liaison and thereafter started an obvious obfuscation operation underscores this suspicious event. Here is how HSCA investigator Dan Hardway described this situation:

    We have, since 1978, learned that George Joannides was running the propaganda shop at the CIA’s Miami JMWAVE Station in 1963. It is extremely unlikely that Mr. Joannides could have occupied that position and not have known, and worked with, David Phillips. In addition, in 1963, we now know, George Joannides was the case officer handling the DRE. In 1977 the CIA specifically denied that DRE had a case officer assigned when asked that question by the HSCA.

    Through Ed Butler and the CIA-associated INCA, Oswald’s apparent charade and his televised interview went a long way in painting his leftist persona to the public at large. INCA had been used by Phillips for propaganda purposes during the period leading up to the Bay of Pigs. Butler was quick to send recordings to key people the day of the assassination.

    Antonio Veciana, who was Phillips’ go-to guy in the Cuban exile community for some thirteen years also, over time named Phillips. He told Gaeton Fonzi he had seen him talk to Oswald in Dallas in September 1963. Phillips also tried to get Veciana to convince a relative of his in Mexico City to fabricate a story about seeing Oswald taking money from Castro agents.

    In October 1963, the CIA monitored the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City at the Cuban consulate in what appears to be a clear attempt to link him to Castro and the Soviets –– all this right under Phillips’ nose as he was based there. Phillips then was clearly involved with the manipulation of evidence (tapes, photos and transcripts) in the subsequent cover-up.

    On November 24 1963, Jack Ruby terminated Oswald, thus sealing his lips. Phillips’ close friend, Gordon McLendon, was a close friend of Jack Ruby.

    Right after the assassination, persons of interest like John Martino, Frank Sturgis and Phillips-linked contacts (Bringuier, Butler and journalist Hal Hendrix) began a “Castro was behind it” spin to the assassination.

    Following the assassination, it became obvious that Phillips was connected to a number of disinformation stories trying to link Oswald to Castro agents. HSCA investigator Dan Hardway called him out on it:

    Before our unexpurgated access was cut off by Joannides, I had been able to document links between David Phillips and most of the sources of the disinformation that came out immediately after the assassination about Oswald and his pro-Castro proclivities. I confronted Phillips with those in an interview at our offices on August 24, 1978. Phillips was extremely agitated by that line of questioning, but was forced to admit that many of the sources were not only former assets that he had managed, in the late 50’s and early 1960’s, but were also assets whom he was personally managing in the fall of 1963. Mr. Phillips was asked, but could not explain, why the information that came from anti-Castro Cuban groups and individuals pointing to Cuban connections, all seemed to come from assets that he handled personally, but acknowledged that that was the case.


    Conclusion

    So as we can see, the noose was getting very tight around the Phillips’ neck during the Church and HSCA investigations. By following leads as far as they could, investigators like Schweiker, Hart, Fonzi, Tanenbaum, Sprague, Hardway and Lopez were zeroing in on who was behind the plot. These real sleuths brought the ball forward: The Warren Commission was finally fully impeached and the outline of a conspiracy began taking shape.

    And just when they had suspects like Hunt and Phillips in their sights, a combination of factors took place that stalled and then stopped all progress. George H. W. Bush became head of the CIA and called the shots so as to protect the integrity of this all-American institution; HSCA leaders Sprague and Tanenbaum were forced out and a collegial working relationship with the CIA was then put in place by its new head Robert Blakey, and George Joannides was installed strategically to sabotage investigative efforts.

    Phillips was now off the hook.

    Moving forward, we do need to be cautious about how we interpret all of this. One may be tempted to conclude from this article that the CIA as an organization was complicit in killing the President. This in my opinion is highly doubtful and quite different from suspecting persons who can be linked to intelligence. When one goes over the names of the usual suspects, one is struck by their outlier status. It is also easy to imagine implication by someone in a ruse which ended up going in a completely unforeseen direction: For example DeBrueys using Oswald to weed out Castro sympathizers while having no clue that he was being set up to be a patsy could be quite plausible in this author’s opinion. It would be however quite natural for intelligence agencies to want to distance themselves from the assassination and its embarrassing implications.

    In 1993, the ARRB began ordering releases of declassified information. That information made all of this obvious to those who looked into the goldmine of new information. It added even more evidence that vindicated the authors who were discredited mercilessly by the pro-Warren Commission propaganda network. Absent from all this data-mining are the historians and journalists who are still frozen in the Warren Commission time-warp –– the same people who are fighting for their lives countering Donald Trump who has accused them of being peddlers of fake news.

    On a positive note, Randy Benson spoke with an historian who saw his recent documentary, The Searchers, and who admitted not knowing about all the post-Warren-Commission discoveries, and pledged to change his way of relating the assassination. My bet is that students who read his account will respect him, the way we should all show our respect to Richard Schweiker.

  • The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians’ Guide on how to Research his Assassination – with an addendum

    The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians’ Guide on how to Research his Assassination – with an addendum


    In an article JFK According to the History Textbooks, which we will call chapter one of the guide, written for CTKA in April 2016, this author showed how history books overwhelmingly portrayed the JFK assassination as one perpetrated by Oswald the Lone Nut. That article proved that the historians did very little research in the matter while basing their claims on the outdated and highly unreliable Warren Commission Report as well as a few books that backed that clearly discredited version of history. It was also argued that historians were not respecting their own code of conduct according to the American Historical Association (AHA) by, among other breaches, woefully ignoring the historical record.

    In a second article JFK and the Unforgivable, also written for CTKA, which we will call chapter two, historians were shown what they could easily learn from the six official governmental investigations that looked into the murder, and the Howard Hunt vs Liberty Lobby civil case. These contrary insights were forthcoming from the reports themselves bolstered by affirmations from a very important cross-section of investigation insiders who were closely involved and were not motivated by book sales nor fame-seeking. The results clearly underscore that the historical record indicates that the Warren Commission Report is discredited; the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and other investigative bodies did not do their jobs diligently in investigating the assassination; they hid crucial information from commissions and even helped obfuscate in some cases; the Magic Bullet explanation is not believed by many; Ruby and Oswald are not the loners depicted by the Warren Commission; there was a probable conspiracy; that there is a lot more to this story that is contrary to what captive audiences of high-school students are being asked to swallow.

    Question for some of the lawyer members of the investigative community out there: Is this even legal?

    The JFK assassination is a bit of a hobby for this author. After reading books like Crossfire and seeing the movie JFK over a number of years, it was only a few years ago, when I came upon Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, that I began a steady diet of reading, searching the web and listening to online programs about the whodunit of the century that mainstream media and historians won’t touch with a ten-foot pole. Most of the primary research I have done has been dedicated to learning how historians have been conducting themselves on this issue. The answer is: poorly.

    Chapters one and two of the guide will allow novices and historians or journalists who might someday be motivated by the self-actualization needs Maslow has theorized about to get to the point where they should no longer take the Warren Commission’s conclusions seriously and realize that the Lone Nut version of events is what is really on the fringe according to what the major investigations and their investigators have revealed. By reading these articles and following up on their sources and hyperlinks, in less than twenty hours they will be brought up to speed on where the government and their representatives stand.

    Chapter three will help readers go to the next steps: 1) Finding out who the credible independent researcher/authors are so that they can focus on the more reliable up to date work and begin to understand the more credible alternatives to the Crazy Kid Oswald version; 2) Defining persons and events of interest in this case that would be worth investigating further so as to actually solve this crime.

    We will give a concrete example of how this can be done by combining the work of researchers around a specific topic and show how this can synergize the analysis of the case. The topic of choice in this analysis is: what three previous assassination attempts on JFK within less than six months of the murder tell us about what really happened in Dallas.

    The independent authors: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!

    With the thousands of books that have been written about the JFK assassination, interested parties have a daunting task of separating the 1) Useless (most of the books), from the 2) Mostly bad but with some nuggets of important information, from the 3) Mostly good, even though there are minor elements that are contestable (which are often used by obfuscators to try and destroy the whole body of work).

    Throughout the years, I like many others, spent too much time on unsound work, rumors, false flags and rabbit holes: The limo driver shot Kennedy, Madeleine Brown stories, the Torbitt Document and so on. The number of hours wasted was reduced dramatically after I found key sources that helped me scout the researchers before listening to them further. Unfortunately, most historians choose to do the intellectually lazy thing about this problem by throwing in the towel which suggests that learning more about this monumental history altering event is simply not worth their time. So let’s try and help make things a bit easier for them.

    What helped me most in source selection for my reading was that there are a fair number of excellent online shows where authors come on to discuss their work and there are also excellent, specialized websites. Mainstream media does not offer this sort of opportunity. Two of the shows that stand out for me are Black Op Radio and JFKConversations because of the diversity and quality of their guests, the talent and knowledge of their hosts and their degree of specialization in the political murders of the sixties. Especially interesting with Black Op Radio is the archive section of over 800 shows along with the very useful show notes that link up with interesting sources. Its Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years video production for the 2013 50-year anniversary of the JFK assassination is one of the landmark sources for those interested in the topic as it brings together many of the leading authorities on the assassination who present short segments of compelling evidence of a conspiracy all focused in one of their areas of specialty. CTKA is a go-to site (soon to be upgraded I understand) with up to date developments and an archive of very well researched Probe Magazine (and other) articles as well as insightful and balanced book, documentary and film reviews. Also the yearly conferences about JFK such as COPA and Lancer are often filmed and available on the web and well worth following.

    It is through these sources and others that one can get to really know serious researchers like Malcolm Blunt, Joan Mellen, David Talbot, Jim DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, Larry Hancock, John Armstrong, Jim Marrs, Gaeton Fonzi, John Newman, Fletcher Prouty, Russ Baker, Vince Palamara, Cyril Wecht, and many others and to find out about their areas of specialty before going on to reading some of their work.

    The Education Forum is an excellent discussion network that brings together high level researchers and thinkers and allows one to delve deeper into a topic. Caution: Many of these discussion forums are infiltrated by disturbers.

    Spartacus Educational, in my opinion, is a good, uncontaminated source for getting a snapshot about a particular character or event as well as insights into the sources. To look into primary data, Mary Ferrell Foundation has proven quite thorough and easy enough to navigate. There are many other excellent sources that one will naturally come to know if they start with these.

    I have not read enough books to make a top ten list, but I can confirm that by reading The Last Investigation, JFK and the Unspeakable, Destiny Betrayed, Nexus, Oswald and the CIA, The Devil’s Chessboard, Survivor’s Guilt, Reclaiming Parkland – to name some of the more recent work– one will get up to speed quickly even if one does not agree with the entirety of the works. The Oliver Stone movie JFK, even though there is some poetic license, The Killing of President Kennedy, The Last Word and Evidence of Revision are among the must-see films and documentaries on the topic that will bring one closer to the truth than what is written in the Warren Report.

    By studying these sources, novice researchers will understand why an overwhelming number of governmental reports and insiders have impeached the Warren Commission, mainstream media and most history books’ version of the assassination.

    Analyzing what has already been written and identifying chokeholds

    The amount of evidence that there is a conspiracy is devastating. The problem the research community faces is the amount of overkill that sometimes is debatable: examples include photo interpretation, some witness testimony, inside info from mistresses, supposed shooter confessions to name but a few. These abstract details tend to cloud the issue by deviating from what Malcolm Blunt calls chokeholds.

    Here are the ones I found most convincing:

    1. The debunking of the Magic Bullet theory
    2. What Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital witnesses saw (and Bethesda personnel as well) and what the Zapruder film showed
    3. The impersonation and attempted framing of Oswald in Mexico City a few weeks before the assassination
    4. The Silvia Odio incident
    5. Oswald’s relationship with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, Cuban exiles and Intelligence
    6. Jack Ruby’s connections, comportment and later statements
    7. CIA’s handling of Oswald’s files
    8. David Atlee Phillips’ connections to Oswald, post assassination propaganda and sheep-dipping
    9. The timely lack of security in a hostile environment during a threatening period
    10. The equally terrible investigation effort and investigation sabotage that followed
    11. The strong consensus of post-Warren Commission investigations and investigators/insiders that the Warren Commission version of events is full of holes

    In the second part of this article, we will add one that this author feels has lacked attention.

    L.A., Chicago, Tampa, ZRRifle and Executive Action M.O.s: what they tell us about Dallas and how they could tell us a whole lot more

    While there is a lot of disagreement among independent researchers on who is behind the assassination there is a consensus among many that what happened in Dealey Plaza had nothing to do with a commie misfit getting lucky with three difficult shots fired under six seconds with a terrible bolt-action rifle by an out of practice and at best mediocre shooter with no known motive who was shooting at a moving target with an obstructed view… Which is what the Warren Commission asked us to believe and what the historians, propagandists and journalists (HistProJos for short) have continued to propagate despite being completely contradicted by the most recent government investigations as well as compelling work done by some of the independent researchers.

    Many experts have described the assassination as an ambush in a setting that was perfectly chosen for triangulation sniping.

    Oswald’s past as a marine who had defected to Russia for over two years, showed his communist leanings by becoming an exaggeratedly visible member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and then visited the Cuban embassy and a Russian assassination head in Mexico City a few weeks before the assassination, all this was displayed as proof that he was an unstable murderer according to HistProJos. The JFK research community interprets all of the above as Oswald being the perfect subject to be a patsy who was in fact sheep-dipped.

    Shameful sleuth work

    “The FBI was …in the position of standing on the corner with our pockets open, waiting for someone to drop information into it…”

    ~ Former FBI Assistant director Alex Rosen Church Committee testimony

    This sad statement merely underscored the Church Committee and HSCA conclusions about the weak performance of the intelligence agencies in investigating this brutal murder. And also the mindless transfer of information to the Warren Commission, whose conclusions were unceremoniously impeached.

    One of the very first questions asked by investigators of a crime is: “Can you think of any incident that may have occurred (before the crime) that you find out of the ordinary or suspicious in any way?”

    Normally, previous attempts to murder the victim should get a diligent sleuth’s attention. In this case it would have led to investigating the attempts in L.A., Chicago and Tampa that occurred within less than six months preceding November 22, 1963. You will not find a whiff of any of these incidents in the Warren Report or the accompanying 26 volumes of evidence.

    Los Angeles, June, 1963

    Dick Russell in The Man Who Knew Too Much is perhaps the one who went the farthest in studying this plot to assassinate JFK, which would have culminated during the showing of PT 109 in Beverley Hills.

    Russell had two key sources. One was Richard Case Nagell who provided Jim Garrison with information about Oswald and the Dallas plot. He talked to Russell about Vaughn Marlowe -his second source- who was the one plotters were “considering ” for recruitment as the shooter in L.A., or more likely a patsy who could be linked to Castro, according to Nagell. He also said he witnessed Cuban exiles, including one “Leopoldo”, who may have been present during the Sylvia Odio incident, scouting Marlowe’s store.

    In the days leading up to the L.A. attempt, Nagell checked himself into a psychiatric ward so as to be isolated from the murder.

    Nagell was a Korean war hero, who joined Army intelligence in 1954 and then, he said, became a double agent for CIA. He made claims that an anti-Castro Cuban exile group he was monitoring had set its sights on Kennedy and would make it look like Castro was behind it, and that David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister and Oswald were part of the conspiracy. Oswald however would be set up to make it look like Castro was behind him -and him alone.

    Nagell, again fearing incrimination, faked a bank robbery in September of 1963 so as to be in jail when JFK’s assassination occurred.

    According to Larry Hancock: The items in Nagell’s possession that are available are amazingly similar to items also in the possession of Lee Oswald. They include:

    1. One miniature Minolta camera and developing kit.
    2. Fair Play for Cuba leaflets.
    3. The P.O. Box for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, Louisiana. The committee which had only one member. Lee Oswald.
    4. Cuban and Communist literature including the Crime against Cuba by Corliss Lament, one of the documents also being used in New Orleans by Lee Oswald.
    5. A notebook containing the unlisted telephone number of the Cuban embassy, the same number as one found in Oswald’s notebook.
    6. The notebook also contained names of individuals who would much later be identified as CIA personnel from its Los Angeles office. (The names were submitted by the FBI to CIA in October ’63 and eventually verified by CIA as being names of actual employees).

    In addition, the trial files for Richard Nagell also contain an identification card, the card being a military ID with Nagell’s photo and the name and signature of Lee H. Oswald.

    Though Nagell’s mental competency has been put into question by detractors, Larry Hancock makes a strong case for his credibility in his Man in the Middle chronicle about him, where he shows that his written warnings of the assassination, knowledge of Cuban exiles and CIA persons of interest, and referencing of documents could not have simply been made up by a charlatan.

    Other researchers have speculated that Richard Case Nagell himself was also being manoeuvred to be a potential patsy- something even he seemed to suspect, which is why he checked himself into a psychological ward during JFK`s visit to L.A. and got himself jailed before November 22nd.

    Marlowe, he too a Korean war vet, also spoke with Russell. He acknowledged knowing Nagell, having the reputation of being a good shot and being part of the L.A. Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) while having relations with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Marlowe also travelled to Mexico on behalf of the FPCC in 1962, visited the Mexico City Cuban embassy to try and get a visa to travel to Cuba and met with Mexican communists while there. Even though the plot never materialized the profile of the would-be patsy as well as the blame it on Castro part of the said plan is intriguingly similar to what was planned for Dallas.

    Chicago, November 2, 1963

    If the L.A. cabal left few traces, the contrary could be said of what happened in Chicago four months later despite attempts to keep it hidden. This incident was well covered by Edwin Black in his November 1975 article for the Chicago Independent, The Plot to kill JFK in Chicago November 2, 1963 and key information was added in James Douglass’ well received JFK and the Unspeakable. The Chicago assassination attempt is historical fact… So are the attempts to keep it out of sight!

    If the FBI had looked into it even half-heartedly they could have reported to the Warren Commission that they found all the hallmarks of what others eventually discovered about Dallas. First, there was an ex-marine in Thomas Arthur Vallee who, like Oswald, had also been posted in Japan and who could easily be portrayed as anti-Kennedy, fanatical, armed and dangerous, weird, disgruntled, experienced with a rifle i.e. the perfect patsy. Second, you had a motorcade route that would have permitted triangulation shooting right by the scapegoat’s place of work in a building resembling the Texas School Book Depository. Third, you had the involvement of suspects who, like the Three Tramps of Dallas fame, were picked up and let go without being identified despite the fact that they had been carrying semi-automatic weapons and were warned about by a landlady who found them suspicious. Finally, there were weak protection services and a concerted effort to cover everything up afterwards.

    According to Edwin Black:

    November 2, 1963, JFK was scheduled to attend the Army-Air Force game at Soldiers Field. Plans called for him to arrive at O’Hare around 11a.m., motorcade down what was then known as the Northwest Expressway to the Loop.

    At Jackson the caravan would lumber up the Jackson exit, make a slow difficult left-hand turn onto the street and shuttle over to the stadium. The Jackson exit would be crowded with no fewer than 45 local school and civic organizations anxious to see the President.

    As in Dallas, JFK’s limousine would pass through a warehouse district —which Secret Service advance men considered 10 times more deadly than any office building corridor.

    As in Dallas, JFK’s limousine would be forced to make a difficult 90-degree turn that would slow them to practically a standstill.

    As in Dallas, triangulation of fire would be simple because of the unobstructed view.

    As in Dallas, the crowd would panic, allowing the assassins to escape unnoticed.

    The article goes on to explain how the FBI received a tip from a person called “Lee” about an assassination attempt that would take place involving four assassins (at least one with a Latin name) with rifles and telescopic sights. Hoover ordered that the case be transferred to the Secret Service which was ill-equipped to do anything about the threat. Another came in on October 31st from a landlady who saw four rifles with telescopic sights and a sketch of the motorcade route in one of the rooms being used by out-of-towners. Because of a botched surveillance, Secret Service agents chose to take in only two of the suspects without evidence. Following a weak interrogation, the suspects, who stonewalled the agents, were let go without even having had their identities retrieved.

    Another suspect picked up for questioning was a would-be patsy. Black describes him as follows:

    The man’s name was Thomas Arthur Vallee, a 30-year-old ex-Marine classified extreme paranoid schizophrenic by military doctors. Vallee worked as an apprentice at IPP Litho-plate at 625 West Jackson. As the patsy, he was perfect—as perfect for the Chicago assassination plot as Lee Harvey Oswald was for the Dallas assassination plot.

    Vallee was born and raised in Chicago. Like Oswald, he joined the Marines in the mid-50s during the Korean War period. Like Oswald, Vallee was assigned to a U-2 base in Japan (where he also worked as a radar operator – according to Jim Douglass). Oswald at Atsugi, Vallee at Camp Otsu. The cover reference for the U-2 project at these bases was Joint Technical Advisory Group (JTAG). Since CIA exerted a strong presence at these two bases, they were prime recruitment stations.

    Both Vallee and Oswald appear to have been recruited by CIA for “black missions” or otherwise unsavory, personally discrediting assignments. In Oswald’s case, at the height of the Cold War, he was instructed and helped to defect to Russia. With him he carried top secret radar codes. Oswald’s mission, probably unbeknownst to him, may have been to reveal this disinformation for some complex CIA intelligence stratagem. Warren Commission testimony documents that all these radar codes had to be revised because of Oswald’s defection.

    Vallee was recruited about the same time to train members of a fiercely anti-Castro guerrilla group. Objective: the assassination of Fidel Castro. Training locale: in and around Levittown, Long Island.

    Neither Vallee nor Oswald received money for their clandestine duties. The surreptitious nature of the business was ego-building to their personalities… Inherently rewarding. Both Vallee and Oswald had recently taken jobs in warehouses at the planned assassination sites. Oswald at the fifth floor book depository on Elm Street in Dallas. Vallee on the third floor IPP printing company looking out over Jackson Street exit ramp where Kennedy’s limousine would have been hit.

    Both Vallee and Oswald could be shown to have extremist political views. Both owned rifles. Both were basically loners. Basically drifters. Basically lowlife. The dregs of society. Perfect for the work they were recruited for. Perfect for a frame-up.

    They even resembled one another physically.

    In the later part of the article Black describes the loss of evidence, the stonewalling he faced from investigators he interviewed and the embarrassment the FBI and Secret Service tried to avoid.

    James Douglass in his well-researched book adds strong evidence that the attempt in Chicago was intentionally kept off the radar which kept the door open for what did happen in Dallas. He did things no American history book writers ever considered doing when researching the assassination… He spoke to witnesses. He also visited the Dallas kill zone and compared it with what he found in Chicago. By interviewing, Abraham Bolden, who had been hand-picked by JFK as the first Black person to join the Secret Service, Douglass describes in detail the measures that were taken to strategically weaken the president’s protection, as was also done in Dallas, and to silence Bolden by framing him for a crime, getting him jailed and turning him into a pariah. Shades of what also happened to Dallas Police officer Roger Craig, men whose only crimes were wanting to say what they knew.

    Douglass further adds these key observations: In August 1963 while Oswald moved from New Orleans to Dallas, Vallee moved from New York City to Chicago where he got at Job at IPP Litho-Plate in an eight story building; When Douglass visited the building what he saw was a view that was a replica of what could be seen from the Texas School Book Depository and a motorcade route offering the same opportunities for the ambush that many witnesses described in Dallas.

    When Bolden heard the news of the assassination he brought up the parallels of what was attempted in Chicago to colleagues. From then on his professional career went downhill. He was railroaded into jail after he was overheard trying to contact the Warren Commission. In 1967 he finally told a Garrison investigator and Mark Lane about his story, which got him placed in solitary confinement.

    Douglass also described how Chicago Secret Service Chief Maurice Martineau took major steps to control the messaging by requiring that all agent reports about the incident not be in writing, but funnelled by dictation through his assistant thus eliminating all documentary trails. Only Martineau and Washington Secret Service chief James J. Rowley saw the top secret report. In 1995 when the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) ordered the copy released, the Secret Service destroyed it instead. Martineau also told his staff on November 22 what to believe: Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. There was no connection with Chicago. Forget November 2 in Chicago. The only mention the Press made about the Chicago plot at the time was that Vallee like Oswald was another gun-toting malcontent… nothing about the other parallels described in this article.

    By keeping silent about Chicago, the doors were kept wide-open for what was to happen in Dallas, or could have happened in Tampa a few days before the deadly ambush.

    Jim DiEugenio highlighted the following point in his book review of the Douglass classic:

    Interestingly Dan Groth, the suspicious officer in on the arrest of Vallee, was later part of the SWAT team that assassinated Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in 1969. (p. 204) Groth took several lengthy leaves from Chicago to Washington for special training under the auspices of the FBI and CIA. Groth never had a regular police assignment, but always worked counter-intelligence, with an early focus on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew little about the plot but did underscore the Secret Service’s muteness around the Chicago incident and noted the significance of the similar backgrounds of Vallee and Oswald.

    If they could have juxtaposed it with what happened in L.A. and Tampa they would have had been able to add a large degree of perspective to their thin, yet important analysis.

    Tampa, November 18, 1963

    There were many threats made against President Kennedy, some had substance to them… the Tampa plot falls into this category and had the Secret Service on high alert. Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann wrote about it in some detail in Ultimate Sacrifice. William Kelly followed up on it in his 2012 article The Tampa Plot in Retrospect.

    Its place in history was first documented publicly in a small article that appeared in the Tampa Tribune on November 23… The day after the assassination!

    A number of researchers disagree with Ultimate Sacrifice‘s focus on the mob as the main force behind the assassination. Be that as it may, its excellent description of the Tampa plot adds yet another inexplicable oddity that will give historians food for thought.

    The chosen patsy for this attempt was a Cuban exile named Gilbert Policarpo Lopez who also had many similarities with Oswald: links with the FPCC, being a former defector, a tie to Russia, getting into a fight over seeming pro-Castro sympathies, and an unusual trip to Mexico City.

    According to the authors, the Secret Service destroyed the Tampa attempt documents in 1995 in violation of the ARRB Act. Just like Allen Dulles kept the CIA-Mob association secret from his Warren Commission colleagues, the Secret Service added the Tampa Plot to the Chicago Plot as one of their dirty little secrets. Not even the Dallas Police were let in on this important information which could have affected security on November 22nd.

    Existing Secret Service files in the 1970s made it clear that the Tampa threat was posed by a single mobile sniper who would fire from a tall building using a high power rifle fitted with a scope. Other accounts however describe the plot as multi-person.

    The motorcade route in Tampa was very long and presented Dealey Plaza quality opportunities. Other researchers chronicled how Lopez moved from the Keys to Tampa shortly before the motorcade, echoing Vallee and Oswald’s pawn-like pre-motorcade movements.

    The HSCA described parts of what it called the Lopez allegation:

    Lopez would have obtained a tourist card in Tampa on November 20, 1963, entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo on November 23 and flew from Mexico City to Havana on November 27. Further, Lopez was alleged to have attended a meeting of the Tampa Chapter of the FPCC on November 17… CIA files on Lopez reflect that in early December, 1963 they received a classified message requesting urgent traces on Lopez… Later the CIA headquarters received another classified message stating that a source stated that “Lopes” had been involved in the Kennedy assassination … had entered Mexico by foot from Laredo on November 13…proceeded by bus to Mexico City where he entered the Cuban embassy…and left for Cuba as the only passenger on flight 465 for Cuba. A CIA file on Lopez was classified as a counterintelligence case…

    An FBI investigation on Lopez through an interview with his cousin and wife as well as document research revealed that… He was pro-Castro and he had once gotten involved in a fistfight over his Castro sympathies.

    The FBI had previously documented that Lopez has actually been in contact with the FPCC and had attended a meeting in Tampa on November 20, 1963. In a March 1964 report, it recounted that at a November 17 meeting… Lopez said he had not been granted permission to return to Cuba but was awaiting a phone call about his return to his homeland… A Tampa FPCC member was quoted as saying she called a friend in Cuba on December 8, 1963 and was told that he arrived safely. She also said that they (the FPCC) had given Lopez 190$ for his return. The FBI confirmed the Mexico trip (Lopez’ wife confirmed that in a letter he sent her from Cuba in November 1963, he had received financial assistance for his trip to Cuba from an organization in Tampa) … information sent to the Warren Commission by the FBI on the Tampa chapter of the FPCC did not contain information on Lopez’ activities… nor apparently on Lopez himself. The Committee concurred with the Senate Select Committee that this omission was egregious, since the circumstances surrounding Lopez’ travel seemed “suspicious”. Moreover, in March 1964 when the WC’s investigation was in its most active stage, there were reports circulating that Lopez had been involved in the assassination… Lopez’ association with the FPCC, however, coupled with the fact that the dates of his travel to Mexico via Texas coincide with the assassination, plus the reports that Lopez’ activities were “suspicious” all amount to troublesome circumstances that the committee was unable to resolve with confidence.

    One can only imagine how more concerned they would have been had the Secret Service been more forthcoming and had investigators pushed the investigation in the M.O. similarities of the four attempts to the extent one would expect for the murder of a president.

    Points of comparison of the five [seven] potential patsies

     

    [Revised table appears at the end of this article]

     

    While perhaps some of the observations are contestable, there are just too many similarities for the events to be classified as mutually exclusive.

    The HSCA and the Church Committees confirmed categorically that the crime of the century was poorly investigated. The HSCA furthermore highlighted Vallee and Lopez as examples of persons of interest that were not looked into. What has been uncovered since then adds even more arguments to just how bad the Warren Commission investigation was and how incompetently historians are doing their work in explaining this landmark piece of history. If these events were contemporary and we replaced the letters FPCC with ISIS, one can only imagine the outrage. It is because of behavior like this that clamors of a rigged system resonate.

    Executive action and ZRRIFLE

    Had they investigated further, what would it have led to?

    The above chart can be broken down into three components of strategy:

    1. The ambush logistics: Which includes an opportune motorcade route, in the right city, with weak protection, use of surrogates with the right weaponry
    2. The setting up of a patsy who could be tied to an opponent: A left leaning or fanatical misfit, who could plausibly be a good shot, whose actions leading up to the assassination could prove his guilt and links
    3. Controlling the message: Ensuring plausible deniability through compartmentalization and use of surrogates, investigating surgically, sending out the right incriminating messages and hiding hindering facts

    One of the best pieces of work that describes executive action M.O. is Nexus by Larry Hancock.

    Here are a few key excerpts:

    We have a certain number of William Harvey’s notes on his assassination project (ZRRIFLE) only because he took them with him upon leaving the Agency…  Harvey was tasked by William Richard Helms, Deputy Director of Operations, to set up a network of deniable operations, including political assassinations….

    According to a historical study of the Arbenz removal project: discussing themes and tactics that would become constants during the following decades… deniable assassination squads… while placing the blame on designated parties (patsy’s).

    In 1953, sabotage and propaganda efforts were discussed but beyond that a CIA officer proposed a plan for first, spreading rumors that the communists were dissatisfied with Arbenz, then killing him in a fashion that would be laid on the communists.

    Excerpts from William Harvey notes:

    “Should have phoney 201 in RI [Records Integration] to backstop this, all documents therein forged & backdated. Should look like a CE file …. Cover: planning should include provision for blaming Sovs or Czechs in case of blow.”

    CIA specialists Malcolm Blunt and John Newman have presented strong cases for showing that CIA files on Oswald were in fact manipulated.

    A number of writers and investigators from Garrison on have maintained that Oswald was being sheep-dipped so that the Soviets or Cubans could be blamed. The fact that four of the patsies, if we include Nagell, could be linked to the FPCC adds even more credence to this claim. It is also interesting to note that one of the mysterious investigators for the Chicago plot, Daniel Groth, had intelligence links and was likely tasked with monitoring the FPCC… Which makes one wonder what kind of tie to this organization would have popped up had Vallee been pinned with the murder.

    The bizarreness around the FPCC does not end there. On the night off JFK’s assassination and Oswald’s arrest, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade erroneously stated during a press conference that Oswald was a member of the Free Cuba Committee. Out of all the scores of onlookers present, who stood out most in correcting the D.A. by identifying Oswald as being part of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? Not the experts, the police officers, lawyers or the journalists who were the ones trained in active listening and note-taking; no, it was the uneducated, night club owner, gun runner and future patsy killer Jack Ruby.

    When one considers all these suspicious links to the FPCC, one can either believe in yet another coincidence in this case where improbability is omnipresent everywhere one looks around the Lone Nut scenario, or one could explore further to see how the FPCC dimension and the M.O. connect with some of the usual suspects… Which brings us right to William Harvey and David Morales (assassinations specialists) as well as David Phillips and E. Howard Hunt (top level propaganda operators) to name but a few of the JM/Wave Station related cast of disgruntled and possibly rogue CIA officers, who elite investigator Gaeton Fonzi referred to after his ground-breaking work for the Church and HSCA committees.

    Both David Talbot (The Devil’s Chessboard) and Larry Hancock (Nexus) cover how Harvey’s motives, associations and moves are suspect during the build-up towards the assassination.

    William Harvey’s work with David Morales and surrogates in the form of Mafiosi and Cuban exiles in his attempts to apply ZRRIFLE strategies to assassinate Castro is now fully accepted. Many of these links resurface as persons of interest in the Kennedy assassination.

    • Steps that researchers have referred to that were taken during the months leading up to November 22, 1963 to make Oswald fit the part as a potential Castro agent capable of killing the President are many:
    • Backyard photos are taken (or are cropped) of him holding communist literature and the two alleged murder weapons;
    • He opens an FPCC chapter in New Orleans and makes himself visible by distributing provocative Hands off Cuba flyers and getting into a fight with anti-Castro Cuban exile Carlos Bringuier of the Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE). The arresting officer found it looked made up;
    • He gets interviewed by CIA friendly Ed Butler where he talks about his Marxist leanings;
    • He (or a double) gets himself noticed at shooting ranges, barber shops, car dealerships etc. acting erratically;
    • He (or a double) visits Sylvia Odio with two Cuban exiles who make him look anti-Kennedy and off balance;
    • He (or an impersonator) visits the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City where he attempts to get a visa to travel to Cuba and meets with a leading Russian assassinations officer. A poor impersonator of Oswald is taped making incriminating statements intended to frame him;
    • Letters from Havana alluding to a sinister deal with Castro agents are sent to him, Robert Kennedy and elsewhere.

    The propaganda also continued for a short while after the assassination, until orders were given to go full Lone Nut mode:

    • The Oswald interview and backyard photos were distributed to the press;
    • Cuban exiles Carlos Bringuier and John Martino as well as Frank Sturgis (also a Watergate Burglar) pushed the Castro was behind it story;
    • Castro frame-up stories were leaked to Hal Hendrix, a JM/Wave friend, and other CIA media assets;
    • Anthony Veciana, leader of the Cuban exile group Alpha 66, confirmed that David Phillips (who he had seen talking to Oswald shortly before the assassination) had asked him to bribe a cousin of his in Mexico City to say that Oswald was being paid by Castro agents to assassinate JFK. He also described a CIA-backed attempt on Castro that was very similar to what happened in Dallas;
    • HSCA investigator Dan Hardway confirmed that much of the Mexico City stories that incriminated Oswald and framed Castro were Phillips’ fabrications;
    • Phillips is also closely linked to FPCC infiltration manoeuvres, DRE operations, Alpha 66, media offensives and was based in Mexico City during the Oswald charade and impersonation.

    It is not a case of paranoia to think that the four attempts on JFK between June and November 1963 are linked, nor is it crazy to see links between executive action M.O.s and what happened in Dallas. The questions we can ask ourselves are: if we studied the L.A., Chicago and Tampa plots with as much zeal as the Dallas assassination, where would their paths cross? Would they not lead to the same persons of interest? Have we thought of all the files around these cases that should be released?

    The same questions could be asked about the murders of key witnesses such as Mafiosi Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana and Charles Nicoletti. Senator Gary Hart of the Church Committee urged the media to follow up on these crimes because it would tell us lot about the JFK assassination. That is where normal investigations would go, but not this one… Why?

    Conclusion

    I was not crazy about my math classes when I was in university, except for one: Probabilities. Out of all the evidence thrown at this case, it takes only one of the chokeholds to be true to prove there is a conspiracy. The Cartesian side of me is screaming out that the similarities of the previous attempts on JFK and their links to executive action M.O. represents just one more… one that could, if fully investigated, lead to a death grip around certain persons of interest and, one that mainstream media will, as usual, ignore.

    But that’s ok, if the last U.S. election proved one thing; it’s that the MSM is becoming irrelevant! Message to historians: Consider the history of the rise and fall of mainstream media and take a good look in the mirror.


    Addendum

    Since this article was first published, this author has come upon other potential patsies that are worth discussing and researching further. The initial intent was to perform comparative analysis of three prior plots to the JFK assassination: which is as basic as it gets for serious police investigations.

    In hindsight the argumentative that comes through in the comparison of the plots has led to a complementary line of study: the similarity of persons of interest who could easily be considered potential patsies. In the article we identified four such subjects who clearly stood out, in this addendum we will add two more.

    Out of all the points from the comparison chart that were presented there is one, in this author’s opinion, that stands out from all others in terms of improbability and Castro-framing implications: the direct association of four of the five persons of interest with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. We are about to add a fifth.

    The FPCC is an organization that should have been turned inside out by the Warren Commission in the search for the truth. In this section we will take a look at this mysterious association that should pique the interest of historians. As we will see, the odds of five potential scapegoats being involved with the FPCC are infinitely weak and its links with some of the usual suspects is something that should clearly stimulate further investigation.

    San Antonio, November 21, 1963

    Because of the Omerta code around the JFK assassination, Harry Power’s story is perhaps the sketchiest of the potential scapegoat cases we will have discussed. But since no stone should be left unturned when investigating a murder, especially a president’s, it is worth identifying and earmarking for more analysis.

    Harry Power was yet another ex-marine who checked in to a Terre Haute House Hotel room in Indiana on November 25, 1963 with a long package. When he checked out he left behind a rifle… a Mannlicher-Carcanno according to a retired Chief of Police Frank Riddle… a Mauser according another unidentified source.

    A United States Government Memo in 1967 describes the allegation. Riddle claimed San Antonio authorities informed him that Power was a member of the Young Communist League and an expert rifle marksman. An ex co-worker described him as anti-Kennedy. He had held a job in San Antonio Texas in 1962.

    Riddle stated that all information had been turned over to the Warren Commission and that the rifle was taken by Secret Service agents. The Secret Service claimed to have only found about this incident in 1965. Their key source is no-other than the head of the Washington Secret Service, Chief Rowley himself, who you will recall played a key role in keeping the Chicago plot as secret as possible. The FBI did confirm however that the Terre Haute Police department had in fact followed up on this lead around when Riddle claimed it happened… which would indicate further Secret Service and Warren Commission complacency.

    According to Dick Russell, Richard Nagell told Jim Garrison that Power was a Trotskyite who had met Oswald.

    Given that JFK motorcaded in San Antonio on November 21 and that Power could easily be linked to that city, it is not a major leap to see similarities between Power, Oswald and the other scapegoat candidates that seem to have been lined up before the assassination.

    Miami, November 18, 1963

    As we have seen, the noose was getting very tight around JFK ‘s neck during his last weeks. His morning in Miami, when he gave a speech before heading of for a motorcade in Tampa, was from all accounts pretty risky. The Secret Service had to deal with reports of threats coming from the important Cuban exile community that thrived there. One person of particular interest was one of the top terrorists of his era: Orlando Bosch.

    Another person of interest, who has flown under the radar, is a seventh patsy candidate: Santiagio Garriga.

    The best source this author has found about this elusive character is Bill Simpich, author of State Secret.

    Like with many of the others discussed in this article, Garriga’s resumé was perfect for patsy recruiter/runners: Interaction with Cuban associates in Mexico City; seemingly pro-Castro behavior and his crowning achievement: Like Oswald in 1963, he opened a FPCC chapter in a market deemed very hostile for such an enterprise.

    Garriga is the potential fall-guy who is the most clearly linked with intelligence, like Oswald and Nagell, he could be portrayed as a double agent by those who packaged them. What makes Garriga so unique is that Simpich writes about his pseudonym and close links with William Harvey’s team. To cover this intriguing lead it is best to cite a few excerpts from State Secret:

    It’s pretty clear that one informant the HSCA did not know about was AMKNOB-1 aka Santiago Garriga. As we have seen, Garriga worked with both the CIA and with Cuban intelligence… During October 1963 Garriga worked with other pro-Castro Cubans to set up a new chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Miami…  Although it appears that Garriga’s ultimate loyalty was with the Castro government, it’s likely that Garriga’s FPCC activity was designed by Anita Potocki (Harvey’s chief aide at the wiretap division known as Staff D) to set up a fly-trap for people like Oswald. Maybe even Garriga himself was considered as a possible fall guy.

    If JFK had been assassinated in Florida, if Garriga had been outed as the founder of the Miami FPCC, if Garriga died a mysterious death in short order – all that would make Cuba look all the more like a guilty party in any ensuing scandal.

    However, in the days before 11/22/63, the FBI ran an operation that investigated the Cuban espionage net that included Garriga and shared the take with the CIA. The CIA referred to this investigation as ZRKNICK. Bill Harvey had worked with ZRKNICK in the past… The memos that identify Garriga were written by Anita Potocki.[124]

    Was there something sinister in this effort to set up FPCC Miami? It certainly looks ominous, given that AMKNOB-1 is the main organizer and that Anita Potocki is one of his handlers. The FPCC leadership recognized that it was dangerous to set up such a chapter in Miami due to the possibility of reprisals by Cuban exiles. For just these reasons, the FPCC leadership had discouraged Oswald from publicly opening an FPCC chapter in the Southern port town of New Orleans.

    On November 4, a Mexico City case officer hand carried to the Miami station a picture of AMKNOB-1’s case officer in the Cuban embassy… it was cultural attaché Raul Aparicio. Does this mean that both Azcue and Aparicio were AMKNOB-1’s case officers? Aparicio can be found on a CIA list created years later as a Cuban intelligence officer. A memo of Garriga says he started trying to reach “Raul” on November 7.

    On November 21, CIA HQ warned the Miami station that Cuban intelligence was targeting someone in the State Dept. office in Miami. The follow-up memo on 11/22/63 indicated that the target was AMKNOB-1.

    On December 3, Garriga reported to Mexico City that on 11/22/63, after 15 days of alleged attempts to reach “Raul”, Garriga called the Cuban consulate directly and spoke to Silvia Duran. Garriga’s first version of the story was that Duran claimed she didn’t know who “Raul” was….

    Two weeks later, AMKNOB-1’s new version of the story specifically named Raul Aparicio. …one thing is clear – we are being led to believe that Aparicio is Garriga’s case officer! I believe that Aparicio rocked the CIA’s investigation of the assassination.

    As with all the other persons of interest identified in this essay, Garriga was not invented by a conspiracy theorist. Over and above his other patsy credentials, he represents the fifth potential scapegoat that is linked to the FPCC.

    It is now time to look into this mysterious misfit magnet of ex-marines and Cuban exiles. What was so enticing about this group that could motivate a jobless Oswald to leave his young daughter and pregnant wife for a career of leafletting and getting people to loathe him?

    The Fair Play for Cuba Committee

    In 1993, author Van Gosse wrote Where the Boys are: Cuba, Cold War America and the Making of the New Left.It gives one of the more complete accounts of this odd association.

    It was founded in the Spring of 1960 by Robert Taber and Richard Gibson (CBS newsmen who covered Castro’s ascent to power) as well Alan Sagner, a New Jersey contractor. Its original mission was to correct distortions about the Cuba revolution. It was first supported by writers, philosophers, artists and intellectuals such as Norman Mailer, Truman Capote and Jean Paul Sartre. It also touched a chord with university students. By the end of 1960 it had gained national attention.

    Around Christmas time 1960 it organized a huge tour to Cuba… which led to a travel ban to the country by early 1961. The nation-wide Bay of Pigs protests in 1961 was when the FPCC reached its high point according to Gosse. There was no official membership headcount, but organizers claimed the FPCC had between 5 and 7 thousand members and 27 adult chapters almost all in the North-East, a few on the West coast and only one in the South East in Tampa.

    When it became clear that the U.S. would not tolerate the revolution it began dissipating. After a short lived peace demonstration binge during the missile crisis in 1962, its spiral downwards was accelerated and died not long after one of its members allegedly killed JFK.

    Which leads to the following questions: Do our patsy candidates really fit the profile of a typical FPCC member? Why would someone want to even join such a passé group in 1963, much less open a chapter in very hostile territory? If we consider that probably fewer than 1 in every 30,000 Americans by this time is a member of the FPCC, what are the odds that 5 out of 7 of our potential patsies would be so closely linked to this dying entity?

    By the end of its existence the FPCC’s ex-leaders, new leader (Vincent Lee) and many of its members were suspected of offering their services to intelligence agencies. Perhaps this is where we can find our answers.

    AMSANTA

    Larry Hancock, in Someone Would Have Talked, describes the FBI program called AMSANTA:

    The program was initiated by the FBI as part of its effort targeting the FPCC as a subversive group and involved the CIA in briefing, debriefing and possibly monitoring travel of assets through Mexico City to and from Cuba. The program began in late 1962, had one major success in 1963 and appears to have been abruptly terminated in fall 63.

    This project used FBI informants to develop intelligence on Cuba and the Castro regime. We know little about the overall project but in July 1963, one such asset used his FPCC connections to obtain a visa from the Cuban government and to travel illegally to and from Cuba (apparently from Mexico City on Cubana airlines).

    According to John Newman (Oswald and the CIA), The CIA, led by David Phillips and James McCord (of Watergate fame), began monitoring the FPCC in 1961.

    In December 1962, the CIA jointed with the FBI in the AMSANTA project.

    A Sept 63 Memo divulged an FBI/CIA plan to use FPCC fake material to embarrass Cuba.

    It is also known that Guy Bannister, and possibly Michael Paine, had files on communist subjects that were eventually hidden away. Was Oswald given the mission to help ID these “anti-Americans” through fake recruitment activities? Was he being groomed to enter Cuba the way he entered Russia by playing a Marxist role he was given? Or was he being fattened up like a Turkey for November 22, 1963 as Garrison put it?

    If we combine these points with the Harvey team’s probable help in getting Garriga set up with a Miami FPCC chapter, a conduit that directly links the disgruntled and quite possibly rogue Bay of Pigs officers with the potential patsies emerges quite eloquently… a conduit that could be further exposed if the right documents are released, including one about the FPCC that should be very thick and make for lamentable reading.


    Potentential Patsies Points of Comparison JFK Assassination (December 2016)

    bleau chart


    Go to Part 2

  • JFK and the Unforgivable: How the historians’ version of the JFK assassination dishonors the historical record – Addendum


    The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks

    From: Paul Bleau
    Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 7:57 PM
    To: ltownsend@historians.org
    Subject: Complaint

    Hello,

    A few years ago I completed a study on how history books cover the JFK assassination and how the authors justified their writings. Overwhelmingly the authors portray it as a crime committed by a lone nut who was killed 2 days later by another loner. The Warren Commission is the key source (as well as a few authors who back the lone nut scenario). The other subsequent investigations as well as work done by independent researchers who back conspiracy scenarios are not on the radar. The result is that young students who are part of a captive audience are being given an incomplete, biased account of this historical event.

    I believe that on this issue, historians are violating their code of conduct by not honoring the historical record. Two articles about this issue are published on the following website: http://www.ctka.net/2016/PaulBleau1.html and http://www.ctka.net/2016/bleau-historians/historians-and-the-jfk-assassination-part-1.html.

    Interviews were also given on BlackOp radio: http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2016.html.

    I am hoping that the AHA can look into this situation and encourage its members to reconsider how to present this information to students in a more balanced and up to date manner.

    Thank you, Paul Bleau College Professor


    Return to Part 2

    Return to Part 1

  • JFK and the Unforgivable: How the historians’ version of the JFK assassination dishonors the historical record – Part 2

    JFK and the Unforgivable: How the historians’ version of the JFK assassination dishonors the historical record – Part 2


    United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)

    Established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, the HSCA issued its final report in 1979. It found that there was a “probable conspiracy” in the JFK case.

    The following is a summary of their findings (source: National Archives):

    Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963:

    1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
    2. President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
    3. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    4. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    5. Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    6. Lee Harvey Oswald’s other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.
    7. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
    8. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
    9. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
    10. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
    11. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
    12. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
    13. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
    14. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
    15. The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties.
    16. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President’s trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper.
    17. The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed primary investigative responsibility.
    18. The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the assassination.
    19. The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
    20. The Federal Bureau of Investigation adequately investigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly evaluated the evidence it possessed to assess his potential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency.
    21. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
    22. The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.
    23. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments.
    24. The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination.
    25. The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
    26. The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
    27. The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
    28. The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith.
    29. The Warren Commission presented the conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive.

    The committee had other troubling conclusions: Neither Lee Harvey Oswald nor Jack Ruby were the loners depicted by the Warren Commission, and were involved in relationships that could have matured into a conspiracy; Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to David Ferrie and Guy Banister- two conspirators according to Jim Garrison; Jack Ruby was in fact connected to the Mafia (an issue sidestepped by the Warren Commission); Marina Oswald’s incriminating statements against her husband were found to be lacking in credibility; they were inclined to believe Sylvia Odio who asserted that she was visited before the assassination by two Cuban exiles and a Leon Oswald in an attempt to portray Oswald as unbalanced and hostile to JFK. Her testimony was rejected by the Warren Commission even though she had related the event before the assassination; The Lopez Report established that someone was impersonating Oswald seven weeks before the assassination in Mexico City in an attempt to get a visa to travel to Cuba and that the CIA had tampered with the electronic evidence.

    While the HSCA asked the Justice Department to re-investigate the case- it chose to only look at the acoustical evidence, which it rejected based on science that itself is also contested.

    For those who have used this final point to argue that the Warren Commission got it right and discard all the other incriminating findings- It will prove useful to read what the key members of the Committee had to say:

    Gaeton Fonzi  – Church and HSCA investigator

    Gaeton Fonzi was interviewed a number of times after the investigations. The information he brought forward in his 1993 book, The Last Investigation was considered credible and explosive. Fonzi described an exchange he had with Arlen Specter (the Warren Commission’s principal proponent of the Single Bullet theory) where he described him as being unnerved when discussing the Commission’s evidence. He also revealed how Cuban exile group Alpha 66 leader Antonio Veciana exposed his CIA handler Maurice Bishop (a cover name for top ranking CIA officer David Atlee Phillips) who he witnessed meeting with Oswald. He discussed how close contacts of CIA officer David Sanchez Morales heard him admit a conspiracy in the assassination. He described how the HSCA was stonewalled by the CIA. He also complained about second Commission head Robert Blakey’s submissive relationship with the CIA.

    Gaeton Fonzi(mid-1970s)

    In a speech in 1998 while receiving the Mary Ferrell JFK Lancer Pioneer Award he had this to say about the Warren Commission: Is there any doubt that the Warren Commission deliberately set out not to tell the American people the truth?

    There is a brief glimpse, an illustration of the level at which that deceit was carried out, in an incident that occurred during the Warren Commission’s investigation. Commission chairman Earl Warren himself, with then Representative Gerald Ford at his side, was interviewing a barman, Curtis LaVerne Crafard. Crafard had worked at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. But he was seized by the FBI as he was hightailing it out of town the day after the assassination, having told someone, “They are not going to pin this on me!”

    In the interview, Warren asks Crafard what he did before he was a bartender.

    “I was a Master sniper in the Marine Corps,” Crafard answered.

    The next question that Warren immediately asked was: “What kind of entertainment did they have at the club?”

    In a 1999 interview he gave to Michael Corbin, Fonzi contradicted Robert Blakey by stating that the HSCA investigation also lacked thoroughness. He also wonders out loud whether the “…the Government itself or a power elite within the government was a controlling element here”.

    He opined that the failed Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis followed by the cessation of secret anti-Castro operations were probably a guiding motivation for operatives linked to the JM Wave CIA station in Miami to remove the President and which end up dovetailing with Oswald’s movements in 1963.

    He makes the claim that Oswald was an agent of the intelligence establishment who was coded as a leftist. He was not a lone nut. He believes that he was also a patsy who did not fire a shot and that Dealey Plaza became a shooting gallery on November 22nd 1963.

    He describes also how David Phillips was not only seen with Oswald by Antonio Veciana, but how a lot of the cover-up and misinformation campaigns about Oswald were linked to him.

    He concludes the interview by stating :“there is no doubt that it was a coup d’état”!

    Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez – HSCA “staffers”

    (authors of appendix 13 of the HSCA Report, “Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City”, also known as the Lopez Report)

    History Matters provides an excellent introduction about this report only released in 1996:

    The “thirteenth appendix” to the HSCA Report on the JFK assassination is a staff report entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City.” This report describes what the Committee learned about Lee Oswald’s trip to Mexico City less than two months prior to the assassination. Questions it grapples with include why the CIA was apparently unable to obtain a photo of Oswald from any of its photographic surveillance stations (and instead produced a photo of a “Mystery Man” who was clearly not Oswald), whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, and what credibility to attach to any of the indications and allegations of Communist conspiracy emanating from that city.

    The so-called “Lopez Report,” written by staffers Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez, was released in its present form in 1996, but remains redacted in several places. It is a good starting place for grappling with some of the many mysteries of the Mexico City affair. Newly released files have provided new information not present in this report. The LBJ taped phone conversations for instance, include startling corroboration for the claim that audio intercepts of an Oswald impersonator were listened to by FBI agents in Dallas while Oswald was in custody. Declassified testimony of David Phillips, the Tarasoff couple who translated the tapes for the CIA, and others illuminate some areas and deepen the mystery in others.

    The “Lopez Report” is a good point of departure for a journey into this mysterious affair.

    Dan Hardway

    In 2014, for an ARRC conference, both Hardway and Lopez talked about their experience on the HSCA and the report. A lot of focus was put on how they had been making progress in the HSCA investigation until the CIA placed George Joannides as their resource person in charge of supervising the CIA’s interaction with the HSCA. Despite claims that Joannides was impartial, it was confirmed that he was directly involved with the Cuban exile organization called the DRE in 1963. Oswald had direct interaction with the DRE in events that became very public and were used to paint him as a communist. Hardway concludes his speech with:

    “The CIA has something to hide; Joannides knew what they had to hide. The CIA knew he knew and knew we did not know who or what he was hiding; Joannides hid what he had to hide.”

    Edwin Lopez

    Edwin Lopez confirmed the stonewalling and gave examples on how they were being spied on. He referred to the continued holding back of documents as a mess we all needed to work on together.

    They also confirmed that they felt that there were either fake phone calls done by an Oswald impostor while he was allegedly in Mexico or at least faked transcripts.

    Hardway hypothesizes that because of compartmentalization Phillips and Oswald may have found out on November 22, 1963 that Oswald was a patsy and Phillips received orders to tie the murder to Castro.

    In a critique of Phil Shenon’s work written for the AARC in 2015, Dan Hardway expresses the opinion that the CIA is heading to what he calls a limited hang-out by admitting that Oswald may have received guidance from Cuba and that the CIA director at the time, John McCone, was involved in a benign cover-up.

    In an interview he gave to Black Op Radio that same year, he recommended The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot, a book which exposes incriminating information about Alan Dulles and William Harvey, who can be seen now as persons of high interest in the case.

    In 2015, for a civil action where plaintiff Jefferson Morley, was suing the CIA for access to information, Dan Hardway signed a Sworn Deposition that underscores CIA obfuscation techniques as well as some of his findings during the investigation. The following are some of his statements:

    Beginning in May of 1978, the CIA assigned George Joannides to handle liaison with Edwin Lopez and me. In the summer of 1978, Mr. Joannides began to change the way file access was handled. We no longer received prompt responses to our requests for files and what we did receive no longer seemed to provide the same complete files that we had been seeing. The obstruction of our efforts by Mr. Joannides escalated over the summer, finally resulting in a refusal to provide unexpurgated access to files in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding previously agreed to by the HSCA and the CIA;

    During the course of the spring and summer of 1978 I had been looking into several areas of research which were actively impeded under Mr. Joannides’s direction. These included back channel communications methods used by the CIA’s Mexico City Station, William Harvey’s Office of Security files and his continuing relationship with certain Mafia figures, the use of an impulse camera to photograph the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, missing production from one of the photographic installations that covered the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City as well as the impulse camera at the Cuban Consulate, and David Atlee Phillips’ possible involvement in stories about LHO that appeared after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

    Before our unexpurgated access was cut off by Joannides, I had been able to document links between David Phillips and most of the sources of the disinformation that came out immediately after the assassination about Oswald and his pro-Castro proclivities. I confronted Phillips with those in an interview at our offices on August 24, 1978. Phillips was extremely agitated by that line of questioning, but was forced to admit that many of the sources were not only former assets that he had managed, in the late 50’s and early 1960’s, but were also assets whom he was personally managing in the fall of 1963. Mr. Phillips was asked, but could not explain, why the information that came from anti-Castro Cuban groups and individuals pointing to Cuban connections, all seemed to come from assets that he handled personally, but acknowledged that that was the case.

    We have, since 1978, learned that George Joannides was running the propaganda shop at the CIA’s Miami JMWAVE Station in 1963. It is extremely unlikely that Mr. Joannides could have occupied that position and not have known, and worked with, David Atlee Phillips. In addition, in 1963, we now know, George Joannides was the case officer handling the DRE. In 1977 the CIA specifically denied that DRE had a case officer assigned when asked that question by the HSCA.

    Robert Tanenbaum –  Chief Counsel HSCA

    In a Probe Magazine interview in 1993, Tanenbaum explained why he and Richard Sprague resigned from the Commission:

    Q: I interviewed a friend of yours down in New Orleans, L.J. Delsa. He said that he felt that one of the reasons the Congress turned against the Committee was, because of Sprague’s approach. It could have set a precedent in Washington to have really serious investigations instead of fact-finding commissions. Did you get any feeling about that?

    A: In my opinion, Congress never wanted to go forward with these investigations at all. That’s just based upon my having spoken with a lot of the membership of the House as I was asked to do by the Committee, in order to get funding. That’s something I never thought would be an issue before I went down there. They sort of politicized into it with some very distinguished members of Congress who were retiring in 1976, requesting that the Kennedy portion be investigated because they had seen Groden’s presentation of the Zapruder film and were very persuaded by it. Then the Black Caucus got involved and said well, investigate the murder of Dr. King. It was an election year and they said, “Ok, why not? We’ll do that.” But there was no commitment to really do it, unfortunately, which regrettably we found out while we were in the midst of investigating the case. They pulled our budget, they pulled our long-distance phone privileges, our franking privileges, we couldn’t even send out mail. And all of this was happening at a time when we were making some significant headway. So, L. J. may be right with respect to his perception, but at the same time I don’t believe they were ever committed to it. Tip O’Neill, who was the Speaker, was never committed to it. Only many, many years later did he realize that he’d made a tragic mistake.

    He also reveals troubling information about David Atlee Phillips:

    JD: Another thing you’ve discussed and it’s featured in your book, is this incredible movie of the Cuban exile training camp.

    BT: To the best of my recollection, we found that movie somewhere in the Georgetown library archives. The movie was shocking to me because it demonstrated the notion that the CIA was training, in America, a separate army. It was shocking to me because I’m a true believer in the system and yet there are notorious characters in the system, who are being funded by the system, who are absolutely un-American. And who knows what they would do, eventually. What if we send people to Washington who they can’t deal with? Out comes their secret army? So, I find that to be as contrary to the constitution as you can get.

    JD: Was it really as you described in the book, with all the people in that film? Bishop was in the film?

    BT: Oh, yeah. Absolutely! They’re all in the film. They’re all there. But, the fact of the matter is the Committee began to balk at a series of events. The most significant one was when [David Atlee] Phillips came up before the Committee and then had to be recalled because it was clear that he hadn’t told the truth. That had to do with the phony commentary he made about Oswald going to Mexico City on or about October 1st, 1963.

    JD: Would you describe that whole sequence, because I feel that is one of the real highlights of your book.

    Robert Tanenbaum

    BT: As I said, I had never followed the sequence of these events and I wasn’t aware of any of this, before I went to Washington. If you had told me all this before I went, I would have said, “This is madness. Talk to me about reality!” So, Phillips was saying that an individual went to Mexico City on or about October 1st and the CIA was claiming this was Lee Harvey Oswald, just as the Warren Commission claimed. However, the following occurred: “Oswald” goes to the Russian Embassy and identifies himself as Lee Henry Oswald. He wants to fake everybody out by changing his middle name. There were tapes of what he said because the CIA was bugging the Embassy the same as they were doing to the U.S. Embassy, according to Phillips. And the CIA was photographing people going in and out of the Embassy, the same as they were doing to the U.S. (We found out, from our own sources that the CIA had a contract employee named Lee Henry Oswald, in their files.) Phillips testimony was that there was no photograph of “Oswald” because the camera equipment had broken down that day and there was no audio tape of “Oswald’s” voice because they recycled their tapes every six or seven days. The problem with his story was, we had obtained a document, it was from the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, it was dated November 23rd, 1963, the very next day after the assassination. This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald for the past 17 hours approximately, have listened to the tape made on October 1st, by an individual identifying himself as Lee Henry Oswald inside the Russian Embassy, calling on the phone to someone inside the Cuban Embassy and the agents can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody.

    JD: Did you have this document while you were questioning Phillips?

    BT: No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred. But, I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence, because we were in a position to demonstrate that that whole aspect of the Warren Report, and what he had testified to, was untrue. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that.

    Tanenbaum also vindicated Garrison, incriminated Clay Shaw and shared thoughts about leads that were not followed up on:

    JD: You’ve said that you’ve actually seen a CIA document that says they were monitoring and harassing Jim Garrison’s witnesses.

    BT: Right. We had that information. I was shocked to read that because I remember discounting everything Garrison had said. I had a negative point of view about Garrison based upon all the reportage that had gone on. And then I read all this material that had come out of Helm’s office, that in fact what Garrison had said was true. They were harassing his witnesses, they were intimidating his witnesses. The documents exist. Where they are now, God only knows. It’s a sad commentary on the lack of oversight on the executive intelligence agencies.

    JD: I read something about you to the effect that during the brief period you ran the Committee, after Sprague left, one of the areas that really interested you was New Orleans and its connection to JM/Wave and Miami. Also, Delsa told me, as far as he was concerned, that was one of the most productive areas they were working.

    BT: That’s correct. The meeting in Clinton and the Clay Shaw connection and the fact that the government was lying about Clay Shaw and the aliases and so on. That the fact that the government and the executive intelligence agencies, not Garrison, were lying about that, was definitely an area to probe to find out what the justification for that was. Why were they involved in all this, if in fact, nothing had occurred? If it was meaningless, why get involved in creating a perjurious situation for a prosecutor in New Orleans? What was he really on to?

    JD: What’s interesting about the day that Sprague resigns, is that’s the day De Mohrenschildt is found dead.

    BT: Right. The night before the Committee vote, we had sent an investigator to serve him a subpoena. The night of the day he received the subpoena from the Committee is when he was found dead.

    JD: I guess the Committee was so crippled at that time that it couldn’t really pursue whatever investigation there may have been into his murder. And he was a key witness, right?

    BT: Right. We desperately wanted to find out what happened. He was someone who had not been subpoenaed before, certainly not by the Warren Commission. [CTKA note: he was questioned, but not subpoenaed.] And you’re right, he was a key player.

    JD: Another thing you guys were on to that Blakey never seemed to be on to, was the connection between the people in the background of the assassination and the scandal that had just happened in Washington – namely, Watergate.

    BT: Right. E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis. Interestingly, some of them had been with Castro in the Sierra Maestra during the revolution and became players after the revolution. And then wound up in the Nixon White House as the “plumbers.”

    JD: You’ve stated that the Committee never got any cooperation from the Kennedys.

    BT: We called Senator Kennedy 20-30 times. He never responded once to an inquiry. I found that to be astounding, because after all, he is a member of this legislative branch of government. He conducts probes, he engages in fact-finding missions. How could he stonewall from his brethren in the other chamber? He could have just simply acknowledged a phone call. How could he know what information we wanted? The fact of the matter was, as a matter of courtesy, we wanted to let him know we knew he was around and we wanted to discuss with him areas that he felt we should look into and get his opinions. We certainly felt that they would be valid. So, we were very disappointed in that regard. Frank Mankiewicz came by as a representative of the Kennedy family, wanted to see whether or not Sprague and I had two or three heads. He told us, interestingly, Bobby Kennedy couldn’t put a sentence together about the assassination, he couldn’t even think about it, he couldn’t focus on it. Which explains, in large measure why the Kennedy family was willing to accept what the Warren Commission said, without concern. The event was so horrific, in and of itself, they really weren’t concerned with bringing someone to justice other than what the Warren Commission had said. In their minds, from what Mankiewicz said, if it wasn’t Oswald-some nonperson-then it was some other nonperson. What difference would it make?

    JD: When the attacks on Sprague began, most notably in the New York Times and a few other newspapers, did you begin to see a parallel between what was happening to Sprague and what had happened to Jim Garrison?

    BT: Of course. But, I didn’t pay much attention to it because it didn’t mean anything to me. I’m not moved to any great extent, by what people write in newspapers. They were trying to cause controversy. But, we were on a mission to do a job and nothing some dope in the New York Times or any other newspaper was going to write, that was blatantly untrue, was going to interfere with what we were doing. Whether it was a positive article or a negative article, it didn’t matter.

    In 2003, Tanenbaum spoke at the Wecht Conference and what he had to say would certainly give students of American History new insights in the assassination that would not have pleased Earl Warren or Gerald Ford and some of their disciples.

    Here are but a few of the points he made:

    What I am saying is that from the evidence we produced, there were substantial questions about the assassination …

    What I’d like to do very briefly is to explain some of the reasons why, from a prosecutorial point of view, from what our investigation revealed, there was, in my judgment, no case to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of murdering the President …

    The assassination was approximately 12:30; at 12:48 a description of a suspect was sent out: “‘white male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five foot ten inches, weight 165 pounds.” Where did that description come from?

    And the answer the Warren Commission gives is that this fellow Brennan was… looking up at the Depository window. And he allegedly sees this person – the shooter – Oswald the Warren Commission maintains, and was able to give a description, a miraculous feat … because if he stood up in the window you would only see a partial of his body [his knees] because the first few feet was opaque. [the window was close to the floor]

    Whoever the shooter was that was in that window – in that Sniper’s Nest, he was crouched down looking out that window which was raised about 12 inches. At best, if anybody saw anybody in that window, they would have seen a partial of their face, at best.

    During a 2015 interview on Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio, he talked about how the Warren Commission did not want look into a conspiracy, including Oswald’s links with intelligence and Ruby’s to the mob and the Dallas Police Department.

    Richard Sprague – Chief Counsel

    Historians can be illuminated by what this top level insider of impeccable credentials thought about the assassination and the ensuing cover-up from the many interviews he gave.

    In the BBC Documentary The Killing of President Kennedy, Sprague related the following about Oswald:

    His trip to Russia raised a number of questions that we wanted to get into. For example, when any American went to Russia and renounced his American citizenship and subsequently changed his mind and wanted to come back to this country, upon returning to this country there was a thorough debriefing by the CIA, with one exception as far as we could ascertain- Oswald…

    The photographs allegedly of Oswald going into the Cuban embassy as we all know in fact are not photographs of Oswald. Secondly it turns out that those photographs, even if they were of the wrong person, you would expect they would be of a person entering the Cuban embassy but it turns out they are photographs of someone entering the Russian embassy and the question raised how could they so mix up even what building they are talking about. In addition when we inquire where are the photographs you took of the people entering the Cuban embassy the day in question we are told the cameras were not working that day. I want to talk to the camera people I want to find out if that’s true and that’s where we got stopped.

    The CIA said they had re-used the tape prior to the assassination of President Kennedy, yet the FBI has a document stating that some of their agents listened to the tape after the assassination of President Kennedy and that the voice on there was not Oswald’s. In addition the CIA presented a transcript of that conversation; we had interviewed the typist who typed it up who said that the transcript presented was not in fact what was typed up by whoever it was who spoke in that conversation. These are areas that I wanted to get into.

    From the photographic evidence surrounding the sixth floor window, as well as the grassy knoll, Sprague, Tanenbaum and most of the staff knew Oswald had not fired any shot, they suspected no shots came from the sixth floor “sniper’s nest” window, and knew there had been shots from other points in Dealey Plaza. They knew the single bullet theory was not valid, and strongly suspected there had been a pre-planned crossfire in Dealey Plaza. They were not planning to waste a lot of time reviewing and rehashing the Dealey Plaza evidence, except as it might lead to the real assassins.

    They had set up an investigation in Florida and the Keys, of some of the evidence and leads developed in 1967 by Garrison. Gaeton Fonzi was in charge of that part of Sprague’s team. They were going to check out the people in the CIA that had been running and funding the No Name Key group and other anti-Castro groups, e.g., Willaim Seymour, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Jerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, and Rolando Masferrer and Carlos Prio Socarras.

    This new situation, with Richard Sprague and his team garnering so much knowledge of the CIA’s role in the murder and the cover-up caused the Establishment to face a crisis. They knew they had to do several things to turn the situation around and keep the American public in the dark. Here is what they had to do:

    • Get rid of Chief Counsel Richard Sprague.
    • Get rid of Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez.
    • Get rid of Sprague’s key men and keep them away from more incriminating CIA evidence.
    • Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation.
    • Nominate a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who could be fooled.
    • Limit Sprague’s investigations of CIA people. Make sure some of the people aren’t found or, if necessary dispose of CIA people who might talk.
    • Create a new investigative environment whose purpose would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach.
    • Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep any of them separate from other teams and silent by signing non-disclosure agreements.
    • Control the media by not holding any press conferences.

    These things all happened. And they fundamentally altered the temperament and goals of the HSCA. It simply was not the same. As many observers think, this was the last, best chance to solve the JFK case.

    How did it happen? According to Gaeton Fonzi in The Last Investigation:

    Richard Sprague

    The key factors that drove Richard Sprague to resign as Chief Counsel of the Assassinations Committee appeared, at the time, to be apparent and on the surface. His proposed use of certain investigative equipment, his demand for an expensive, unrestricted investigation, his refusal to play politics with Chairman Gonzalez – all were apparent grounds for the vociferous criticism which, in the long run, was debilitating to the Committee’s efforts to get on with its job. However, after his resignation and a brief respite from the turmoil of Washington, Sprague was able to view his experience in a broader perspective.” … “If he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing “Oswald’s ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.” Recently, I asked Sprague why he had come to that conclusion. “Well,” he said, “when I first thought about it I decided that the House leadership really hadn’t intended for there to be an investigation. The Committee was set up to appease the Black Caucus in an election year. I still believe that was a factor. But when I looked back at what happened, it suddenly became very clear that the problems began only after I ran up against the CIA. That’s when my troubles really started.

    In a 2000 interview for Probe Magazine with John Williams, he described his being fired this way:

    SPRAGUE: We were just going to do that type of thorough thing. I demanded the records from the CIA, and now there was an abrupt refusal, and I subpoenaed them. At that point, Gonzales, who was Chairman of the Committee, ordered the CIA, or told the CIA that they need not respond to my subpoena, and fired me, and ordered the U.S. Marshals come in and remove me from my office.

    WILLIAMS: Oh, so that firing was directly after you had subpoenaed the records from the Central Intelligence Agency.

    SPRAGUE: Right. But there’s more involved in it than the timing …

    WILLIAMS: Right.

    SPRAGUE: … if you checked the record. That came up after that. He ordered my firing. He ordered marshals to remove me from my office in what I’m sure was the first and only time in the history of the United States Congress. The rest of the Committee, backed me to a man and overrode the Chairman, and ordered that I remain, and the marshals were directed to get off.

    Of course, that led to Gonzales taking it up in the House of Representatives, and the House backed the rest of the Committee. And he resigned and Stokes came on. [Louis Stokes was the Representative from Ohio. Eds. Note] I’m sure that’s the only time in the history in the United States Congress that in a fight between the Chairman and the Director, that the Chairman got bounced.

    But there’s a terrible price paid for that. Every Congressman dreams of being Chairman of a Committee and being all powerful. It ultimately did not sit well with the Congress that a Chairman got ousted …

    Robert Blakey – Chief Counsel and staff director 1977-79

    While Sprague’s replacement, Robert Blakey, frustrated some investigators for being too trusting of the CIA, he too did not buy the Warren Commission’s final conclusions.

    While at first Blakey felt that the HSCA had investigated the CIA enough to absolve them of any role in the assassination, in 2003 in an addendum to an interview with PBS, his opinion evolved. Because he found out that the CIA misled him and the HSCA by bringing George Joannides out of retirement as the CIA liaison with the Committee and hiding the role he had with an anti-Castro group called the DRE which played an important role by its interaction with Oswald:

    I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the Committee. My reasons follow:

    The Committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

    These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

    What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

    I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the Commission and the Committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the Commission and the Committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

    Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

    During the relevant period, the Committee’s chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but “happy.” Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might “facilitate” the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

    I was not told of Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

    That the Agency would put a “material witness” in as a “filter” between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

    The Committee’s researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating, but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

    They were certainly right about one question: the Committee’s researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency’s integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

    For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

    What the Agency did not give us, none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

    I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the Committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

    Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

    We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

    Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

    I am now in that camp.

    Anyone interested in pursuing this story further should consult the reporting by Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post. See, e.g., Jefferson Morley, “Revelation 1963”, Miami New Times (April 2001).

    Robert Blakey

    During his appearance for the AARC Conference in 2014, Blakey’s views seem to have crystallized by stating that at first he felt the CIA had cooperated but that he had come to change his mind. He also explained how he was sold the idea by the CIA of bringing in a facilitator in Joannides to help in the liaison between the CIA and the HSCA, and that that was when things went downhill. He also said that they were refused the DRE file and were told by Joannides that there was no case agent for the DRE, when in fact he was the case agent! It was also discovered subsequent to the HSCA hearings that Joannides was acting as an undercover agent in his dealings with the HSCA. He also said that FBI agent Regis Kennedy described Marcello as a tomato salesman who was not part of the mob.

    During this presentation and on a 2015 Black Op Radio program he confirmed his belief in the single bullet theory, but also that a shot came from the grassy knoll due to witness testimony from several people who the Warren Commission made every effort to undermine. This includes Secret Service agents, S. M. Holland, and presidential assistant Dave Powers. He said this caused him to lose confidence in the Warren Commission report. He said that “It’s not an investigation … It’s a justification to assert that Oswald acted alone … They used the testimony of Lenny Patrick – a mob shooter – to exculpate Ruby from mob connections …”  He concluded that the committees, including the ARRB, were had.

    Comments on the HSCA

     

    A diligent historian who prides himself in honoring the historical record should really take the time to digest the conclusions of the report and the statements of the high level insiders who are in the know… They do not buy the Warren Commission version of the assassination; they do not conclude that Oswald acted alone; they do not find that the murder was adequately investigated!

    Liberty Lobby vs. E. Howard Hunt

    Contrary to the other investigations which were governmental, this instance was a civil trial which pitted CIA operative and Watergate burglary planner E. Howard Hunt against Mark Lane. Lane came in because Spotlight was a publication which ran a piece in 1985 reporting that the CIA had a memo confirming its intention to out Hunt as having been involved in the JFK assassination, acting as something like a rogue agent. Hunt sued and won for slander but lost on appeal after Liberty Lobby hired Lane to represent them.

    Spotlight wrote the following about its victory: “Scattered news reports did mention Hunt had lost a libel case against The SPOTLIGHT. However, no media reported what the jury forewoman had told the press:  ‘Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.’”

    Mark Lane, who passed away in 2016, was among the earliest researchers who detailed problems about the Warren Commission, which he related in the best-seller Rush to Judgement. His books Plausible Denial and the Last Word cover the trial extensively.

    Comments about the Liberty Lobby – Hunt trial

    While many Warren Commission defenders have tried to discredit Mark Lane through the years, an open-minded historian should consider the jury members who were asked to play an important role in ensuring that justice was served. They took in and evaluated all the evidence. And have added themselves to the already overwhelming number of insiders who do not buy what is written in most history books, i.e., the Warren Commission version of events.

    ARRB Assassination Records Review Board

    This Board was created in 1994 after the movie JFK put pressure on Congress to pass the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. During a four-year period, it declassified millions of documents. Its mandate was different from the other investigations:  The major purpose of the Review Board was to re-examine for release the records that the agencies still regarded as too sensitive to open to the public. In addition, Congress established the Review Board to help restore government credibility. To achieve these lofty goals, Congress designed an entity that was unprecedented.

    It was not set up to re-investigate the case, nor to solve what happened on November 22, 1963.  It nevertheless provided valuable information to assassination researchers that historians seem oblivious to. It achieved the following:

    • Reviewed and voted on over 27,000 previously redacted assassination records.
    • Obtained agencies’ consent to release an additional 33,000+ assassination records.
    • Ensured that the famous Zapruder Film of the assassination belonged to the American people and arranged for the first known authenticity study of the Zapruder Film.
    • Opened previously redacted CIA records from the Directorate of Operations.
    • Released 99% of the “Hardway/Lopez Report” documenting the CIA’s records on Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City before the assassination.
    • Conducted its own inquiry into the medical record of President Kennedy’s autopsy and his treatment at Parkland Hospital by deposing 10 Bethesda autopsy participants, five Parkland Hospital treating physicians, and conducting numerous unsworn interviews of Parkland and Bethesda personnel.
    • Secured records relating to District Attorney Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, including Shaw’s diaries, records from Shaw’s defense attorneys, investigative records from the District Attorney’s office, and grand jury records.
    • Made available to the public all FBI and CIA documents from previous official investigations, like the HSCA.
    • Sponsored ballistics and forensic testing of Warren Commission Exhibit 567, the bullet “nose fragment” from the front seat of the Presidential limousine (the HSCA Firearms Panel first recommended the testing in 1978, but the testing was not conducted until the Review Board existed).
    • Permanently preserved all the extant autopsy photographs of President Kennedy in digitized form, and conducted sophisticated digital enhancement of selected, representative images.

    Jeremy Gunn – Executive counsel

    On November 10, 2013 he made the following remarks for NPR:

    “There were many things that were disturbing.”

    J. Thornton Boswell (left)James J. Humes (center) Pierre Finck (right)

    When Gunn pored over the material, what stuck out most for him was the medical evidence. For instance, what he learned in his 1996 deposition of James Joseph Humes. Humes, who died three years later, was one of the doctors who performed the autopsy on Kennedy’s body.

    For one thing, Humes told Gunn that the autopsy was not performed strictly by the book; some procedures were left out, such as removing and weighing all the organs. Then, Humes made an eye-opening revelation.

    “Dr. Humes admitted that the supposedly original handwritten version of the autopsy that is in the National Archives is in fact not the original version,” Gunn says. He says Humes had never said that publicly before, even to the Warren Commission.

    Saundra K. Spencer

    When Gunn showed Saundra Spencer, the Navy Warrant Officer who processed the autopsy film, the official photos from the National Archives during her deposition in 1997, she said they were not the pictures she remembered processing. What’s more, the official pictures weren’t anything like the ones she remembered. “The prints that we printed did not have the massive head damages that is visible here,” she told Gunn. “… The face, the eyes were closed and the face, the mouth was closed, and it was more of a rest position than these show.”

    “[I] can recite a litany of other unresolved questions surrounding the Kennedy assassination — ones the Warren Commission failed to answer. For example, in New Orleans in 1963, Oswald came in contact with the FBI. When he was arrested after a scuffle at a demonstration, he asked to meet with the FBI. Why would Oswald ask to see someone from the FBI?” Gunn asks. “But an FBI agent went and interviewed Oswald, came back and wrote a memo on it, put it in the file.”

    Jeremy Gunn

    “For me, it’s quite simple,” Gunn says. “I don’t know what happened.”

    “There is substantial evidence that points toward Oswald and incriminates Oswald,” he says, “and the only person we can name where there is evidence is Oswald. But there’s also rather important exculpatory evidence for Oswald, suggesting he didn’t do it, and that he was framed.”

    “So they wanted to write the document in a way that would reassure the American public that it was a single gunman acting alone, somebody who’s a little bit unstable, and that that’s the explanation for what happened. Since the facts aren’t clear, though, that document can look like a whitewash.”

    For the Warren Commission, transparency had its own difficulties. “There are serious problems with the forensics evidence, with the ballistics evidence, with the autopsy evidence,” Gunn says. “And, in my opinion, if they had said that openly, it would have not put the issue to rest.”

    “If the president had been killed as part of a conspiracy, that needed to be known,” he says.

    “The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn’t do it,” he says. “Now it’s too late to do what should have been done originally.”

    Doug Horne – Senior analyst

    Doug Horne reviewed the military records including the military autopsy for the ARRB. What he found was revealed during interviews as well as the book he wrote, Inside the ARRB, published in 2009. Its contents are fascinating and would surprise students of American history who base their beliefs on many of the history textbooks.

    Numerous persons the ARRB deposed or interviewed (FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, mortician Tom Robinson, and others) have essentially disowned the autopsy photographs showing the back of JFK’s head intact. O’Neill said the photos of the back of the head looked “doctored” (by which he meant that he thought the wound had been repaired – put back together – not that the photo looked altered), and Sibert said the back of the head looked “reconstructed.” Tom Robinson of Gawler’s funeral home said there was a large hole in the back of the head where it looks intact in the photos. Pathologist J. Thornton Boswell said that there was a lot of bone missing in the right rear of the head behind where the scalp looks intact, but did not explain how the scalp could be intact if the bone in the right rear of the skull was missing! (See the ARRB deposition transcripts of Frank O’Neill, James Sibert, and J. Thornton Boswell, as well as the unsworn report of the ARRB interview with Tom Robinson.)

    Doug Horne

    But perhaps Horne’s most stunning conclusion was that the photographs of “the President’s brain” in the autopsy collection are really photographs of someone else’s brain … a major deception in this case. These images, which appear to show damage consistent with a shot from above and behind, were disowned under oath to the ARRB by John Stringer, the photographer who took the official brain photos at JFK’s supplementary autopsy. He disowned the images because of the angles at which they were shot, and because they were taken on the wrong film – film he did not use. (FBI agent O’Neill also disowned the brain photos in the autopsy collection, saying that there was too much tissue present, and that at autopsy over one half of the President’s brain was missing.) These photos have been used for years by supporters of the Warren Commission’s conclusions to support their shooting scenario, and to discount those who claim there were shots from the front or right front.

    General conclusions

    Most historians who talked about their sources when writing about the JFK assassination were not aware of the ARRB and the wealth of new evidence made available starting a year after Gerald Posner wrote Case Closed. As a matter of fact, not one cited any of the official investigations as a source other than the Warren Commission. Which, of course, is the oldest, most contested, highly rushed, poorly investigated, biased governmental source possible.

    That assessment does not come from independent authors who are trying to sell books. It comes from written reports of subsequent investigations and the statements of a very significant cross-section of insiders that participated in the investigations including the Warren Commission:  Senators (some Republicans, some Democrats), counsel, staff members, attorneys, researchers, historians, archivists, investigators, FBI, DPD and Louisiana State law enforcement agents. As well as from the highest ranking members of the HSCA and Church committees. As well as an impressive number of dissenting participants of the Warren Commission itself, who have voiced their opinions in reputable magazines, newspapers, documentaries and books, all easily accessible on the web. We are not talking about zany, fringe, book peddling conspiracy theorists here. These are persons that witnessed the autopsy, questioned persons of interest under oath while looking them in the eye, poured over reports and secret documents, worked in teams to analyze the evidence, etc. – people who the U.S. government entrusted to investigate the crime of the century and who curious historians may learn from.

    While they may not all know what in fact happened, they all agree on certain key points: The Warren Commission conclusions are not reliable; the investigations into the assassination were deficient (especially the Warren Commission’s); they are far from certain that Oswald and Ruby acted alone. Many of them believe that: government agencies hid the truth; the Single Bullet Theory is a fabrication; that there has been a long-lasting cover-up; that Oswald and Ruby were involved in very suspicious relationships, and the list goes on and on. All diametrically opposed to what historians, for money, are telling adolescents as part of a captive audience! Which is that Oswald did it and the Warren Commission got it right! End of story!

    The American Historical Association statement of conduct stipulates that historians are to honor the historical record.. To do so they first need to know what it is! If the next edition of their history books continues to support the cover-up, their behavior should be considered nothing less than unforgivable.


    Go to Addendum

    Go to Part 1

  • JFK and the Unforgivable: How the historians’ version of the JFK assassination dishonors the historical record – Part 1

    JFK and the Unforgivable: How the historians’ version of the JFK assassination dishonors the historical record – Part 1


    In April 2016 CTKA published this author’s article[i] that revealed how history books portray the JFK assassination as a crime perpetrated by Oswald alone and how authors’ sources are restricted to the Warren Commission and a few books that mostly support the Lone Nut scenario. Information and conclusions coming from other major investigations and pro-conspiracy authors are almost completely ignored.

    The article went on to show how the historians violate their own code of conduct on this issue and looked into possible outside influences that may have affected their work and mindsets. The unfortunate result of the lack of diligence on this issue is that captive audiences of young students have been unfairly exposed to a biased, unsound and incomplete account of the Kennedy assassination in most history textbooks.

    Another point that came out was that many historians find that independent researchers that write about possible conspiracies lack credibility. There has been much propaganda to discredit them and their work. They are called zany, dishonest, and greedy and their claims are said to be baseless and off the wall. Furthermore they are accused of undermining their own institutions, government and country. Before a serious historian can zero in on whom the reliable researchers are and focus on the soundness of their arguments, they have to cut through clutter caused by hostile, omnipresent anti-conspiracy messaging as well as the cast of shaky researchers peddling low quality work.

    This article focuses on what interested historians can easily learn from the official investigations and the opinions and statements from the actual investigators, lawyers, and staff members who were involved in six investigations that were mostly (all but one) government initiated and managed. The Warren Commission was the first one, the one most historians count on almost entirely for their writings, and as we will see, it is the most obsolete and least reliable.

    For an historian who finds research on this issue very daunting, this should serve as a starting point – especially for those who, as they did with the Warren Commission Report, have faith in their government institutions and their representatives. What follows is what can be learned from not only the official investigation reports but from the mouths of those who were direct participants in them … the real insiders: Those who were mandated and given special powers to access witnesses and evidence! It therefore discounts the theories and opinions of independent authors.

    It may prove difficult to fluff off these sources as being zany, dishonest and greedy … Doing so would suggest a far-fetched governmental conspiracy to deceive its own people and undermine important American institutions.

    It is this author’s opinion that historians are disrespecting the American Historical Association statement of conduct about honoring the historical record when they assert that Oswald alone assassinated the president based on the conclusions of the Warren Commission. If they read this article and continue to do so, their actions cannot be blamed on mere ignorance of the facts, or confusion caused by obfuscators. Thereafter, if the historian does not feel compelled to dig deeper to find out what really happened, then the word unforgivable should be added to the word subservient – at least on this issue – when describing their performance. Especially when one considers the age of the subjects who are victimized in what is supposed to be a learning environment.

    If they continue to cite the Warren Commission as their key source, they may want to consider taking up smoking cigarettes; after all some of the first studies about this product concluded that it was good for your health.

    The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (aka The Warren Commission)

    Established on November 29, 1963, it was set up by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the November 22, 1963 assassination of President Kennedy. The Commission presented an 888-page report[ii] and twenty-six volumes of evidence on September 24, 1964. Its major conclusions were that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK and that nightclub owner Jack Ruby also acted alone in killing Oswald two days later.

    The Commission had “not found evidence” linking either Oswald or Ruby to a conspiracy. (WR, p. 21)

    The first hint of dissension among the members of the commission is the following bewildering statement in the report which points to a rift concerning the Single Bullet theory and Connally’s testimony: “Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and the Governor’s wounds were fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.” (WR, Page 19)

    What is not being said directly here is that certain members of the Commission, as well as John Connally and his wife, did not believe that a single bullet caused all seven wounds, which is in fact necessary to the essential conclusions. Because if one bullet caused Kennedy’s head wound and another caused bystander James Tague’s injury, then for Oswald to be the lone shooter, he would have had to have caused all remaining seven wounds with his only other shot, because even the Warren Commission acknowledges that Oswald could not have fired more than three shots.

    Statements and opinions of Warren Commission members, consultants and investigators

    While most historians continue to place their faith in the Warren Commission, it is most noteworthy that an important number of important participants in the investigation had serious doubts about crucial elements in the report.

    Roger Craig – Dallas Deputy Sheriff

    Roger Craig was very well regarded up until the assassination. He was on duty and in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. In a number of interviews he explains what he witnessed on November 22, 1963: He was in the Book Depository when the alleged murder weapon was found which he confirmed as a Mauser and not the Mannlicher-Carcano that the Warren Commission claimed Oswald owned. (Contrary to what some have written, the brand name Mauser and the calibre are stamped on some editions of the Mauser rifle; see here The Mauser, the Carcano and the Lt. Day Rifle ) Furthermore Craig claimed to have seen Oswald entering a station wagon a few minutes after the assassination, which would contradict the Warren Commission’s chronology of Oswald’s movements and implicated a getaway driver – the following is part of his Warren Commission testimony:

    Roger Craig: I drove up to Fritz’ office about, oh, after 5 … about 5:30 or something like that and talked to Captain Fritz and told him what I had saw. And he took me in his office … I believe it was his office … . it was a little office, and had the suspect sitting in a chair behind a desk … beside the desk. And another gentleman, I didn’t know him, he was sitting in another chair to my left as I walked in the office. And Captain Fritz asked me “was this the man I saw” and I said, “Yes,” it was.

    David Belin: All right. Will you describe the man you saw in Captain Fritz’ office?

    Roger Craig: Oh, he was sitting down but he had the same medium brown hair; it was still … well, it was kinda wild looking; he was slender, and what I could tell of him sitting there, he was … short. By that, I mean not myself, I’m five eleven … he was shorter than I was. And fairly light build.

    David Belin: Could you see his trousers?

    Roger Craig: No; I couldn’t see his trousers at all.

    David Belin: What about his shirt?

    Roger Craig: I believe, as close as I can remember, a T-shirt … a white T-shirt.

    David Belin: All right. But you didn’t see him in a lineup? You just saw him sitting there?

    Roger Craig: No; he was sitting there by himself in a chair … off to one side.

    David Belin: All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?

    Roger Craig: Captain Fritz then asked … . “What about this station wagon?” And the suspect interrupted him and said, “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine” … I believe is what he said. “Don’t try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it.”

    In Craig’s 1971 book When They Kill a President, he describes that many in the DPD despised Kennedy, and how the DPD was excluded from security duties the day of the assassination. The following is David Ratcliffe’s summary of the Book:

    … He was a member of a group of men from Dallas County Sheriff James Eric “Bill” Decker‘s office that was directed to stand out in front of the Sheriff‘s office on Main Street (at the corner of Houston) and “take no part whatsoever in the security of that motorcade.” Once he heard the first shot, Roger Craig immediately bolted towards Houston Street. His participation in the formative hours of the investigation during the rest of that day and into the evening included observations and experiences that would have singlehandedly destroyed the entire Warren Commission fairy tale before a grand jury or a Congressional investigation.

    Roger Craig was named the Dallas Sheriff‘s Department “Officer of the Year” in 1960 by the Dallas Traffic Commission. He received four promotions while he was Deputy Sheriff. Among the most important events he witnessed: At approximately 12:40 p.m., Craig was standing on the south side of Elm Street when he heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm and turned to see a man—wearing faded blue trousers and a long sleeved work shirt made of some type of grainy material—come running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the TSBD. He saw a light green Rambler station wagon coming slowly west on Elm Street, pull over to the north curb and pick up the man coming down the hill. By this time the traffic was too heavy for him to be able to reach them before the car drove away going west on Elm.

    Roger Craig

    After witnessing the above scene, Deputy Craig ran to the command post at Elm and Houston to report the incident to the authorities. When he got there and asked who was involved in the investigation, a man turned to him and said “I‘m with the Secret Service.” Craig recounted what he had just seen. This “Secret Service” man showed little interest in Craig‘s description of the people leaving, but seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler to the degree this was the only part of the recounting that he wrote down. Immediately after this Craig was told by Sheriff Decker to help the police search the TSBD. Deputy Craig was one of the people to find the three rifle cartridges on the floor beneath the window on the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Originally, all three were no more than an inch or two apart. One of the three shells was crimped on the end which would have held the slug. It had not been stepped on but merely crimped over on one small portion of the rim. The rest of that end was perfectly round.

    He was among those present after the rifle was found. And, along with Deputy Eugene Boone who had first spotted the weapon, was immediately joined by police Lt. Day, Homicide Capt. Fritz, and deputy constable Seymour Weitzman, an expert on weapons who had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign makes. Lt. Day briefly inspected the rifle and handed it to Capt. Fritz who asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. After a close examination, Weitzman declared it to be a 7.65 German Mauser. Capt. Fritz agreed with him. At the moment when Capt. Fritz concurred with Weitzman‘s identification of the rifle, an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. Craig instinctively looked at his watch. The time was 1:06 p.m. (The Warren Commission attempted to move this time back beyond 1:15 to create a plausible claim Oswald had reached the Tippit murder scene in a more humanly possible time-frame than would be the case if Tippit had the encounter with his murderer earlier.)

    Later in the afternoon Craig received word of Oswald‘s arrest and that he was suspected of being involved in Kennedy‘s murder. He immediately thought of the man running down the grassy knoll and made a telephone call to Capt. Will Fritz to give him the description of the man he had seen. Fritz said Craig‘s description sounded like the man they had and asked him to come take a look. When he saw Oswald in Fritz‘s personal office Deputy Craig confirmed that this was indeed the man, dressed in the same way, that he had seen running down the knoll and into the Rambler. They went into the office together and Fritz told Oswald, “This man (pointing to me) saw you leave.” At which time the suspect replied, “I told you people I did.” Fritz, apparently trying to console Oswald, said, “Take it easy, son—we‘re just trying to find out what happened.” Fritz then said, “What about the car?” Oswald replied, leaning forward on Fritz‘s desk, “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine—don‘t try to drag her into this.” Sitting back in his chair, Oswald said very disgustedly and very low, “Everybody will know who I am now.”

    The fact that Fritz said ‘car’ and this elicited Oswald‘s outburst about a station wagon—that no one else had mentioned—confirms the veracity of Roger Craig‘s story.

    Junior counsel for the Warren Commission Dave Belin, was the man who interviewed Roger Craig in April of 1964. After being questioned in what Craig recounts as a very manipulative and selective way, Belin asked “Do you want to follow or waive your signature or sign now?” Craig noted, “Since there was nothing but a tape recording and a stenographer‘s note book, there was obviously nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to me.” After Craig first saw the transcript in January of 1968 he discovered that the testimony he gave had been changed in fourteen different places.

    Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig never changed his account of what he witnessed and experienced on Friday, November 22, 1963. The passage where he describes the methodology employed by David Belin in selectively recording his testimony is highly illuminating and provides us with a glimpse of how the Commission interviewed witnesses in a very controlled way. (And is echoed by the experience of Victoria Adams, another key witness, as described in Barry Ernst’s book, The Girl on the Stairs.) Craig remained convinced, for the rest of this life, that the man entering the Rambler station wagon was Lee Harvey Oswald. He was fired from the Sheriff‘s office on July 4, 1967, and from that day forward he never again could find steady work. Multiple attempts were made on his life, his wife finally left him, and in the end, he allegedly shot himself on May 15, 1975.

    Jesse Curry (Chief of Dallas Police)

    Jesse Curry – Dallas Chief of Police

    Curry who was in the motorcade just in front of the president and interviewed Oswald after the assassination is on the record for saying: “There is a possibility that one (a shot) came from in front of us … By the direction of the blood and the brains of the president from one of the shots, it just seems it would have to be fired from the front … I can’t say that I could swear that there was one man and one man alone, I think that there is the possibility that there could be another man … “. He also stated they were never able to place Oswald on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands.

    James Sibert and Francis O’Neill – FBI agents

    Sibert and O’Neill witnessed the autopsy in Bethesda and wrote a report about it which disproves the Single Bullet theory and explains why junior counsel Arlen Specter, who interviewed them, prevented them from talking to the Warren Commission and also kept their report hidden.

    The eventually declassified report, Sibert’s deposition to the ARRB and his interview with William Matson Law for his 2005 book In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence do not help Specter’s case whatsoever:

    James Sibert (FBI)

    Law: Here’s a piece I don’t know what to think of. He said – Custer again – he’s talking about finding a bullet fragment in the autopsy room. I’ve talked to quite a few people and no one else remembers this: “I called one of the pathologists over and said, ‘Hey, we have a bullet here.’ As soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised platform, they ran over and then picked it up. Then Sibert and O’Neill also came over and said, `Well, we want that.’

    Sibert: We never … the only thing we took position of, William, was a little jar with bullet fragments that had been removed from the brain. You know, metal particles?

    Law: That’s the only thing I’ve ever had reported to me, and Mr. Custer has since passed away.

    Sibert: I don’t remember anything about a bullet – you know they couldn’t find that bullet wound in the back – and they probed that and there was no exit. So, I said, “Well, let me go and call over at the lab, see if there is any kind of an ice bullet that might have fragmentized completely.” That was when I called agent Killion over at the lab, and he said, “Have you learned about the bullet they found under the stretcher over at Parkland?” Now, I came back and reported that to Humes, the chief pathologist, and that’s the only – I never saw that bullet. They were sending that bullet in, but it didn’t come into the autopsy room. I think they flew it into the Washington area, and that went directly to the FBI laboratory, the firearms section.

    Law: I’ve talked to Mr. O’Neill quite a bit about this and asked him about his belief in the single-bullet theory, and he said, “Absolutely not, it did not happen!”

    Sibert: Well, you can put me in the same category! Have you read Arlen Specter’s latest book, Passion For Truth?”

    Law: No, I haven’t. I do not believe in the single-bullet theory from all I’ve read, and how can …

    Sibert: I told them before they asked me to come up for the [ARRB] deposition, I said: “Well, before I come up, I want to tell you one thing: I don’t buy the single bullet theory.” And they said, “We don’t expect you to.”

    Law: Yes, when I talked to Mr. O’Neill, he was adamant that it did not happen.

    Sibert: In the first place, they moved the bullet wound, the one in the back. See, I don’t know if you recall, but over at Parkland, they weren’t even aware of the back wound, because they had a big fight over there as to who had jurisdiction. Texas had a law that any kind of a murder done in Texas, the autopsy had to be performed there. They didn’t know about the back wound. But they get to Bethesda – here’s the pathetic part – they found the wound in the back, of course, they took the wound in the neck as a straight tracheotomy and they didn’t find out that it was a bullet wound until the next morning when they called Parkland.

    Law: Do you think it was a straight tracheotomy?

    Sibert: Oh! They said over there that the … I forget who the doctor was there but he said he made that tracheotomy right over a bullet wound.

    Law: That was Malcolm Perry.

    Sibert: Perry, yeah. And you know, a lot of them over there said first that they thought it was an entrance wound. So, you had Parkland not knowing about the back wound, you had Bethesda not knowing about the bullet wound in the neck, taking it as a tracheotomy; which really gets you off on the right foot.

    Law: Were you surprised you weren’t called before the Warren Commission?

    Sibert: I was at the time, but now I can understand why.

    Law: Why do you think you weren’t called?

    Sibert: Why? In other words, with that single-bullet theory, if they went in there and asked us to pinpoint where the bullet entered the back and the measurements and all that stuff, how are you going to work it? See, the way they got the single-bullet theory, was by moving that back wound up to the base of the neck.

    … Law: I was going to ask you to tell me your thoughts on Mr. Specter and the single-bullet theory.

    Sibert: Well I – that single-bullet theory – when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, “Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I’m not an advocate of the single-bullet theory.” I said, “I don’t believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302.” And I said, “Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas.”

    Law: You don’t believe in the single-bullet theory. Period.

    Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can’t put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

    Law: Where do you remember seeing it, exactly? Your partner, Frank O’Neill, if I remember right, credits you with finding the bullet hole in the back.

    Sibert: Well, let me clarify that. When they had the body over at Parkland, they had a shoving match between the fellow who was going to do the autopsy who said that the autopsy had to be done in Texas – and they were going to do it there – and you had Kellerman telling them that he had orders from the Secret Service and also from Bobby Kennedy that it was going to be done in Washington. At Parkland, they never knew there was a bullet wound in the back. That body left there and they did not know about the bullet wound in the back. Then, Bethesda did not know there was a bullet wound where the tracheotomy was made. So that is a pathetic situation. It could have been handled if they had made a phone call. The smart thing to have done – if there hadn’t been such animosity between the partners over there – put one of those Parkland doctors on Air Force One to come right into Bethesda and say, “Here’s what we did.” And the clothing should have come in with the body. But they held the clothing – they didn’t even undo the tie over there at Parkland and there was a nick in the knot – and here you had this entrance or exit wound in the throat where the tracheotomy was.

    Law also interviewed O’Neill:

    Law: Were you surprised you were not called before the Warren Commission?

    O’Neill: Yes. Because we had pertinent information and the information that was given to the Warren Commission as a result of our interview with Mr. Specter was not a hundred percent accurate ….

    Law: I have your testimony to the ARRB. They asked you about the bullet wound in the throat and you said, “Well, I question it. I’ll tell you more later.” Why did you question the bullet wound to the throat?

    O’Neill: Because there was no such thing as a bullet wound in the throat at that particular time. We only learned about the bullet wound in the throat in particular – well, let me see – we learned about that after the doctors – not “we” – but it was learned by the doctors who performed the autopsy after they had called down to Dallas to speak to the hospital. Ah, I think it was Malcolm Perry?

    Law: Malcolm Perry was the attending physician.

    O’Neill: That’s the only time that they became aware that there was a bullet wound in the throat.

    Law: Do you believe there was a bullet wound in the throat?

    O’Neill: I have no idea. It was not a question – I mean it was a question – there was not a question in my mind about a bullet wound in the throat, it just never came up. It was a tracheotomy, period, until we found out that it was performed over the bullet wound – over a wound – because they weren’t sure it was a bullet wound at that time.

    As Law concluded, “O’Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. ‘That’s Arlen Specter’s theory,’ O’Neill told me. It’s quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, ‘What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.’”

    The single-bullet theory is key to the “lone-nut” scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-bullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

    Alex Rosen – Former FBI Assistant Director

    Alex Rosen told the Committee (Church Committee testimony) that the FBI was not actively investigating a conspiracy, but was “in the position of standing on the corner with our pockets open, waiting for someone to drop information into it … “ (Source: Mary Ferrell Foundation)

    Charles Shaffer – Staff member – Former Justice Department Investigator

    In a 2014 Washington Post interview Charles Shaffer admitted that he now thinks that JFK was assassinated as a result of a mob-related conspiracy involving Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello. He also claimed that Warren’s biggest blunder was not allowing Ruby to testify in Washington where he may have exposed a conspiracy.

    Alfredda Scobey – Staff member – Law assistant to court of appeal State of Georgia

    Scobey wrote down notes taking the position of what a defense lawyer for Oswald could have argued with respect to the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. Her observations underscore many problems the prosecution would have faced including: The denial of Oswald’s right to legal counsel; the inadmissibility of his wife’s testimony; the poor quality of Helen Markham as witness to the Tippit assassination; the number of witnesses that refused to identify Oswald as Tippit’s assassin; the lack of pertinence of the Walker incident; the evidence obtained from the Paines’ without a warrant; the chain of possession of the rifle, etc.

    Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert – Assistant counsels

    Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert were charged with investigating Jack Ruby and while they had not concluded that Ruby was involved in a conspiracy, they were clearly not satisfied with the investigation and information transferred to them by the FBI or CIA. This is made clear by memos written by them and answers Judge Griffin gave in his HSCA testimony.

    Lisa Pease, in an August 1995 Probe article, gives a good summary of the memos:

    Assistant counsels to the Warren Commission Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert wrote, in a memo to the Warren Commission members dated March 20, 1964, that “the most promising links between Jack Ruby and the assassination of President Kennedy are established through underworld figures and anti-Castro Cubans, and extreme right-wing Americans.” Two months later, Griffin and Hubert wrote another memo to the Commission, significantly titled “Adequacy of the Ruby Investigation” in which they warned, “We believe that a reasonable possibility exists that Ruby has maintained a close interest in Cuban affairs to the extent necessary to participate in gun sales or smuggling.”

    Ruby had talked about it himself while in jail, reportedly telling a friend, “They’re going to find out about Cuba. They’re going to find out about the guns, find out about New Orleans, find out about everything.” Tales of Ruby running guns to Cuba abounded in the FBI reports taken in the first weeks after the assassination, yet neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee pursued those leads very far. Griffin and Hubert expressed concern over this, saying that “neither Oswald’s Cuban interests in Dallas nor Ruby’s Cuban activities have been adequately explored.”

    Burt Griffin

    Hubert and Griffin expressed in their memo of May 14 to Rankin that “we believe that the possibility exists, based on evidence already available, that Ruby was involved in illegal dealings with Cuban elements who might have had contact with Oswald. The existence of such dealings can only be surmised since the present investigation has not focused on that area.” They expressed concern that “Ruby had time to engage in substantial activities in addition to the management of his Clubs” and that “Ruby has always been a person who looked for money-making ‘sidelines’.” They even suggested that since the Fort Worth manufacturer of the famous “Twist Board” Ruby was demonstrating the night after the assassination had no known sales, and was manufactured by an oil field equipment company, that “[t]he possibility remains that the ‘twist board’ was a front for some other illegal enterprise.” But what Griffin and Hubert kept coming back to is that there was “much evidence” that Ruby “was interested in Cuban matters”, citing his relationship to Louis McWillie; his attempted sale of jeeps to Castro, his reported attendance of meetings “in connection with the sale of arms to Cubans and the smuggling out of refugees“; and Ruby’s quick correction of Wade’s remark that Oswald was a member of the Free Cuba Committee, a group populated with such notables as Clare Booth Luce, Admiral Arleigh Burke, and CIA journalistic asset Hal Hendrix: “Bits of evidence link Ruby to others who may have been interested in Cuban affairs.”

    During his HSCA testimony, Griffin made it clear that the requests to investigate Ruby further were not followed up on.

    In the documentary The Killing of President Kennedy, Griffin is even blunter: “I feel betrayed … the CIA lied to us …” He goes on to state CIA concealed their efforts to kill Castro and their links with the mafia, which would have been very important for the investigation. Griffin is also on the record as saying: “In any area where Oswald’s relation to the FBI … We could not trust Hoover”. This is important because the Warren Commission had very little investigative resources and relied heavily on the FBI for information gathering.

    Senator Richard Russell – Warren Commissioner

    Senator Russell in a stunning phone conversation with LBJ on September 18, 1964 voiced his disagreement with the Single Bullet theory very directly:

    Sen. Richard Russell

    “They were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, into his leg and everything else. … The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.” … “And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary, and I’m not going to approve of that. So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so. And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile.”

    Just before his death Russell said publically that he believed that someone else worked with Oswald.

    Senator John Cooper – Commissioner

    Sen. John Sherman Cooper

    Senator John Cooper is also on the record for having written about the Single Bullet theory: “it seems to me that Governor Connally’s statement negates such a conclusion.” He later confirmed his stance in an interview for the BBC documentary The Killing of President Kennedy.

    Congressman Hale Boggs – Commissioner

    Boggs was neither convinced that Oswald was the assassin, nor that Ruby acted alone. According to legal advisor Bernard Fensterwald:

    Rep. Hale Boggs

    “Almost from the beginning, Congressman Boggs had been suspicious over the FBI and CIA’s reluctance to provide hard information when the Commission’s probe turned to certain areas, such as allegations that Oswald may have been an undercover operative of some sort. When the Commission sought to disprove the growing suspicion that Oswald had once worked for the FBI, Boggs was outraged that the only proof of denial that the FBI offered was a brief statement of disclaimer by J. Edgar Hoover. It was Hale Boggs who drew an admission from Allen Dulles that the CIA’s record of employing someone like Oswald might be so heavily coded that the verification of his service would be almost impossible for outside investigators to establish.”

    According to one of his friends: “Hale felt very, very torn during his work (on the Commission) … he wished he had never been on it and wished he’d never signed it (the Warren Report).” Another former aide argued that, “Hale always returned to one thing: Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.”

    Congressman Gerald Ford – Warren Commissioner

    Pres. Valéry
    Giscard-d’Estaing

    In public Gerald Ford was a staunch defender of the Warren Commission’s findings and conclusions, describing the report as a Gibraltar of factual literature. However, in private he seems to have held a very different discourse.

    Gerald Ford

    Valérie Giscard D’Estaing, ex-president of France, claimed the following in an interview he gave to RTL:

    Gerald Ford (president of the United States from 1974 to 1977, editor’s note) was a member of the Warren Commission», he resumes. «Once I was making a car trip with him, he was then President as I was myself. I said to him: ‘Let me ask you an indiscreet question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you arrive at?’ He told me: ‘It’s not a satisfactory one. We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure that it was set up. But we were not able to discover by whom.’»

    In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the Warren Report to read: “A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.”

    LBJ – President

    In a 1969 interview with Walter Cronkite, Lyndon Johnson said that he had not completely discounted the possibility of international connections to the murder.

     

    Comments about the Warren Commission

    As we can see, the conclusions of the Warren Commission are far from convincing, for they are belied by many of those who played important and direct roles in the investigation. Far from the Gibraltar that Gerald Ford referred to, it was on weak footing from the outset and things only went downhill from there.

    It is clearly unsound for historians to refer to the Warren Commission as their key and only source when describing Ruby and Oswald as lone perpetrators of the crimes related to the November 22, 1963 tragedy. Considering the other government investigations that followed which impeach its modus operandi and many of its conclusions, it is like ignoring a judgement reversal after an appeal and only citing the discredited judgement of the original trial.

    The Jim Garrison Investigation

    Starting in 1966, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison investigated the assassination. This led to the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, a well-known local businessman, who was accused of being part of a conspiracy. While the jury found Shaw not guilty, according to Mark Lane – who had advised Garrison – most jurors felt there had nevertheless been a conspiracy.

    This investigation shed light on many, up to then under-reported, issues. Let us consider some of them:

    Pierre Finck
    1. Garrison demonstrated that Oswald, while in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963, was seen handing out Fair Play for Cuba flyers. For which he received a lot of negative publicity in conservative New Orleans. However, in what seems to have been a blunder, some of these flyers had the address of 544 Camp Street on them. That faux pas placed his supposed office virtually within Guy Bannister`s detective office, which was, according to Garrison, really a CIA-linked hub for organizing Cuban exile paramilitary operations to overthrow Castro, and also Communist witch-hunts.
    2. Many witnesses confirmed associations of Oswald with Bannister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, who Garrison linked with the CIA.
    3. Garrison argued that Oswald`s learning of the Russian language while a marine, and his journey into the USSR demonstrated his links to intelligence. He also concluded that Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba role was an attempt to sheep-dip him as a pro-Castro villain.
    4. Garrison was also probably the first person to cast doubt on a strange trip Oswald allegedly made to Mexico in September 1963.
    5. Pierre Finck, who was part of the Bethesda autopsy team, during his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial demonstrated just how incompetently the autopsy was conducted and how the pathologists were being controlled by high-level military officers.
    6. During the Shaw trial, for the first time, Garrison showed the jury the Zapruder film, and demonstrated the weaknesses of the lone shooter claim.

    Francis Fruge – Garrison case investigator – Louisana State Police Lieutenant

    Francis Fuge’s entry into the case actually began a few days before the assassination when he first encountered and questioned Rose Cheramie, a heroin addicted call girl and drug courier, who predicted the assassination, and talked about her links with Jack Ruby while she was hospitalized from November 20-22, 1963. He met her again right after the murder. Fruge later became an important investigator for Jim Garrison. His account of this extremely incriminating story was summarized in a thoroughly documented July 1999 Probe Magazine article:

    As Fruge so memorably recalled to Jonathan Blackmer of the HSCA, Cheramie summed up her itinerary in Dallas in the following manner: “She said she was going to, number one, pick up some money, pick up her baby, and to kill Kennedy.” (p. 9 of Fruge’s 4/18/78 deposition)

    At the hospital, Cheramie again predicted the assassination. Again, before it happened on November 22nd, to more than one nurse. The nurses, in turn, told others of Cheramie’s prognostication. (Memo of Frank Meloche to Louis Ivon, 5/22/67). Further, according to a psychiatrist there, Dr. Victor Weiss, Rose “…told him that she knew both Ruby and Oswald and had seen them sitting together on occasions at Ruby’s club.” (Ibid., 3/13/67) In fact, Fruge later confirmed the fact that she had worked as a stripper for Ruby. (Louisiana State Police report of 4/4/67.)

    Fruge had discounted Cheramie’s earlier comments to him as drug-induced delusions. Or, as he said to Blackmer, “When she came out with the Kennedy business, I just said, wait a minute, wait a minute, something wrong here somewhere.” (Fruge, HSCA deposition, p. 9)

    He further described her in this manner:

    Now, bear in mind that she talked: she’d talk for a while, looks like the shots would have effect on her again and she’d go in, you know, she’d just get numb, and after awhile she’d just start talking again.” (Ibid.)

    But apparently, at the time of the assassination Cheramie appeared fine. The word spread throughout the hospital that she had predicted Kennedy’s murder in advance. Dr. Wayne Owen, who had been interning from LSU at the time, later told the Madison Capital Times that he and other interns were told of the plot in advance of the assassination. Amazingly, Cheramie even predicted the role of her former boss Jack Ruby because Owen was quoted as saying that one of the interns was told “…that one of the men involved in the plot was a man named Jack Rubinstein.” (2/11/68) Owen said that they shrugged it off at the time. But when they learned that Rubinstein was Ruby they grew quite concerned. “We were all assured that something would be done about it by the FBI or someone. Yet we never heard anything.” (Ibid.) In fact, Cheramie’s association with Ruby was also revealed to Dr. Weiss. For in an interview with him after the assassination, Rose revealed that she had worked as a drug courier for Jack Ruby. (Memo of Frank Meloche to Jim Garrison, 2/23/67) In the same memo, there is further elaboration on this important point:

    I believe she also mentioned that she worked in the night club for Ruby and that she was forced to go to Florida with another man whom she did not name to pick up a shipment of dope to take back to Dallas, that she didn’t want to do this thing but she had a young child and that they would hurt her child if she didn’t.”

    Francis Fruge

    These comments are, of course, very revealing about Ruby’s role in both an intricate drug smuggling scheme and, at the least, his probable acquaintance with men who either had knowledge of, or were actually involved in, the assassination. This is a major point in this story which we will return to later.

    Rose Cheramie

    Although Fruge had discounted the Cheramie story on November 20th, the events of the 22nd made him a believer. Right after JFK’s murder, Fruge “…called that hospital up in Jackson and told them by no way in the world to turn her loose until I could get my hands on her.” (Fruge’s HSCA deposition, p. 12.) So on November 25th, Fruge journeyed up to Jackson State Hospital again to talk to Cheramie. This time he conducted a much more in-depth interview. Fruge found out that Cheramie had been traveling with the two men from Miami. He also found that the men seemed to be a part of the conspiracy rather than to be just aware of it. After the assassination, they were supposed to stop by a home in Dallas to pick up around eight thousand dollars plus Rose’s baby. From there Cheramie was supposed to check into the Rice Hotel in Houston under an assumed name. Houston is in close proximity to Galveston, the town from which the drugs were coming in. From Houston, once the transaction was completed, the trio were headed for Mexico.

    How reliable a witness was Cheramie? Extermely. Fruge decided to have the drug deal aspect of her story checked out by the state troopers and U. S. Customs. The officers confirmed the name of the seaman on board the correct ship coming into Galveston. The Customs people checked the Rice Hotel and the reservations had been made for her under an assumed name. The contact who had the money and her baby was checked and his name showed that he was an underworld, suspected narcotics dealer. Fruge checked Cheramie’s baggage and found that one box had baby clothes and shoes inside.

    Fruge flew Cheramie from Louisiana to Houston on Tuesday, the 26th. In the back seat of the small Sesna 180, a newspaper was lying between them. One of the headlines read to the effect that “investigators or something had not been able to establish a relationship between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald.” (Fruge’s HSCA deposition p. 19) When Cheramie read this headline, she started to giggle. She then added, “Them two queer sons-of-a-bitches. They’ve been shacking up for years.” (Ibid.) She added that she knew this to be true from her experience of working for Ruby. Fruge then had his superior call up Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police to relay what an important witness Cheramie could be in his investigation. Fruge related what followed afterwards:

    Colonel Morgan called Captain Fritz up from Dallas and told him what we had, the information that we had, that we had a person that had given us this information. And of course there again it was an old friend, and there was a little conversation. But anyway, when Colonel Morgan hung up, he turned around and told us they don’t want her. They’re not interested.

    Fruge then asked Cheramie if she wished to try telling her tale to the FBI. She declined. She did not wish to involve herself further.

    Aftermath of the Garrison case and general comments

    Perhaps no other person who believed there was a conspiracy was vilified more than Jim Garrison. He has been called a charlatan, a publicity-seeker and crazy, among other things. With time however, many of his claims have been vindicated. While some described his case as a farce, it is often overlooked that Garrison had presented his evidence beforehand to a three-judge panel who concluded that he was justified to bring it to court, and that the subsequent HSCA investigation concluded that Garrison and his office “had established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, a suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy, and Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald” – a devastating blow to Garrison detractors.

    Other information from later investigations reveals that his efforts were sabotaged by adversaries who infiltrated his volunteer team and weakened his efforts; well-orchestrated propaganda attacking both his case and reputation; refusals to his subpoenas for out-of-state witnesses and the harassment, turning and untimely deaths of some of his key witnesses, including the suspicious deaths of star-witness David Ferrie and the murder of Eladio Del Valle. Other evidence that began to emerge showed that Clay Shaw, despite his denials, was in fact a CIA asset and part of a CIA organization of interest called Permindex.

    To form their own opinion about Garrison, historians who are not of a pre-judging nature or overly stubborn are advised to read his highly revealing Playboy interview and his book: On the Trail of the Assassins.

    The United States President’s Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (The Rockefeller Commission)

    After a 1974 New York Times report on illegal acts committed by the CIA, Gerald Ford set up the Rockefeller Commission headed by his Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller in 1975. It publicized the CIA MK/Ultra mind control experiments and revealed its illegal mail opening and US protester surveillance programs (MH/Chaos). It also held a very narrow investigation into the Kennedy assassination focusing on the Zapruder film, some of the medical evidence and whether Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt, who had just gained notoriety because of their roles in the Watergate scandal, were involved in the assassination. In a short eighteen-page chapter about the assassination it concluded that the CIA had not been involved and that only three shots were fired from behind the motorcade.

    Many distrusted this Commission because of the involvement of key Warren Commission members such as Ford and David Belin. It was largely superseded by the Church and HSCA committees that succeeded it and that were much farther reaching.

    It was during this period that, as Daniel Schorr later wrote, Ford let slip the bombshell that the CIA had been involved in assassinations. Which, as we saw previously, he probably learned about on the Warren Commission. But CIA Director Bill Colby then spun this to mean the assassination of foreign leaders.

    United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (The Church Committee)

    This U.S. Senate Committee was chaired by Senator Frank Church and issued 14 reports in 1975 and 1976 after interviewing hundreds of witnesses and studying thousands of files from the FBI, CIA and other agencies.

    It delved into U.S. assassination plots against foreign leaders, which were a key component of CIA regime control or change operations. Their targets included Congo’s Lumumba, Castro of Cuba, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, Gen. Schneider of Chile, President Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. Ex CIA leader Allen Dulles’ pact with the mafia to assassinate Castro was also part of their findings. This information, which could have impacted the Warren Commission investigation, was kept secret by Dulles while he was one of its commissioners.

    Volume 4 of the report sheds light on HT/LINGUAL, the illegal mail intercept programs involving both the CIA and the FBI.

    The Committee also reported on the extent the CIA partnered with media and academia, in an effort to control the media, later called Operation Mockingbird: “The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”

    Lead by Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker, the Church Committee also conducted a focused investigation (Book 5) of the Kennedy assassination, concentrating on how the FBI and CIA supported the Warren Commission. Its report was very critical of these agencies: ” … developed evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission. This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient.”

    If this conclusion does not shake historians blind faith in the Blue Ribbon Warren Commission, perhaps comments from the sub-committee leaders might help create some doubt.

    Senator Gary Hart

    An interview Hart gave to the Denver Post after his stint on the committee clearly showed that he did not buy the Warren Commission depiction of Oswald, nor did he find that the FBI and the CIA were transparent with what they knew:

    “Who Oswald really was – who did he know? What affiliation did he have in the Cuban network? Was his public identification with the left-wing a cover for a connection with the anti-Castro right-wing?”

    Hart believed that Oswald was a double agent which was one of the reasons why the FBI and CIA had made “a conscious decision to withhold evidence from the Warren Commission.”

    During the fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination Hart was interviewed by the Huffington Post and one can only deduce that his views about the inadequacy of the Warren Commission investigation and mainstream media’s efforts into getting to the bottom of things had hardened based on the following statements:

    “It’s amazing to me that American journalism never followed up on that story very much, because if you found out who killed those two guys, you might have some really interesting information on your hands.”

    “I went down to Miami when [Johnny] Roselli was killed and talked to this Dade County sheriff from the Miami Police Department, and they showed me pictures of him being fished out of the water in the barrel and how he’d been killed — nightmarish stuff. And [Momo Salvatore] Giancana was killed in his own basement with six bullet holes in his throat with a Chicago police car and an FBI car outside his house.”

    “I was always amazed in that particular instance of the CIA-Mafia connection and the Cuban connection 12 years — coming up 12 years — after Kennedy was killed that somebody didn’t go after that story … New York Times, Washington Post, anybody. And they didn’t. They reported the deaths and that was it, and the strange quirky coincidence, you know, but nothing more.”

    “You don’t have to be a genius to believe that they knew something about the coincidence of events — Cuba, Mafia, CIA and Kennedy — that somebody didn’t want that out in the public 12 years later.”

    Sen. Gary Hart

    The article also underscores the following intriguing insight: According to Hart, the Warren Commission — the presidential commission charged with investigating Kennedy’s assassination that concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone — remained unaware of the connections between Cuba, the CIA, the Mafia and Kennedy. Only then-CIA director Allen Dulles, who was on the commission, knew, according to Hart, but Dulles said nothing to the other members.

    During a day-long symposium in May 2015 featuring former Church Committee members and staff, held by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law at the Constance Milstein and Family Global Academic Center of the New York University in Washington, D.C, Hart on a panel with former Church Committee Colleague Senator Mondale, added this powerful affirmation:

    ” … THE THREE MAFIA FIGURES INVOLVED IN THE CASTRO PLOT WITH THE CIA. WE HEARD FROM ONE OF THEM TWICE. THE 2nd TIME – THE 1st TIME HE CAME AND WENT WITH NO PUBLIC NOTICE AT ALL. HIGHLY SECRET. THE QUESTIONS OBVIOUSLY WERE WHO ORDERED CASTRO KILLED, WHAT ROLE DID YOU PLAY SO FORTH. I FELT AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS GENERALLY FORTHCOMING HE STILL KNEW A LOT HE WASN’T TELLING US. HE WENT HOME TO MIAMI AND DISAPPEARED AND ENDED UP DEAD. HE WAS IN HIS 70s. AND MAFIA TIMES IN THOSE DAYS THAT WAS RETIREMENT. FOR THE REST OF US NOW IT’S MIDDLE-AGED. THE 2nd FIGURE WAS PROBABLY THE TOP MAFIA FIGURE IN AMERICA. PREPARED TO SUBPOENA HIM WITH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE. HE WAS KILLED IN HIS BASEMENT. KILLED IN HIS BASEMENT WITH SIX BULLET HOLES IN HIS THROAT. NEITHER OF THESE CRIMES HAVE BEEN SOLVED. NOW, BY AND LARGE THE MEDIA INCLUDED WITH THESE WERE DISMISSED AS MAFIA STUFF. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THEY WERE KILLED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR COMMITTEE. THE QUESTION IS WHY? WHO DID IT AND WHY? “

    Sen. Richard Schweiker

    Sen. Richard Schweiker

    Schweiker’s comments are even more explosive.

    In 1975 he made the following statement to the Village Voice: “We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence.”

    In 1976 he told CBS News that the CIA and FBI lied to the Warren Commission and that the case could be solved if they followed hot new leads. He also claimed that the White House was part of the cover up.

    In a BBC documentary the Killing of President Kennedy he made the following blistering statement about the Warren Commission investigation:

    “The Warren Commission has in fact collapsed like a house of cards and I believe it was set up at the time to feed pabulum to the American people for reasons not yet known, and one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of our country occurred at that time.”…

    “The most important thing was that the intelligence agencies did all the wrong things if they were really looking for a conspiracy or to find out who killed John Kennedy.”…

    “The key is why did they let him (Oswald) bring a Russian-born wife out contrary to present Russian policy, he had to get special dispensation from the highest levels to bring his Russian-born wife out, that in itself says somebody was giving Oswald highest priority either because we had trained and sent him there and they went along and pretended they did not know to fake us out, or they had in fact inculcated him and sent him back and were trying to fake us out, but he had gotten a green light no other American had gotten.”

    In the documentary he goes on to say that the highest levels of government were behind him and his committee being mislead, and were continuing the cover-up and also that Oswald was clearly involved with pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups, which smacks of an intelligence role as a double agent, and that these relationships were not investigated.

    In an interview Bob Tanenbaum (first Deputy Counsel for the HSCA) gave to Probe Magazine, here is how he describes an exchange he had with Schweiker where the senator directly accuses the CIA:

    Q: One of the more interesting subjects you’ve mentioned in some of your talks is this meeting you had with Senator Schweiker which, I’m assuming, you give a lot of weight to, because of the evidence and because of who it was coming from.

    A: Well, it was shocking! I went up there with Cliff Fenton and Schweiker told me in his opinion the CIA was responsible for the assassination. That’s a heck of a statement to come from a United States Senator and one who had even been Ronald Reagan’s running mate in 1976, even though they didn’t make it.

    Q: Was it just you in the room when he told you that?

    A: Yeah, it was just the two of us. I was stunned! He had asked Cliff to leave and he had his own staff people leave. I had that material he had given us which contained all that information about Veciana and the Alpha 66 group and this Bishop character.

    Q: When I interviewed Schweiker, one of the last questions I asked him was if he had been on the oversight committee, for which he had not been nominated, which avenue would he have pursued. And he said, “I would have gone after Maurice Bishop.”

    A: Well, as I said, I was stunned. Even after investigating this case, I’m not going to say that the CIA did it. He was saying it definitively. What the evidence suggested when we were in Washington was there were certain rogue elements who were involved with Bishop and others, the “plumber” types in the Nixon White House, who were involved with Oswald, who were substantially involved with anti-Castro Cubans who, the evidence suggests, were involved in the assassination. I keep saying that the evidence suggested it because we weren’t there long enough to make the case. So, there was a short-circuiting that occurred. But, that’s the area we were moving inexorably toward. And then I spoke with Gaeton Fonzi and Gaeton would corroborate this to the extent that he worked with Schweiker, he knew what Schweiker’s feelings were and he knew all about that file on Veciana. And that’s when we asked Gaeton to come on board, because he had worked on the Church senate oversight committee and he had a lot of connections that would be very helpful. And he’s a very honest guy.

    Comments about the Church Committee

    Any conscientious historian who has reached this point in the article and continues to cite the Warren Commission as the key historical record in their textbooks read by unsuspecting students to conclude that Oswald acted alone, that person deserves the scorn of all who entrust academia to help shape the minds of our youth. The case against the Warren Commission made by Government officials so far is devastating; things are about to get even worse. The HSCA investigation into the assassination will turn Gerald Ford’s Gibraltar into a bowl of Jello.


    [i] The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks, Part 1, Parts 2 and 3

    [ii]http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm


    Go to Part 2

    Go to Addendum

  • The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks – Parts 2 & 3

    The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks – Parts 2 & 3


    The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks – Part Two

    (Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)


    Part 3: Afterword

    DE-NORMALIZING THE WAY HISTORY BOOKS COVER THE JFK ASSASSINATION

    The community of serious researchers on the JFK assassination, today’s and yesterday’s, deserves high praise for their resilience and dedication. With very limited means and facing the risk of constant ridicule, they have persevered and brought us into places considered taboo. It’s a territory where journalists, politicians and, as we can see, historians refuse to go. Their names are slandered in writing, and on the Web, some are threatened with lawsuits and others are intimidated. But through it all, they have shown that, in addition to the major conclusions of the Warren Report, there are even serious questions about how Dorothy Kilgallen died as she was working on the JFK case following her interview of Jack Ruby. (Click here for a review)

    Yet still, they persevere by revealing witnesses that the Warren Commission refused to talk to, getting their hands on the quasi-confiscated Zapruder film and showing it on national TV, accessing revealing documents through information initiatives, combing through the national archives and getting their messages out through books, articles, interviews and seminars.

    While their efforts – with the help of people like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone – have somewhat paid off, with the creation of the HSCA, and the important releases of documents through the ARRB – with more to come in 2017 – they have not succeeded in changing the outdated narratives in mainstream media and history books. As shown through the AHA professional standards code, what is in these history books is not history. It is more like stenography for the MSM.

    As opposed to the broadcast of the Zapruder film on national TV, and the release of the JFK movie, most JFK books, articles, and interviews are seen and heard by a small, albeit knowledgeable audience with almost no support from mainstream media. Therefore, for the vast majority of time, these authors are preaching to the already converted.

    The first phase of research, carried out by people like Vincent Salandria and Sylvia Meagher, was characterized by a lone wolf approach. It involved a lot of grunt work, directly in the trenches: reading through the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, searching for first-hand witnesses, identifying inconsistencies and concluding that there must have been a conspiracy. Except for Jim Garrison, very few of the pioneers could make a strong case about who the conspirators actually were.

    The Mary Ferrell Foundation, National Archives, COPA and Lancer conferences, and shows hosted by the likes of Alan Dale and Len Osanic, helped bring in a second phase. This allowed researchers to network better with one another and speed up research and information sharing. With the ARRB release of documents, persons of interest confessions and other key findings, there are now clearer templates of what could have happened that are more convincing than the notion of one misguided outcast, waiting for the sixth floor to be deserted, putting together a disassembled rifle and “sniper’s lair” in no time flat, then firing off three lucky shots in six seconds with an unreliable bolt-action rifle. A man with no discernible motive, who was then bumped off two days later by another lone-nut nightclub owner who got himself incarcerated and condemned to the gas chamber out of sympathy for Jackie Kennedy.


    From left to right: Dorothy Kilgallen; Sylvia Meagher; Jim Garrison; Oliver Stone

    It is this author’s opinion that the research community now needs to enter a new phase if it wishes to reach a universal audience, one that sees research efforts bolstered by business administration support focused on an approach called “De-Normalization,” which was used successfully against the tobacco industry as discussed in Part 1 of this article. There was a time when all the following was true: Cigarettes were smoked inside schools, bars, restaurants and places of work; they were advertised on TV with cowboy and soldier personalities and healthy-looking models; claims were made that cigarettes were good for your health and that they did not cause cancer; they were part of logistical planning during war time. Much of this changed around the Truth campaign launches, where legislation (no smoking in public places and restrictions on product marketing), price control and communications (anti-Big Tobacco ad campaigns) combined to de-normalize its free reign.

    The two ingredients that paved the way for this successful strategy were: 1) The victims were young; and, 2) They were being manipulated. Public relations specialists will tell you that they relish this type of situation, which is certain to get media and political attention.

    These very same ingredients are present in the issue of historical accounts of the assassination. It may be an overstatement, for now, to claim that students are being wittingly manipulated, but they certainly are not being transmitted a balanced and complete picture of this tragic landmark event. And furthermore, they constitute a young captive audience in a “nurturing” place that is dedicated to developing the minds of our youth with useful and accurate information often funded by the public. This makes the history books narrative on the JFK assassination a logical target for De-Normalization.

    THE SIX STEPS TO DE-NORMALIZING THE CURRENT HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

     

    1. Forming a task force and its consultants

    The team that would lead this endeavor would be made up of knowledgeable researchers and other concerned specialists who have a reputation of doing diligent work and presenting information in a convincing way. They have the respect of their peers, they understand academia and they are not seen as loose cannons. Their areas of research and expertise are complementary.

    2. Involving youth, parents and open-minded historians

    The anti-tobacco crusaders’ message was strongly enhanced by the aid of teenage spokespeople and other concerned parties. It is one thing to hear a hardened pro-conspiracy messenger taking on an equally experienced historian, it is another to hear a student say that he would have liked to know more about how the HSCA contradicted many of the Warren Commission conclusions.

    3. Preparing the case smartly and choosing the right narrative

    By early 2018, hopefully after the release of the remaining unclassified archive documents, there should be a compelling case file that relies on the input of the very best research specialists in the field which can be communicated as effectively in classroom as in a courtroom. At this point the primary objective should be to gain the admission that the HSCA concluded that there was a probable conspiracy and to eliminate the affirmation that JFK was killed by a lone nut. It may be overly ambitious at this point, and perhaps not necessary to focus on whether or not Oswald was a conscious participant in the conspiracy.

    The task force here should focus on strong evidence and discard the uncertain variety like some of the photo analysis. The case needs to be comprehensive and easy to digest. Also, the narrative must avoid making irresponsible statements like the CIA killed Kennedy. The Democratic Party of the slavery era is not today’s Democratic Party. The CIA has changed a lot since 1963. In 1963, the CIA did influence the government quite strongly and at times negatively. However, during the weapons of mass destruction propaganda offensive, it was the CIA that was fighting off proponents of that claim, like Dick Cheney. Second, the persons of interest who were CIA identified by a number of authors are few in number and in some cases were no longer working for the CIA at the time of the assassination – such as Dulles and Cabell. In other cases, they were outcasts on their way out, like Harvey. (This does not mean however that it deserves the blind confidence Blakey had for it during the HSCA hearings.)

    4. Packaging the case

    It is soon time for the all-defining documentary series to be produced that presents the real history of the assassination and the current research into it. This tool will provide a real go-to source for those, including the student, who wants to learn about the case and by-pass unreliable or incomplete sources.

    5. Presenting the case

    A small number of historians did show some degree of open-mindedness towards changing their accounts and listening to arguments. There should be a reach-out campaign to those who write the books, as well as history associations and their members. Also, those who choose the curriculum at the board and government levels should be targeted diplomatically at first. If this fails, the question that can be asked is if the continuing of the current narrative is even legal and if it should be challenged.

    6. Publicizing the case

    The Monkey trials, de-normalization strategies and youth and academia topics have in the past proven to be of great media interest. One school board or education department prohibiting the current portrayal of the assassination, or a legal challenge would be certain to draw universal attention to the case and the documentary while creating further doubt in the obsolete Warren Commission conclusions and also forcing history teachers to answer direct questions about the subject.

    Obviously a De-Normalization operation requires financial, marketing, legal and administrative resources to go along with the researchers. The investment in time and money is important. The payoff however may be a lot more than one can imagine, especially if it helps expose the statement that was made about the real state of American democracy on and after November 22, 1963. Something that historians should be interested in.

  • The JFK Assassination According to the History Textbooks – Part 1


    I. Big Press Antecedents

    It is perhaps obvious to those familiar with Vincent Bugliosi’s massive book that its title was chosen to suggest that the reason an overwhelming majority of Americans believed there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK was because the narrative of those events was hijacked by reckless conspiracy theorists, robbing their unsuspecting public of their “true” history, which now, thanks to the author, would be reclaimed for them.

    The fiftieth anniversary coverage of the tragic event by the MSM, the movie release of Parkland, documentaries, Dallas and the Sixth Floor Museum, all these societal forces widely pushed the lone assassin scenario. This pattern of mainstream bias and willful neglect of stories that weaken the Lone Nut explanation has gone on since the assassination itself except for the preliminary “Castro was behind it” spin which was vetoed early on. The Church Committee and HSCA conclusions that impeach much of the Warren Commission’s work, the Antonio Veciana allegations that connect the CIA’s David Phillips directly with Oswald, the Clay Shaw revelation that he was in fact a well-paid CIA contract agent , the Lopez Report about Oswald and the Mexico City charade, and the ARRB releases showing an orchestrated torpedoing of Jim Garrison: these are but a few of the stories that have been virtually ignored by Big Press.

    The publication of well-researched, highly revealing books such as JFK and The Unspeakable, The Devil’s Chessboard, Oswald and the CIA and many others are given the cold shoulder by mainstream media when compared to Case Closed, Reclaiming History and A Cruel and Shocking Act. When a researcher or producer gets noticed, such as Mark Lane or Oliver Stone, smear campaigns are unleashed.

    The revelations about CIA’s Operation Mockingbird during the Church Committee go a long way in explaining the waning power of the traditional press. Jim DiEugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland chronicles Hollywood’s subservient ties with this influential outfit. More recently, the obituary of Charles Briggs Sr. underscored the CIA’s links with the Sixth-floor Museum in Dallas: a shrine for the lone assassin representation of events.

    There is no question that the Fourth Estate’s freedom of expression, so instrumental in putting an end to the Vietnam War and exposing, to a certain degree, Watergate, has been compromised. But not without paying a price in lost readership, sales, market value and credibility, while weakening one of the key pillars of US democracy.

    This harm to society is perhaps mitigated by the fact that, as flaws are exposed, more of us are finding new sources of information, choosing not to consume what is being sold, or believing what we are being told.

    But what about those among us who do not have the option to change the channel? Like the students who are part of a captive audience in their history class and are forced to read the history book the school or teacher selects, and expected to answer exam questions according to what they are taught? Some of these students are very young and place their faith in their ”knowledgable” teacher whom they count on for selecting books reflective of the truth and which present history factually. What are they reading in their history books? Is it that the president was assassinated by a lone assassin?

    In Part 1 of this article, we will expose what is said in North America’s most popular history books and how their authors respond to questions concerning their rationale and sources, and highlight certain flaws and patterns that seem to prevail. Part 2 will cover sources that have gone mostly ignored by history book authors, and an analysis of how authors are upholding, or not upholding, the values of their profession on this issue. Part 3 will propose a new phase of JFK assassination research that will focus on setting the narrative straight and reaching a wider audience.

    II. Marketers, Historians and Youth

    In 1994, anti-tobacco crusader, UCSF professor Stanton Glantz received an anonymous package filled with highly revealing documents about tobacco company Brown & Williamson. It shed light on the research they had about the ill effects of smoking, as well as certain marketing tactics used in the industry. In 1996, former vice-president of research and development at B&W, Jeffrey Wigand, became a whistleblower by stating on 60 Minutes that his employer manipulated their products so as to increase the nicotine content. By the end of 1998, Big Tobacco, along with the attorneys of 46 states, signed the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, by which they agreed to pay over 200 billion to cover Medicaid costs and fund anti-smoking campaigns, and also to alter their marketing practices, especially those that target youth. The Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive was created in 2002 by the UCSF Library. Internal industry documents from the 1980s highlight the importance they attached to researching, targeting and manipulating youth. Over 60% of smokers were initiated to cigarettes before the age of sixteen.

    Some of the proceeds from the lawsuits financed the legendary Truth campaigns which defined an approach called de-normalization (a concept we will come back to in part two). The communication strategy veered away from the typical “smoking is bad for your health” messages and instead broadcast hard-hitting anti tobacco industry campaigns where Big Tobacco executives were portrayed as greedy, predatory businessmen who owed their wealth and status to their acquisition of a youth clientele and the strategic delivery of nicotine. Post-campaign tests proved the strategies to be highly effective.

    Up in Canada, health advocacy groups took notice.

    That’s when the author’s marketing-communications firm was contacted and eventually asked to adapt the Truth campaigns for Quebec City, first as a test market. The offensive, under the brand name De Facto rocked the industry and the reaction of Canadian Big Tobacco was swift, aggressive and well orchestrated. Threats of lawsuits, PR smear initiatives, lobbying the government–everything they could muster was thrown at the perpetrators of the campaign. These methods, however, simply re-enforced the image of sophisticated Big Tobacco executives preying on kids! As a matter of fact, young students were placed front and center in the press relations. The contrast with industry executives this created earned Big Tobacco no praise. The campaign eventually went province-wide and played an important role in changing the landscape in terms of the perceptions of the tobacco industry, youth awareness, the stricter legal environment the tobacco industry now operates in and the lawsuits they would soon face for damages to health. The campaign received an honorable mention from the World Health Organization.

    While one can take pride in playing a role in bettering the prospects of our youth, at times one can also feel like Frodo heading towards Mount Doom when taking on such a powerful opponent. So it is difficult to even imagine what individuals like Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty and many in the JFK research community must have felt, taking on even more formidable opponents.

    After a twenty-five-year stint in a marketing career, I joined an excellent college in Quebec City. There I began teaching business administration with a special focus on ethics, surrounded by students aged between sixteen and twenty, who have not been corrupted and are full of enthusiasm about how they can improve society, a notion now being taught as pre-condition to, and symbiotic with, turning a profit.

    The first book I read about the JFK assassination was Crossfire by Jim Marrs–that was many years ago. This was followed by a few other readings on the matter and then Oliver Stone’s blockbuster JFK. After a hiatus of a few years I stumbled on JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglas. This set off a frenzy of book reading, internet surfing and listening to every interview and documentary I could find. And while there is a lot of clutter in the form of false flags, wild claims, faulty thinking, sensationalism and unreliable research, there is also a host of serious researchers to be found who are teachers, lawyers and writers, who have painstakingly combed through documents, reviewed commission findings, interviewed witnesses, attended conferences, and, who have presented their findings in well written, diligently footnoted books, articles and websites, and have also participated in interviews and given seminars that are very accessible. If one makes the effort to look.

    I was amazed by how much documentation the ARRB, and other sources, have added to the wealth of material JFK researchers tapped into, that was completely ignored by main stream media, which seemed to have assigned very little in the way of resources to research the crime of the last century. On the contrary, the financing of books and internet anti-conspiracy propaganda was quite intense. And when the fiftieth anniversary came and went, the Lone Nut version of events was front and center.

    During the months leading up to the fiftieth, out of curiosity, I asked one of the history teachers at the college how his history book described the assassination: and there it was in black and white: JFK killed by a lone nut. Is that what our students and children are told is fact? How much of a free rein do historians have in youth-filled classrooms? These questions set off my research on how “history books” cover the assassination.

    III. What Young Students Are Given To Read

    The methodology used to prepare this study was actually quite simple:

    By talking to representatives from three of the largest school book distributors in North America (Pearson, Nelson, McGraw Hill) in the fall of 2013, access was gained to many of the American History books used in the U.S. and Canada, including even one French book used in the province of Quebec. The editions were the most recent and/or the ones that would be available for the 2014-15 school-year. Many of these books were said to be among the most popular ones; the others were those that were also favored by the representatives. To these were added other accessible e-books also available in the instructors’ resource centers.

    Texts pertaining to the Kennedy assassination were then extracted and their content looked over. In all, nineteen books were analyzed. (Note: coverage of the JFK assassination represents an extremely small portion of the content and does not necessarily reflect the overall quality of the research and writings in these textbooks.)

    The history books analyzed were the following:

    1. America: Past and Present, 10th Edition
    2. American Destiny: Narrative of a Nation, Fourth Edition
    3. The American Journey, Combined Volume, 2011
    4. Out of Many: A History of the American People, 7th Edition
    5. Give Me Liberty, 2012
    6. The American Story, 2013
    7. The American Nation, 2012
    8. Created Equal, 2009
    9. America and its People, 2004
    10. American Stories, 2012
    11. The American Pageant, 15th Edition 2014
    12. Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Concise Edition, 6th Edition © 2014
    13. American Passages, Volume II: Since 1865, Brief Fourth Edition
    14. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People, Volume II: Since 1865, Eighth Edition 2014
    15. A People and A Nation, Volume II: Since 1865, Ninth Edition 2012
    16. Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Volume II: Seventh Edition 2012
    17. Experience History, V2: Since 1865, 8th Edition 2014
    18. The Unfinished Nation, Seventh edition 2014
    19. Histoire des États-Unis. Mythes et Réalités, Second édition 2006 (French book used in province of Quebec)

    IV. How the JFK Assassination Is Portrayed (excerpts have been randomly shuffled)

    1. The French textbook simply states that Kennedy was killed by a lone shooter in 1963.

    2. Oswald, Lee Harvey (1939–1963): Ex-Marine and communist sympathizer who assassinated John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Oswald was murdered two days later as he was being transferred from one jail to another.

    3. Tragedy in Dallas: JFK Assassinated

      While visiting Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. Police apprehended Lee Harvey Oswald, and a mass of evidence linked him to the assassination. Before he could be brought to trial, he was murdered by Jack Ruby. An investigation headed by Chief Justice Warren concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and although there is little evidence to support the theory that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy, many doubted the Warren Commission’s conclusion.

    4. Dallas, 1963

      In November 1963, President Kennedy visited Texas to raise money and patch up feuds among Texas Democrats. On November 22, the president’s motorcade took him near the Texas School Book Depository building in Dallas, where Lee Harvey Oswald had stationed himself at a window on the sixth floor. Acting on his own, Oswald fired three shots that wounded Texas Governor John Connally and killed the president. Vice-President Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office as president on Air Force One while the blood-splattered Jacqueline Kennedy looked on. Two days later, as Oswald was being led to a courtroom, Jack Ruby, a Texas nightclub owner, killed him with a hand-gun in full view of TV cameras.

    5. The Assassination of President Kennedy

      The assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963 sent the entire nation into shock and mourning. Millions had identified his strengths—intelligence, optimism, wit, charm, coolness under fire—as those of American society.

      In life, Kennedy had helped place television at the center of American political experience. Now in the aftermath of his death, television riveted a badly shocked nation. One day after the assassination, the president’s accused killer, an obscure political misfit named Lee Harvey Oswald, was himself gunned down before television cameras covering his arraignment in Dallas. Two days later, tens of millions watched the televised spectacle of Kennedy’s funeral, trying to make sense of the brutal murder. Although a special commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren found the killing to be the work of Oswald acting alone, many Americans doubted this conclusion. Kennedy’s death gave rise to a host of conspiracy theories, none of which seems provable.

    6. Kennedy did not live to see his civil rights bill enacted. On November 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade through Dallas, Texas, he was shot and killed. Most likely, the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, a troubled former Marine. Partly because Oswald was murdered two days later by a local night club owner while in police custody, speculation about a possible conspiracy continues to this day. In any event, Kennedy’s death brought an abrupt end to his presidency.

    7. “LET US CONTINUE”

      Kennedy’s assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald left the nation stunned, but Lyndon Johnson moved quickly to restore confidence by promising to continue Kennedy’s programs. In fact, Johnson went beyond Kennedy in the struggle for economic and racial equality.

    8. Tragedy in Dallas: JFK Assassinated. While visiting Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. Police apprehended Lee Harvey Oswald, and a mass of evidence linked him to the assassination. Before he could be brought to trial, he was murdered by Jack Ruby. An investigation headed by Chief Justice Warren concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and although there is little evidence to support the theory that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy, many doubted the Warren Commission’s conclusion.

    9. Kennedy was shot and killed just three months later on November 22, 1963, while on a political peace-making tour of Texas.

    10. In the aftermath of the missile crisis, it appears that Kennedy was moving toward a policy of détente, but his assassination in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, makes this impossible to know. The sorrowing nation assessed the slain president not so much by what he did as by what might have occurred.

    11. The 1960s were an especially violent decade in American history. By far the most shocking event, the one that all those of age will remember until their dying day, was the assassination in Dallas of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The tragic event was investigated by a special presidential commission, the Warren Commission, which received testimony from scores of eyewitnesses. Whether the panel reached the correct conclusion about the episode has, of course, been the subject of intense argument. It is a profoundly moving experience to read some of the accounts of Kennedy’s last moments. His wife, Jacqueline, remembered shouting, “I love you, Jack” as she cradled his shattered head in her lap. The evidence and testimony considered by the Warren Commission is published in Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kenned, 26 volumes (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, 26 volumes). Jacqueline Kennedy’s testimony appears in volume 5. An abridged version of the Hearings, entitled The Witnesses (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964) was compiled by the New York Times.

    12. The Kennedy Assassination On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was gunned down while riding in an open limousine in Dallas. The assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, left few reasons for his murder, and Oswald himself was gunned down two days later while being transported from police headquarters to jail, an event that aired on live television. For four days, the nation collectively mourned its fallen leader. In death, the image of the brash Cold Warrior and the tepid civil rights supporter underwent a transformation to that of a liberal legend, the king of Camelot.

    13. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

      On November 22, 1963, the president was shot dead as his presidential motorcade moved through Dallas, Texas. Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who had accompanied Kennedy to Texas, took the oath of office and rushed back to Washington. Equally quickly, the Dallas police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald and pegged him as JFK’s assassin. Oswald had vague ties to organized crime; had once lived in the Soviet Union; and had a bizarre set of political affiliations, including shadowy ones with groups interested in Cuba. He declared his innocence but never faced trial. Jack Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner, killed Oswald on national television, while the alleged gunman was in police custody. An investigation by a special commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren concluded that both Oswald and Ruby had acted alone.

      Kennedy’s life and presidency remain topics of historical debate and tabloid- style speculation. His assassination still provokes conspiracy theories and controversies. Researchers have provided new details about his poor health, reliance on exotic medications, and dalliances with women—all of which were kept from the public at the time.

    14. Kennedy’s Assassination

      In late November 1963, John and Jacqueline Kennedy traveled to Texas on a political tour. The 1964 presidential race was approaching, and Texas, which had narrowly supported the Kennedy-Johnson ticket three years before, could not be taken for granted. The Kennedys took a motorcade through Dallas, with the bubble-top of their limousine removed on a warm and cloudless day. Along the route, people waved from office buildings and cheered from the sidewalks. As the procession reached Dealey Plaza, shots rang out from the window of a nearby book depository. President Kennedy grabbed his throat and slumped to the seat.

      Texas Governor John Connally was wounded in the back, wrist, and leg. The motorcade raced to Parkland Hospital, where the president was pronounced dead. Within hours, the Dallas police arrested a twenty-four-year-old suspect named Lee Harvey Oswald. Two days later, Oswald was shot and killed in the basement of Dallas police headquarters by Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner with a shady past. Dozens of theories surfaced about the Kennedy assassination, blaming leftists and rightists, Fidel Castro and the Mafia, the Ku Klux Klan and the CIA. The most logical theory, that a deranged man had committed a senseless act of violence, did not seem compelling enough to explain the death of a president so young and full of life.

      Few other events in the nation’s history produced so much bewilderment and grief.

      (Sidebar) Oswald, Lee Harvey (1939–1963). Alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy, he was shot two days later while under arrest.

    15. As in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, it seemed unworthy that one misfit was alone responsible. (Reference to James Earl Ray and MLK)

    16. The nation would not learn what sort of President John Kennedy might have become. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy visited Texas, the home state of his vice president, Lyndon Johnson. In Dallas, riding with his wife, Jackie, in an open-top limousine, Kennedy was cheered by thousands of people lining the motorcade’s route. Suddenly, shots rang out. The president crumpled, shot in the head. Tears ran down the cheeks of CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite as he told the nation their president was dead. The word spread quickly, in whispered messages to classroom teachers, by somber announcements in factories and offices, through the stunned faces of people on the street. That same day, police captured a suspect: Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. marine (dishonorably discharged) who had once attempted to gain Soviet citizenship. Just two days later, in full view of millions of TV viewers, Oswald himself was shot dead by shady nightclub owner Jack Ruby. Americans, already in shock, were baffled. What was Ruby’s motive? Was he silencing Oswald to prevent him from implicating others? The seven-member Warren Commission, headed by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that Oswald had acted alone. For four days, the tragedy played uninterrupted on American television.

    17. President Kennedy was assassinated that November in Dallas.

    18. TRAGEDY IN DALLAS

      On November 22, 1963, the people of Dallas lined the streets for his motorcade. Suddenly, a sniper`s rifle fired several times. Kennedy slumped into his wife`s arms, fatally wounded. His assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was caught several hours later. Oswald seemed a mysterious figure: emotionally unstable, he had spent several years in the Soviet Union. But his actions were never fully explained, because only two days after his arrest -in full view of television cameras- a disgruntled nightclub operator named Jack Ruby gunned him down.

    19. Nothing illustrated that more clearly than the popular reaction to the tragedy of November 22, 1963. In Texas with his wife and Vice President Lyndon Johnson for a series of political appearances, as the presidential motorcade rode slowly through the streets of Dallas, shots rang out. Two bullets struck the president-one in the throat, the other in the head. He was sped to a nearby hospital where minutes later he was pronounced dead. Lee Harvey Oswald-a young man who had spent time in the Soviet Union and, later in Cuba- was arrested for the crime. Later that day he was he was mysteriously murdered by a Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, as he was being moved from one jail to another. Most Americans at the time accepted the conclusions of a federal commission appointed by President Johnson to investigate the assassination. The commission, chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren, found that both Oswald and Ruby acted alone, that there was no larger conspiracy. In later years, many Americans came to believe the Warren Commission report had ignored evidence of a wider conspiracy behind the murders. Controversy over the assassination continues still.

    V. Summary Overview

    • Four of the sources simply say that JFK was assassinated;
    • One says that he was killed by a lone shooter;
    • One only states that “it seemed unworthy that one misfit was involved”;
    • Six state that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated the president;
    • One states that Oswald most likely killed the president;
    • Five do mention that some believe in a conspiracy, however all but one of these end up supporting the Lone Assassin scenario. Some of these make conspiracy backers out to be part of a fringe group or simply misguided;
    • Two state that there is a lot of debate over the Warren Commission’s conclusions;
    • One history book states that Oswald went to Cuba;
    • There is one critique of the Oliver Stone movie;
    • The only investigation referred to by any of the history books is that of the Warren Commission (seven times).
    • History books are therefore clearly skewed towards portraying Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Assassin. There exists no evidence of analysis of post-Warren Commission investigations.

    VIa. Questions Posed to the Authors

    Next, authors responsible for the section covering the assassination (or the JFK period) were contacted by e-mail and asked to explain their writings. Almost every author (sometimes more than one for a given book) answered.

    Here is the first question (which varied slightly depending on the exact wording of their texts) which almost every author answered:

    … One of the history professors (at our college) pointed out that most history books subscribe to the lone assassin (Oswald) scenario. Many asked what this is based on. In your book, it describes the assassination of JFK as being committed by Oswald (the impression given is that he acted alone)… Many of the people I speak to, some well-read about the subject, disagree with this assertion (especially the alone claim) and last autumn a lot of time was spent debating this point. My question is: On what basis is this presented as historical fact? (i.e. What are the sources that were looked into to support this?)

    Thank you for answering.

    Paul

    Then, after receiving an answer to this question, two follow-up questions were asked, with variations dependent on how the first question was answered:

    … Some of the critics of the way many history books cover the JFK assassination bring up the following points:

    1. More weight seems to be given to the Warren Commission`s conclusions (both Oswald and Ruby acted alone), than the HSCA investigation, which concludes that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This investigation is the most recent government initiative in resolving the crime, it took a lot more time to carry out than the WC investigation and had a lot more information-leads it could look into. While the acoustical evidence that convinced the committee that there was a second shooter is strongly contested, other findings also seem quite important: Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be loners as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation… Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy (it advanced that members of the Cuban exile community and the mob may have played a role but cleared the CIA of any wrong-doing.); Marina Oswald`s testimony and answers… were at various times incomplete and inconsistent; The investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy (by the WC) was inadequate.
    2. In 1992 the passage of the President John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act took place and the formation of the ARRB. While there has been a lot of exploitation around the fiftieth anniversary of JFK`s death, there are some serious researchers who have combed through thousands of recently-released documents (even more are becoming available) and create even more doubt around the single assassin scenario… Information that a researcher like Gerald Posner did not have access to when he wrote Case Closed.

    In conclusion, critics of how many historians cover the JFK assassination say that the WC commission is given too much importance and the more recent HSCA not enough. And two, the community of historians has not done its due diligence around information made available by the ARRB and other recent developments, which would perhaps change the way the assassination is presented to students of American History.

    I was hoping I could hear your comments on these points, and to know what kind of impact these two sources of information have had on your own perceptions of this tragic event.

    Thank you and have a great summer,

    Paul

    Again, most authors answered the questions. These answers were then compared to see what kind of research was actually done by the authors, what influenced their writings and how open they were to changing their historical coverage. Note: a few authors participating in writing more than one book which explains why some versions are repeated. (Full transcripts relating authors to answers and textbooks have been made available to CTKA.)

    VIb. The Authors Respond

    Mon 7/7/2014 2:46 PM

    Dear Paul, While I agree with some of the criticism of the Warren report, especially the single bullet theory, I accept the circumstantial evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy. I also believe that he acted alone, but there is still the possibility that he had help. But if so, I wonder why his accomplices did not help him escape? I also find the various conspiracy theories unconvincing–the Mafia, Castro, Texas oil barons, the CIA, the Soviets, etc. I doubt that we will ever know with certainty all that happened that sad day in Dallas, but for now I go along with the Warren Commission. Sincerely,


    Mon 6/30/2014 8:12 PM

    Here is the reason: in the 50 years since Kennedy was killed, no one has adduced credible evidence of a conspiracy that is not simply circumstantial. The American government is notorious for not being able to keep secrets. To think that it could have kept a secret that big that long, boggles the mind. At least it boggles my mind. That’s why I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories.

    Needless to say, other people do. But it is up to them to produce the evidence. I’m still waiting.

    Best wishes.


    Wed 7/2/2014 7:58 AM

    To:

    Paul Bleau;

    Disproving conspiracy theories is always impossible. So there will be no end to the theories.

    The Warren Report was hurried and imperfect. But in the fifty years since, no one has produced solid evidence that anyone besides Oswald was involved. It is easy to raise questions – about the lone gunman theory or anything else – but hard to produce evidence.

    I am willing to change my mind, but only when I see evidence.


    Mon 6/30/2014 2:06 PM

    Dear Professor Bleau,

    Rather than engage in an extended and speculative discussion, I encourage you to read Philip Shenon’s new book, A CRUEL AND SHOCKING ACT. Shenon, a longtime investigative reporter for the NY TIMES, has forcefully outlined what may be the most plausible scenario so far, though it, too, has some unproven assertions. Namely, he dissects the Warren Commission more thoroughly than anyone else, and he provides a strong, if mostly circumstantial, case that Cuban officials, via Mexico, may have at least provided some encouragement or guidance to Oswald. This is not quite the Big Conspiracy that some (i.e., Oliver Stone) hypothesize, but it certainly has caused me to rethink MY summary sentence on the matter: “There is little solid evidence to suggest that Oswald was part of a wider conspiracy” I’ve nearly completed my revision of the book for the fifteenth edition (to appear on January 1, 2015), and I am changing this sentence to reflect Shenon’s work. Rather than offer a summary statement, expressing my opinion, I intend to add some of the facts that Shenon has uncovered and let readers draw their own conclusions.

    I hope this helps!

    best


    Tue 7/1/2014 2:04 PM

    Dear Paul,

    I think, briefly, that the WC is hopelessly flawed, that the HSCA had some real problems, and that all previous research has been significantly superseded by Shenon’s work: if there was a conspiracy, however the term be defined, I think the best sources for it will be found within the Cuban government. I hope that, sometime, we get some stronger information from those sources. If none surfaces within the next twenty years, then the argument for conspiracy will be weaker.

    best


    Mon 6/30/2014 2:20 PM

    Hello Paul,

    I just checked a wikipedia site that states that a 2013 Gallup poll found that 30% of people in the US think that Oswald acted alone and that 50% think he was part of a larger conspiracy. Presumably a lot of the 50% have seen Oliver Stone’s movie JFK.

    The most thorough investigations and evaluations of competing claims are Gerald Posner, Case Closed, and, even more, Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, which is a massive exploration of the evidence and refutation of conspiracy claims. I find it persuasive.

    Conspiracy claims, of course, are almost impossible to refute to the satisfaction of believers. However, there is adequate evidence of what Oswald did, which consists of a series of actions by a lone misfit, versus chains of suppositions about what might possibly have happened. If nothing else, the principle of Occam’s razor suggests the likelihood that the simple lone assassin explanation is correct absent actual evidence to the contrary.

    Also, of course, there could have been a conspiracy but I’m willing to wait until a smoking gun other than Oswald’s is found.


    Wed 7/2/2014 10:52 AM

    To:

    Paul Bleau;

    Hello Paul,

    The one respected academic historian that I know of who has developed a conspiracy theory analysis is David Kaiser in The Road To Dallas. He develops the CIA/Mafia connection. It generated substantial comment in history discussion sites when it came out, with predictable arguments pro and con. Those who thought the HSCA findings were flawed were not convinced by Kaiser.

    Bugliosi’s book (2007) did have the opportunity to evaluate all of those findings and theories.

    The sheer number of possible conspirators makes me very skeptical and indicates that people are casting about for any theory that fits their political agenda. Was it Cubans, the CIA, the Mafia, Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Reserve . . . many of the villains contradict each other? It is certainly possible to find circumstances and connections that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy, but lots of things might have consequences and never do (Brutus might have had second thoughts after talking with Cassius).

    Part of the energy behind the continued interest is the larger myth that Kennedy was about to lead the US in an entirely different direction (e.g., about to pull out of Vietnam) and that this new dawn was destroyed, leading the nation into the disastrous mid-1960s. An examination of Kennedy’s record on civil rights and foreign affairs does not support this–he was, in fact, a convinced cold warrior and a reluctant civil rights advocate (LBJ is the real Washington hero for that cause).


    Wed 7/2/2014 12:04 AM

    Dear Paul,

    Thank you for your question. As you know, the official verdict of the Warren Commission was that Oswald acted alone. Many have challenged that verdict in the years since, from a variety of perspectives and with a ride range of theories. We may never know the full story. What we know, of course, is that Kennedy was assassinated.

    Our author team will discuss the possibility of expanding on this very brief statement when we revise the text for the 5th edition…, whether we wish to mention the Warren Commission and to include anything about Oswald, his arrest and murder, and the controversies that still surround the assassination. We have many difficult decisions about what to include and what to leave out, given the massive scope of American history and the small number of pages available to us as authors. If we decide to expand the discussion of the Kennedy assassination, we will need to make other decisions as well: what to remove to make room for this expanded discussion, and what interpretation we decide as a team to include in the text.

    On behalf of all of us, I appreciate your raising the question, and we all appreciate your interest in our text.

    With best wishes,


    Wed 7/2/2014 11:19 AM

    Dear Paul,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. My own personal opinions are of course not the same as my scholarly knowledge, and like many Americans I still wonder what really happened. I have not read all the reports that you mention, but if our author team decides to move forward with a longer section on the assassination, we will need to cover these documents. Given the complexity of the situation, and the remaining uncertainties about who and how many people were involved, I would be inclined to urge my colleagues that we not get into it. As you note, there is nothing in our text about the Warren Commission or any other report, and no indication of who killed JFK or why. It is an interesting and important question, of course, but in terms of the historical outcomes of the assassination, it is the impact of his death, rather than who was responsible, that is most critical for what followed. Of course it matters, but for our purposes it is not clear that it would strengthen our text to take more space to discuss the reports and the ongoing controversies. But we may decide to mention that controversies still swirl around the assassination. When we next meet as an author team, I’m sure this question will come up–and on behalf of all of us I thank you for raising the issue.

    Best wishes,


    Mon 6/30/2014 4:55 PM

    Dear Paul, if I may,

    Was there more than one gunman? Almost certainly not. With the acoustical evidence discredited, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that there was more than one shooter.

    Was Oswald the instrument of an orchestrated conspiracy, who was placed in the book depository to shoot the president? No. When Oswald was hired, no one knew that the President would visit Dallas or what his route might be.

    Does this mean that there was no conspiracy? Not necessarily.

    Don DeLillo’s novel Libra offers a fictional scenario in which Oswald is the patsy that he claimed to be. DeLillo portrays Oswald as a highly manipulable figure who various groups sought to use for their own ends.

    This is anything but Oliver Stone’s master conspiracy theory, but it is an imaginative, if wholly speculative, reconstruction of the train of events. To many readers, it offers a plausible account.

    Still, the most likely sequence involves a conjuncture of man and events: A violent individual who fantasizes his own historical importance, plus the accident of a presidential procession right outside his workplace.

    But what is important, I think, for students to understand is how the events surrounding the assassination lay bare aspects of the Cold War that had previously been obscure, above all, government efforts to overthrow the Cuban government, but also Soviet and U.S. fears of espionage, the assassination of Diem, the slowly mounting opposition to Cold War policies, and the complex relations between organized crime, anti-Castro Cubans, and those elements in the federal government seeking to topple Fidel Castro.

    In writing a textbook, it is a challenge to:

    1. give each topic appropriate, but not excessive, attention. Given the expanding number of years since 1963, there are limits to how much space can be devoted to the Kennedy assassination.
    2. not reinforce myths and misconceptions. Lincoln’s assassination was certainly the result of a conspiracy, but textbooks don’t devote much attention to that because other aspects of the era must receive more attention. (Somewhat similarly, the evidence seems to indicate that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one child by Sally Hemings, but textbooks don’t pay much attention to that, and not simply out of reticence.)
    3. not project preoccupations of one generation upon another. Is the most important aspect of the Kennedy presidency the manner of his death? I don’t think so.

    Even today, the circumstances surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination remain unclear. That makes the assassination a subject appropriate for historical inquiry on the part of the students, using a range of primary sources. But it a difficult subject for a textbook to tackle. While I think the evidence indicates that Oswald was the lone gunman, it would take a lot of space to (a) summarize the various conspiracy theories; (b) explain why many Americans embraced conspiratorial explanations; and (c) assess the evidence that supports or questions the notion of a conspiracy.

    I hope this gives you a sense of my own thinking on the subject.

    All the best,


    Mon 6/30/2014 2:57 PM

    Hi Prof. Bleau,

    Thanks for your question about the conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination. The Oswald/lone assassin claim is the widely accepted story within the historical community and there of course has been no definitive proof, or, and this is more important, no plausible counter-narrative produced to overturn it. If you look at nearly all of the standard historical textbooks, which I assume you have, they all agree on this point. The standard work is Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED. And if you read the standard overviews of the period, they all admit to flaws in the Warren Report and the existence of many conspiracy theories, but they do not propose or even identify alternate counter-narratives. James Patterson’s GRAND EXPECTATIONS offers an excellent overview.

    Hope this helps,


    Tue 7/1/2014 1:51 PM

    Hi Paul,

    I guess all I will say is that, for those of us who do not study the minutiae of this particular episode, we are waiting for serious professional historians to come up with plausible alternatives that help explain the case. I would also venture to guess that serious professional historians are turned off from doing so because there are so many cranks and conspiracy theorists out there using the case to pursue one line of thought or another often using only partial evidence or intuition. Until a serious professional historian culls the evidence and proposes not just holes in the current interpretation but a solid counternarrative, I think you’re going to find that we’ll be slow to alter our textbooks. I’m always reminded of the headline in the comedy newspaper, The Onion, which read something like: JFK ASSASSINATED BY CIA, FBI, KGB, MAFIA, LBJ, OSWALD, RUBY, IRS, DEA, DEPT OF ED, DEPT OF COMMERCE AND MORE! That about sums up the feeling from professional historians about those proposing we rethink the JKF assassination.

    Hope this helps!

    Happy summer,


    Mon 6/30/2014 2:27 PM

    Please see the excellent book by Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSED, which I believe definitively lays to rest any conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination.

    Hope that helps,


    Tue 7/1/2014 11:22 AM

    hi paul,

    … passed your email along to me since i did the first draft on the KENNEDY era–and wrote the film feature on JFK.

    although i recognize that mine is a distinctly minority view among professional historians, OLIVER STONE’s movie remains one of the better non-academic speculations about the KENNEDY assassination. It does go horribly wrong with its emphasis on the silly GARRISON prosecution and somewhat astray by purporting to offer a specific “solution” to KENNEDY’s murder. but the better parts of the movie adroitly set forth the case for concluding that the “official explanations” capture neither the depth nor the breadth of what likely led up to 11/22/63. Hopefully, the brief essay on the movie in LEP suggests this.

    And if it hadn’t been for JFK, the movie eliciting such a massive popular response, powerful public and private figures might not have been moved to mount such a broad-based effort to preserve valuable source material–including enhanced versions of the ZAPRUDER film–about this crime.

    Moreover, as an essay in VANITY FAIR by JAMES WOLCOTT (“Chronicle of a Death Retold” that is referenced via a link) suggests, the saga of KENNEDY’s death overlaps–and blends into–other popular sagas about the SIXTIES. in this sense, the myriad of stories about JFK’s life and death have always–and will likely always–transcend the boundaries of both popular and academic “history.” http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/11/jfk-assassination-anniversary-books

    Finally, I recall that earlier editions of LEP contained slightly longer discussions of the assassination, including mention of the HSCA’s conclusions. But the onrush of time has necessitated cutting back on this material in order to produce new LEPs of that weigh less than 20 pounds, and my reading of recent studies suggests that the better methods now available for evaluating acoustical evidence have largely undermined the HSCA’s factual claims about the shooting scenario.

    Even so, i see the committee’s general claim for a conspiracy that went beyond LEE OSWALD as remaining viable.

    i hope this helps. And thank you for seeing LEP’s discussion as aiming for a more nuanced treatment than the “OSWALD DID IT!” story found in some of the texts that compete with LEP.

    all best,


    Tue 7/1/2014 4:20 PM

    hi paul,

    good questions. let me reply, briefly, to them–and, then, i’ll add a somewhat jumbled set of related thoughts:

    1-i agree that the work of the HSCA has received too little attention and that of the WC too much deference from members of the historical profession. As suggested below, the WC REPORT now seems little more than a quickly assembled “prosecutor’s case” (heavily influenced by the late Arlen Specter as JFK the movie notes) in favor of OSWALD’s “guilt.” this is apparently what LBJ expected WARREN and company to produce–and they did. The WC REPORT is simply not much of a nuanced attempt to explain the broader context of 11/22/63

    2-i also agree that that there has been a lack of “due diligence” (to use your phrase) from the same profession about the “deeper and broader story” of the Kennedy assassination

    Now, the related thoughts:

    + an older–even older than my own–generation of professional historians were wary of being accused of engaging in “conspiracy theorizing” and thus tended to line up with the WC rather than the HSCA, let alone with those others who propounded (some, admittedly, truly zany) “conspiracy theories.”

    + the background to this wariness about crediting, or even exploring possible, “conspiracies” is complex, but the consequences have been, in my view, significant–and have seldom operated to produce broadly based understandings about the past. it’s so easy to highlight one-to-one relationships that seem “causal”–such as lone assassin OSWALD kills heroic PRESIDENT or STOCK MARKET CRASH causes GREAT DEPRESSION–than to look more widely at a broad range of possible relationships in which direct and immediate causal relationships are highlighted rather than looking at very complex linkages that form over time.

    + to take a contemporary issue, look at how quickly the historical backdrop to the current mess in IRAQ comes down to (a) the BUSH administration caused the present mess because it invaded in the first place and botched the transition from SADDAM during the early 2000s vs. (b) the OBAMA administration caused the present mess since about 2010 because _________ (here, the “causes” that have been cited already are too numerous to mention)

    + in my view, then, too much historical writing follows the “who did it” (or caused it) framework borrowed from the “guilty/innocent” paradigm of ANGLO-AMERICAN legal thinking about crimes. (actually, of course, the ANGLO-AMERICAN legal process does not declare “innocence,” but only hands out “guilty” vs. “not guilty” findings in criminal cases. As some critical legal observers would have it, the “truly innocent” rarely, if ever, enter the picture. thus, i’m dubious of claims that OSWALD was simply an “innocent patsy.” he seems clearly involved but how????)

    + in relation to the culpability of OSWALD, moreover, was there not was so much sloppy investigating (including that by the WC) that most any competent attorney (or historian) should have been able to produce a “not guilty” verdict for KENNEDY’s alleged killer in a court of law, under stricter rules of evidence than those adopted by the WC?

    + too few historical studies, especially those involving allegedly criminal activities, however, break free from this either/or frame. whether or not OSWALD can be proven “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” by historians, then, is too limited (but not entirely irrelevant) frame within which to begin historical (or legal) work.

    + in my view, the really interesting questions about 11/22/63 involve–as the JAMES WOLCOTT piece from VANITY FAIR tries to explore–the larger social-political-cultural-constitutional forces that have helped to produce the immediate–and the continuing, ongoing–fascination about KENNEDY’s murder?

    + in a similar vein, many years ago, the iconoclastic historian CHRISTOPHER LASCH noted that too many historians who were enamored of KENNEDY didn’t want to look closely at his death because this would have led to looking more closely at his life: his repeated attempts to assassinate CASTRO, his links to THE MOB, his sexual escapades, his relationship to the FBI, CIA, and top MILITARY figures etc. now that more about all these activities are known–and exploring them no longer automatically signals “CONSPIRACY THINKING”–there are good reasons to avoid re-visiting the case of OSWALD’s “guilt” and to head off in other directions. these explorations, ultimately, may well circle back to the role of OSWALD but they should not, as with the WC and even some of the work of the HSCA, begin with it

    ENOUGH!

    thanks for your questions–and for indulging my speculations about the relationship between the KENNEDY ASSASSINATION and the politics of writing about it–and about the larger past.

    your seminar sounds fascinating–and well worth the time and thought you have obviously brought to it.

    all best,


    Tue 7/1/2014 8:25 AM

    Dear Prof. Bleau:

    I wish that I had had the opportunity to listen to your remarks on the Kennedy Assassination. I am sure the audiences got a lot out of your seminar. As a colleague, you deserve to know why that event was not covered in the second volume of DISCOVERING THE AMERICAN PAST. There are three reasons for this omission:

    1. As you could see, DISCOVERING THE AMERICAN PAST is a book of historical problems that the students, like detectives, are required to solve. We provide the clues and try not to influence their answers one way or the other. The editors have limited us to eleven problems for each volume, and we didn’t feel we could fit the Kennedy assassination into the post-World War II chapters (four or five at the most).
    2. You have answered the second question yourself. Simply put, there are not enough “clues” to help the student reach a conclusion…or maybe there are too many “clues.” I have not read as many books on this topic as you have, but at the end of each I was as puzzled as I was when I stated reading. After 50 years, I think it unlikely that any significant “clues” will be found. If there has been any kind of “coverup,” it has been an exceedingly good one. If Oswald did not act alone (a hypothesis that seems reasonable to me), then who are the others involved? Castro? Mafia? Others?
    3. Finally, the fiftieth anniversary of this horrible event may well have increased interest a good deal, but I suspect that within a few more years interest will have waned. Most students in these parts don’t even know about the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., although that may have been a more significant event in the long run. Even African American high school students around here don’t even know about that event. And, again, too many “clues” or not enough.

    Best wishes to you. If you believe that this event should not be forgotten, then keep your seminar alive. The assassinations of our presidents (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) is a topic well worth students’ time and interest.

    Wishing you the very best, I am Yours very truly,


    Thu 7/3/2014 9:27 AM

    Greetings again:

    At this point you are way over my head on this topic. At the time I suspected that the Warren Commission report was as much a political document as it was a thorough investigation of the event. But, as you know better than I do, to try to find out who was behind all this has been found to be almost impossible…lots of possibilities, but I haven’t seen anything well-documented that establishes what the nature of the conspiracy actually was. And I suspect that records are permanently sealed or destroyed.

    The Lincoln assassination clearly was a conspiracy, but Garfield and McKinley seem to have been lone gunmen with no support behind them. But the Lincoln conspiracy was uncovered almost days after his death. President Kennedy has been dead for over 50 years. Would anything surface at this date?

    Some time ago I read a novel titled THE THIRD BULLET, which was as convincing as any of the histories. So will fiction tell the story better than historians?


    Sun 7/6/2014 7:24 PM

    Dear Paul,

    Sorry for the delay in writing you back. I was away on vacation and got behind with emails. We have only 12 topics to cover for each volume and try to introduce students to a diversity of fields in history as well as kinds of evidence. It is always very hard to decide what to cover and what to leave out. If we did cover Kennedy I’d be more inclined toward the election itself or perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis or the space race. I’ve not studied the Kennedy assassination in any detail, so won’t be the much helpful with your substantive questions. I suppose most historians believe that any larger conspiracy would have been revealed long ago. It is very difficult for most Americans to imagine that one erratic person could so profoundly shape the course of our nation. But it is hardly the first time: think about Lincoln’s assassination and what might have been had he lived to oversee Reconstruction. I imagine the most interesting source for students to consider would be the Warren Report, the full text of which is available here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/

    best,


    Sun 7/6/2014 8:17 PM

    Dear Paul,

    I was thinking of using the Warren Commission Report as a basis of student conversation and investigation–they can test the conclusions against the evidence presented (and not presented). Historians of this period would be better able to weigh in on the evidence. I’ve not read closely enough to say much past that.

    best,


    Mon 7/7/2014 8:32 AM

    Paul,

    The original did not get through so I’m glad you resent it. I think it is fair to say that you know far more about the evidence in the assassination than I do. Many historians wait until someone produces new and compelling evidence that forces us to revisit key historical topics. From my perspective, there are big questions and interesting questions. Big ones would be the origins of the Civil War, the nature of Progressive Reform, Why Vietnam, or the nature of Jacksonian democracy. Kennedy’s assassination falls into the interesting category, reflecting why so many historians enjoy reading mysteries. So if I were going to focus on the Kennedy era the question I would take up would either have to do with Civil Rights or whether had he not been assassinated would he have escalated in Vietnam. I consider Vietnam and Civil RIghts the defining issues of the 60s so what makes the assassination so critical is not so much who did it, but the impact of having Johnson as the president who defined the Vietnam and Civil RIghts issues. Now if we learn there was indeed a conspiracy, we’d want to know what motivated the conspirators, especially if Vietnam or CR was involved or if it was organized crime or pro-or anti-Castro Cubans.

    Having said all that, I’m sure among the history reading public and college students the assassination topic is the more compelling.

    Best,


    Sun 7/6/2014 5:39 PM

    I sent the reply below June 30–let me know if it gets through this time around.

    Paul–For support of the Oswald-as-lone gunman argument, see Gerald Posner, Case Closed (1993), which many historians view as definitive. More recently, I have been impressed with Philip Shenon’s A Cruel and Shocking Act (2013), a new history of the Warren Commission based on prodigious research and access to many new sources. Shenon’s main point is that the FBI and CIA withheld knowledge and information they had about Oswald (the FBI had surveillance on him in Mexico City in the Fall of 1963)…but this was out of fear of being criticized for incompetence. He finds no evidence of foreign conspiracy. I think it is important to distinguish government incompetence, of which we have plenty of evidence for the FBI and the Dallas police, from a larger conspiracy.

    To me, what’s most depressing is that you find yourself spending so much time in a seminar on JFK dealing with conspiracy theories. Much more interesting and important, I think, to wrestle with the achievements, failures, and contradictions of JFK’s presidency. I’m particularly interested in how he evolved in office–pushed by the civil rights movement, chastened by the Cuban missile crisis. Here’s a link to an interview I did that gets into some of this:

    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/media/what-do-and-should-we-know-about-jfk

    I find most of the conspiracy mongering to be an avoidance of real history, too much of that “grassy knoll” politics, where we speculate endlessly on what might have been. Oliver Stone is perhaps the worst offender, peddling the sentimental fantasy that the Vietnam War would have never happened if JFK had not been killed by dark forces in the Pentagon, CIA, whatever. Anyway, I don’t mean to rant…but next time someone tries to focus on conspiracies, try steering him/her back to history. It’s much harder and more urgent to understand.

    Best,


    Mon 7/7/2014 9:57 AM

    I’ve no doubt that the WC contains many holes, some of which were created by FBI/CIA intransigence and incompetence–Shenon’s book is excellent on all this. And to be sure, there is a thriving cottage industry out there continually raking this stuff over and it has produced some new information previously unavailable to scholars like Posner. But there is still an awful lot of “might have,” “could have,” “possibly was,” and so on. In the end, as I’m sure you’ll agree, one cannot prove a negative–no one can prove there was no conspiracy, or that Oswald had no help. But after a half-century, I still see no plausible, coherent argument, based on evidence, convincing me of a conspiracy. Researchers will no doubt continue plugging away–but as an historian, I think there are just so many more important things to think and write about re: JFK that CAN be based on available historical evidence. I remain skeptical of the motives and perspectives of many of the conspiracy mongers, a dubious line going back to Mark Lane…

    Thanks for the invite, and if/when I get to QC I’ll be sure to let you know.

    All Best,


    Tue 7/8/2014 10:18 AM

    I’ve finally finished Philip Shenon’s A Cruel and Shocking Act. It’s too long (c. 600pp), but take a look at the final section–”Aftermath”–for a terrific analysis of the Warren Commission report’s afterlife, as well as Shenon’s own hard won conclusions about how both the FBI and CIA withheld crucial info about Oswald in Mexico City in the Fall of 1963. The important gaps in the WC stem largely from FBI/CIA intransigence, refusal to share info, and efforts to cover up their own bungling. Was Oswald somehow tied up with Castro, in Fidel’s effort to strike back at the CIA’s attempts to assassinate him? Was Oswald possibly a double agent? Shenon clears away a lot of static–he does not prove or advocate for a conspiracy, but he effectively identifies what we still do not (and may never) know.

    Best,


    Mon 6/30/2014 11:08 PM

    Dear Paul Bleau:

    To respond to your question, speaking for myself and not for the other authors, let me start by commenting on why our knowledge of the past changes. Our understanding of the past shifts when someone discovers new information. Sometimes it also shifts when the questions that we ask about the past change as our concerns in the present shift. For example, there was little interest in the broad ways in which women helped to shape the political process, beyond the vote, until the 1980s. Now, because of a heightened awareness of women’s roles in politics today, historians of the nineteenth century routinely note how the Women’s Christian Temperance Union had a strong impact on local and national politics.

    Good historians must also sift and weigh the evidence they have. Sometimes, we have to say, the answer is not entirely clear. On the question of what did Patrick Henry say in the House of Burgess against the Stamp Act, we have no record except for a Maryland newspaper’s assertion that it was “Give me Liberty or Give me Death.” Did he say that? A good historian would say that the only evidence we have leans in that direction, but we ultimately do not know.

    In the case of who shot JFK, there are lots of new conspiracy theories. The CIA? A second assassin? Someone associated with Lyndon B. Johnson? etc. The Warren Commission concluded that it was Lee Harvey Oswald and in most textbooks that is the general consensus, but there is growing criticism of the Commission’s report. So where does that leave us? Our book argues that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. At some point in the future, convincing evidence may be discovered that will shift that interpretation, and then our account will shift, but at this point we do not find the other arguments and their evidence very convincing.

    I hope that this is helpful.

    Regards,


    Sun 7/6/2014 8:16 PM

    Dear Paul:

    Happy Fourth of July! Your thoughts on the current state of the evidence sound good to me. The Warren Commission is clearly not the last word. There is a possibility that Ruby was influenced by other connections. Perhaps something additional may come out of the Kennedy Records Collection Act. While all your commentsmake sense, do we now have clear evidence pointing to who else may have been involved? Do we have names?

    Do we have clear linkages of Oswald to other individuals or organizations? What do you think?

    Regards,


    Sat 7/19/2014 10:51 AM

    Dear Paul,

    Following the JFK assassination is beyond finding an end. I don’t think that the Warren Commission was complete. But I also don’t think that the many conspiracies are real.

    The one thing I think may be real–that is Oswald came from the USSR to Cuba.

    Thanks for writing.

    My best,


    Tue 7/1/2014 3:04 PM

    (The email exchanges with the one French author were in French and can be summarized as follows: He based his writing on the Warren Commission conclusion- He says the Stone movie attacks the Warren Commission but accuses vaguely. However he does admit he is not a specialist).

    VII. Highlights of the Author Responses

    In the answers to the first question about authors’ sources, it is clear that most are influenced by proponents of the lone assassin point of view: five mention the Warren Commission, four Case Closed by Posner, two Bugliosi’s work, and three A Cruel and Shocking Act by Shenon (which states that Oswald was a lone shooter but that he may have received guidance from Castro agents).

    The Church, HSCA and ARRB findings, and work by independent authors who present a case for a conspiracy and uncertainty around Oswald’s involvement, these are clearly not referenced. In fact, they are nowhere to be found. Which is a bit surprising, if not startling. For it seems to indicate that these authors do not go beyond the MSM for their information.

    One author does not believe the Single Bullet Theory, but nevertheless believes Oswald acted alone.

    The two follow-up questions are mostly side-stepped. A few admit to lack of knowledge.

    A number of answers state or imply that for the author to change the claim that Oswald was a lone assassin, creating doubt about the Warren Commission’s modus operandi and conclusions is not enough, proving that others must have been involved is not enough. Spelling out the conspiracy is required.

    Oliver Stone receives some blame for opinions that go against the lone assassin theory, despite the fact that polls before the movie are far from favorable to the Warren Commission findings. And no one gives him credit for creating the ARRB. Which makes sense since none of these authors seem aware of any of the discoveries of the ARRB.

    A few of the authors claim to be open-minded about considering new evidence, but none seem willing to make the effort to read HSCA findings or books that present conspiracy theories.

    Five of the authors make statements about the Warren Commission being weak or flawed.

    It seems clear here again that neither the Church, the HSCA conclusions nor the ARRB operations have been explored at all or in any depth by any of the history book authors.

    Vincent Bugliosi was right; history needs to be reclaimed. He just got the version wrong!