Veciana & Diaz.

[Tim Gratz]

I thought Larry's analysis was very good.

I tend to agree with Larry's suggestion that the efforts to link Oswald to Castro prior to the assassination may have been part of a US intelligence operation that had nothing to do with the assassination, but that did make Oswald an attractive "patsy" to the conspirators.

Larry wrote:

Seems to me that the only way to deal with it is to list out the incidents and suspects and then study them individually rather than talk in general terms. Tim, that takes you back to analysing the source, timing and credibility of your Castro agents suspects in the same manner I did the other side. And when I say credibility, you need to dig up enough background on your Castro agents to at least demonstrate they have some background or experience that would make them credible as running some sort of conspiracy or some tactical participation.

I agree with Larry that one ought to try to examine every lead linking Castro to the assassination. I am not sure how it is possible to check the background of the informants. I think if the information is from an informant who has provided reliable information in the past, then the information from that informant ought to be considered reliable. Does this seem acceptable?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

]

I agree with Larry that one ought to try to examine every lead linking Castro to the assassination.  I am not sure how it is possible to check the background of the informants.  I think if the information is from an informant who has provided reliable information in the past, then the information from that informant ought to be considered reliable.  Does this seem acceptable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well off you go then Tim, I guess we'll be leaving this little task up to you. WE all, I'm sure, look foward to your convinsing future reports, Good luck trolling THAT, mountain of misinformation,disinformation,and out and out lies,who knows you may yet produce something worthy of inspection.Good luck in your future endevours.

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, one caution and one suggestion. First as to the test for reliability I'm afraid that with some of the sources involved in the secret war your criteria would be underestimating the informants. Both the exiles and their fellow travelers were wont to go to both the FBI and CIA frequently with a definite agenda. Their official information often was structured to meet their political or tactical agenda. We have recently learned (once again) that exile groups are very dangerous sources of information since they conciously seek to maneuver their supporting powers into conflict with their enemies. Which leads to bad intelligence and bad intelligence estimates, after our experience with the paperclip/Gaelin (sp) network, with nationalist China, with the Cuban exiles, in Vietnam - you would think we would learn that eventually but it seems not.

I can show you numerous examples of exiles and secret warriors making reports to the FBI which can now shown to vary from their true knowledge. Calls me to discuss examples if you want. In fact Martino as an FBI informant is a case in point. Veciana has admitted he would never identify Phillips as Bishop even if it were true pretty well undermines his HSCA testimony. Escalante can be shown to be basing much of his commentary on JFK research books...its only when he gives unique Cuban data that he becomes of interest. So my caution is that consistency may only reflect agenda, not reliability.

My suggestion, especially for the CIA and FBI Castro leads, the ones identifying purported agents is to list out the chain of info as to ultimate source, evaluate whether that source would indeed be privy to any quality information or the info they claim (Alvarado convinced everybody in MC for several days and the CIA station guys continued to support him....even a simplistic evaluation would have written it off plus we know know they had photo coverage that would have answered the question in about 15 minutes and proven him a xxxx). Then you have to break out the case officer or filter for the report and see if you find any patterns there. Those investigating in MC found a very interesting pattern, all the bogus Castro leads were coming from sources who would have been part of Phillips CI network.

But at least when you slog through all this and present it you will have helped educate everyone. It's something Russo didn't even attempt, he just repeats the stuff at face value and third and fourth hand in some cases, rumors and gossip stuff.

-- Larry

I thought Larry's analysis was very good.

I tend to agree with Larry's suggestion that the efforts to link Oswald to Castro prior to the assassination may have been part of a US intelligence operation that had nothing to do with the assassination, but that did make Oswald an attractive "patsy" to the conspirators.

Larry wrote:

Seems to me that the only way to deal with it is to list out the incidents and suspects and then study them individually rather than talk in general terms. Tim, that takes you back to analysing the source, timing and credibility of your Castro agents suspects in the same manner I did the other side. And when I say credibility, you need to dig up enough background on your Castro agents to at least demonstrate they have some background or experience that would make them credible as running some sort of conspiracy or some tactical participation.

I agree with Larry that one ought to try to examine every lead linking Castro to the assassination.  I am not sure how it is possible to check the background of the informants.  I think if the information is from an informant who has provided reliable information in the past, then the information from that informant ought to be considered reliable.  Does this seem acceptable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>