Peter Dale Scott

In general, I not only agree with the role he gives to Angleton as assassination mastermind, I have just, quite independently, made much the same argument myself.

I too have a new book out, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (for details see my website, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q.html). I raised a more tentative argument there about how CI/SIG’s lies about Oswald in October 1962 enabled him to be a patsy on 11/22 (pp. 387-91) but mentioned Angleton only in passing for his subsequent lies to the HSCA. But ten days ago I finished a long article, which in the course of discussing Angleton’s underworld contacts, has this to say:

Moreover CI/SIG, the “inner sanctum” of Angleton’s “alternative CIA,” affected U.S. history significantly in 1963. Its so-called 201 or “personality” file on “Lee Henry Oswald” (the man known to the world as Lee Harvey Oswald), had been filled with false and falsified information since it was opened in December 1960. And two messages in the 201 file were falsified again in October 1963, in such a way as to allow Oswald to be a credible “designated suspect” in the assassination of John F. Kennedy one month later.[1]

The falsification of Oswald’s 201 file may have originated as a legitimate counterintelligence operation. I have argued that the uniquely falsified messages were part of a so-called “marked card” or “barium meal” test to determine if and where leaks of sensitive information were occurring. This was a familiar technique, and was the responsibility of the CI/SIG, which was responsible for the 201 file.[2]

But by October 1963 we see signs that CIA messages on Oswald were also being manipulated, in order to enable him to become a designated suspect in the November 22 assassination of President Kennedy. A CIA teletype to the FBI in October 1963 (drafted by a CI/SIG officer) withheld the obviously significant information that Oswald had reportedly met in Mexico City with a Soviet Vice-Consul, Valeriy Kostikov, believed by CIA officers to be an officer of the KGB. [3] This withholding helped ensure that Oswald would not be subjected to surveillance by the FBI after the alleged encounter, surveillance which presumably could have limited his ability to become a designated suspect by his presence at a particularly sensitive corner in Kennedy’s Dallas parade route. I have argued that similar CIA withholding from the FBI of information about two alleged 9/11 hijackers, Nawaz al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdar, likewise made it possible for them to play the role of designated suspects by preventing FBI surveillance, as well. [4]

I don’t agree with every word of what Newman writes. Our different approaches surface in his second sentence: “The plot required that Oswald be maneuvered into place in Mexico City.” I myself am not at all convinced that Oswald went to Mexico City; it is I think more likely that he was impersonated there. What really mattered was not what Oswald did, but what CIA documents said he did; and here I totally agree that the man in charge of controlling the information flow was Angleton.

[1] For details see Scott, War Conspiracy, 387; Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II: The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files, 1994-1995 (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2007), 30-33.

[2] See Scott, Deep Politics II, 17-18, 92; also Peter Dale Scott, “Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole,” The Fourth Decade, III, 3 (March 1996), 3; www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=519798.

[3] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II, 30-33.

[4] See discussion in Peter Dale Scott, "The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases," Global Research, July 5, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9511.

Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

There shouldn't be. In my area journalists should think historically, and historians investigatively.

How do you decide about what to write about?

Whatever is most in need of public criticism and exposure.

Do you ever consider the possibility that your historical research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

As one of my close colleagues (Malcolm Caldwell) was murdered, and some of my sources also, yes, I try to be mindful of how much risk I should take.

You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

I was advised by friendly senior academic colleagues not to write about Vietnam, in one case almost threateningly (it ended a friendship). And for several years I could not get a merit increase. But all in all I have no complaints about my university.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

Both historians and especially journalists often depend on government cooperation in the advancement of their careers.

What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

This is a complex matter not reducible to a paragraph. I once taught a semester-long course in how to evaluate and compare sources, which is the key. Documents are very important too, but rarely "prove" something by themselves.

Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Academic historians are housed in a bureaucratic hierarchy that is unfortunately less open than it advertises itself to be. So are most journalists. But journalists are more experienced than most historians in the possibilities of doing self-financing research.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian?

It was not a conscious decision. I just acted the part more and more in my efforts to educate Americans to the folly of fighting in Vietnam, which led into an investigation of NSAM 263, NSAM 273, and the murder of JFK.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

There shouldn't be. In my area journalists should think historically, and historians investigatively.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

Whatever is most in need of public criticism and exposure.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your historical research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

As one of my close colleagues (Malcolm Caldwell) was murdered, and some of my sources also, yes, I try to be mindful of how much risk I should take.

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

I was advised by friendly senior academic colleagues not to write about Vietnam, in one case almost threateningly (it ended a friendship). And for several years I could not get a merit increase. But all in all I have no complaints about my university.

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

Both historians and especially journalists often depend on government cooperation in the advancement of their careers.

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

This is a complex matter not reducible to a paragraph. I once taught a semester-long course in how to evaluate and compare sources, which is the key. Documents are very important too, but rarely "prove" something by thmselves.

(8) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include?

For starters more about Mexico and the culpable role of the CIA before and after the assassination, along with the rest of the material I cover in Deep Politics Two and Three.

(9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Academic historians are housed in a bureaucratic hierarchy that is unfortunately less open than it advertises itself to be. So are most journalists. But journalists are more experienced than most historians in the possibilities of doing self-financing research.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian?

It was not a conscious decision. I just acted the part more and more in my efforts to educate Americans to the folly of fighting in Vietnam, which led into an investigation of NSAM 263, NSAM 273, and the murder of JFK.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

There shouldn't be. In my area journalists should think historically, and historians investigatively.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

Whatever is most in need of public criticism and exposure.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your historical research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

As one of my close colleagues (Malcolm Caldwell) was murdered, and some of my sources also, yes, I try to be mindful of how much risk I should take.

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

I was advised by friendly senior academic colleagues not to write about Vietnam, in one case almost threateningly (it ended a friendship). And for several years I could not get a merit increase. But all in all I have no complaints about my university.

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

Both historians and especially journalists often depend on government cooperation in the advancement of their careers.

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

This is a complex matter not reducible to a paragraph. I once taught a semester-long course in how to evaluate and compare sources, which is the key. Documents are very important too, but rarely "prove" something by thmselves.

(8) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include?

For starters more about Mexico and the culpable role of the CIA before and after the assassination, along with the rest of the material I cover in Deep Politics Two and Three.

(9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Academic historians are housed in a bureaucratic hierarchy that is unfortunately less open than it advertises itself to be. So are most journalists. But journalists are more experienced than most historians in the possibilities of doing self-financing research.

During the Iran-Contra hearings, Gregg admitted that he had been Felix Rodriguez’s case officer in Vietnam (part of Operation Phoenix). However, in “George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography”, Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin claim that Gregg recruited both Felix Rodriguez and Posada Carilles in 1963. The authors point out that this is missing from Rodriguez’s autobiography, Shadow Warrior: “Rodriguez neglects to explain that agent Posada Carilles was originally recruited and trained by the same CIA murder operation, JM/WAVE in Miami, as was Rodriguez himself”. (page 404)

I don't know enough to prove or disprove what Webster claims. I have made notes on his State Department bio. This lists him as "Dept of Army" (code for CIA) from 1951-1964, which would cover the period in question.

On the other hand, most of his known experience is with the Far East. He was posted to Rangoon (!) on May 27, 1964, and later served in Tokyo and Vietnam. Long ago I made a handwritten note that he was in Japan from 1953 to 1963, and also that he "worked directly with the Japanese police." But I can't decipher the source I wrote down. You might try the article in CounterSpy, December 1976, p. 37.

It is relevant that starting in the year 1964 they gradually dismantled JM/WAVE and many of its vets went to Asia. But we can't deduce anything from that.

(3) In your book you link Irving Davidson with Carlos Marcello, Clint Murchison, J. Edgar Hoover, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson (pages 217-222). You also quote John H. Davis as saying that Davidson was “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby fought against – Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob”.

Are you aware that according to a report by Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board (12th July, 1995), Gene Wheaton claimed that Davison was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. He also named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the plot. Have you come across the names of Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero during your research into the assassination?

I think Wheaton was totally sincere, but not particularly credible.

(2) You rightly point out that Silvia Odio’s “whose story of meeting Oswald in Dallas is one of the most provocative and revealing stories about Oswald” (page 118). Have you heard about the recent testimony of Angel Murgado who claims he was Angelo and that Leopoldo was Bernardo De Torres (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 2005).

Have you come across the names of Angel Murgado and Bernardo De Torres during your research into the assassination?

I don't believe Murgado, and hadn't heard of him before Mellen and Waldron. de Torres is a heavy, as indeed he is described by Fonzi (using a pseudonym for him). In Cocaine Politics (p. 35) we describe his links to Miguel Nazar Haro and the DFS.

(1) You point out that one of the Warren Commission’s senior counsels, “Albert Jenner, was a Chicago attorney with a history of representing figures, such as Allen Dorfman, from Ruby’s milieu… Jenner in 1963 was counsel for General Dynamics” (page 20). This is very interesting. I am convinced that there is a link between the JFK assassination and the General Dynamics TFX contract. Fred Korth had been forced to resign over this scandal at the beginning of November, 1963. According to author Seth Kantor, Korth only got the job as Navy Secretary after strong lobbying from LBJ. As well as the $7 billion contract the TFX to General Dynamics, Korth was also responsible for dealing out lucrative contracts to the Texas oil industry.

As you know, on the day that JFK was assassinated, Don B. Reynolds told the Senate Rules Committee that he saw a suitcase full of money which Bobby Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract".

Do you know what happened to Don B. Reynolds after LBJ recruited Jack Anderson to mount a smear campaign against him?

What happened to the Senate investigation into the TFX contract? Did anybody ever follow-up the information provided by Reynolds?

McClellan adjouned the session of 11/20/63, saying he would "resume hearings next week." They did not meet again until 1969, after LBJ left the White House. It's in Deep Politics, p. 221, along with more stuff about Reynolds and Korth.

Thanks for the McCone-Bechtel-Corcoran material. It's great stuff.

I have read your review of Prelude to Terror, which I hadn't heard about, and must get. My own book on which I am working will cover some of the same material, including Prince Turki's quote about the Safari Club.

Helliwell figures in at least four of my prose books, including my last; and I believe I may have been the first to "out" him, back in 1972 in The War Conspiracy. In Cocaine Politics (p. 92) I talk about him and Castle Bank, and how Castle was succeeded by Nugan Hand. How important Shackley was to that succession I do not know.

Your own views are interesting. They are also a little conjectural in places. On only one point do I consider you demonstrably wrong: when you claim that Wheaton was Sheehan's main source. The heart of the Christic affidavit and case was the bomb attack in Costa Rica which injured Tony Avirgan, and about this I believe Wheaton said exactly nothing. The main source was Jack Terrell, as I describe at length in Cocaine Politics; and the initial Christic case collapsed when the courts ruled, I think outrageously, that Terrell's tstimony in a Costa Rica court could not be considered.

I have read your review of Prelude to Terror, which I hadn't heard about, and must get. My own book on which I am working will cover some of the same material, including Prince Turki's quote about the Safari Club.

Helliwell figures in at least four of my prose books, including my last; and I believe I may have been the first to "out" him, back in 1972 in The War Conspiracy. In Cocaine Politics (p. 92) I talk about him and Castle Bank, and how Castle was succeeded by Nugan Hand. How important Shackley was to that succession I do not know.

Your own views are interesting. They are also a little conjectural in places. On only one point do I consider you demonstrably wrong: when you claim that Wheaton was Sheehan's main source. The heart of the Christic affidavit and case was the bomb attack in Costa Rica which injured Tony Avirgan, and about this I believe Wheaton said exactly nothing. The main source was Jack Terrell, as I describe at length in Cocaine Politics; and the initial Christic case collapsed when the courts ruled, I think outrageously, that Terrell's tstimony in a Costa Rica court could not be considered.

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.

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.

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.

Peter Dale Scott is the author of The War Conspiracy: The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War (1972), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993), Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1996), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (1998) and Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina (2003).