Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Paul Trejo]

The point here is the claim that Antonio Veciana is fingering David Atlee Phillips (DAP) in the assassination of JFK.

I see only emotional arguments supporting this.  Even in the video we saw of the aging Veciana adding this further detail -- a half-century later -- that DAP knew that LHO would never get into Cuba from Mexico City.   Even in this video, we are getting only guesswork and innuendo.  No solid facts.

DAP admitted he was using LHO to try to kill Fidel Castro.  I take that as a historical fact.  It makes perfect sense based on the history of the times.   Also, the whole purpose of Antonio Veciana in 1963 was to kill Fidel Castro.  There is no question about this.

By the way -- there was a slight difference in this newer account than in Veciana's original account in the 20th century, namely, in the older account the three were sitting together and DAP introduced the two men.  In his 21st century account, Veciana arrived 15 minutes earlier than expected to this meeting, and LHO was just leaving, so that's how they met. 

It's a minor point.  The main point is that the context of the meeting, at every level, was the assassination of Fidel Castro.  The topic of JFK didn't arise until long after the JFK assassination, in the context of CT.  

Since DAP himself admitted that he knew LHO in the summer of 1963, the importance of Antonio Veciana is considerably reduced to just one more CT guy and his guesswork.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Chris Newton]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Since DAP himself admitted that he knew LHO in the summer of 1963

Citation please.

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Citation please.

Chris,

That is in the pages of DAP's manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988).  Here's a snippet from that manuscript (which is online and available freely to all):

-------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

I was one of the two case officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald. After working to establish his Marxist bona fides, we gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba.

I helped him when he came to Mexico City to obtain a visa, and when he returned to Dallas to wait for it I saw him twice there. We rehearsed the plan many times: In Havana Oswald was to assassinate Castro with a sniper's rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep.

Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure, and 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.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

Although Phillips presented this in the form of a novel, I nevertheless take it as a confession from a tortured soul.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo
format

[Chris Newton]

17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure

You can't be a double-agent before being an agent. If the above is a confession then stop cherry picking through it.

[Glenn Nall]

47 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

That is in the pages of DAP's manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988).  Here's a snippet from that manuscript (which is online and available freely to all):

-------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

I was one of the two case officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald. After working to establish his Marxist bona fides, we gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba.
I helped him when he came to Mexico City to obtain a visa, and when he returned to Dallas to wait for it I saw him twice there. We rehearsed the plan many times: In Havana Oswald was to assassinate Castro with a sniper's rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep.

Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure, and 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.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

Although Phillips presented this in the form of a novel, I nevertheless take it as a confession from a tortured soul.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"Although Phillips presented this in the form of a novel, I nevertheless take it as a confession from a tortured soul."

and yet...:
"We need harder evidence." (2X in just this thread...)
"We need more material evidence"

in the form of a novel, "I nevertheless take it as a confession..."

how novel.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

You can't be a double-agent before being an agent. If the above is a confession then stop cherry picking through it.

Chris,

One thing David Atlee Phillips did not question was the charge that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Now, if (and only if) LHO really did kill JFK, at a time when DAP was only trying to kill Fidel Castro, then what would a normal person think?

Naturally, a normal person would think that LHO was a psycho.  Otherwise, LHO was a double-agent.  These are natural conclusions.

Either way, DAP is saying that LHO completely surprised him with the JFK killing.  IMHO, Bill Simpich leads to the same conclusion -- that the CIA high-command was completely surprised by the JFK assassination.  

The only thing that the CIA knew about it, IMHO, was that the Mole who claimed to be LHO and asked for Kostikov -- over the world's most heavily wiretapped telephone at the USSR Embassy in Mexico City -- was involved.  But they had no idea who the Mole was.

So,in my reading, this novel by DAP matches the Mexico City wiretapping Mole Hunt of Bill Simpich. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo
Mexico

[Chris Newton]

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

One thing David Atlee Phillips did not question was the charge that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

 

Of course, Phillips had to be on board with that theory. One of the alternatives might have his neck at the end of a rope.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

Of course, Phillips had to be on board with that theory. One of the alternatives might have his neck at the end of a rope.

Chris,

Yes, I thought of that, too.  But again, negatives are not evidence.  Just because the CIA keeps secrets doesn't give us the license to fill in the blanks when we feel like it.

Larry Hancock wrote a book called, "Someone Would Have Talked." (2006), and that title echoes the words of Arthur Schlesinger.  But the truth is that several people have already talked.

We have several people who have already confessed to the JFK assassination -- at least a dozen, actually -- and only two were CIA agents -- and not top level.

Frank Sturgis confessed and boasted about it.  John Martino confessed.  David Ferrie confessed.  Thomas Beckham confessed.  Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed.  Loran Hall confessed.  Roscoe White confessed.  Lee Harvey Oswald confessed.  None of these were CIA agents.

This is where we need to begin -- not continually trying to force CIA agents into the mold, by using only negatives, in which our strongest evidence is only the fact that we can find no evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Chris Newton]

First off, Lee Harvey Oswald did not confess.

Secondly, you are playing fast and loose with the terminology. There are assets, agents, contract agents, staff agents, staff employees and officers. Several of the people you mention above can be placed in several categories depending on the era in question. None of the people you mention are CIA Officers but there were a few who confessed to having a role in JFK's assassination, and one who was very public about it.

And here, once again you want to have your cake and eat it too. In your opinion, Phillips was confessing to a role in a conspiracy, whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, doesn't matter, that's what it was. I think it's a classless move and he should have been called out for it.

As Glenn pointed out, above, you keep digging this hole for your theory. You bring up Larry and Dick, last time I checked they weren't on the same bandwagon as you.

 

 

[Glenn Nall]

18 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Yes, I thought of that, too.  But again, negatives are not evidence.  Just because the CIA keeps secrets doesn't give us the license to fill in the blanks when we feel like it.

Larry Hancock wrote a book called, "Someone Would Have Talked." (2006), and that title echoes the words of Arthur Schlesinger.  But the truth is that several people have already talked.

We have several people who have already confessed to the JFK assassination -- at least a dozen, actually -- and only two were CIA agents -- and not top level.

Frank Sturgis confessed and boasted about it.  John Martino confessed.  David Ferrie confessed.  Thomas Beckham confessed.  Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed.  Loran Hall confessed.  Roscoe White confessed.  Lee Harvey Oswald confessed.  None of these were CIA agents.

This is where we need to begin -- not continually trying to force CIA agents into the mold, by using only negatives, in which our strongest evidence is the fact that can find no evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

you're absolutely positive Sturgis wasn't CIA? or Martino? or Hall?

Sturgis on board the Rex on Oct 31, 63...? and these guys leading the training in Pontchartrain (and Big Pine)...?

please.

depends on how strict you want to get with the word "agents," doesn't it. i s'pose if it don't fit your theory, strictness is needed.

[Glenn Nall]

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

First off, Lee Harvey Oswald did not confess.

Secondly, you are playing fast and loose with the terminology. There are assets, agents, contract agents, staff agents, staff employees and officers. Several of the people you mention above can be placed in several categories depending on the era in question. None of the people you mention are CIA Officers but there were a few who confessed to having a role in JFK's assassination, and one who was very public about it.

And here, once again you want to have your cake and eat it too. In your opinion, Phillips was confessing to a role in a conspiracy, whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, doesn't matter, that's what it was. I think it's a classless move and he should have been called out for it.

As Glenn pointed out, above, you keep digging this hole for your theory. You bring up Larry and Dick, last time I checked they weren't on the same bandwagon as you.

 

 

right.

[Glenn Nall]

pretty sure Hunt was CIA. ergo, Sturgis. and Hall. and Martinez...

birds of a feather, Paul.

not like in novels. in the real world.

[Glenn Nall]

I think Phillip's "inadvertent" admission during his debate with Mark Lane that O was never in Mexico is more telling than anything.

IMHO.

 

if nothing else, behold the skills of Mark Lane's oratory. one can understand how he whipped Hunt's ass in a Miami courtroom.

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Larry Hancock]

Hunt was a CIA employee, primarily a political officer not operations.  Martinez was a CIA employee, the best boat guide for Cuban operations missions that they had.  Sturgis was an informant for the CIA, starting around 1962, we have the documents on that.  He was not an employee, he was a willing and valued source.  As to Hall, he was a talker....the closest he came to the CIA and the FBI was as a voluntary source who provided little information beyond street gossip.

As Chris said, job titles are very important, they tell you not only the roles but what an individual could be expected to know.

On Phillips manuscript, it was strictly fictional. I've gone into that before here but there is no reason to take it literally and actually it may have been intended as intimidation - to let certain parties in the CIA know that Phillips could tell a lot more than he did if somebody decided to make him a scapegoat.  Pure speculation on my part but having studied Phillips for a very long time the last thing I would expect would be for it to be literally the truth; if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty .

 

[Glenn Nall]

4 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hunt was a CIA employee, primarily a political officer not operations.  Martinez was a CIA employee, the best boat guide for Cuban operations missions that they had.  Sturgis was an informant for the CIA, starting around 1962, we have the documents on that.  He was not an employee, he was a willing and valued source.  As to Hall, he was a talker....the closest he came to the CIA and the FBI was as a voluntary source who provided little information beyond street gossip.

As Chris said, job titles are very important, they tell you not only the roles but what an individual could be expected to know.

On Phillips manuscript, it was strictly fictional. I've gone into that before here but there is no reason to take it literally and actually it may have been intended as intimidation - to let certain parties in the CIA know that Phillips could tell a lot more than he did if somebody decided to make him a scapegoat.  Pure speculation on my part but having studied Phillips for a very long time the last thing I would expect would be for it to be literally the truth; if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty .

 

"if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty."

right. being as deceit is, after all, what they do for a living.

 

and job titles tell me that certain roles are better suited to an "asset" or "talker" than to an officer...

Edited December 9, 2016 by Glenn Nall