Pat Speer

I'd like to add that LBJ claimed, and we have no reason to doubt, that he was sincerely concerned about racism and civil rights, due to his experience as a teacher of poor children of Mexican descent. On this he differed from many of his friends, including John Connally. Not coincidentally, LBJ had strong support from the latino population throughout his political life. It should also be pointed out that after his brother's death, Bobby Kennedy came to be a genuine voice for civil rights, and was one of the few white politicians to publicly embrace both Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez. There are those, and I'm one of them, who suspect that LBJ attempted to purge the sins of his complicity in Kennedy's death through pushing through the civil rights legislation Kennedy had proposed. LBJ was a complicated man, and left the Presidency in disgrace, filled with remorse and bitterness. If he had left a diary it would have been fascinating. As it is we have his memoirs, The Vantage Point, which is as difficult to read as Nixon's memoirs, RN, due to their both being so full of self-serving clap-trap at odds with the memories of everyone around them.

I believe LBJ and Hoover pulled off the cover-up (both with mob ties.) The motorcade security question could be a red herring--the Secret Service was ill-equipped in 1963 to prevent a sniper from taking out a President in a motorcade no matter the parade route, a route which, not coincidentally, LBJ, Connally, and Cabell were all in a position to know. The Warren Commission was LBJ's baby, after running his appointees by Hoover and Nixon (all with mob ties.) As for the mass media, I believe they have been institutionalized--they rely so much on Government co-operation that it's impossible for them to see around the fanny they're kissing. The JFK assassination is only one of hundreds of stories they've inadequately reported over the past fifty years. Look at Watergate--which the media holds up as proof of its unbiased reporting. It was only through Judge Sirica's strong-armed manipulation of the court system that McCord decided to talk, and bring the house of cards crashing down. Through Nixon's manipulations and the media's cowardice, the story of the century almost never happened--the story broke in June and was largely ignored up through the November election. While one might claim there was not enough dirt and too many liars, the truth is more likely that the media was scared of hurting Nixon and helping to put the screaming L-word George McGovern in the White House. There's something similar going on right now. The amount of dirt on the current regime could fill up the front page every day should the media do its job and inform the American people. Instead, they act like they're ashamed to say anything bad.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, but the more I learn about the case, the more I'm convinced that the mafia could have been behind the hit. The corruption was much greater than most want to admit--Truman had had ties to Pendergast, LBJ and Tom Clark had ties to Marcello, JFK shared broads with Giancana, Hoover was buddy buddy with Frank Costello, and the CIA had their own still-mysterious agenda, while playing footsie with Trafficante, Rosselli, and Giancana. And hovering in the background at all times was Nixon with his ties to Lansky. When we consider some of the other assassinations of the post-prohibition period, from Anton Cermak to Huey Long to Castillo-Armas in Guatemala, we see possible mob involvement, so maybe JFK was only one of many. While some try to portray the mob as being a bunch of dumb guineas who couldn't pull off anything as sophisticated as the JFK hit, they fail to understand that the mob of the 1960's had their own intelligence operatives and public-relations specialists, many government-trained, men like Robert Maheu, Joe Shimon, Edward P. Morgan, I. Irving Davidson, Sidney Korshak, and Edward Bennett Williams. When one considers that the OSS operative/murderer Adolpho Icardi, mob leader Frank Costello, union boss Jimmy Hoffa, LBJ bagman Bobby Baker, former Secretary of the Treasury John Connally and former CIA chief Richard Helms all used Williams as their attorney, and that he was on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and was asked by Gerald Ford to run the CIA before Ford settled on Bush, then one can see how Sam Giancana's boast to this brother that the mob and the CIA were two sides of the same coin may have been closer to the truth than we want to admit. It also seems apparent that a number of right-wing groups in the early sixties were joining hands with the mob to fund the anti-Castro movement; it's quite possible therefore that a handful of vengeful CIA agents joined forces with the mob and the Birchers to rid themselves of the man they perceived to be Enemy #1 in the war on communism: John F Kennedy. It's also possible that a shrewd-thinking operative figured out a way to take out JFK in such a way that everyone would cover it up. This operative could even be still alive.

In hopes of inspiring a little more activity on this thread, which I believe to be the most productive one on the forum, let me share something which I came across and have already shared with Larry. While trying to nail down what function the Domestic Operations Division under Tracy Barnes performed, I came across the description in Ronald Kessler's Inside the CIA of a Domestic Resources Division, which comprises the Foreign Resources Branch and the National Collection Branch. The Foreign Resources Branch, which recruits foreign nationals on U.S. soil, shares the description provided the DOD by the Rockefeller Commission, while the National Collection Branch replaces the Domestic Contact Service, the unit of the CIA acknowledged to have made use of George DeMohrenschildt and Clay Shaw. That these two functions are now part of the same division adds fuel to the possibiilty that, offical CIA histories aside, these two units were both under Barnes in 1963. Even more intriguing is the description of how the Foreign Resources Branch operates. They operate entirely under cover. They go to cocktail parties at embassies etc and try to make contacts. They receive "wish lists" from other elements of the government, and target those individuals and governments for recruitment. Since Hunt was in charge of covert ops for the DOD this would mean this was his primary function. Due to the famous Angleton memo, and Hunt's close contact with Phillips, this could indicate that Oswald was involved in a Hunt operation. Perhaps Lechuga or another embassy employee from Cuba had been targeted for recruitment after an appearance in the U.S. Perhaps the Oswald appearance at the Cuban embassy in Mexico was merely a test to see if the CIA's internal contact would accurately report his visit. Perhaps Phillips' allowing Veciana to see him with Oswald was part of this same test, since Veciana's cousin also worked at the embassy. While this may provide Hunt and Phillips non-murderous reasons to have had contact with Oswald, this could be a key to understanding what happened and why the CIA was involved with a cover-up, allowing Angleton to white-wash the agency's behind.

It seems to me that the overwhelming pattern in these quotes is that Bobby, beyond trying to protect his brother's legacy, was seeking to hide his real suspicions of Johnson. It should not be forgotten that Martin was a special ambassador for LBJ and his envoy to the Dominican Republic during the 1965 crisis. So it remains to be seen how comfortable Bobby would be talking to him about LBJ. Or with anyone. Perhaps he was unwilling to admit even to himself that the main suspects in the death of his brother were Castro, LBJ, and the mob, and with all 3 their motivation came from stopping actions undertaken by himself, and not his brother. The one JFK specific motivation may have been the facillitation of a build-up in Vietnam, an act that Bobby supported in 1963. As for the CIA, the Church Report confirms they were making their own policy throughout the early years of the Kennedy Administration, interpreting orders to assassinate foreign leaders without bothering to acquire confirmation, and refusing or forgetting to inform superiors of covert plans approved by previous superiors and even previous administrations. The underlying truth is that they believed the past orders of Nixon and Dulles superceded the current wishes of Kennedy and McCone. Some would call this treason. I mean, can you imagine if it turned out that our covert ops in Iraq had been planned out by Al Gore and that no one had bothered to tell Bush? Heads would roll. In the U.S. for a change. I believe there were a number of exiles who claimed that the CIA told them not to worry about the stupidity of the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion, as they guaranteed them that if they ran into trouble the president would call in a full-blown U.S. invasion. Of course, this was exactly the opposite of what the President said, and may indicate that the CIA had been deliberately deceiving JFK, assuming they could manipulate him into carrying out what had been planned as Nixon's war. It remains to be seen whether the CIA EVER really believed their stated plan would work. Does the IG report go into this? I'm gonna try and find out. Hello, Amazon. Ha.

John, I would like to make sure you're aware of Rex Bradford's Historymatters website, which has mountains of info without LN editorializing. I found the HSCA Report particularly fascinating.

While JFK's popularity at the time of his death was not significant compared to many other President's before and after, the fact is that the country was incredibly divided at the time and no other candidate was nearly as popular. The Republican party was thoroughly split between the liberal Rockefeller and arch-conservative Goldwater wings, and was drifting towards Goldwater. As a result, I believe that JFK, had he lived to take part in the 1964 election, would have beat Goldwater by a similar margin as LBJ, which was the largest victory in U.S. history. JFK's victory would most likely have been a bit smaller, due to LBJ's receiving a number of "sympathy" votes, in addition to votes from southerners who could never vote for a "yankee.'

I would say that JFK's greatest achievement in the eyes of history took place after his death. His successor, LBJ, through shrewdly using the obvious comparisons of the JFK assassination to the assassination of the great Republican Abraham Lincoln, was able to ensure Republican cooperation on much-needed civil rights legislation. Sadly, then, JFK's greatest achievement may have been his death. On the other hand, one withdraws from making this claim because it may have the effect of giving co-credit to his murderer (s). So perhaps it should simply be stated that JFK and his brother Bobby's embrace of racism and prejudice as American problems and not just "colored" American problems, is his lasting legacy.

Connally himself downplayed this theory, insisting that the feud had already blown over--after JFK insisted that LBJ and Yarbrough make nice and ride together. But I'm not so sure that fully clears LBJ. For it can be pointed out that Connally yelled "My God, THEY'RE going to kill us all," and that even though he kept the peace with his wife by deferring to her opinion about the order of the shots, he nevertheless insisted quite illogically that the Warren Commission got it right. Similarly, while Posner et al insist Connally's movements from Z-150--Z-190 are indicative that he heard a shot, it's just as likely, due to the fact that NO ONE else seems to have heard this shot, that he was anxiously looking back and forth in anticipation of a shot he knew was coming. Additionally, in his autobio Connally engages in a little obfuscation (Larry's word). While insisting that the WC was right, except about the order of the shots, he suggests that Oswald's fine shooting can be explained by the fact that he had been seen at numerous rifle ranges practicing. This supposition is of course refuted by the fact that Oswald did not have access to his rifle during this period, and that the WC rejected that any of the range-shooters were Oswald (as that would entail an accomplice to hold onto his rifle between practice sessions.)

The Bush family is closely tied to Cuban exiles and has been involved with efforts to overthrow Castro since he first came to power. About a year ago there was a wave of negative publicity about Castro and I predicted that Bush would target him as soon as the skirmishes in Iraq died down. I haven't seen the quotes you allude to, John. What exactly did Bush say? To an American, your attempts to tie economic and athletic performance doesn't hold much water. In Cuba, there are no professional sports, which allows their boxers and baseball players to flourish at the amateur level. Due in no small part to American interference, the Cuban economy has suffered greatly under Castro. Nevertheless, he has delivered on many of his promises, particularly in regards to education and health care. I believe the U.S. has allowed Cuba to continue in part as a warning to all other western hemisphere countries which might stray to socialism--we want them to know that if they go that route they'll be driving the same cars for forty years or more.

I absolutely agree that the cover-up continues within the mainstream media. But what I'm trying to decide is whether it is reasonable to assume that it's by design--as in secret meetings held in corporate offices--or it's just that the lone nutter crowd has been more successful in selling their story to those pre-conditioned to believe their nonsense, i.e. those with the most at stake in American society and therefore those most likely to resent the intrusion of troublesome conspiracy theorists. As someone who is trying to learn the lessons of history I believe there are times when there is a popular wave, a backlash, that is beyond the control of any individual. Right now in the U.S. we face the frightening spectre of those who desire to go back and win the Vietnam war, through altering history. They seek to villify John Kerry for stating what he believed to be true, and what was subsequently shown to be true in various courts, that we did not behave like the "good guys" in Vietnam, that we did not conduct ourselves as the saint-like proponents of freedom we so desperately want to believe we were. I predicted a year ago that this election would end up being about Vietnam and I am horrified to find I'm right. Similarly, I think there is a faction of America that is retreating into dogma and a form of fascism, and resent the CT crowd with the same passion they hate Michael Moore. These people attempted to shut down this site. I think the Posners and the McAdams of the world give comfort to this growing faction. I believe that they are of the mind-set that in the absense of 100% proof of a conspiracy it is safer and better to say there's no evidence of a conspiracy. (They neglect to accept that as historians we should deal with what is likely to be true, and not accept as valid only what can be proved. Their approach automatically favors "official" evidence and "official" reports, neglecting the lesson of history that almost all "official" evidence is doctored to some extent, filtered through a prism of what is considered politically acceptable to the officials with the power to make something "official." ) Similarly, I think Gus Russo was seduced by Seymour Hersh' negative portrayal of the Kennedys, and sought to make peace within himself through blaming the Kennedys for their fate. In sum, then, I find it hard to believe that any of them are on a payroll or have knowingly lied. (I mean obviously Posner has lied many times, but I'm not so sure he doesn't believe his lies.) There is a seduction in being the guy to tell everyone they're wrong, just as there is a seduction involved in being the one to know "what really happened." Still, without going in to too much detail, I noticed a few government documents put up on the the McAdams website, which differed significantly from the same documents as shown on the History Matters website, and it's led me to wonder if others have noticed anything similar.

For the record, my father worked for an oil company, and his boss was friends with Robert Maheu. My stepfather was a former Flying Tiger mercenary who worked at Lockheed skunk works on a number of top secret CIA/military projects. Additionally, an ex-girlfriend's father was a stealth technology engineer at Lockheed. And oh yeah one of my oldest friends is a captain in Special Forces, with experience in both central America and the mid-east. So I suppose I'm probably CIA. Sorry to tease you, Jack, but you have pushed it a little far. Bill Miller is Bill Miller. Even the best of us have memory lapses. I just went to my twenty-fifth high school reunion and there were girls who asked my best friend to the vice-versa who can't even remember him now. It happens.

So, by your response, Jack, I take it you believe there is an organized cover-up that continues to this day. I'll keep my eyes open. Maybe it wasn't a coincidence that my computer crashed the day after downloading the autopsy photos... On the other hand, I believe much of the infighting among CT personalities is a natural extension of a community where people share information, but secretly want the credit or financial rewards for being the one to "crack the case." When I was first getting into this I spent a lot of time on Weberman's website, which has a mountain of information, most of it solid, all of it fascinating. But it was disheartening to see that he still held onto the belief that the three tramps were CIA. I mean, c'mon, like the CIA wouldn't have a better escape plan than hiding in a box car and hoping not to get caught? There is an expression in screenwriting, that one must "kill one's darlings" in order to write a good script. It seems to me that a lot of researchers get attached to their "pet" theories, and would prefer to believe that other more skeptical researchers are out to get them, than that anyone could have a sincere difference of opinion regarding their "darling." It's a shame. I believe the combined knowledge and brainpower within the research community could be used to write an important chapter in world history.

Being relatively new to the research "community," I find myself surprised by the amount of distrust among researchers. What with all the talk of false sponsors and disinformation one would think we had among us the plans for the A-bomb, instead of strongly held convictions on an historical event. I'm wondering as to why this is. Is it inherent in assassination research that one ponders one's own mortality? Is it due to Penn Jones' and Jim Marrs' accounting of "mysterious deaths." Is it because the possible involvement of the CIA, which is itself paranoid and which engenders paranoia in others? Or is it because the first step in becoming a part of the community is to let go of the security blanket called faith in the government? I find the level of distrust distressing. I remember putting down a book by Harry Livingstone when he accused his former partner Robert Groden of deliberately withholding important photographs. Robert Groden?? Who made his career off stealing or borrowing other people's photos and films and making them available to the public? There are many who believe the Zapruder film, the single most important piece of evidence used in keeping talks of conspiracy alive, is itself a fake. There are some even who believe that the Jim Garrison investigation was part of a plot to discredit the whole community. I think this drives the Peter Jenninggs of the world to side with Posner and his ilk. While it's clear that books by Ford, McMillan, Posner, and Myers, et al, have received help from those in favor of protecting the status quo, it's just as clear that many of the researchers and their publishers have pushed their own agenda, and have tainted their books with exaggerated claims and simplified views of human behavior. That said, I have noticed a few things here and there that have inspired momentary paranoia. A prominent writer said he'd e-mail me right back and never did, a noted web-site mislabeled some of its exhibits, etc... And so I ask you, is the paranoia based on anything real, or is it imaginary?

Great post, John. Paints a fairly complete and credible portrait of what may have occurred. A couple of little tidbits that immediately came to mind which could be added into this was that even beyond concerns over his own career, LBJ may have had concerns that if Kennedy was killed by Communists it would swing the country to the Goldwater right no matter how he responded. (His fears are borne out by our current polls.) Alexander Haig, of all people, in his book Circles, claimed there was evidence for a conspiracy which was hushed up for this very reason. Another little tidbit that fits in with Ms. Baker's scenario is that Hoover's good buddy Clint Murchison was a regular visitor to the Ochsner clinic.

John, you neglected to mention LBJ's most egregious use of Pearson/Anderson. While Morgan had given Pearson the Roselli story that blamed the assassination attempts on Bobby's lust for Castro's death, and purported that these assassins were tortured by Castro, came back and killed JFK, in early 67 (An obvious bit of disinformation as far as I'm concerned.) the story didn't appear for weeks later, the day after RFK embarrassed LBJ by coming out against the war. I don't believe this was a coincidence.

There are three reasonable interpretations of Barnes' and the DOD's connections to the assassination. One is that they had nothing to do with the assassination. Two is that Barnes, Hunt, and Phillips (and possibly Angleton) were using Oswald to penetrate the FPCC (and also perhaps to ensnare Kostikov) , and that someone either turned Oswald or framed Oswald regarding the assassination, and that as a result the CIA covered-up their connection to Oswald. I have been reading FBI Agent Hosty's Assignment: Oswald, and while he buys Posner's theory on how Oswald did it alone, he's not so sure about Oswald's motive and suspects a possible Russian involvement. What is surprising about his book, however, seeing as it was written by a professed Oswald-did-it kinda guy, is that it details a mass cover-up within the FBI of Oswald's visit to Hosty, and of Hoover's secret inquisition of those who embarrassed the Bureau. Hosty even details how his superiors changed his answers to questions kept in his personnel file, and how he informed FBI Director Clarence Kelley of this, and how Kelley backed down rather than unveil the fraud. After reading this, it is totally reasonable to believe that the CIA has been covering up the level of their involvement with Oswald since day one. While many believers in a conspiracy accept this possibility as gospel, Hosty's book makes it palpable where even a lone-nutter can share in this belief. Third is that Barnes and the DOD were the planners of the assassination. While this may sound like froot loops to the uninitiated, the nature of the men involved in the Domestic Operations Division--a department supposedly devoted to interviewing Foreign nationals on American soil, and of trying to turn these visitors into agents--was that these men were all decisive men of action, and lovers of intrigue. Barnes himself was described by Dulles as the bravest man he ever knew. Hunt was a notorious zealot and lover of sneaky stuff, with a willingness to kill for a cause, as revealed by Gordon Liddy's book, Will. Another of Barnes' men, Hans Tofte, had landed infiltration teams in Korea only to be disgraced when it was revealed the infiltration films he'd shown his superiors had been staged. Somehow, I just don't see these men as interviewers. The Angleton memo placing Hunt in Dallas. The Phillips connection with Oswald as reported by Veciana. The behavior of the DRE, run by Joannides (and Phillips, I believe), after the assassination. The behavior of Frank Sturgis after the assassination. The statements of Morales and Phillips towards the end of their lives. Even the stories of Marita Lorenz and Robert Morrow, all point to a CIA operation by these men to kill Kennedy and blame it on Castro. Barnes, of anyone in the CIA, may have had the strongest personal motive to kill Kennedy. The disaster at the Bay of Pigs had led to the ouster of his two closest mentors at the CIA, Dulles and Bissell, and he'd been forced to work for Helms, his greatest antagonist. Furthermore, Lyman Kirkpatrick's IG report had placed much of the blame on Barnes for the disaster. And yet here was Barnes, with his own division loaded with covert ops specialists, and a close connection to old proteges like Phillips, Morales, and Robertson. And, what's more, here was Barnes running a number of cover corporations at the time of the assassination, from which he may have siphoned a significant amount of money, using American tax dollars to pay for the execution of an American President. That Barnes did kill Kennedy is questionable. That he should be considered a prime suspect in his death is unquestioned. That Richard Helms forced Barnes out of the CIA almost immediately after his becoming DCI, might also be significant. While it is undoubtedly true the two men did not see eye to eye, it is also true that the timing of Barnes' release, July 1966, coincided nicely with a growing clamor of doubts expressed about the Warren Commission, what with Inquest just in the stores and Rush To Judgment on its way. The fact that after 40 years information about the Domestic Operations Division remains so scarce might also be taken as an indication that something happened there that we're just not supposed to know about. Just my thoughts.

I spent a little time at the local university library yesterday and came across a few more tidbits on Barnes and the DOD. In Ray Cline's book The CIA Under Reagan Bush and Casey pg. 245 he states that in 1975 the CIA was re-alligned and the domestic contact service was moved to the clandestine services. I'm not sure but that seems to indicate that it was previously NOT under the jurisdiction of the DDP, which could very well indicate that it was under Barnes' DOD in 1961-1963. In Uncloaking The CIA (1978), Victor Marchetti (former CIA employee--wasn't he Helms' assistant?) insists on pg. 10 that the Domestic Ops Division is just like any other division, only that it does its spying in the U.S. "This area is more sensitive and requires more secrecy." Which could explain why so few of the books by former CIA honchos even mention it. Does it still exist? Did they change the name? On page 154 of this same book Kirkpatrick Sale (related to Richard Sale?) writes that according to Seymour Hersh 25 agents of the DOD were engaged in infiltration and spying on the new left within New York City alone. I need to go back and refresh my memory because for some reason I thought this infiltration was under Angleton's command. Maybe that was only the mail interception. Sale also makes note on this page that the CIA was possibly funding the Young Americans For Freedom, founded by Hunt's best buddy William F Buckley. If this is so this could indicate DOD involvement. Does anyone know if the Young Americans were involved in any anti-Castro activity? In The CIA File (1976) David Wise pg. 103 asserts that the very title of the DOD flouted the intentions of congress. He also seems to believe that the cover companies for JMWAVE --Zenith Technical Enterprises, etc. were among the proprietaries overseen by the DOD. But it was The Spymasters, from 1999, that gave me the freshest of nuggets. On pg. 88, in an interview, Richard Bissell asserts that he believed that Tracy Barnes consulted with the state department before approving the passage of carbines to dissidents in the Dominican Republic. When I followed this up by reading the Church Report pg. 200, however, I found that they found no record of any such consultation, and, not only that, they found records indicating that HQ (Barnes) requested the local station in the DR make sure that the military consul (Dearborn) also not tell the state department! It asserts that the state department wasn't told for weeks after. Dearborn told the committee that he believed someone at state had been consulted in advance... uh huh, that's why there's a cable stating that the CIA wanted them to wait for the station officer to return to the DR before consulting with the state department... Anyhow, what's surprising, considering that all the media summaries of the assassination plots try to imply that they all failed, is that one of Trujillo's assassins, Antonio de la Maza, used one of the carbines approved by Barnes!!! Thus, our boy Tracy may be the only CIA official acknowledged by the U.S. Government to have sponsored the assassination of another country's head-of-state. Looks good on the resume. Still digging!

Hi, I'm Pat Speer. When I was three years old an old gentleman named Mr. Ellis handed me a Kennedy half-dollar and told me to never forget our former President, who he said was a great man. After deciding to leave the record business, in 2003, I decided it was time I figured out who killed this great man. Since that time, I have created for myself a small library of over a thousand books, mostly on American politics post ww2. While reading through these books, I discovered that there were a lot of details which remain a mystery, particularly about the JFK assassination and Watergate. I think the answers to these questions are important, especially since the current administration seems strangely connected to these not-so-ancient ancient mysteries. (Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, Rove, and BushI all have Nixon ties.) I'm working on a book on the JFK assassination and hope to write on other topics as well. I've also written a screenplay about the record business. Wish me luck.

A bit more on Barnes... I went through my library and searched for Barnes and this is what came up... Joseph Trento's Secret History of the CIA pg 211. Barnes conducts a meeting at CIA headquarters in which he discusses the purchase of a cigarrette factory in Africa as cover. This occurs in August 61 and Bill Harvey's deputy is there. The story implies that Barnes and perhaps the DOD were at least tangentially involved with the ZRRifle program. Hickle and Turner's Deadly Secrets pg. 41 explains that Hunt was sometimes sloppy but that Barnes protected him within the agency. It goes on to say that Hunt's recommendations for Castro's assassination were given to Barnes, who presented them to the special group. (I believe it's reported elsewhere that his recommentations were given to Cushman, who gave them to Nixon) Maybe both are true. Joseph B Smith's Portrait of a Cold Warrior pg.346 confirms that Barnes was given a new division, the Domestic Operations Division, after the BOP, and that Hunt went to work for him. Anthony Summers' The Arrogance of Power, pg. 186, supports the Morrow assertion that both Barnes and Nixon were privy to the Kohly/Morrow counterfeiting scheme. Donald Freed's Death in Washington pg.46 portrays Barnes as an extremist, along with Hunt and Phillips and asserts that the DOD ran illegal domestic fronts, including one as the FPCC in New Orleans. (Does he mean Oswald?) David Wise's American Police State details pg.222 how in Feb. 1960 Barnes approved a plan to "disable" an Iraqi colonel sympathetic to communism by sending him a poison handkerchief. Sidney Gottlieb verified sending the handkerchief, but the colonel was killed by other means before he got the chance to use it. Nevertheless, this shows Barnes' openness to assassination. Oddly, according to an article by Richard Sale dated 4-10-03, Saddam Hussein was working with the CIA at that point as an assassin. Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much pg. 306 repeats Morrow's claim that Barnes had William Sullivan remove Oswald's name from the security index. More importantly, on pg. 168 he asserts that the Domestic Contact Service was part of the DOD, which means J. Walton Moore, the CIA agent who kept an eye on Oswald through De Mohrenschildt, was Barnes' employee. This could be a breakthrough! Can anyone confirm that the DCS was part of the DOD? Finally, in Richard Helms' A look Over My Shoulder he asserts that Barnes was Dulles' pet pg. 166. He goes on to say that Barnes was "unable to get the hang of secret operations" and that due to "Dulles' constant praise and pushing, Tracy apparently remained unaware of his problem." Seeing as Helms asserts elsewhere in his book, his final word on all things CIA, that the Garrison investigation and the Stone movie were the results of a long-time KGB operation, this could be disinfo perpetrated by a convicted perjurer on his deathbed. I hope others find this angle as intriguing as I do. I said it earlier, but re-reading these passages really confirms it for me. If elements of the CIA were involved in the assassination, Barnes was the one who was in the best position to both head the operation and disguise his involvement.

John, I didn't include Hughes in the MIC because I believe they had different motivations. While the MIC was organized and all about the $, I believe Hughes was more about the power and that he was basically insane. Maheu's book was one of the main sources of information which led me to conclude Hughes may have been involved. Maheu is still alive and living in Las Vegas I believe. Some of the reasons why I'm suspicious of their involvement. The first attempts on Castro, including the Sturgis/Lorenz attempt, preceded official CIA involvement by months. This leads me to suspect that Maheu convinced the CIA to go after Castro. In his book he details how he was hired by Niarchos, Onassis' brother-in-law, to disrupt Onassis' oil business. Maheu then approached Richard Nixon, who made it a CIA operation and footed the bill. So there's a precedent. The Nixon angle is important. One of Maheu's business partners worked with Nixon and was traveling with Nixon throughout the 1960 campaign, not coincidentally, when the plans for the Bay of Pigs were formalized. Strangely, no one at the CIA could remember where the idea for the assassination came from--Sheff Edwards seemed to think the mafia (through Maheu, no doubt) approached him. When Maheu approached Roselli, he said that Roselli immediately suspected it was for the CIA, and he admitted it. THIS IS INCREDIBLY UNPROFESSIONAL, destroying the whole reason for his involvement! He was the cut-out. The knowledge that the CIA was officially involved amounted to a get-out-of-jail free card for the participants. Roselli, Giancana and Maheu all used it to their advantage over the next few years. Maheu, out of some misguided professional loyalty, also told Howard Hughes of the plots. ONCE AGAIN, THIS WAS INCREDIBLY UNPROFESSIONAL. The fact that Maheu was hired by Hughes to hush up the Hughes loan story, but that Nixon over-ruled him and leaked it himself, only to have it explode in his face, may have led Maheu to want to give Hughes something for his money. Maheu, when testifying before the Church committee, said that the only murders he was aware of in regards to Cuba were performed by the Kennedy Administration when they allowed the invasion at the Bay of Pigs to continue after calling off the air strike. Towards the end of his book, Maheu brags that Giancana thanked him for never talking about the CIA/Mafia plots. This is b.s. Maheu had been talking about his involvement for years in order to avoid prosection on wiretapping charges, etc. Giancana himself bragged about his own involvement. It seems likely that the "thanks" was for not talking about something else. Finally, I think it is important to note that even Hughes came to conclude that Maheu was ultimately in bed with the mob. As for Hughes' insanity, it has been acknowledged that Hughes tried to bribe LBJ to escalate the Vietnam war, for the primary purpose of selling more helicopters. He also tried to buy ABC, so that he could control programming and prevent the showing of movies depicting black people in a sexual light. That's just a start.

More on Barnes: From The Very Best Men (p.311) it's clear that post BOP, Barnes, while running the Domestic Operations Division 1. had to pay off the widows of the sheep-dipped Alabama National Guard pilots killed at the Bay of Pigs. 2. did the ops no one else wanted (not explained) 3. sold off unwanted CIA assets (which means he was managing a number of paper companies--which could have been used to cover official CIA involvement in any number of schemes) 4.was put in charge of a couple of agents in India and Switxerland, who were just drawing expenses (it doesn't say what Barnes arranged for them to do) Thomas also quotes Hunt as saying that Barnes "wanted a real station doing ops in the United States." If the CIA proper was involved in the assassination, it certtainly sounds like Barnes could be the man. I also found a few tidbits on Barnes in Bitter Fruit, by Stephen Scleshinger and Stephen Kinzer, about the 1954 coup in Guatemala. While much is made of Hunt's and Phillps' roles, it's not widely reported that they both were hired by Barnes. On page 217 it details a cocktail party thrown for the CIA "heroes," attended by Eisenhower and Nixon. The heroes included Barnes, Rip Robertson and David Phillips. Hunt had already been re-assigned in Asia. Anyhow, I find it intriguing that the authors quote Phillips as claiming that Nixon asked the most incisive questions, and "demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Guatemalan political situation." This would indicate that Nixon was well aware of Hunt and his abilities as early as 1954, seeing as Hunt was the political action officer of the coup. I found another tidbit in Presidents' Secret Wars, by John Prado. This is supported as well by Thomas' book. And that is that Barnes came from the same lawfirm as Frank Wisner and Gordon Gray, who headed the Psychological Strategy Board. In fact, Barnes' introduction to the high levels of the intelligence community came at Gray's side, after being hired as Gray's assisitant. Of course the reason this is relevant now is that the Gray family is thoroughly connected to the Bush family, with Gordon having been one of Prescott's golf buddies and his boy Boyden (Boy) being George H.W."s personal attorney. So, if Barnes was involved as the point man for a right-wing coup, there's no telling where it leads.

Anthony, you are sadly misguided if you think Barry Goldwater was a KGB agent. Goldwater scared the bejeesus out of everyone with his tough talk about Communism--he'd even put you to shame. Read his autobiopgraphy. Read Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater divided the Republican Party in '64. For many years thereafter the far right wing of the party was called the Goldwater Wing of the party. Top alumni of the Goldwater Wing include George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Goldwater went on to head the Senate intelligence committee and was probably the most trusted and respected member of the senate when it came to matters of personal integrity, occupying much the same positiion as the current Senator from Arizona, John McCain. It's ludicrous to think there was anything sneaky about the guy. He told Nixon where to go during Watergate and balled out Reagan's CIA director William Casey for hiding his secret ops in Nicaragua from the Senators who were supposed to be informed. If Goldwater had been a scoundrel and had ultimately made his far-right politics un-attractive to the American people, a la Joseph McCarthy, I might think you were onto something.

John, I do believe there is someone else you've left off your list, a man who on many occasions used unethical means to change the world to his liking. a man whose right hand held influence in both the CIA and the mob, and a man who could have funded the whole operation without batting an eye, Howard Hughes. Since his right hand was Robert Maheu, and Maheu was the preferred cut-out for the CIA, it would not have been difficult at all for Maheu to have Kennedy killed by the mob and the Cubans and make it look like the CIA did it. Maheu knew (based upon the wiretapping incident) that he had a get-out-of-jail free card. It would have been no sweat at all for Maheu, Rosselli, and Giancana, with the help of a few disgruntled CIA operators--perhaps Morales, or even Barnes--to pull off the hit, knowing that LBJ, the CIA and the FBI were too cowardly to come after them. After all, LBJ had been on Carlos Marcello's payroll in the fifites, and Nixon had been in Hughes' pocket for years. Call it gut instinct, whatever, but something tells me it was Hughes who ultimately put Maheu up to it. He had the motive, means, and opportunity, AND the almost certain knowledge he wouldn't get caught. There is a reason James Angleton (the CIA link to the Warren Commission) showed up at Hughes' funeral and eulogized him as "Howard Hughes! Where his country's interests were concerned, no one knew his target better." (Not coincidentally, one of Angleton's long-time CIA co-workers, testifying under the name John Scelso, informed the HSCA that there were persistent rumors of Angleton having ties to gambling interests and having secret bank accounts in central America, where the casino-owning Hughes also had interests.)