Dick Russell

Wish I could shed further light on Carl Bernstein's sources for his article on CIA and Media. It is, of course, noteworthy that he did not delve into anyone (e.g., Bradlee) from his own newspaper. All I know is what Bernstein set down at the time in Rolling Stone. What I try to do in my new book is make a few links between that, and the ways some of the same "players" covered up in the Kennedy assassination - a leap Bernstein didn't make, if he was even aware of it.

Wish I could shed further light on Carl Bernstein's sources for his article on CIA and Media. It is, of course, noteworthy that he did not delve into anyone (e.g., Bradlee) from his own newspaper. All I know is what Bernstein set down at the time in Rolling Stone. What I try to do in my new book is make a few links between that, and the ways some of the same "players" covered up in the Kennedy assassination - a leap Bernstein didn't make, if he was even aware of it.

John, The documents were the transcripts of all of hypnotist Arcega's sessions "deprogramming" Castillo in the Philippines. They ran to probably a couple hundred pages. As far as I know, they have never been made public, although researchers including Jim Hougan looked at some of them at the time. To answer Wim's question - as a journalist I have no way to assess the credibility of James Files, Chauncey Holt and Judyth Baker, so that's why I do not mention them in anything I've written. Must leave that to others who've done the research, like yourself. Dick R.

John, let me first respond to your questions. I would say that, in terms of proving a conspiracy, the two studies of weapons and ammunition are the most significant - they put the lie to the Posners and Bugliosis once and for all (although you'd never learn that from the mainstream media). Much of my new book is based on material I have written or researched before - I'd say the most significant discovery I made lately was Douglas Horne; interviewing him was a revelation to me, especially as someone who's never been immersed in the medical evidence. Amazing stuff he's put together! On Luis Castillo(s) - I have seen pictures of both men and can assure Forum members they are not the same person. To answer Bill Kelly's question - I still believe that the assassination of President Kennedy remains a VITAL national security issue. It's where "the secret government" took power, and only now with Obama are we seeing anything new. Which, of course, puts the president-elect in a potentially very dangerous situation as well.

1) I've not been able to develop anything further on the photos/recording Scott supposedly had in his safe. (2) The source of what I have in the footnote regarding "lost" Oswald luggage at the Mexico City airport was Janet Scott, Win Scott's wife, in a telephone conversation we had while I was finishing up my book. As I recall, she had only a vague recollection of this incident but believed it was significant. (3) I don't know anything further about LI/COZY-3. It is also of interest that a McCord connection to the JFK case was alluded to by Nagell in one of his "cryptograms" to Art Greenstein. This was long before anything surfaced about McCord being connected to Philips on an FPCC operation. As we know, Nagell has a reference to the FPCC (as well as the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City's phone number) in the notebook the FBI seized from him on September 20, 1963.

In the case of major media, I think the reluctance to investigate political conspiracies stems from several factors. First, they don't want "egg on their face," in other words they didn't choose to examine what happened to JFK and his brother, and others, from the get-go - and it would prove embarrassing to do so at a later time. Also, I'm sure there has been pressure "from the top" not to look too deeply. And also, I think a lot of people just don't want to believe that these kinds of things can happen in America. It's a false sense of innocence, one could say. My basic approach to writing about "secret history" is, at first, to believe just about everybody. By that, I mean I don't prejudge someone I'm interviewing or dismiss even a "fantastic" story out-of-hand. It's only as I came to know a great deal about the Kennedy assassination, for example, that I was able to realize that quite a few - indeed, the majority - of the strange folks I'd interviewed were probably not telling the truth. Some may have been intentionally planting disinformation. Ultimately, I came to believe Richard Nagell - and Antonio Veciana, for example - because I gained a strong sense of their personal integrity. And, I guess, because there were things they WOULDN'T say, to my frustration. After awhile, an investigative journalist starts to draw conclusions by finding as many sources for verification as possible. It's time-consuming. As for getting ahold of documents, it used to be a lot easier to use the FOIA, before the Bush Administration set about trying to "cancel it out" - and thereby keep the "secret history" secret.

In the case of major media, I think the reluctance to investigate political conspiracies stems from several factors. First, they don't want "egg on their face," in other words they didn't choose to examine what happened to JFK and his brother, and others, from the get-go - and it would prove embarrassing to do so at a later time. Also, I'm sure there has been pressure "from the top" not to look too deeply. And also, I think a lot of people just don't want to believe that these kinds of things can happen in America. It's a false sense of innocence, one could say. My basic approach to writing about "secret history" is, at first, to believe just about everybody. By that, I mean I don't prejudge someone I'm interviewing or dismiss even a "fantastic" story out-of-hand. It's only as I came to know a great deal about the Kennedy assassination, for example, that I was able to realize that quite a few - indeed, the majority - of the strange folks I'd interviewed were probably not telling the truth. Some may have been intentionally planting disinformation. Ultimately, I came to believe Richard Nagell - and Antonio Veciana, for example - because I gained a strong sense of their personal integrity. And, I guess, because there were things they WOULDN'T say, to my frustration. After awhile, an investigative journalist starts to draw conclusions by finding as many sources for verification as possible. It's time-consuming. As for getting ahold of documents, it used to be a lot easier to use the FOIA, before the Bush Administration set about trying to "cancel it out" - and thereby keep the "secret history" secret.

I write about what intrigues me, but above all about what I consider it important for people to know about. This has certainly been the case with my four books, which cover an eclectic range of topics, ranging from the assassination to the unsung geniuses in African-American culture, to my recent natural history subjects: the gray whales and the Atlantic striped bass. I do consider the possibility that my research could "land me in trouble" with the powers-that-be. But I can't let that stop me. It's more important that the truth be told. I like people who are willing to go out on a limb for the sake of truth, and our country. For example, Robert Kennedy Jr. in his recent expose of how the Republicans stole the 2004 election in Ohio. I've never cared overly much about "career advancement." But yes, there has occasionally been pressure to leave a controversial subject alone, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily been overt. I was told, some time ago, that I was being followed occasionally - and I'm sure my phone has been tapped periodically.

I write about what intrigues me, but above all about what I consider it important for people to know about. This has certainly been the case with my four books, which cover an eclectic range of topics, ranging from the assassination to the unsung geniuses in African-American culture, to my recent natural history subjects: the gray whales and the Atlantic striped bass. I do consider the possibility that my research could "land me in trouble" with the powers-that-be. But I can't let that stop me. It's more important that the truth be told. I like people who are willing to go out on a limb for the sake of truth, and our country. For example, Robert Kennedy Jr. in his recent expose of how the Republicans stole the 2004 election in Ohio. I've never cared overly much about "career advancement." But yes, there has occasionally been pressure to leave a controversial subject alone, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily been overt. I was told, some time ago, that I was being followed occasionally - and I'm sure my phone has been tapped periodically.

I was drawn into investigating the Kennedy assassination in 1975, when the Village Voice sent me to do a story on what Professor Richard Popkin had recently uncovered. At the time, I had no intention that this would occupy the next couple years of my life. The more I learned, the more I realized that a "secret history" underlay what we'd been taught in school, certainly of the post-WW II years and since the creation of the CIA in 1947. I've never cared overly much about "career advancement." But yes, there has occasionally been pressure to leave a controversial subject alone, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily been overt. I was told, some time ago, that I was being followed occasionally - and I'm sure my phone has been tapped periodically. In the case of major media, I think the reluctance to investigate political conspiracies stems from several factors. First, they don't want "egg on their face," in other words they didn't choose to examine what happened to JFK and his brother, and others, from the get-go - and it would prove embarrassing to do so at a later time. Also, I'm sure there has been pressure "from the top" not to look too deeply. And also, I think a lot of people just don't want to believe that these kinds of things can happen in America. It's a false sense of innocence, one could say. My basic approach to writing about "secret history" is, at first, to believe just about everybody. By that, I mean I don't prejudge someone I'm interviewing or dismiss even a "fantastic" story out-of-hand. It's only as I came to know a great deal about the Kennedy assassination, for example, that I was able to realize that quite a few - indeed, the majority - of the strange folks I'd interviewed were probably not telling the truth. Some may have been intentionally planting disinformation. Ultimately, I came to believe Richard Nagell - and Antonio Veciana, for example - because I gained a strong sense of their personal integrity. And, I guess, because there were things they WOULDN'T say, to my frustration. After awhile, an investigative journalist starts to draw conclusions by finding as many sources for verification as possible. It's time-consuming. As for getting ahold of documents, it used to be a lot easier to use the FOIA, before the Bush Administration set about trying to "cancel it out" - and thereby keep the "secret history" secret.

My basic approach to writing about "secret history" is, at first, to believe just about everybody. By that, I mean I don't prejudge someone I'm interviewing or dismiss even a "fantastic" story out-of-hand. It's only as I came to know a great deal about the Kennedy assassination, for example, that I was able to realize that quite a few - indeed, the majority - of the strange folks I'd interviewed were probably not telling the truth. Some may have been intentionally planting disinformation. Ultimately, I came to believe Richard Nagell - and Antonio Veciana, for example - because I gained a strong sense of their personal integrity. And, I guess, because there were things they WOULDN'T say, to my frustration. After awhile, an investigative journalist starts to draw conclusions by finding as many sources for verification as possible. It's time-consuming. As for getting ahold of documents, it used to be a lot easier to use the FOIA, before the Bush Administration set about trying to "cancel it out" - and thereby keep the "secret history" secret.

I was drawn into investigating the Kennedy assassination in 1975, when the Village Voice sent me to do a story on what Professor Richard Popkin had recently uncovered. At the time, I had no intention that this would occupy the next couple years of my life. The more I learned, the more I realized that a "secret history" underlay what we'd been taught in school, certainly of the post-WW II years and since the creation of the CIA in 1947. Sure, there's a difference between an investigative journalist and a historian - because the journalist often goes to "primary sources" for interviews, while a historian (generally speaking) relies more on written sources and existing documentation.

I was drawn into investigating the Kennedy assassination in 1975, when the Village Voice sent me to do a story on what Professor Richard Popkin had recently uncovered. At the time, I had no intention that this would occupy the next couple years of my life. The more I learned, the more I realized that a "secret history" underlay what we'd been taught in school, certainly of the post-WW II years and since the creation of the CIA in 1947. Sure, there's a difference between an investigative journalist and a historian - because the journalist often goes to "primary sources" for interviews, while a historian (generally speaking) relies more on written sources and existing documentation.

Afraid I can't shed any light on CE 1813, re: Weissman and Larry Jones.

Thanks for your kind words about TMWKTM. I'm afraid that I no longer have contact with Nagell's son. I had hoped to gain access to the trunks while putting together the revised edition of the book a couple of years ago, but unfortunately the children (for unknown reasons) suddenly stopped communicating with me. And I have never been able to meet Mitsuko, who may indeed have the trunks. So I am afraid I can't shed light on the photographs of the new "mystery man." As to your speculation about Berlin, I would imagine SOME kind of deal was made in return for Nagell learning the whereabouts of his then-missing children, who did end up living with him in Manhattan Beach for at least part of their teenaged years.

I'm not aware of any connection between Dr. John Lechner and Paulino Sierra, but that sounds intriguing.

After my book first came out, Stockdale began to intrigue me, too. I can't remember quite why, maybe something in reference to the Underhill murder happening around the same time. I did interview someone about Stockdale in D.C. - and again memory eludes me as to who, although I don't recall their saying much if anything of significance.

On the famed "Torbitt manuscript," in my days as a "rookie" researcher, this intrigued me greatly. But over the years, I came not to put as much credence in it. Just seemed like such a vast conspiracy couldn't have been kept quiet all this time.

I much appreciate your praise for my book, thank you. And I agree it "raises as many [or more] questions than it answers." If there's anyone alive who could retrace the items that once existed in Nagell's Zurich swiss deposit box, that'd be fantastic, but I'm afraid I don't know of any such person.

I doubt very much that Angel Murgado is the man who used the war name "Angel." As for de Torres, he might have known something but I sure don't think he was "Leopoldo."

I doubt very much that Angel Murgado is the man who used the war name "Angel." As for de Torres, he might have known something but I sure don't think he was "Leopoldo."

Gerry, you are not the first to tell me that Nagell was working for the G.R.U., not the KGB. Interestingly enough, so did Fabian Escalante, the former head of the Cuban spy agency, at a researchers' meeting in the Bahamas in 1996. This is described in the revised edition of my book. That's an interesting "aside" about "Stasha" Sokolowska. I've always believed June Cobb might be important to the Oswald story.

As far as I know, Nagell never recovered whatever items were in a safe deposit box in Switzerland. He indicated, as I recall, that the box may have been "closed" without his knowledge. I don't know if David Dinkins is still alive. My opinion on the Torbitt manuscript is, basically, it's just too wide-ranging. I don't see how you could keep a conspiracy of that magnitude under wraps forever. There are still more documents on Nagell that have never been released by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies. Those would be my highest priority in terms of obtaining declassifications.

I believe the most important aspect that remains to be delved into, regarding the assassination, focuses on the CIA and relationships between certain of its employees with the Cuban exile community. Besides the well-known David Phillips, I'd look into a fellow named Henry Heckscher (now deceased). Also, what Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post has uncovered about George Joannides strikes me as most important.

I'm afraid I can't offer any more than what's already in my book concerning the various mysteries about Mexico City. Nagell, of course, is not the only one who contends there was a prior trip by Oswald there.