Stephen Roy

Interesting that Papich died. Does anyone have a photo of him? Samuel J. Papich

Why not start it in the "Political Conspiracies" section. That already has a wide readership. I will also be willing to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair with you. That could be interesting. I take the position that Nosenko was more or less genuine, albeit with a bit of exaggeration of his importance, and that Golitsyn was fabricating to puff his own importance. What say you?

Sounds like a no-go, unfortunately. But it's not that difficult to add a new Forum, is it? I suspect it might start slow, but it holds the potential of eventually drawing many users. There is not now a good forum anywhere for such discussions. There is one called Final Phase, but it is heavily populated by former intelligence people and CI groupies. I'd love to have a place to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair, the Yurchenko case or other interesting cases, and to get news on new happenings or good new books. Can I twist your arm a bit??

I never saw this post before until a few minutes ago. Stephen Turner, nice to see someone still has a sense of humor..... BTW Stephen Roy, what was the name of the children's book, if you don't mind me asking. Was it by anyone with the last name of Bowen? This is an oldie-but-goodie, revived! The book was "The FBI Story" by Don Whitehead, but not the regular 1957 adult edition. This is from the 1963 "Young Readers' Edition", Random House, 63-17540

As far as I know only very slightly. That was thru Adolph W. Schmidt who along with RICHARD HELMS managed OSS ops in Germany after WW2. Later, when Schmidt was appointed ambassador to Canada, Toumanoff was his principal political advisor.....unless of course someone on the forum has more. Denis. Interesting, Denis. Thanks! Snyder had worked for CIA in the past, but allegedly became a legit State officer. Yet is interesting that he was chosen to attend the trial of a CIA pilot in 1960. Ditto with Toumanoff.

One other interesting note about Ed Butler: You've probably all heard of the Houma armaments transfer/burglary in September 1961. Despite my efforts, the story is still a bit murky. In some fashion, Gordon Dwane Novel and friend Rancier Blaise Ehlinger learned about stores of armaments at a Schlumberger bunker at the Houma air base. Ehlinger contacted his COUSIN, Ed Butler, who put them in touch with Arcacha, who then brought in Ferrie, Martens, Blackmon and Woodcock. There are conflicting stories as to whether the arms were picked up or stolen, but they were stored for a few weeks in the office of Guy Banister.

Does Vladimir I. Toumanoff come up anywhere on the LHO or JFK case radar? He's usually listed as a State Department official (and he testified before Sen. Joe McCarthy). What caught my attention is that he was one of the two US representatives at the trial of U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers in Moscow in 1960. The other was Richard Edward Synder.

I'd love to see a new Forum here on Intelligence and Espionage. The JFK forum often touches on this, as do others. It would be a place to discuss controversial cases in intelligence history, new issues involving intelligence agencies, the balance between security and liberty, etc. What say ye?

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?do...p;showPage=0001

Interesting find! Shaw was a spooky guy. I am not so sure about the evidence that he actually conspired to kill JFK, but you never know. Every once in awhile in my Ferrie research, I run across someone who "heard from a good source" that Shaw knew Ferrie, or Oswald, but getting confirmation is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. I hope someday somebody devotes a lot of time and energy to getting some new information, maybe the real poop on Shaw. It wasn't that long ago, people are still alive.

While not unassailable, I think the evidence that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination is formidible. I realize that every aspect of that subgroup of rifle evidence has been challenged, and while it falls short of certainty, it is still possible that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination. Assuming arguendo that this is a true and valid evidenciary claim, there are not many options. Either Oswald used it himself, or somebody went to an awful lot of trouble before the fact to insure that a rifle incriminating Oswald was used in the assassination. Whether or not it was the only weapon, or whether or not he fired it are two separate issues. I am not presenting this as an absolute fact: I am responding to your question that, FOR ME, this is the most damning evidence. I understand your overall point, but doesn't the study by researchers at Texas A & M strip away any real evidence tying the bullet fragments to the supposed-Oswald Mannlicher Carcano? The Neutron Activation Analysis, which the HSCA relied upon to "tie" the fragments to Oswald's ammunition was found to be in error. Since that study, the FBI has stopped using such a methadology in proving cases in court. http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/ Is there actually any solid evidence, now that the NAA has been debunked, that proves the alleged Oswald rifle (SPECIFICALLY that rifle) was even used that day? Did the FBI even perform a cotton swab test on the barrel? Again, as I noted, every aspect of this is open to question (including the NAA). I know the NAA is still under debate, but I don't know if it's been resolved. But let's throw out the NAA for purposes of this discussion: The fragments allegedly found in the car are of the same type used by the rifle allegedly found in the TSBD, allegedly belonging to Oswald. What options are there? That this rifle WAS used, that a similar rifle was used, or that something was planted. (It would be quite a coincidence if the ammo used by the real assassin just happened to be of the same type used in the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald. And how did "his" rifle get to the TSBD?) It takes me back to my original point. Despite the uncertainty of many of the links in the chain, there is a possibility that THAT rifle was used in the assassination. Again, the question of how it got there and who used it. But I'm not trying to argue against others who see it differently. I just think that this is the strongest piece of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. It is the equivalent of the blood in the OJ case.

All in good fun...

While not unassailable, I think the evidence that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination is formidible. I realize that every aspect of that subgroup of rifle evidence has been challenged, and while it falls short of certainty, it is still possible that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination. Assuming arguendo that this is a true and valid evidenciary claim, there are not many options. Either Oswald used it himself, or somebody went to an awful lot of trouble before the fact to insure that a rifle incriminating Oswald was used in the assassination. Whether or not it was the only weapon, or whether or not he fired it are two separate issues. I am not presenting this as an absolute fact: I am responding to your question that, FOR ME, this is the most damning evidence.

Yes, because he had known Chambers under another name ("George Crosley" according to Hiss, and "Carl" according to Chambers, although Chambers later allowed that Hiss was possibly correct) and had not yet had a face-to-face meeting with him. When he finally had the face-to-face meeting, he identified him as George Crosley after a physical examination. Hiss sublet his apartment to Chambers and sold/gave him a car. How he swear he never knew him years later?

I'm not saying Hiss was evil, or even a spy. He was "involved" with an NKVD functionary and "pro-Communist" as a young man. When the 1948 atmosphere was poisoned by anti-Communist fervor, Hiss was trapped in a lie. But that make him a traitor? A spy? A risk to internal security? Someone who should be remembered for all time as some sort of evil person intent on the destruction of our way of life? NO. Yet that is how most people are being made to feel about him. His accusers were paid to inform on him. Chambers and Weyl should be remembered for all time as sleaze bags and scum balls. And that is my point here. Weyl committed 3 felonies and watched as several people drowned or died from gunshot wounds in front of him. He violated The Neutrality Act. He provided guns, ammo and munitions to attack a foreign power. Now THIS GUY was a person who should be reviled, despised, shunned, abhorred and castigated, not Hiss. McCarthy, Otepks and Morris should be reviled, despised, shunned, abhorred and castigated, not Hiss. And THAT is one of my goals here. To set the record straight. I despise YAFers, Birchers and McCarthyites. In answer to your first rhetorical, no. I think I made that clear. As were many during the depression, Hiss was drawn to the potential of socialism or communism as a possible solution. In restrospect, it was not, but many well-intentioned people held out such hope, at least until the dark side of Stalinism became apparent. By 1948, the US was whooped into anti-Communist fervor, in part by some of the people you mention. In that atmosphere, the charges by Chambers seemed very sinister, perhaps more so than the reality of his relationship with Hiss. I understand why Hiss sought to minimize his relationship with Chambers. And the world situation became even more polarized during the Hiss trials. And I don't doubt that Weyl, Levine, Massing, Bentley, Chambers and others constituted a dangerous cadre of professional ex-commies who were very loose in their charges. All of this having been said, I believe Hiss lied when he initially said he did not recognize Chambers; and that is what constituted the legal charge of perjury. A person who knew Hiss well confirms that he was very sympathetic to communism in the 1930s. As to the substance of Chambers's charges that Hiss was an agent, the evidence is unclear. There are others named by Chambers who later suggested that Hiss was sympathetic to what they were doing; and there is a person in the Venona messages who MAY have been Hiss. But Hiss gets a presumption of innocence in the absence of proof. So I agree that the professional ex-communists were an untrustworthy bunch, and that Hiss got caught up in an era of such fervor, but his attempt to minimize his connection with Chambers cost him dearly.

Just for the record, Alger Hiss was never acquitted. He was never charged with espionage, but with perjury. One trial ended in a hung jury, the second in conviction and prison. Hiss was less than candid in denying any relationship with David Whittaker Chambers. Although he subsequently admitted it, his initial denials were adequate to support the perjury charge. Hiss is believed to be mentioned in the Venona messages, but a smoking gun is lacking. While there is no clear evidence that he passed classified info to the Soviets, he was almost certainly favorably disposed to the American Communist movement of the 30s-40s. Another one of the Hiss framers, Framers? Hiss denied, under oath, knowing a man he later admitted that he knew. Nathaniel Weyl, was caught in a sort of plausible denial regarding his role while committing 2-3 felonies during the Bayo Pawley affair thus rendering his contributions to the Hiss case suspect. When he described the Bayo Pawley affair to me there was no mention of "a freighter passing between their boat and shore" and he said the landing party "was in a motorized rubber raft" which he said was riddled with bullet holes from a machine gun fired in anger when they did not return with the Soviet missile officers who were going to be whisked away to a Goldwater press conference at his ranch. Later he fabricated statements even on this website to make it appear that they were warned to take a rubber raft along in the event of a capsize event. Why did he make these changes? Because he told me that they were only about a mile offshore during the Bayo Pawley event and that good buddies, is considered the territorial waters of a sovereign nation making him a violator of The Neutrality Act. And the fact that he watched as "they all sank beneath the surface of the water" makes him an accessory to murder, no? And he claimed to have helped to secure the guns, bombs and ammo used in the raid, too. What does that make him? A 3 time felon who got off scot free. Relevance? And Whittaker Chambers record in the Hiss case is not much better if you look at John Simkin's exoneration links. Both of these people were in the employ of Wickliffe Draper, someone who engaged in 10 fabricated assaults against humanity during the 20th Century starting with Sacco and Vanzetti and ending up with The Bell Curve, after his death. So I maintain that given he benefit of time, it is now apparent that the mere presence of Draper, Weyl and Chambers as well as Robert J. Morris in the Hiss framing, is prima facie evidence of complicity, duplicity, deceit and subterfuge. Chambers was an NKVD functionary. He did have a relationship with Hiss, as both Chamber and Hiss admitted. Hiss intially denied it. Nothing that Draper and Morris were involved in did not contain elements of complicity, duplicity, deceit and subterfuge. Look at Chambers statements in the Morris obit regarding Morris' dominant role in McCarthyism. Sorry to burst your bubble. But to rely on only 55 year old evidence is inadequate. Quod Est Demonstratum. I'm not saying Hiss was evil, or even a spy. He was "involved" with an NKVD functionary and "pro-Communist" as a young man. When the 1948 atmosphere was poisoned by anti-Communist fervor, Hiss was trapped in a lie.

He initially denied it because he had known Chambers under a different name and his physical appearance had changed drastically in the interval. Context. I think you'll find that just about all the allegations of interest in the American Communist movement track back to one person. I am aware of Hiss's claims not to recognize Chambers. I have seen pictures of Chambers when he claims to have been in touch with Hiss, and when he testified in 1948. While it is true that Chambers hair had greyed a bit and his teeth had been capped, I find it hard to believe that Hiss could not recognize a man who had dtayed in his home for a period of time. I am sympathetic: In that era of heightened anti-Communism, it would have looked bad to admit that he knew the man, but I believe he was being less than truthful. Through happenstance, I know someone who knew Hiss well, and as a young man, Hiss strongly believed that Communism might be the antidote to the horrors of the Great Depression.

Just for the record, Alger Hiss was never acquitted. He was never charged with espionage, but with perjury. One trial ended in a hung jury, the second in conviction and prison. Hiss was less than candid in denying any relationship with David Whittaker Chambers. Although he subsequently admitted it, his initial denials were adequate to support the perjury charge. Hiss is believed to be mentioned in the Venona messages, but a smoking gun is lacking. While there is no clear evidence that he passed classified info to the Soviets, he was almost certainly favorably disposed to the American Communist movement of the 30s-40s.

I believe Shackley was head of JMWAVE, which would be different from COS. Was Jim Noel the COS at one time? I seem to recall that Don Bohning mentioned the COS in his book.

A radical idea for a rapidly degenerating situation: How about a two-week moratoruim on this and the JW thread (and no new threads on the subject) to let emotions cool, and hopefully cause people to think better of all this. And get back to more productive stuff.

This is off-topic, so I don't want to belabor it. nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth.... even ole Len Colby can be seen at JFKResearch these day's, fancy that! I stand by what I said: JFKR DID have a system of favorites and unfavorites. I witnessed several groundswells to ban members there. Rich decided to charge users to utilize the forum, and I and others dropped off due to both the charges and the stifling political correctness. Now all the good discussion goes on here - one hears almost nothing from JFKR these days. JFKR was a good idea that failed to work well, and one of the reasons was its tendency to stifle dissent. One who does not follow the JFKR line needs to be "educated?"

While I often lurk, I don't often post here, preferring to post only when I have something to add, such as on David Ferrie matters. But I want to add a few thoughts here. I appreciate this forum and all who post here, irrespective of disagreements. I incline more to inclusion than exclusion. It bothers me when people get whipped into a fenzy to expel this person or that person. Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field. alt.conspiracy.jfk is open to all without moderation, but it is hard to wade through all the attack posts to get anything substantive. alt.assassination.jfk (despite the feelings of some about John McAdams and co.) manages to get more substantive discussion by follwoing the simple moderation rule that any permutation of "you are wrong" is permitted, and any permutation of "you are bad" is not. I have had a few posts returned for editing after inadvertently stepping over the line. It ain't perfect, but it works fairly well. So I favor maximum inclusion, but offering those who go too far the opportunity to edit or withdraw their posts. From a moderator's perspective, I can see Jack as a problem. I respect what he has done and the position he has earned in this field, but he is often (IMO) wrong, cranky, unopen to criticism and prone to see conspiracies against him. As a result, his behaviour may well be perceived as disruptive. (In fairness, some of his opponents give as well as they get, however.) How to handle him? I think the mods have it right. Allow him to post, but apply a filter to ensure that he follows the rules. And apply the same standards to others, as necessary. But the overriding principle is to encourage maximum inclusion, consistent with the minimum necessary use of moderation. This is a good group. Let's not screw it up.

I'm with Stu on this. If true, the Leake material (and a few other Kurtz nuggets) would be very important. But I, too, wonder why he didn't reveal this in his earlier book or before ARRB. I sometimes wonder about Kurtz: He claims to be anti-Garrison, but seems to come up with material supporting Garrison's case (hmmmmm). And he claims to be an objective historian, but his own biases are easy to detect in his writing. Even smart people with good bonafides can have agendas. But I reserve judgment. In response to Pat Speer, yes, Leake was with the small NO CIA office, as can be seen in many released documents. BTW, I was a witness to Stu's discovery of Kurtz's book! Having never met him, I arrived at Lancer 2006 and first stumbled into the book sale room. There was some guy rhapsodizing about how significant Kurtz's Leake material was. A little later, Stu Wexler was introduced as a speaker, and it was the same guy. A very smart, guy, too.

What I was addressing here was not the big picture about New Orleans; just one area of suspicion where I don't think the suspicion is warranted. That's one of the purposes of such a study, to separate truly suspicious things from those which are not really suspicious. Look at Marochini's work background. Does it support the notion that Reily was a Secret Government holding pen? Also note that the idea that Marochini started at and left Reily on the same days as Oswald is wrong. We need to get these things RIGHT. Other will not take us seriously unless we do. I'm not playing any CIA-FBI game. I'm looking for what is true. I'm not looking for innocent explanations; I'm looking to see if these things are really suspicious. Looking at the big picture does not mean ignoring mistakes, or avoiding the process of sorting out confusion. The big picture is made up of many component parts, and we owe it to ourselves, to America, to history to try to get them right.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this, Peter. Given the lure of better jobs in a space program boom, with a bunch of NASA facilities in nearby Michoud, I'm not surprised that a few workers from Reily (and a few not from Reily) made the jump. I disagree with Garrison that this raises the suspicion that Reily was some type of way-station for sheep-dipping at NASA. Garrison's original point was that it somehow made Oswald's former co-workers unreachable, but in fact, the FBI and Secret Service interviewed most of them within a few days of the assassination. So what was accomplished? As for Marochini, I DID obtain his records from Chrysler: Before Reily, a sampling of his jobs: Jan-Mar 61, Sales, American National Insurance Apr-Aug 61, Sales, Jim Dandy Co. (shell homes) Jan 62, "helper" (cutter of doors), Ipick Door Company Feb-Apr 62, Asst Mgr, Comiskey Wine Bottling October 3, 1962: Applied for position with CCSD Michoud ("production control, inventory, clerical, timekeeper, tool room clerk, maintenance clerk, etc.") Nov 62-March 63, Sales Rep, Solari Co (a wine wholesaler) At Reily: 3/19/63 - 6/10/63, Sales Rep, Standard Coffee Co. ("provide merchandise for customers and promote sales") After Reily: 6/10/63 - 8/25/63, Wine and Liquor Steward, Arnaud's Restaurant 8/26/63 - 7/9/64, Shop Scheduler-Clerk, CCSD Michoud ("shop scheduler for metal fabrication") 7/10/64 - date unknown, Planning-Specifications, CCSD Michoud ("originate and maintain historical material specification records showing vehicle application and usages by individual part numbers...") Doesn't sound very suspicious to me.