Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
W. Tracy Parnell

Veciana and the CIA

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Your reading of the book is different than mine. Fonzi said:

I had thought I would be able to tell, keen observer that I deemed myself, if Phillips had exhibited even the slightest hint of having recognized Veciana. Not only did Phillips not display that hint, but his eyes had moved on and off of Veciana so quickly-in the flash of a brief handshake-that it was almost as if Veciana was a nonentity.

All parties involved say that Phillips and Veciana talked. For a full report on the Reston incident see:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html

I don't have the Fonzi book in front of me, but here from Spartacus is a Fonzi interview excerpt regarding the first time Fonzi brought Phillips and Veciana together in Reston, VA, which led to Fonzi recommending to Robert Blakey that Phillips be charged with perjury for denying knowing Veciana:

(5) Gaeton Fonzi, interviewed on 8th October, 1994.

Veciana was introduced by name to Phillips twice, once in the banquet hall and once in the hallway. Phillips even asked that it be repeated and then, when Veciana asked him, "Don't you remember my name?" Phillips responded, "No." As Veciana himself later pointed out, that was odd considering that Veciana had been exceptionally well-known in anti-Castro activity, being the founder, key fund-raiser and spokesman for Alpha 66, the largest and most militant anti-Castro group. It was odd because anti-Castro activity was the heart and soul of Phillips' mission during the period in question. It was impossible for Phillips not to know or remember Veciana's name. Phillips had simply been caught off-guard by Veciana's surprise appearance at Reston and had a little "slip of tradecraft." Phillips himself must have later realized that because later, under oath during his Committee testimony, he decided the only way he could rectify that "slip of tradecraft" was to lie and say that Veciana was never introduced to him by name at that encounter. I urged Chief Counsel Bob Blakey to recommend Phillips be charged with perjury, since we had three witnesses to that Reston encounter: myself, Veciana and an aide from Senator Schweiker's office. Blakey declined to take on the CIA.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I don't have the Fonzi book in front of me, but here from Spartacus is a Fonzi interview excerpt regarding the first time Fonzi brought Phillips and Veciana together in Reston, VA, which led to Fonzi recommending to Robert Blakey that Phillips be charged with perjury for denying knowing Veciana:

(5) Gaeton Fonzi, interviewed on 8th October, 1994.

Veciana was introduced by name to Phillips twice, once in the banquet hall and once in the hallway. Phillips even asked that it be repeated and then, when Veciana asked him, "Don't you remember my name?" Phillips responded, "No." As Veciana himself later pointed out, that was odd considering that Veciana had been exceptionally well-known in anti-Castro activity, being the founder, key fund-raiser and spokesman for Alpha 66, the largest and most militant anti-Castro group. It was odd because anti-Castro activity was the heart and soul of Phillips' mission during the period in question. It was impossible for Phillips not to know or remember Veciana's name. Phillips had simply been caught off-guard by Veciana's surprise appearance at Reston and had a little "slip of tradecraft." Phillips himself must have later realized that because later, under oath during his Committee testimony, he decided the only way he could rectify that "slip of tradecraft" was to lie and say that Veciana was never introduced to him by name at that encounter. I urged Chief Counsel Bob Blakey to recommend Phillips be charged with perjury, since we had three witnesses to that Reston encounter: myself, Veciana and an aide from Senator Schweiker's office. Blakey declined to take on the CIA.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm

As far as Phillips saying he didn't remember Veciana's name, Veciana was not exactly a household name anymore by 1976 when the meeting took place. Ross Crozier, who everyone is quick to use as a source that thought Phillips went by the name Bishop, also said that Phillips may have forgotten Veciana's name because of his drinking. If they had reminded Phillips that Veciana was a co-founder of Alpha 66, he would have certainly remembered.  I refer to this as meeting as an ambush because that's what it was-they were trying to catch Phillips off guard. But even so, Fonzi admitted he didn't see any recognition of Veciana by Phillips. He would have had to have been quite an actor indeed not to show any reaction to seeing the man that he allegedly spent 12 years "running" in schemes to kill Castro suddenly show up at a CIA function. As for charging him with perjury-it was their word against his and they had no audio recording or other proof. They don't charge people with perjury on that type of evidence.

Anyway, thanks for the link to the interview, I hadn't seen that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the 2013 edition of Anthony Summers' book Not in Your Lifetime:

"In conversation with Phillips, he recalled in 2013, he asked him about the allegation that he had been “Bishop.” The response he received is startling, given Phillips’s history of flat-out denial."
“He did not say, ‘Yes, I am Maurice Bishop,’ Carle remembered, “It was clear to me, however, that he was the man who had used the Bishop alias… . Phillips’ reaction was to acknowledge that he was the man in question… . He tacitly accepted its accuracy; but he did not explicitly confirm to me that he had done what he was accused of doing: meeting with Oswald. He avoided discussing this point.”


"The quote used here is from a February 5, 2013, letter from Carle to the author’s principal colleague Robbyn Swan, who had noted that—in a book review—Carle had written: “I knew “Maurice Bishop,” whose real name was David Atlee Phillips.” In his letter to Swan, Carle also wrote: “Another case officer colleague—a contemporary of Phillips, now long dead—in fact the man who introduced Phillips to his second wife, also spoke to me in a way that indicated that Phillips had been “Bishop.”
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1994 Gaeton Fonzi interview:

 Accepting Veciana's story of seeing Bishop with Oswald, how can you account for this  violation of "basic tradecraft"? Is it not possible that Veciana participated in the meeting with Bishop and Oswald?

GF:  Anything is possible.  But as far as violation of basic tradecraft goes, David Phillips had a record of violating basic tradecraft.  He left his briefcase, I believe at one point, in a restaurant.  Almost got in trouble with that.  So I have no problem with violation of basic tradecrafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't have Fonzi's book in the house, but my recollection is that Fonzi meant that Phillips violated "basic tradecraft" by being spooked when he encountered Veciana in Reston, VA.  He later denied knowing Veciana twice on the day Fonzi brought Veciana to confront Phillips during his HSCA testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Again, I don't have Fonzi's book in the house, but my recollection is that Fonzi meant that Phillips violated "basic tradecraft" by being spooked when he encountered Veciana in Reston, VA.  He later denied knowing Veciana twice on the day Fonzi brought Veciana to confront Phillips during his HSCA testimony.

But Phillips wasn't "spooked" when he first saw Veciana. As Fonzi admitted in the book:

Quote On:

I had thought I would be able to tell, keen observer that I deemed myself, if Phillips had exhibited even the slightest hint of having recognized Veciana. Not only did Phillips not display that hint, but his eyes had moved on and off of Veciana so quickly-in the flash of a brief handshake-that it was almost as if Veciana was a nonentity.

Quote off:

What Fonzi said was Phillips became nervous. From my article:

During the conference luncheon, Veciana folded his arms across his chest and studied Philips intently, staring at the former agent to the point of making him nervous. Over the years, Fonzi and Veciana have repeatedly cited Phillips’ alleged nervousness as proof he was hiding something. However, Fonzi himself offered the obvious explanation for this unease in an HSCA memo. “But maybe I would have gotten nervous also if some guy was just sitting there with his arms folded staring at me like Veciana was doing with Phillips.”

But as Fonzi admitted, there was no reaction from Phillips upon first meeting Veciana. And Fonzi understood and offered an explanation as to why Phillips might have been nervous thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm-a get the book and straighten this out.  Bottom line: Fonzi was impressed enough to recommend perjury charges against Phillips.  It may have meant a battle of He Said v. He Said that wouldn't hold in court. but the intent was inspired by something Fonzi witnessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more genuine response by Phillips would have been to admit he recognized Veciana's name when they were introduced- they spoke in Spanish about anti-Castro Cubans. Instead he acted as though he didn't know anything about him , but later testified to the HSCA that he was familiar with  Veciana during the time period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I just finished an update on the article (scroll down to "Documents Show Veciana’s True CIA Relationship")
To sum up, Morley is correct that Veciana was approved by the CIA for sabotage operations. However, the evidence shows he was never used in this capacity and shortly after he was working with Army Intelligence. Veciana’s connections to Army Intelligence were known as far back as the HSCA investigation and should have been explored more fully. It is possible that Fonzi’s focus on the CIA, based on his own assassination theories, diverted attention away from this aspect of Veciana’s biography. In any case, the real story of Veciana’s anti-Castro career bears little resemblance to the one that is told in Trained to Kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:27 PM, David Andrews said:

On a lower operational level, but yes.  My sense is that there were migratory field names at CIA, and they were used to confuse field contacts and destroy culpability, but perhaps also to certify persons dropping the name ( e. g., "Bishop") to other persons observing an op at CIA.

For what it's worth, Noel Twyman's interview with Roy Hargraves  has Hargraves identifying Adrian O'Hare as "Bishop" (pp.22-23 in the .pdf below.)  So if it wasn't a migratory alias at the Agency, it was thrown around a lot as disinfo after the assassination.

http://larry-hancock.com/roy_hargraves_interview.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/9/2017 at 1:21 AM, Robin Finn said:

former CIA officer Glenn Carle:

"During the 1960s, Maurice Bishop was the alias used by an infamous CIA officer in Mexico City, whom conspiracy theorists believe met Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in 1963. The alleged meeting is cited as clear evidence that CIA officers were somehow involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

I knew Maurice Bishop, whose real name was David Atlee Phillips. A long time ago, he got me into the agency."

http://glenncarle.com/tag/central-intelligence-agency/

As part of my working pet-Ct, I have William Buckley Jr. working in the same ring as DAP in 1963. If Glenn Lincoln Carlisle (not to be confused with (as per Glenn Lincoln Carle) Roger Craig interviewer, Lincoln Carle) is offering a hangout, in the form of DAP, it may actually be William F. Buckley; is Buckley the Queen?

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×