Gene Wheaton:CIA and the Military Industrial Complex

[Tim Gratz]

John, your previous post demonstrates the logical fallacy of begging the issue.

Wheaton says that Jenkins told him that he was in charge of training assassins to kill Castro. You state that recently released AARB documents show this is correct.

Therefore, you argue that Wheaton was telling the truth about what Jenkins told him.

But all that proves is that Jenkins told Wheaton that he helped train the assassins who were going to kill Castro. It addes nothing--nothing--to support Wheaton's claim that Jenkins also told him that the team of assassins were redirected to kill Kennedy.

So let me repeat my question: What documents support this statement you made?:

Further research of recently released documents indicated that Jenkins and Quintero might well have been involved in the assassination

[William Turner]

This is the report that Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board, wrote after meeting Gene Wheaton on 11th July, 1995 (dated 12th July, 1995)

Wheaton began by telling me he would only give me limited information over the telephone although he was willing to meet me face to face to provide as much information as he had. He said he had no physical proof of what he would eventually tell the Board; however he said he does have a number of documents which he will need to show me in order for me to believe what he has to say.

By way of providing background on himself Wheaton explained he is a 59 year old retired miliatry intelligence officer. He works as a consultant investigating terrorist attacks around the world and said he expects his telephone will ring in the next few days with an offer to work on the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. He said if this happens he will also probably be called to Washington DC and would meet with me here. If he does not he would still agree to meet with us but would have to do so on the West Coast. He lives in Riverside County, California near Palm Springs.

Wheaton told me that from 1984 to 1987 he spent a lot of time in the Washington DC area and that starting in 1985 he was "recruited into Ollie North's network" by the CIA officer he has information about. He got to know this man and his wife, a "'super grade high level CIA officer" and kept a bedroom in their Virginia home. His friend was a Marine Corps liason in New Orleans and was the CIA contact with Carlos Marcello. He had been responsible for "running people into Cuba before the Bay of Pigs." His friend is now 68 or 69 years of age.

Over the course of a year or a year and one-half his friend told him about his activities with training Cuban insurgency groups. Wheaton said he also got to know many of the Cubans who had been his friend's soldiers/operatives when the Cubans visited in Virginia from their homes in Miami. His friend and the Cubans confirmed to Wheaton they assassinated JFK. Wheaton's friend said he trained the Cubans who pulled the triggers. Wheaton said the street level Cubans felt JFK was a traitor after the Bay of Pigs and wanted to kill him. People "above the Cubans" wanted JFK killed for other reasons.

Wheaton said we must look at his friend and his associates in order to know what really happened to JFK. One of those associates was I. Irving Davidson who was/is "the bag man for the intelligence community." Davidson runs a group called the Timber Center which handles payoffs and payments for the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon. He is a friend of Jack Anderson's and was indicted with Carlos Marcello in the 1980's on a Teamster's kick-back charge. Davidson is a non-practicing attorney in Washington D.C. He is now about 70 years old.

Wheaton said he would speak to the Board confidentially but would not allow his name to be used publicly because his friend and the friend's associates "said they would destroy me int he media witha blitz of disinformation to destroy my professional reputation. They will make me out to be a conspiracy nut. I'm not afraid of them, I've been a cop too long and besides, they only kill the people on the inner circle. The rest of us end up having our reputations destroyed."

Wheaton concluded by saying "this matter is not complex but it is convoluted. I need to show you the paper trail to show the contacts of these people."

I. Irving Davidson was an attorney/lobbyist with an office adjacent to Jack Anderson's. He had direct access to J. Edgar Hoover by dint of representing Hoover's close buddy, Clint Murchison. He also represented Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, Trujillo of the Dom Rep, among other shady characters. He would have been a natural for the intelligence agencies to approach, as Wheaton indicates.

[Joseph Trento]

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

[Pat Speer]

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help.

[Joseph Trento]

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help.

Experience. Specifically his activities on Pan Am 103. Until I finish this airline security book I will not have time to look at the documents. I should have it wrapped up in the Spring.

[Pat Speer]

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help.

Experience. Specifically his activities on Pan Am 103. Until I finish this airline security book I will not have time to look at the documents. I should have it wrapped up in the Spring.

I found this article online on the explosion of Pan AM 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. Gene Wheaton is mentioned in the article as someone espousing a conspiracy theory. Evidently Mr. Trento has looked into this and has concluded Wheaton's theory has no merit. The entire article can be found here: http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails...lock920427.html

Here is the reference to Wheaton:

"The theory that Jibril targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage- rescue team is supported by two independent intelligence experts. M. Gene Wheaton, a retired U.S. military-intelligence officer with 17 years' duty in the Middle East, sees chilling similarities between the Lockerbie crash and the suspicious DC-8 crash in Gander, Newfoundland, which killed 248 American soldiers in 1985. Wheaton is serving as investigator for the families of the victims of that crash. ''A couple of my old black ops buddies in the Pentagon believe the Pan Am bombers were gunning for McKee's hostage-rescue team,'' he says. ''But they were told to shift the focus of their investigation because it revealed an embarrassing breakdown in security.'' The FBI says it investigated the theory that McKee's team was targeted and found no evidence to support it.

Victor Marchetti, former executive assistant to the CIA's deputy director and co-author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, believes that the presence of the team on Flight 103 is a clue that should not be ignored. His contacts at Langley agree. ''It's like the loose thread of a sweater,'' he says. ''Pull on it, and the whole thing may unravel.'' In any case, Marchetti believes the bombing of Flight 103 could have been avoided. ''The Mossad knew about it and didn't give proper warning,'' he says. ''The CIA knew about it and screwed up.''

Edited December 18, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Here's another tidbit on Wheaton from an online blog mentioning David Hoffman

"Investigative Reporter David Hoffman

11/25/02

I recently made the acquaintance of journalist David Hoffman. He emailed me Friday:

Gore Vidal wrote an article about Timothy McVeigh in last September's Vanity Fair, promoting my book, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, as the best work on the case. I was also the reporter indicted by an Oklahoma Grand Jury three years ago in the same case, for jury tampering (a sham charge by a corrupt government designed to silence me).

And a few weeks ago, I beat the former Deputy Director of the FBI in the Federal Court of Appeals. He had sued me for libel.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just unamimously upheld my victory against former Deputy Director of the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell (who also served on V-P George H. W. Bush's National Security Council, Interagency Group for Counterintelligence and Task Force on Terrorism), in his $2 million dollar libel lawsuit against Me and my former backer, Americans for Responsible Media (He also sued the Columbia Journalism Review, Gene Wheaton, Paul Hudson, and Feral House).

I reported in my book, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, that Revell had his son Chris switch planes before the flight he was on - Pan Am 103 - was blown up by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.

I also reported that Revell was an FBI 'cover-up man', and a friend of Lt. Col. Oliver North's, running damage control for Iran-Contra activites, and other sordid affairs.

In an 11-page court ruling, the federal three-judge panel stated: "Revell fails to offer any evidence concerning defendant's subjective state of mind.... Further, we have no evidence that Hoffman purposefully avoided the truth. On the contrary, Hoffman did conduct an investigation prior to publishing, [1] and we have no facts before us that might call into question the veracity of Hoffman's sources....

"[1] Hoffman relied upon several sources, including: (1) a Public Broadcasting System sponsored book and a 1995 documentary, both accusing Revell of efforts to obstruct justice in collaboration with a former Marine Lt. Col. Oiver North; (2) an essary by Hart Lidov highly critical of Revell, posted on the website Columbia Journalism Review, USA (www.cjr.org); (3) an article by Gene Wheaton, formerly with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, published in 1996 by the Portland Free Press, in which Wheaton alleges that several security consultants, including Revell, approached him proposing to create a 'Death Squad'‹a group to assassinate individuals identified as 'terorists' by the White House; and (4) statements of Paul Hudson, an attorney and head of the Pan Am 103 survivor's group, concerning the alleged advance warning of the Pan Am 103 bombing and allegations that Revell pulled his son off Pan Am 103."

My victory against Revell was announced in all the Oklahoma papers, radio and TV news shows. Not only did we win, but we made the former FBI Director look like a fool. I hear he is livid."

Edited December 20, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Below is a blurb from one of Hoffman's articles, which includes more quotes from Wheaton's article. Wheaton's credibility is sinking by the minute. It's not that he's necessarily a xxxx, it's just that he has a history of speaking out on controversial subjects and espousing conspiracy theories. He is far from the reluctant witness we would like him to be. He's even written conspiracy-oriented articles, apparently espousing the belief that the Oklahoma City bombing was covered-up or caused by Bush 41 (and a secret team, no doubt). While I'm still inclined to believe that Wheaton had legitimate suspicions about Jenkins and Quintero, I must admit I'm skeptical about the over-all picture he's painted. As one versed in conspiracy theories, it's quite possible he threw names like Morales and Davidson into the mix just to add flavor. Here's the Hoffman excerpt:

5: Washington's "Lunatic Fringe"

"There's some reason they're covering this up. After awhile, they must think they can get away with anything. But they're not gonna get away with this."

-- State Representative Charles Key

The government didn't stop at intimidating victims like Edye Smith and jurors like Hoppy Heidelberg. Manipulating evidence also seemed to be a major tool in their arsenal of deceit.

Located just four miles from Oklahoma City, the seismic data monitor at the Omniplex had recorded the shock waves of the explosion on April 19th. The seismograph readings, including one from the University of Oklahoma 16 miles away in Norman, presented startling evidence -- evidence that the explosion that ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah building may in fact have been several distinct blasts. The implications of this are ominous.

At a meeting of the Oklahoma Geophysical Society in October, Seismologists Ray Brown and Tom Holzer gathered to discuss the findings. Pat Briley, a seismic programmer, attended the meeting, as did U.S. Attorney Patrick Ryan. As Briley describes it, less than a third of the way through the presentation, Ryan got up, walked to the back of the room, and began giving a private press conference.

"I haven't heard these scientists present any evidence that there was more then one bomb," said Ryan, "and I don't think it will come up in the trial."

"They hadn't even gotten half way through their presentation when Ryan said this," recounts Briley. "Patrick Ryan lied very heavily. This guy really lied." [18]

After the meeting, Briley politely asked Ryan to give him the original seismogram in his possession. Ryan got up, angrily accused Briley of working for the defense team, then stammered out of the room.

While direct intimidation remains the pervue of agencies such as the FBI, both Ryan and Keating have had convenient platforms from which to blow smoke at their critics.

Keating has made many appearances on Jerry Bohnen's talk radio, KTOK. KTOK is located at 50 Penn Place, in the same building that houses the FBI. KTOK and The Daily Oklahoman have provided Keating with a convenient platform to dismiss critics of the government's handling of the case, including Representative Charles Key and Edye Smith. In fact, Keating wasted no time in discrediting Smith, calling her allegations "hysterical." [19]

Yet it is interesting to note that out of thousands of checks that people mailed to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army for Smith, none were ever received. Those sent through Keating's office had been opened, checks and pages missing. Keating's answer: interning college students were responsible for the thefts. [20]

Perhaps former G-Man Keating was training the young lads for upcoming counter-intelligence operations. Such are not unusual tactics for a man who worked as an FBI agent during COINTELPRO (the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program of the mid-60's to mid 70's), where he infiltrated anti-government organizations like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and the SDS (Students For A Democratic Society), and stated he sees little difference between them and the militias. [21]

Keating also served as Assistant Attorney General under Edwin Meese. Meese was Attorney General during the 1985 fire-bombing of the MOVE headquarters. MOVE was a group of black housing activists who were living in a squatted building in Philadelphia. The satchel charge, dropped from a helicopter by Philadelphia's finest, resulted in the deaths of over 11 people, including five children, and destroyed an entire square block of the city.

Instead of launching a proper investigation into the matter, Meese's response was "consider it an eviction notice."

But Keating's involvement with the scions of truth and justice doesn't end there. Keating served in the Bush administration as Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Iran-Contra investigations. Gene Wheaton, an investigator who specializes in counter-terrorism, assassinations, and international narcotics and weapons trafficking, observes that it was George Bush who personally selected Keating as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1986, where he supervised the Customs Service, The Secret Service, and the ATF.

Keating has always been at the nexus bridging the agendas of good ol' boys like George Bush, with their elitist agendas, and the subsequent covert-operations sub-cultures which they spawned.

In an article in the Portland Free Press entitled "Another Bush Boy," Wheaton writes:

The covert-operations "lunatic fringe" in Washington, which took over key operations at the national security level, still controls them today, was Bush's 1981 agenda, and Keating is the next generation to carry it on.

It was only three months after Keating's inauguration as Governor that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building occurred. Given his background and grooming, Keating was in a perfect position to direct "damage control."

As Wheaton notes:

Keating is an a perfect position to control the direction and scope of any state investigation which might not correspond to the official federal inquiry.

It appears that Keating is doing just that. As Governor, Keating was in a position to halt the hurried demolition of the Murrah building, ordered by federal authorities under the guise of "safety." Bob Ricks, the FBI PR flack who spoon-fed a daily dose of lies to the press during the Waco siege, was appointed Director of Public Safety in Oklahoma by Keating after the bombing. [22]

The demolition was ordered under the pseudo-psychological premise of providing "closure" to the festering wound hanging over the city. The demolition also effectively prevented any independent forensic investigation of the bomb site. [23]

"There's some reason they're covering this up," stated Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key. "After awhile, they must think they can get away with anything. But they're not gonna get away with this."

Eight months after the demolition, Key, dissatisfied with the official investigation, attempted to form a state investigative oversight committee. House Speaker Glen Johnson successfully blocked Key's attempts, stating his satisfaction with the official investigation.

Key also attempted to impanel a County Grand Jury. Such a jury, operating outside the scope of the federal investigation, would not only have the power to investigate facts ignored by the federal Grand Jury, but have the power to level criminal obstruction of justice charges against anybody whom they believed might have impeded the investigation.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Ron Ecker]

The FBI says it investigated the theory that McKee's team was targeted and found no evidence to support it.

If it's a choice between believing Wheaton or the FBI, I'll believe Wheaton. About anything. While some, like Mr. Trento, may question Wheaton's credibility, the FBI has no credibility to question.

[Owen Parsons]

I don't think speaking out in support of conspiracies should negatively impact a witnesses' credibility. It is only when they start alleging too much personal knowledge in support of their beliefs that I think eyebrows should be raised. Wheaton only has important personal knowledge about one event, he theorizes about the rest.

[Peter Dale Scott]

My advice to Sheehan years ago, was that material from Carl Jenkins was the weakest part of the Christic case, and perhaps even deliberately planted to poison it. Even if my fears are correct, there would be no reason to suspect that Wheaton was worse than just plain gullible.

[John Simkin]

My advice to Sheehan years ago, was that material from Carl Jenkins was the weakest part of the Christic case, and perhaps even deliberately planted to poison it. Even if my fears are correct, there would be no reason to suspect that Wheaton was worse than just plain gullible.

I would add that I've been examing the timing of when and where certain Contra information was provided. While Wheaton's information on Jenkins and Quintaro themselves can be shown to be accurate and while the names that were given in reference to Contra activities were on the money, I've begun to have the notion that during 1986 Jenkins may well have started to plant bogus information, especially in regard to Shackley and a secret/rogue assassination team/network.

Such information would clear him from becoming a whistle blower, would help sabotage Sheehan's related pure North illegal arms deals case and would also help contaminate anthing else that Wheaton might want to share.

It always seems to be a handy thing to divert someone from a small conspiracy by offering them a much bigger, sexier one. Something tells me that Jenkins may have become bait for Sheehan... then he could casually tell everyone that Sheehan had just misunderstood everthing he had to say.

Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti:

A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.

We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder.

But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead.

But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration.

A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder.

In August, 1978, Marchetti published an article about the assassination of in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the HSCA had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal.

The HSCA did not publish this CIA memo linking its agents to the assassination of JFK. Hunt now decided to take legal action against the Liberty Lobby and in December, 1981, he was awarded $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. It was claimed that Hunt's attorney, Ellis Rubin, had offered a clearly erroneous instruction as to the law of defamation. The three-judge panel agreed and the case was retried. This time Mark Lane defended the Liberty Lobby against Hunt's action.

Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. It also emerged that Marchetti had also consulted James Angleton and Alan J. Weberman before publishing the article. As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skillful cross-examination by Lane of E. Howard Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that JFK had been assassinated by people working for the CIA.

Gary Buell posted this very interesting information when I raised this issue before:

Members who have looked at Joseph Trento's new book "The Secret History of the CIA" know that it contains material of interest concerning the assassination, mostly from the perspective of James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. What it does not contain is anything about the alleged memo re Howard Hunt in Dallas which Trento had written about in an article in the Sunday News Journal, August 20, 1978, and which is reproduced in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. So I thought I would ask him about it. What follows is our correspondence via e-mail:

Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death?

Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable.

Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at.

Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent?

Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader.

Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.)

I believe that Carl Jenkins was a limited hangout in 1986. In doing so he undermined the testimony of Gene Wheaton and enabled Ted Shackley to sue Daniel Sheehan.

In his autobiography, Spymaster (2005), Shackley attacks those people who have suggested that the CIA were involved with the drug trade. However, he does not mention the fact that he won a libel case against Daniel Sheehan. In fact Sheehan does not get a mention in the book. Nor does Carl Jenkins.

[Alan Kent]

After watching the tape of Law's interview with Wheaton in Dallas, rummaging through sources on Wheaton, Jenkins, and the cast of characters they moved amongst, and wading through the posts, I offer here a few simple observations and opinions:

1.) In our efforts to evaluate Wheaton as a witness to that which he claims to have heard, it is important to draw a distinction between Wheaton the reporter and Wheaton the grand theorist. David Corn, in his "Blond Ghost," has a salient take on the man: "In early March of 1988, Sheehan took Wheaton's deposition. For five days in a federal courtroom, in Washington, Wheaton rambled on...A defense attorney asked if Wheaton possessed direct knowledge of Shackley drug-smuggling or money-laundering, as Christic legal papers claimed Wheaton did. Wheaton admitted he did not have 'any direct knowledge.' ...He denied being Sheehan's source for several key pieces of information, contradicting Sheehan's affadavit. Throughout his deposition, Wheaton came across as sincere and serious, but a man who could not differentiate between what he truly knew, what he heard, and what he and others speculated."

"Sincere and serious." That is exactly what Wheaton seemed to be in his taped interview with Law. There, Wheaton was not speculating about matters he had little direct knowledge of. He was simply relating information which he claimed had been given to him not, it is important to point out, in one grand "confession," but in bits and pieces over the course of several years.

A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK. Trento doesn't believe "a word of what Wheaton says," in part because of Wheaton's take on Pan Am 103.

None of Wheaton's "big picture" failings should necessarily impact our evaluation of his basic honesty, or the accuracy of the information he says he gleaned from conversations with Jenkins and Quintero. This is not a matter of arcane interpretation on his part. Either Jenkins and Quintero spoke as he said they did, or he is simply lying.

Wheaton has never attempted to make a dime off his knowledge. He will not likely be selling a video at Blockbuster any time soon. For my dime, he's a credible witness here.

2.) There has been some dispute about what Wheaton actually claimed in the interview. According to my notes, he clearly said that Jenkins was involved in "turning" potential Castro assassins toward JFK, and in pointing them to Dealey Plaza. Quintero, as a protege of Jenkins, and a trained shooter, was also involved, according to Wheaton, although he stopped short of actually naming Quintero or anyone else as a Dallas shooter.

3.) What can so far be determined about Carl Jenkins' positions and activities in CIA operations seems consistant with what Wheaton claims. Two further claims which were presumably derived from conversation with Jenkins will be much more difficult to substantiate, but are of great importance: Jenkins' alleged role as a laison between the Agency and Carlos Marcello, and Jenkins' involvement with a young Lee Oswald in New Orleans.

4.) In communication with the ARRB, Wheaton mentions the importance of Jenkins' associates, and particularly I. Irving Davidson. If Davidson was indeed close to Jenkins, we may be having a small glimpse of a part of the "glue" that bonded CIA/organized crime related individuals with Texas-based power brokers who lured JFK to Texas in 1963. There is much work to be done here.

[John Simkin]

After watching the tape of Law's interview with Wheaton in Dallas, rummaging through sources on Wheaton, Jenkins, and the cast of characters they moved amongst, and wading through the posts, I offer here a few simple observations and opinions:

1.) In our efforts to evaluate Wheaton as a witness to that which he claims to have heard, it is important to draw a distinction between Wheaton the reporter and Wheaton the grand theorist. David Corn, in his "Blond Ghost," has a salient take on the man: "In early March of 1988, Sheehan took Wheaton's deposition. For five days in a federal courtroom, in Washington, Wheaton rambled on...A defense attorney asked if Wheaton possessed direct knowledge of Shackley drug-smuggling or money-laundering, as Christic legal papers claimed Wheaton did. Wheaton admitted he did not have 'any direct knowledge.' ...He denied being Sheehan's source for several key pieces of information, contradicting Sheehan's affadavit. Throughout his deposition, Wheaton came across as sincere and serious, but a man who could not differentiate between what he truly knew, what he heard, and what he and others speculated."

"Sincere and serious." That is exactly what Wheaton seemed to be in his taped interview with Law. There, Wheaton was not speculating about matters he had little direct knowledge of. He was simply relating information which he claimed had been given to him not, it is important to point out, in one grand "confession," but in bits and pieces over the course of several years.

A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK. Trento doesn't believe "a word of what Wheaton says," in part because of Wheaton's take on Pan Am 103.

None of Wheaton's "big picture" failings should necessarily impact our evaluation of his basic honesty, or the accuracy of the information he says he gleaned from conversations with Jenkins and Quintero. This is not a matter of arcane interpretation on his part. Either Jenkins and Quintero spoke as he said they did, or he is simply lying.

Wheaton has never attempted to make a dime off his knowledge. He will not likely be selling a video at Blockbuster any time soon. For my dime, he's a credible witness here.

2.) There has been some dispute about what Wheaton actually claimed in the interview. According to my notes, he clearly said that Jenkins was involved in "turning" potential Castro assassins toward JFK, and in pointing them to Dealey Plaza. Quintero, as a protege of Jenkins, and a trained shooter, was also involved, according to Wheaton, although he stopped short of actually naming Quintero or anyone else as a Dallas shooter.

3.) What can so far be determined about Carl Jenkins' positions and activities in CIA operations seems consistant with what Wheaton claims. Two further claims which were presumably derived from conversation with Jenkins will be much more difficult to substantiate, but are of great importance: Jenkins' alleged role as a laison between the Agency and Carlos Marcello, and Jenkins' involvement with a young Lee Oswald in New Orleans.

4.) In communication with the ARRB, Wheaton mentions the importance of Jenkins' associates, and particularly I. Irving Davidson. If Davidson was indeed close to Jenkins, we may be having a small glimpse of a part of the "glue" that bonded CIA/organized crime related individuals with Texas-based power brokers who lured JFK to Texas in 1963. There is much work to be done here.

Very interesting posting. I would like to know more about this: "A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK."

[Alan Kent]

After watching the tape of Law's interview with Wheaton in Dallas, rummaging through sources on Wheaton, Jenkins, and the cast of characters they moved amongst, and wading through the posts, I offer here a few simple observations and opinions:

1.) In our efforts to evaluate Wheaton as a witness to that which he claims to have heard, it is important to draw a distinction between Wheaton the reporter and Wheaton the grand theorist. David Corn, in his "Blond Ghost," has a salient take on the man: "In early March of 1988, Sheehan took Wheaton's deposition. For five days in a federal courtroom, in Washington, Wheaton rambled on...A defense attorney asked if Wheaton possessed direct knowledge of Shackley drug-smuggling or money-laundering, as Christic legal papers claimed Wheaton did. Wheaton admitted he did not have 'any direct knowledge.' ...He denied being Sheehan's source for several key pieces of information, contradicting Sheehan's affadavit. Throughout his deposition, Wheaton came across as sincere and serious, but a man who could not differentiate between what he truly knew, what he heard, and what he and others speculated."

"Sincere and serious." That is exactly what Wheaton seemed to be in his taped interview with Law. There, Wheaton was not speculating about matters he had little direct knowledge of. He was simply relating information which he claimed had been given to him not, it is important to point out, in one grand "confession," but in bits and pieces over the course of several years.

A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK. Trento doesn't believe "a word of what Wheaton says," in part because of Wheaton's take on Pan Am 103.

None of Wheaton's "big picture" failings should necessarily impact our evaluation of his basic honesty, or the accuracy of the information he says he gleaned from conversations with Jenkins and Quintero. This is not a matter of arcane interpretation on his part. Either Jenkins and Quintero spoke as he said they did, or he is simply lying.

Wheaton has never attempted to make a dime off his knowledge. He will not likely be selling a video at Blockbuster any time soon. For my dime, he's a credible witness here.

2.) There has been some dispute about what Wheaton actually claimed in the interview. According to my notes, he clearly said that Jenkins was involved in "turning" potential Castro assassins toward JFK, and in pointing them to Dealey Plaza. Quintero, as a protege of Jenkins, and a trained shooter, was also involved, according to Wheaton, although he stopped short of actually naming Quintero or anyone else as a Dallas shooter.

3.) What can so far be determined about Carl Jenkins' positions and activities in CIA operations seems consistant with what Wheaton claims. Two further claims which were presumably derived from conversation with Jenkins will be much more difficult to substantiate, but are of great importance: Jenkins' alleged role as a laison between the Agency and Carlos Marcello, and Jenkins' involvement with a young Lee Oswald in New Orleans.

4.) In communication with the ARRB, Wheaton mentions the importance of Jenkins' associates, and particularly I. Irving Davidson. If Davidson was indeed close to Jenkins, we may be having a small glimpse of a part of the "glue" that bonded CIA/organized crime related individuals with Texas-based power brokers who lured JFK to Texas in 1963. There is much work to be done here.

Very interesting posting. I would like to know more about this: "A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK."

I assume, from what little he told me, that Wheaton takes an uber-conspiritorial "Larouche-ian" line on this. In evaluating witness statements in this (or any other) inquiry, I have always attempted to judge the veracity of the witness by examining the plausibility of that which he could reasonably expect to know from personal experience, rather than trying to examine his overall worldview. Wheaton's opinions about the ultimate source of the JFK murder are probably not tremendously enlightening and, in my opinion, would be a distraction from our examination of that which he actually KNOWS.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "That's all I really know about this!"