Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Clark

James McCord Jr.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Jefferson Morley states, matter-of-factly, that Oswald was trying to infiltrate anti-Castro groups in the summer of 1963.

 

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm

From the above link....:

"George E. Joannides (pronounced “Joe-uh-NEE-deez”) ..........

His personnel file showed that he served in 1963 as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA’s station in Miami. He had a staff of 24 and a budget of $1.5 million. He also was in charge of handling the anti-Castro student group that Oswald had tried to infiltrate in August 1963. They called themselves the Cuban Student Directorate and it was Joannides’s job to guide and monitor them. Under a CIA program code named AMSPELL, he was giving $25,000 a month to Luis Fernandez Rocha and Juan Salvat, the Directorate’s leaders in Miami. That funding supported the Directorate’s chapters in New Orleans and other cities."

----------------------

I have been compelled into this search by the notion that LHO was trying to infiltrate Pro-Castro groups, via James McCord's operation with that same goal. Morely's assertion seems quite different but I am not sure that it really matters. Morley is saying that Oswald is trying infiltrate anti-Castro groups. A main point that I am offering is that Oswald was not being sheep-dipped, but that he was was a CIA operative. If Oswald was the "marked card" or " barium meal", who was the target of his operation? I have been leaning towards Phillips and Hunt using a second Oswald to keep Angleton off-balance, confused, and his back against a wall through this period. Angleton is trying to figure-out who, within his agency, is counter manipulating the identity of an Oswald, through the use of the Oswald double.

 

It is interesting that Morley and Newman, the intrepid reasearchers who interviewed Jane Roman, have this different take on which group LHO was tasked to infiltrate.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding the document, above, which claims that McCord was assigned to Frankfurt from June, 1962, to June 1964.

The document linked below comments on McCords assignment for the same time period, but the location (15-20) is redacted. Yet, in the next note, comments are made about his performance in "Frankfurt,".

So, the question is, if he was in Frankfurt for those 2 years, why redact the location in one instance, and not the other?

My tentative conclusion is that Frankfurt is not the redacted location where he was assigned for 2 years, and location 15-20 is not Frankfurt.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53786#relPageId=2&tab=page

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/8/2018 at 9:41 PM, Gene Kelly said:

Carl McNabb, a former CIA agent, once stated that James McCord - who he said had the nickname in the Agency of “Zap Man” - had killed Hoover.  A file from McNabb's days at JM/Wave contained a personal note/notation "Zap Man".  When asked what that meant, he said that an officer told him this was the term given to Helm's private assassin.

I certainly took note that Hoover Died on May 2, 1972, and the purported first Watergate break-in happened later that month.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No coincidence, in my opinion.   Seems farfetched (and difficult to believe) but I wouldn't put it past that crew of "plumbers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I certainly took note that Hoover Died on May 3, 1972, and the purported first Watergate break-in happened later that month.

If McCord killed Hoover it would lead to speculation as to who ‘inherited’ Hoover’s private files. I recall that sometime after his death there was a fire that destroyed his personal effects.

I was not aware that Newman and Morley had different views on which Cubans Oswald was trying to infiltrate. I’ve always thought it was anti-Castro groups. Whenever this comes up I always think of the 6 or 7 small filings cabinets discovered at Ruth Paine’s house, which the DPD detective who put this in his first report said were of pro Castro exiles. Of course those files disappeared. But for me what’s important is that the detective assumed they were files of Oswald compatriots, and not of exiles he was monitoring, thus labeling Oswald as a Communist agent rather than an agent of US intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/15/2018 at 1:12 PM, Michael Clark said:

Regarding the document, above, which claims that McCord was assigned to Frankfurt from June, 1962, to June 1964.

The document linked below comments on McCords assignment for the same time period, but the location (15-20) is redacted. Yet, in the next note, comments are made about his performance in "Frankfurt,".

So, the question is, if he was in Frankfurt for those 2 years, why redact the location in one instance, and not the other?

My tentative conclusion is that Frankfurt is not the redacted location where he was assigned for 2 years, and location 15-20 is not Frankfurt.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53786#relPageId=2&tab=page

In relation to the above, we can see from the following 1959 travel order that location 15-20 was part of those 1959 orders

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10124-10043.pdf

I posted those travel orders in a thread requesting information on known CIA travel location codes, which I will link here in hopes that someone may have more information on those codes.

Edit: it looks like 15-20 IS Frankfurt. P.21, here:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10146-10043.pdf

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

McCord subject of investigation out of Manhattan field office in March of 1963. Posted for the purpose of locating McCord through this period.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=15376#relPageId=2&tab=page

 

McCord acknowledged for anti-bugging technology development in 1966.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10407.pdf

 

McCord listed as one (along with Bruce Solie) of 37 officers approved for a BYECOM clearance. Of the 37, McCord is among 5 who hold only 2 clearances. Three only hold one clearance.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10404.pdf

 

Mccord in Germany, 62--63

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10421.pdf

 

McCord to become Cief of Techical Diivision after Air War College

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10219.pdf

 

McCord cleared for Special Intelligence in 1953

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10124-10064.pdf

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

If McCord killed Hoover it would lead to speculation as to who ‘inherited’ Hoover’s private files. I recall that sometime after his death there was a fire that destroyed his personal effects.

I was not aware that Newman and Morley had different views on which Cubans Oswald was trying to infiltrate. I’ve always thought it was anti-Castro groups. Whenever this comes up I always think of the 6 or 7 small filings cabinets discovered at Ruth Paine’s house, which the DPD detective who put this in his first report said were of pro Castro exiles. Of course those files disappeared. But for me what’s important is that the detective assumed they were files of Oswald compatriots, and not of exiles he was monitoring, thus labeling Oswald as a Communist agent rather than an agent of US intelligence.

To be sure Paul, I am not entertaining the idea that McCord killed Hoover. Honestly, I have a hard time imagining anyone doing such  a thing unless they say they did it and described how it went down; it's just a failing of my imagination. For example, in basic terms, I find James Files believable; I only discount his culpability based on the opinions of more Savvy researchers and commentators who seem to have a knack for idendifying prevaricators.

I can imaginine Hoover being killed as an operation that doesn't include faces or names. 

Further, the chicken and the egg could go either way here, with the Watergate op being spurned into action by the death of Hoover. By my comment above I am only noting the possible relationship between the two.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 3:43 PM, Michael Clark said:

McCord subject of investigation out of Manhattan field office in March of 1963. Posted for the purpose of locating McCord through this period.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=15376#relPageId=2&tab=page

 

McCord acknowledged for anti-bugging technology development in 1966.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10407.pdf

 

McCord listed as one (along with Bruce Solie) of 37 officers approved for a BYECOM clearance. Of the 37, McCord is among 5 who hold only 2 clearances. Three only hold one clearance.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10404.pdf

 

Mccord in Germany, 62--63

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10421.pdf

 

McCord to become Cief of Techical Diivision after Air War College

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10219.pdf

 

 

Doesn’t the document listing McCord’s assignments say Germany ‘53-62?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I am not seeing that, Paul. I am seeing "53-62: CIA, Security Off,  Washington"

.... in this document:

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10421.pdf

Guess you’re right. Reading the colons wrong. 

Edited by Paul Brancato

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  

×