Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Simkin

William Harvey and MI5

Recommended Posts

Tim

Up above in one of your posts, you said this:

QUOTE:

And by the way, Valery Kostikov was not a KGB agent either. He was a CIA agent.

And the school for assassins at Minsk was not a KGB operation; it was in fact run by the CIA.

UNQUOTE

Were you being serious?

Would you mind elabrating further on these comments? You might prefer to start a new Topic though, so this one isn't messed up.

Regards

Dixie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry. I was being facetious.

John said it was more likely that Dr. Stephen Ward was M15 rather than KGB whereas I am aware of no evidence that he was other than a Soviet spy. My point was you cannot convert a Soviet spy or operation into a Western spy or organization simply by calling it so. It is commonly accepted that Ward was a Soviet spy and the girls were KGB. You cannot change the accepted wisdom without any evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So sorry.  I was being facetious. 

John said it was more likely that Dr. Stephen Ward was M15 rather than KGB whereas I am aware of no evidence that he was other than a Soviet spy.  My point was you cannot convert a Soviet spy or operation into a Western spy or organization simply by calling it so.  It is commonly accepted that Ward was a Soviet spy and the girls were KGB.  You cannot change the accepted wisdom without any evidence to the contrary.

It might be commonly accepted that Ward was a Soviet spy but that does not mean that it is true. There is no hard evidence that Ward was either KGB or MI5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, this is a very good summary of the Cubela affair.  You seem to agree with most historians that Cubela was probably a double agent.  I believe it is in Evan Thomas' book that he states that Shackley and Fitzgerald got into a shouting match about the advisability of proceeding with Cubela.

One error in your summary:  Fitzgerald was in Washington, D.C on November 22nd.  It was Sanchez who was meeting Cubela in Paris on the 22nd of November.  the earlier literature all put Fitzgerald in Paris on the 22nd, but this was incorrect.  It is right in the later books, for instance, in the Evan Thomas book "The Very Best Men."

It is true that the Secret 1967 CIA Inspector General’s Report on Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro blacked out the names of the people who met Cubela on 2nd November, 1964. The reason why so many researchers have thought that it was FitzGerald and Sanchez was because the number of letters that have been blacked out correspond with these two names. Not that it really matters as J. D. Earman, the inspector general, admits that FitzGerald met Cubela on 29th October.

The reason why J. D. Earman investigated the plots to kill Castro was because of an article that had been written by Drew Pearson on 7th March, 1967. In the article Pearson had claimed:

(1) that the CIA had hatched a plot to kill Castro

(2) that Robert Kennedy may have approved the assassination plot

(3) underworld figures were actually recruited to carry out the plot

(4) that Castro knew about the CIA plots to kill him

(5) pills were sent to Cuba for the assassination

(6) the assassination of Castro was discussed at a Department of State meeting

Earman interviewed all the relevant people at the CIA and discovered that points 1, 3, 5 and 6 were true. He was unable to confirm that points 2 and 4 were true (we now know that they were true).

Earman then speculates who might have told Pearson. Using the system of finding out “who knew what” he concludes that only one man was in a position to have all this information. His name was William Harvey. However, he adds: “We preferred not to think that Bill Harvey was the culprit. We could find no persuasive reason why he would wish to leak the story deliberately, and we doubted that he would be so indiscreet as to leak it accidentally.”

Yet, Harvey did have a reason to do this at this time. As I have argued earlier, the stories to link the Mafia was the assassination of JFK was Plan B. This was a plan that was activated during Jim Garrison’s investigation. Harvey could not leak evidence that linked the Mafia with the assassination of JFK because the CIA did not have this information. However, what they could do was publish a story that the Mafia was involved in the assassination of Castro. They assumed that this would encourage researchers to speculate that the Mafia had killed JFK or that Castro had ordered the assassination in an act of revenge.

If that is the case, you have to argue why Harvey was doing this in 1967. As Earman asks: “what did he have to gain?” Nothing, unless he was part of the original conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re your most immediate post (above)

John, I am quite sure that it is well established that Pearson's source for his March 1967 story was well-connected DC attorney Ed Morgan, and his source was his client, Johnny Rosselli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty good theory John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, this is a direct quote from the J. D. Earman report (the 1967 Report of the CIA Inspector General). I am still looking for the parts you quote about Harvey (it is a long document, after all):

In learning of the Roselli-Morgan link, we are relieved of the need for speculation as to how the story has gotten out. It is quite likely that Roselli is the source, Morgan the channel, and Anderson and Pearson the recipients. We may also be relieved of the need for speculation as to why the story is being told. The inference to be drawn from O'Connell's discoveries in Las Vegas is that Roselli is drinking too much and talking and that Morgan is also drinking and talking to a newspaper friend.

Put in its best light--that there is no ulterior motive in spreading the story--it is questionable whether we are any better off now than we were before; our position may be even worse than we had suspected.

a. We may now assume that Pearson's story is not patched together from bits and pieces picked up here and there. His ultimate source, Roselli, knows more about certain details of the gambling syndicate operation than we do, and he evidently has talked. Trying now to hush up further leaks might do more harm than good; the story is already out and probably in considerable detail.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, this is a direct quote from the J. D. Earman report (the 1967 Report of the CIA Inspector General).  I am still looking for the parts you quote about Harvey (it is a long document, after all):

This information appears in “The Possible Ramifications of the Gambling Syndicate Operation” (pages 110-120 in the Ocean Press edition).

Of course J. D. Earman was aware that the information that went to Jack Anderson and Drew Pearson went via Johnny Rosselli and Ed Morgan. The point made by Earman was that Morgan/Rosselli should not have known about some of the information that was given to Pearson. For example, details of the State Department meeting on 10th August, 1962. Harvey was there and was therefore in a position to know what was said at this secret meeting. Earman investigation suggested that Harvey was the only person who had access to all the correct information that appeared in Pearson’s article. Therefore, he concludes that Harvey must have told Morgan/Rosselli. What he cannot work out is why he did this? To me, the only explanation is that Harvey was attempting to get Plan B published in the press. He wanted to promote the theory that the Mafia were in some way involved in the JFK assassination. There are several possible explanations for this behaviour:

(1) The Mafia was really involved in the assassination of JFK and he wanted to make this public.

(2) Harvey believed that the Mafia was a serious problem for American society and that although they were not involved in the assassination, it would be a good idea if the public thought they were. This is I believe G. Robert Blakey’s position and there is no doubt that the House Select Committee on Assassinations report helped to pave the way for tougher action against organized crime.

(3) Harvey was worried that Jim Garrison was getting too close to the truth with his investigation of anti-Castro Cubans and CIA assets in New Orleans. Therefore, they needed to introduce Plan B as a diversion.

As you know, I believe that the last one of these is true. What is more, it worked. Some researchers were not fooled as they are aware that it does not fit the evidence that we have. Therefore we have to go on and on debating this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, thanks for the reply. I want to try to read the original but what you said makes sense and your analysis also seems logical. When you said "HUAC", however, did you mean HSCA?

I do want to say that I believe Blakey is probably an honest man who honestly believes that organized crime was invoved in the assassination. (And I believe there is certainly an evidentiary basis for a good faith belief in the "Mafia did it" scenario.)

As you know, Blakey has recently expressed displeasure that the CIA did not reveal that the man the CIA designated as its liason to the HSCA had been involved with funding the anti-Castro organization with which LHO had been involved. In a letter in the New York Review of Books, a number of assasination-related authors of different persuasions (all the way from Summers to Posner) called for the CIA to open all of its files re this man. I think they were even going to file suit to accomplish this.

Does anyone know the current status of their request? Did they indeed file a FOIA suit?

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, thanks for the reply.  I want to try to read the original but what you said makes sense and your analysis also seems logical.  When you said "HUAC", however, did you mean HSCA?

Yes. My original post has now been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is incumbent to upon us to consider the KGB and especially a

Cuban based (WH) KGB factor in place 11/22/63.

The use of Oswald whether as an assassin, an accomplice or a "lost" (killed) patsy,

the presence of OSWALD in the drama points to both

US combined paramilitary participation (ONI/MI/CIA)

AND to KGB participation.

SInce Oswald was a defector and a counter defector,

it is logical he was an asset and a counter-asset.

WIth the false defector program in place, and

the Manchurian techniques well known, OSWALD was a likely

agent of US intelligence and also a likely agent of Soviet intelligence.

Such is the world of Cold War Counter Intelligence, where black is white,

white is black and people who talk die suddenly.

Red Herring or Red Plot? We may never Know,

but I agree with Dixie, please don't use sarcasm and facetious jokes,

when discussing the murky world of KOSTIKOV, ANGLETON, DULLES and ROGER HOLLIS.....................

Edited by Shanet Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just walking out on a limb here. LHO in MHO was red, white and blue until the end. The defection was a US operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting John Simkin:

It is true that the Secret 1967 CIA Inspector General’s Report on Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro blacked out the names of the people who met Cubela on 2nd November, 1964. The reason why so many researchers have thought that it was FitzGerald and Sanchez was because the number of letters that have been blacked out correspond with these two names. Not that it really matters as J. D. Earman, the inspector general, admits that FitzGerald met Cubela on 29th October.

The reason why J. D. Earman investigated the plots to kill Castro was because of an article that had been written by Drew Pearson on 7th March, 1967. In the article Pearson had claimed:

(1) that the CIA had hatched a plot to kill Castro

(2) that Robert Kennedy may have approved the assassination plot

(3) underworld figures were actually recruited to carry out the plot

(4) that Castro knew about the CIA plots to kill him

(5) pills were sent to Cuba for the assassination

(6) the assassination of Castro was discussed at a Department of State meeting

Earman interviewed all the relevant people at the CIA and discovered that points 1, 3, 5 and 6 were true. He was unable to confirm that points 2 and 4 were true (we now know that they were true).

Earman then speculates who might have told Pearson. Using the system of finding out “who knew what” he concludes that only one man was in a position to have all this information. His name was William Harvey. However, he adds: “We preferred not to think that Bill Harvey was the culprit. We could find no persuasive reason why he would wish to leak the story deliberately, and we doubted that he would be so indiscreet as to leak it accidentally.”

* * * * * * * * * *

John, you are correct about Harvey being the source for some of the information in the 1967 Drew Pearson article.

I found this interesting datum in "Live By the Sword"":

"In the fall of 1968, columnist Jack Anderson submitted a secret report to President-elect George Bush in which he provided

more details about his initial 1967 disclosure of the anti-Castro assassination plot's and Robert Kennedy's links to them. Anderson informed the President [sic] that his sources included not only Johnny Rosselli, but the CIA's William Harvey, as well as other high-ranking Agency officers. Anderson also admitted that he was provided with copies of 'two memos from the CIA's most sensitive files, which summarize the whole operation.'

"The disclosure of Harvey as a source comes as no surpise, because, accotrding to the CIA's own documents, Harvey was professionally associated with the law firm of Rosselli's attorney, Ed Morgan."

(By the way, I think you should add Ed Morgan to your biographical cast. Maybe James Richards can even come up with his photo.)

The secret Anderson report to President-Elect Bush is found on pages 444-445 of "Live By theSword". There were several other items in that report that I will be posting in the thread "Did Fidel Do It"

I think Anderson is still alive. Someone should interview him. Query what were the two top-secret CIA memos he reviewed (presumably given to him by Harvey)? Does he still have copies of them?

John:

This comment is not directed at you, by the way, but I think the above is a good example why members ought to read even books which run counter to their pet theory of the assassination.) At the risk of being too controversial, I would question the "seriousness" of a researcher who would dismiss the conclusions of "Live By The Sword" or "The Secret History of the CIA" without even bothering to read them.

I also believe that members should remember the distinction we made between primary and secondary sources, and the difference between factual assertions of the writer and opinions. The distinction between primary sources and secondary sources relate to factual assertions, of course. When a writer makes a factual assertion, the writer's ideology presumably makes no difference regarding the assertion. What makes a difference (assuming the writer is honestly summarizing the source) is the credibility of the person who first made the assertion. The distinction between primary sources and secondary sources relates in part to whether the writer is accurately summarizing the source. For instance, the writer may reference as his source an FBI report. The FBI report may be a summary of an agent's interview with Witness X. Here there are three possible sources of error. First, witness himself (or herself) may be lying. Second, the FBI agent (whether intentionally or not may have not accurately reported what the witness told him). (We all know there are instances where this was reported to have happened.) Third, the writer may be misinterpreting (or selectively summarizing) the FBI report. I take this only as an example. But let us go a little futher here. How does one go about evaluating whether the witness was telling the truth? There are several possibilities. First, the over-all credibility of the witness can be evaluated. For instance, what is the position of the witness in the community? Is the witness a law abiding-citizen or a convicted felon (e.g. Billy Sol Estes). Second, are there other sources who corroborate what the witness said? Third, is the witness disinterested or does the witness have some interest in proponding the story he or she is offering. It is more diificult to evaluate whether the FBI agent accurately reported the witness's statements correctly. Obviously, one way to do this is to recheck with the witness but this is now often difficult to do. With respect to evaluating whether the writer has accurately reported the information in the report, the report itself is the primary source and the accuracy of the writer's report can be verified by examining the original report.

The opinions of a writer differ from his factual assertions. It is of course worthwhile to consider the opinions of the writer but anyone is free to reach differing opinions from the same facts. The opinions of the writer make no difference re the accuracy of the factual assertions in his book. In most cases, of course, the writer is only reporting facts that have been asserted by others. (The only writer I know who has personal knowledge of facts is Professor Michael Kurtz who says that on two separate occasions he saw LHO with Guy Banister.)

In this Forum we recently encountered an apparent example of how errors develop and I think it is worth reciting. In "The Fish is Red" as well as in its update "Deadly Secrets" writers Hincke and Turner state that Cuban exile Harry Williams told them (or one of them) that he was, on the morning of the assassination, in a meeting with, among others, Howard Hunt. Given the controversy over whether Hunt was in Dallas on November 22, 1963, I started a topic "Where was Howard?" Ron Ecker pointed out it was highly unlikely that the meeting reported by Williams occured. Now it is possible the error was made by the writers but more likely Williams invented the meeting. Now Russo reports the same meeting in his book, but his source is the "The Fish is Red" so he is simply repeating the error in that book. Well, the more a story is reported the more credible it becomes.

Another good example is the supposed LHO letter to "Mr. Hunt". It has now been (conclusively, I think) established that that error was a KGB forgery (see "The Sword and the Shield"). But that letter has been cited so often in the assassination literature that it has taken on a life of its own.

One reason why your Forum is important, as you have pointed out, is the collective intelligence involved. There is so much literature out there it is not possible for one person to have mastery of all of it. Ron helped me with the alleged issue of the Williams meeting with Hunt and hopefully that has now been put to rest. Hopefully, all members now know that the LHO letter to Hunt was a forgery. Now, I was able to add to your comments that your judgment that Harvey was probably a source of some of the information in the 1967 Anderson column was "right on".

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, you are correct about Harvey being the source for some of the information in the 1967 Drew Pearson article.

I found this interesting datum in "Live By the Sword"":

"In the fall of 1968, columnist Jack Anderson submitted a secret report to President-elect George Bush in which he provided

more details about his initial 1967 disclosure of the anti-Castro assassination plot's and Robert Kennedy's links to them.  Anderson informed the President [sic] that his sources included not only Johnny Rosselli, but the CIA's William Harvey, as well as other high-ranking Agency officers. Anderson also admitted that he was provided with copies of 'two memos from the CIA's most sensitive files, which summarize the whole operation.'

"The disclosure of Harvey as a source comes as no surpise, because, accotrding to the CIA's own documents, Harvey was professionally associated with the law firm of Rosselli's attorney, Ed Morgan."

(By the way, I think you should add Ed Morgan to your biographical cast.  Maybe James Richards can even come up with his photo.)

The secret Anderson report to President-Elect Bush is found on pages 444-445 of "Live By theSword".  There were several other items in that report that I will be posting in the thread "Did Fidel Do It"

I think Anderson is still alive.  Someone should interview him.  Query what were the two top-secret CIA memos he reviewed (presumably given to him by Harvey)?  Does he still have copies of them?

One reason why your Forum is important, as you have pointed out, is the collective intelligence involved.  There is so much literature out there it is not possible for one person to have mastery of all of it.  Ron helped me with the alleged issue of the Williams meeting with Hunt and hopefully that has now been put to rest.  Hopefully, all members now know that the LHO letter to Hunt was a forgery.  Now, I was able to add to your comments that your judgment that Harvey was probably a source of some of the information in the 1967 Anderson column was "right on".[/color]

Jack Anderson is an interesting character and deserves his own thread. He is still alive but is suffering from Parkinson’s disease. I suspect he will be unwilling to talk to us about the case.

For many years Anderson was considered to be a fearless investigative reporter. I have to admit he was one of my heroes. I first began having doubts about him when I read his biography of Drew Pearson (Confessions of a Muckraker).

Anderson went to work for Pearson after the war. He became his assistant and providing information to Pearson about corrupt politicians and businessmen. Pearson was on the left and refused some of the material Anderson gave him. Some of this information came from Joseph McCarthy who was a friend of Anderson. When McCarthy was discredited Anderson also became one of his critics.

Anderson was also close to LBJ. Pearson thought LBJ was a crook and despite Anderson’s pleas he refused to help him in his campaigns. However, Pearson did agree to call off his investigation of LBJ’s relationship with George and Herman Brown.

When Pearson died Anderson replaced him at the Washington Post. He was considered to be a liberal campaigning journalist. However, his reputation was hurt by the publication of the LBJ tapes. It became clear that Anderson was being used by LBJ to smear his opponents. In most cases Anderson’s stories were true (in many cases they were coming from Hoover), however, they were being used to keep LBJ’s critics quiet. LBJ had files on every person in Congress. Robert Kennedy tells an interesting story of how LBJ tried to use these files on those who were asking questions about the Bobby Baker case in 1963.

I believe that Anderson was CIA. I suspect he was recruited to the secret services while in China during the war. Pearson was the most dangerous investigative journalist in America in the 1940s. It make sense for the security services to infiltrate his operation. Anderson became Pearson’s assistant when he came back from China.

It was Anderson who persuaded Pearson to expose the corruption of Owen Brewster, chairman of the Senate War Investigating Committee was being paid by Pan American Airways (Pan Am) to persuade the United States government to set up an official worldwide monopoly under its control. Brewster was destroyed by these stories. He was obviously corrupt and deserved to go.

However, Brewster was doing some important work investigating corruption in the armaments industry. This included investigating the activities of LBJ's friends in Texas. Brewster was also investigating Howard Hughes who was awarded two contracts, of $18m and $22m each, to create and build two revolutionary aircraft - a giant plywood cargo seaplane that could carry thirty-five tons of men and weapons (HK-1), and a very fast photo-reconnaissance aircraft (F-11). This was the real reason why Hughes wanted to get Bewster.

The information that was used by Pearson to destroy Brewster came from Howard Hughes. As the owner of Trans World Airlines, Hughes posed a serious threat to this plan. Hughes claimed that Brewster had approached him and suggested he merge Trans World with Pan Am. I have now come to the conclusion that Howard was part of the LBJ Texan Network.

Anderson was ideally placed to help LBJ and the CIA with the “Mafia did it” theory ("Plan B"). This he did very well. As I suspected, Anderson was working closely with William Harvey on this. I think he was also working with LBJ in covering up the assassination of JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAandersonJ.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some anecdotal stuff in here. When my sister began a grad student project many years ago, on my father/Secret Cuba War etc., she contacted Anderson. He refused any help to her.

Years later we met with Andrew St. George who told us that a journalist never refuses their ?benefactor? government. In fact, you can benefit from being "embedded" as they call it now. So what this says to me is that journalists will not look into the horse's mouth, however that saying goes, without some understanding of their source as in the case of Bob Woodward suspicions even today.

Researchers are wise to "consider their source" as well as research the factual material.

I'd like to post an article from 1975 Tattler about No Name, to illustrate some of this. Perhaps you can help me, as I was unable to post attachements before when Tosh was posting.

Thanks

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  

×
×
  • Create New...