Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mike Kilroy

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike Kilroy

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Mike Kilroy

    Helms says too much

    While his confused protestations are amusing, it’s important to note that at this point Helms knows he’s been hiding the secret of his control of the DRE with Joannides from federal investigations and the American people for decades. He has withheld material evidence from the WC and HSCA, committed perjury in his testimony to Congress, and knows Joannides was undercover to stonewall Congress - meaning he was in on the conspiracy to obstruct justice. No one should be fooled by his avuncular attitude. This guy’s a scumbag.
  2. Personally, I don’t need to see anything else. Somehow... there’s video of this deranged lone wolf nut alleged assassin showing him being full commie pro-Castro bastard on national TV the night of the assassination. Before the commie bastard is even charged with the crime of killing the president... Somehow... that tape was recovered from the TV station by one Mr. Ed Butler and flown personally by him to DC, arriving before JFk’s body. And Ed, good and faithful anti-commie patriot that he is, ensures top Congressional reps and all the major TV networks get a good first look. Some would call that setting the narrative or controlling initial perceptions but, nah, pure dumb luck. Somehow... that tape only exists because the anti-Castro group that was on the knife’s edge of getting excommunicated by the agency gets a reprieve by none other than the real top gun Richard Helms. Who is so in love with the group he personally appoints one of the good and faithful Greek spooks to do his bidding. Somehow... the agency’s institutional knowledge of its founding, funding and control of the DRE is withheld by Dulles, Helms, Angleton, Harvey, Phillips, Joannides, and who knows all from the WC, HSCA and ARRB. Somehow...four decades after the fact, an intrepid reporter finds that the agency DID control the DRE in 1963 as the agency continued to deny any knowledge and Helms refuses a chance to explain it all and come clean a year before his death, taking his dirty little secrets to his grave. Somehow... the agency STILL refuses to explain its UNLAWFUL lies and subterfuge and withholding of material evidence in the assassination... And somehow...some people still believe they’re innocent of wrongdoing. The above doesn’t happen without major coordination. The assassination of JFK was a hit by the twisted Cold War era bastards in the CIA. And the cover-up continues because of their modern-day counterparts who don’t want to relinquish unaccountable power and their hold over American govt.
  3. Mike Kilroy

    Will Ruha writes on the death of JFK

    Two great posts, guys. But Joe, you gotta tell us, what wee the other two?
  4. Think you may have improved upon what I was saying, Jim. But yes, that makes complete sense that since the DRE was the most prominent, then they would be used for any propaganda purpose. And again, the CIA could've cleared this up at any time in the past 50-plus years and still can if they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
  5. Good point. And incredible when you consider his possible entanglements... Completely agree. Helms could've have been dissembling from the start because there was knowledge of Oswald in NO by CIA at whatever level. Not to beat a dead horse, but his subterfuge probably kept investigators from going into more fruitful areas in understanding exactly what went down that day. Even Helms apparently admits in an interview that he checked on agents in the Dallas area out of concern of their possible involvement (though he does quickly take it back). And I'm just not sure what it's in it for the CIA to continue its secrecy on the DRE in 1963 if they are innocent of the crime or in aiding and abetting anyone in the crime. And it's just plain anti-democratic for any govt agency not to divulge information after any national security risk is long over.
  6. I agree that the U.S. reaction to Castro truly was a tragic and dangerous comedy. I don't have any evidence of Helms' intentions for why he misled the WC and HSCA and then refused to comment on the DRE when documents exposed his oversight of the group a year before his death. But he obviously had agency institutional support in all this and I'd like to know why. I don't need any additional evidence. This case is full of evidence. But this is obstruction by the most powerful CIA man at the time of the assassination with agency support over decades. That's enough for me. To paraphrase Bugliosi's endless refrain about LHO, lies and withholding of material information points to a consciousness of guilt. It can't be about agency embarrassment. The lie is too big and the unlawful secrecy has lasted too long.
  7. Thanks, Jason, for the additional context on Cuban exile groups and the CIA. My gut tells me you're probably spot on regarding the ineffectiveness of the CIA's strategy. But just to point out the obvious, the DRE was the only group that interfaced with the future accused assassin of JFK. The DRE was also, arguably, the most widely known and best funded of the assorted Cuban exile groups, so the CIA might have good reason to be more interested in them than the others. But my issue is with the CIA's deceit in not revealing their relationship with the group in 1963. If they were honest patriots, one would think they would've told some investigative body about their guidance of the group that interfaced with LHO that resulted in coverage that - surprise - also aided the DRE's hopes and many in the CIA as well to invade Cuba. Or at least allow an honest internal investigation, which Helms stymied. I don't let the decades of deceit and continuing secrecy go lightly, especially in the case of the assassination of a POTUS. Any one of us as individuals would be in jail for this obstruction. Just because it's an organization ostensibly created to protect the U.S. doesn't give them a pass to my mind. So again I return to my question for you - why do you think they withheld this information? For me, it can't be because of embarrassment that fate placed LHO in the path of one of their assets. We've known that now for two decades. So it can only be one of three reasons for me: 1) As the DRE leaders said, they likely told Joannides about LHO's antics and coverage in NO. So the CIA knew about this eejit in NO, and by not doing anything about him, they're culpable at least in the public mind of overlooking a threat to the POTUS. Oswald went undetected as a threat by the most powerful spy agency in the world. 2) The CIA was using LHO, wittingly or unwittingly, in an intelligence operation in NO. If that's true, no one would believe they weren't involved in the assassination somehow. So LHO fooled the most powerful spy agency in the world. 3) The CIA was manipulating LHO as a patsy for the assassination, whether by itself or in concert with others, e.g. the CIA played this itinerant, barely educated ex-Marine. Whatever the reason was, the American people deserve an answer. We shouldn't have to wait for endless FOIA lawsuits. It's the people's government. They should be forced to tell us.
  8. That is compelling because those dates are the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So it appears someone from the CIA was trying to get the DRE to infiltrate Cuba to help them during the coming invasion of the island. I'm just curious who "the man in charge" is. Shackley? Joannides predecessor? Harvey? The DRE did have a military section and actual pulled this off in August '62 (from Morley's article): So it's not out of the realm of possibility for the CIA to use the DRE for strikes against Cuba, but usually it was the other way around - the DRE was pushing for military action and the CIA wanted to use the group for propaganda throughout Latin America.
  9. Jason - This is the money quote from the memo for me. Helms, the second-in-command of the CIA, has expressed a "personal interest" in maintaining a relationship with the group. Nine months later, the group interfaces with Oswald. Three months after that, the NO fracas with LHO is immediately integrated into the assassination news. And Mr. Helms stays mute. This is a master spy and propagandist with unaccountable power and control of the world's largest network of spooks. I don't believe any of it is a surprise to Helms. He knows exactly what he's doing and why, IMHO. Mike
  10. Not yet and it's been a week.
  11. Well, they obviously didn't go their separate ways. Jefferson Morley summarizes the relationship after the Helms meeting better than I could here: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/revelation-1963-6353139 The DRE leaders said they met with Joannides up to 3 times a week. The leaders also said Carlos Bringuier told them about the altercation with LHO immediately and that the resulting news coverage is exactly the kind of thing they would've alerted Joannides to. Any lawful reason Helms, Joannides and the CIA in general should withhold this information from successive investigations? If there's a smoking gun in this case, this is it for me. The CIA wanted to keep the DRE relationship in 1963 a secret forever. Unless they provide a better explanation, I'll assume the worst.
  12. Helms hiding his role in managing the DRE - and the agency's role in helping him hide it - is still outrageous and incriminating to me... Hence, my letter below to USA Today reporter Ed Brackett: Ed – Thank you for covering the Joannides court case regarding the JFK files recently. It’s really appreciated by someone like me who’s had an interest in the JFK case for years when someone from a mainstream media outlet covers this ongoing story. Maybe you’re already aware of this, but Richard Helms, the CIA’s Deputy Director of Plans at the time, was personally overseeing Joannides’ running of the DRE. This internal CIA memo are notes from a secret meeting Helms had with the leadership of the DRE in November 1962, a year before the assassination: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18923#relPageId=1&tab=page In the memo, Helms mentions he will be hiring a new case officer for the group that would report directly to him. That new case officer would be Joannides. One year later the assassination occurs and Oswald is taken into custody. The DRE immediately contacts Joannides who say they interacted with the suspect in New Orleans over the summer and have newspaper, radio and TV coverage showing Oswald as pro-Castro. Joannides tells the group to wait for word from Washington on what to do. Apparently the group’s leaders waited one hour and then went ahead and contacted media. One would have to assume Joannides was trying to contact his direct report regarding the DRE, Richard Helms. But whether he was able to get a hold of Helms or not, Helms, like the rest of the country, would’ve seen video of Oswald interacting with the DRE chapter in New Orleans on national TV that evening. He would’ve seen the newspaper coverage the next day that described Oswald’s antics with the DRE that summer. So let’s pretend for a minute you’re Richard Helms in this situation. Your second-in-command of the CIA (and some would say ostensibly running the agency with the departure of Allen Dulles in 1961), and have learned that the accused assassin somehow crossed paths with the anti-Castro group you manage and you know is funded and guided by the agency. In fact, if the CIA didn’t form and fund the DRE, there would not have been coverage of Oswald’s pro-Castro ways for the media to report on following the assassination simply because, as the DRE leaders say in the meeting memo above, the group would not exist without CIA funding. Does Helms tell any federal authority about the CIA’s sponsorship of the DRE in the aftermath of the assassination? He doesn’t. He doesn’t tell the Warren Commission as the CIA’s liaison. He doesn’t tell the HSCA in the 70s. Instead, Congressional investigators are told the CIA cut-off all contact with the group by 1963. Helms also doesn’t alert anyone to Joannides’ role in managing the group and reporting to him when Joannides serves as the agency’s liaison to the HSCA. That is obstruction on its face. Helms never spoke about his oversight of the DRE to anyone the rest of his life as far as I know (although Jefferson Morley tried before Helms died in 2002). The CIA has never explained why he withheld that knowledge from successive investigations. And Helms perjured himself during his HSCA testimony in 1979 with this exchange: MR DODD: Are there other things that you can recall that might have had relevancy–things of importance, to the Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination of an American President. Mr. HELMS – Well, I don’t know of any others. I can’t think of what they might have been, but then we might have been guilty of some other errors of omission, I don’t know. None come readily to mind. This didn’t come readily to mind at the time. If Richard Helms were alive today, the questions would be many, including: Why did you keep your oversight of the DRE and the agency’s sponsorship role a secret from investigative bodies? Did you know about Oswald’s antics in New Orleans through Joannides’ reports on the DRE prior to the assassination? In your meeting with DRE leadership in 1962, you asked that they alert you to any further TV coverage of the group. Were you alerted about their TV coverage in New Orleans with Oswald? How did you miss a press release by the New Orleans chapter of the CIA-funded group calling for a Congressional investigation into Oswald three months before the assassination? Did you know Joannides maintained a residence in New Orleans during the time Oswald was there? Everyone knows there was a lot of animosity by the DRE and other anti-Castro groups against JFK regarding Cuba in 1963. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume the CIA would have reams of info on what these groups discussed, who hated JFK the most, what role they might’ve played in the assassination, etc.? Why didn’t you help investigators with this information? But for me, the implications can be summed up simply by paraphrasing the old line from “Casablanca”: Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, how did the alleged assassin of the president walk into the CIA's? Thanks again for the story and thanks for listening.
  13. Mike Kilroy

    Mort Sahl on JFK

    Mort Sahl does a live Periscope from The Throckmorton Theater in Mill Valley, Calif. every Thursday night: https://twitter.com/mortsahlsays
  14. Great thread! Very useful information. I like discussions like this that move the case forward in a fact-based way and don’t go down the proverbial rabbit holes.
  15. Mike Kilroy

    Jim DiEugenio reviews Jeff Morley's The Ghost

    It's another very erudite and informed review, Jim. I like the links you include as well. No writer gets everything completely right and that includes Morley. But I do have to say I'm a fan and think he's done more to move the ball forward on finding the full truth about the assassination than just about any one person. RFK suspected the CIA immediately. Garrison thought so as well from the leads he found in NO. Oliver Stone does a movie on Garrison which gives us the JFK Records Act. Then Morley stands on their soldiers and uses those records to show the highly suspicious way the CIA tried to hide George Joannides from history forever. Then Morley adds the proven surveillance of Oswald through the years up to two weeks before the assassination by Angleton. For me, he's made the most persuasive case of CIA involvement in the assassination, whether Morley believes that or not: Within hours of the assassination, propaganda footage of Oswald with the DRE is shown on national TV. Joannides and the DRE are run by Richard Helms, the second in command of the CIA. Helms knows the night of the assassination that's his group on TV with the alleged assassin. He never tells any investigative body. He's made liaison to the WC and never says a word. And lies about any relevant knowledge to the assassination to the HSCA in the 70s as well. Angleton knows all about this traitorous Russian defector's meeting with Kostikov in MC yet doesn't alert anyone. Instead, his office downplays it all and Oswald is removed from the FBI's security index. You could call it criminal negligence if the agency had somehow copped to that. But the CIA's continued and desperate subterfuge after all these decades tells me they are hiding criminal intent and foreknowledge by the agency's top officials above, IMO.
×