Steve Rosen

New article, mixes new Joling and Van Praag acoustic info with Shane O'Sullivan's investigation (which he calls a "BBC documentary" - I thought it was independently produced). The article claims that the CIA operatives in RFK Must Die have been "positively identified". I don't think Shane O'Sullivan went quite that far. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ma...since_rfk_a.htm Edit: After reviewing the original BBC article on Shane O'Sullivan's investigation, they used the words "positively identified". If you watch the dvd - which is highly recommended and very well done - you will see that Shane's final conclusions are more tentative due to conflicting information on the identities of Morales, Joannides, and Campbell.

Tony, I forgot about the October 10 notice to the FBI and others about Oswald's Russian embassy visit; I should have said "not much was done" instead of "it seems nothing was done to alert law enforcement". The CIA knew more about Oswald than they put in their cable notice; for example, his AMSPELL confrontations and his Cuban embassy visit. You don't seem to want to address the basis for your dismissal of the CIA's own officers testimony that they saw Oswald photos, and Win Scott's assertions that Oswald was observed at the Cuban embassy. Nevertheless, you wrote that: "If [CIA was] aware that he had been to the Cuban Embassy prior to the assassination ... why [would they] not acknowledge that he was at the Cuban Embassy?" The same reasons that were cited earlier, both speculative of course: the desire to compartmentalize the Cuban embassy surveillance program, run by David Phillips as part of the close-knit Cuban operations; and possibly as well to restrict knowledge of a CIA operational interest in Oswald, which might be compromised by disclosing that Oswald visited both embassies. In answer to your question "s your position that the State Department, the FBI, and the Department of the Navy were alerted to Oswald being at the Cuban Embassy but they, too, are covering it up?", no, I don't think the CIA told them about the Cuban visit for the reasons cited above. You wrote that "I think that Morley tied in the 4 CIA collection programs with the alleged trip, and he took the position that the CIA would have had specific information on Oswald and the alleged trip. Morley is basing his entire theory on Oswald having made the trip ... ". Is this statement based on your reading of the book? You wrote that "[Y]ou have not cited any proof that Oswald made the trip and passed through 4 CIA collection programs." No one has proof, but we do have evidence, some of which is the testimony of CIA officers that saw photos and tapes; Win Scott's writings; and declassified CIA documents. You wrote that "On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he was impersonated in Mexico in order to give LBJ the impression that Khrushchev and Castro were involved in the assassination." Clearly you've studied this case. And I readily admit the story of Oswald in Mexico City is murky. However, respectfully, you seem averse to information that does not fit your theory that Oswald was impersonated. Read Our Man in Mexico. It will challenge your outlook on the subject and help you test your hypothesis. Steve

Tony, Again, I believe that you are missing out on the latest facts and theory regarding Oswald and Mexico City if you have not studied Our Man in Mexico. The points I touched on are expanded greatly in that book. I note that you have not cited this important work in your conclusions posted here. I urge you to read the book, especially if you are publishing your own book with analysis on Oswald and Mexico City, and whose stated purpose is to expose "who killed President Kennedy and why" (per your signature). The credibility of your book will strengthened by consulting Morley (and Newman's) works. In response to your points, I wrote that some of the CIA cables "may have been written with an intent to cover-up the the CIA's intelligence failures surrounding November 22.". You might not see that cover-up, for the simple reason that it largely worked. However, as discussed in OMiM, Oswald passed through 4 CIA collection programs: LIENVOY, LIEMPTY, AMSPELL, and LIERODE. The intelligence failure is the fact that the CIA was acutely aware of Oswald's meanderings prior to November 22, through their DRE contacts, photo surveillance, and wire taps, and yet it seems nothing was done to alert law enforcement (FBI, Dallas police, Secret Service, etc.) as to his movements. The other, more chilling possibility, as put forth by Morley, Newman, and others, is that Oswald was involved in a still-classified, authorized covert operation that had nothing to do with the assassination. This conclusion is discussed somewhat in OMiM, and this recent article speaks directly to the point: http://hnn.us/articles/49179.html. The October 10, 1963 cable, depending on your interpretation of its authors, signators, and contents (as well as what is left out), could be considered evidence of such an operation. If an authorized CIA operation existed that utilized Oswald in some capacity, and he later assassinated Kennedy (with or without CIA or other assistance), certainly that would qualify as an "intelligence failure" on behalf of the CIA. You wrote that "[w]ith all the information that I cited concerning the CIA's photo surveillance in Mexico City, I don't see any CIA intention to keep 'aspects' of their covert photo collection capabilities 'hidden.'" Again, I said the cables and documents you cited may have been composed with the intent to preserve aspects of the CIA's photo collection capabilities. The point is that the CIA was not (and has not been to date) completely forthcoming with what it knew about Oswald and when they knew it (witholding tapes and photos of him; stating that they were unaware he visited the Cuban embassy until after JFK was killed, a claim that Winston Scott sharply rebutted). Therefore, if you rely almost entirely on CIA cables and documents to explain the CIA's actions and tracking of Oswald's movements, you risk a narrow view. [Another overt example of keeping intel collection confidential that comes to mind is the photo of the "Mexico City Mystery Man" (originally purported to be Oswald), whose photo is shown with the background removed. Why? To keep the location of the photographers and the angle of their shots hidden.] What is your basis for casually disregarding the testimony of three former Mexico City station officers as a "CIA effort to maintain that Oswald was actually in Mexico"? Do you believe Win Scott was yet another officer lying, when he wrote in his autobiography that Oswald was in Mexico at the Russian and Cuban embassies, and that the CIA knew so? Why do you accept CIA cables and reports as the complete picture of the CIA's actions in Mexico City, when we know, to cite one example, that the October 10, 1963 cable was grossly misleading, if not downright false? You wrote: "I see no reason why the CIA would not have produced a photo of Oswald if they had one. They were desperately trying to make a case for Oswald being in Mexico." Oswald was in Mexico according to all available evidence. Producing a photo of Oswald, after he passed through no less than four CIA intelligence collection programs, would have been devasting for the CIA, publicly and privately: it would have exposed - in black and white - at a minimum the CIA's extravagant incompetence in monitoring but failing to follow-up on Oswald. Possibly, but not conclusively, it would have exposed to investigating bodies an authorized CIA intelligence operation involving Oswald, who after the events of November 22 was accused as the president's killer. Steve

Tony, You wrote here that "[T]here is no way that Oswald was in Mexico". That's a strong statement. Have you had a chance to read the book that is the subject of this post? It's a great book, and I think it would inform and clarify your understanding of Oswald and his travels. Jefferson Morley's book Our Man in Mexico discusses the surveillance photographs of Oswald taken at the Cuban embassy under a collection program code-named LIERODE. Stanley Watson, deputy chief of station under Win Scott from 1965 to 1969, and Joseph Piccolo, an agency officer stationed in Mexico City, both were quoted in the Lopez Report as saying that they saw two photos of Oswald in the CIA's Oswald file that were taken at the Cuban embassy. The book discusses these photos and the tapes of Oswald from the Soviet embassy were very likely among Scott's possessions pilfered from his home safe by James Angleton, and later destroyed by the CIA around 1987. Have you examined this evidence? Also, in your post, your argument relies heavily on CIA cables and documents, including the October 10, 1963 CIA HQ cable to the Mexico City station. This cable, as discussed in Morley's book and articles ("What Jane Roman Said") and John Newman's book Oswald and the CIA - approved by Richard Helms' deputy Tom Karamessines - was almost certainly designed to deceive Win Scott and keep him out of the loop on "the latest HQ information" on Oswald. Thus the trap in relying extensively on CIA cables and documents to argue that Oswald was not in Mexico City is that those very cables may have been written with an intent to cover-up the the CIA's intelligence failures surrounding November 22, and with the intent to keep hidden aspects of the CIA's covert photo collection capabilities. In other words, those CIA cables don't tell the full story, and the supplemental testimony of former Mexico City station officers should be strongly considered. Finally, I note that you wrote in previous posts that you personally knew Richard Helms and William Casey. Did you ever ask them about Oswald, Mexico City, or other events related to November 22, 1963? Steve

This is a good website about Morley vs. CIA that I haven't seen linked in this forum: http://web.mac.com/jeffersonmorley/iWeb/Mo...troduction.html It could use updating, and a few of the hyperlinks are down, but it has great information and relevant documents. Steve

Bill, thanks for distilling the DRE portions of David Kaiser's The Road to Dallas for us. Interesting quote from Kaiser: "Certainly the record gives no indication that Joannides was cooperating with the DRE in any nefarious scheme, as Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley has speculated. " Kaiser's failure to mention Morley vs. the CIA aside, that's a very poor summation of what Jeff Morley has been doing (if the above is the extent of Kaiser's discussion of Morley's work). I don't recall reading or hearing Morley speculate of any "nefarious scheme" between Joannides and the DRE. In fact, his reporting (and book Our Man in Mexico) have been very measured in raising the important questions: What did George Joannides and his superiors at the CIA know of the DRE's encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald, and when did they know it? Was Oswald involved in an authorized CIA intelligence operation? If so, how did this operation overlap with the DRE, a CIA-funded organization? These pressing questions need forthright answers from the CIA. Steve

If you haven't yet done so, check the second link in Bill's post, which lists the full article: http://washingtonindependent.com/view/cia-still-stonewalls The judge ordered the CIA to provide a written explanation by June 11. Their delay tactic is a frustrating but not unexpected turn of events. Steve

Michael, thanks for the History News Network link. I meant to post that as well. The new article by Jefferson Morley, linked in Michael's post, is titled The Mystery of Oswald's Contacts with the CIA in Mexico, and it is an important and penetrating piece that puts a finer point on what is discussed in the book Our Man in Mexico: that available evidence indicates that there may have been a sanctioned intelligence operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald. The extent and details of any such operation are unknown at this point. Win Scott, from available indicators (his own writings, comments, actions, and available cables), was very likely in the dark about such an operation. Both the article (and the book) are crucial reading for everyone here. Steve

Well done website for Jefferson Morley's book with documents, further info about Mexican presidents on CIA's payroll, and accompanying blog. http://www.ourmaninmexico.com/

CNN report and interview with Philip Van Praag and Robert Joling. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/0...k.interview.cnn

New interview with Jefferson Morley at the Mary Ferrell site. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...ed_-_Episode_11

Harper's interview with Jefferson Morley: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002849

James, Thanks for the information. Your comment that Congo mercenaries told stories about Rip Robertson confirming to them that he was in Dallas (presumably, on 11.22.63) seems highly significant. If your several sources are correct, then William "Rip" Roberton appears to be the first* CIA covert operative who both: (1) Admitted to several people his presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963; and (2) Was apparently photographed in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. This convergence of evidence is important, and, in considering that the mercs accounts of Rip's presence in Dealey Plaza further validate your interpretation of the photographic record, as per http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP-2/, can you provide more details? Regards, Steve *Some of course would cite David Sanchez Morales' comments to friends that he was in Dallas along with the pictures at http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/, but I don't believe the photographic comparison is nearly as strong.

James, You wrote here that: "As to [William 'Rip'] Robertson, I have done some research on comments he made to several mercenaries while in the Congo and they are damning indeed. In this case we have no official documentation or do we have people who want to go on record but in my mind, the matter is settled. Others can disregard this and that is their choice." What comments did Rip Robertson make to Congolese mercs after JFK was murdered? You also wrote that: "IMO, the so-called look-a-likes we seriously need to look at are Lucien Conein. Determining where he and a Laos based rifle team were on the 22nd of November is vital. To also establish the whereabouts of Rip Robertson and Col. Bishop (aka John Adrian O'Hare) is also essential ... I hope one day be able to share some interesting images of Robertson and O'Hare (Bishop). I think a lot of questions will be answered." Do you have images of Robertson and O'Hare that you can share here, other than those posted at http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP-2/ ? Thanks, Steve

James, You wrote here that: "Lots of people have emailed me to say that PBM is not Lair. I hope these folks reconsider and have another look. If anyone is really motivated regarding this angle, there are still solid avenues to follow. Several of the Hmong pilots are now living in the United States and although they don't seek publicity, some of them have an insider's perspective on people like Lair, Ted Shackley, Tony Poshepny and why Shackley brought in David Morales to be base chief." (1) What did the Hmong pilots tell you about Ted Shackley? How about Tony Po? (2) What perspective did they give you about why Shackley assigned Dave Morales to Pakse? (3) Would you please repost the pictures referenced in this post? Thanks, Steve

James, Thanks for the updated information and analysis. I look forward to your website. Best, Steve Rosen

Mr. Richards, You wrote that: "I am currently interviewing several guys from Morales' past ... I will have some more information soon as I have lined up an interview with a guy who served with Morales during his stint in Vietnam. He worked with Paul Ogg who was Morales' right hand man at the time." Have you found anything further about Morales from his school chums, Vietnam co-workers, or anyone else that you can discuss here? Best, Steve Rosen

Mr. Morley, You wrote here that "Manuel Artime and Howard Hunt did go to Mexico City in summer of 1963". What evidence did you find that Hunt traveled to Mexico City in 1963? Steve Rosen

Mr. Morley, Did you ever interview Gust Avrakotos? Have you established any concrete links between Avrakotos and George Joannides? Steve Rosen

Mr. Root, What evidence do you have that Tom Karamessines worked with Edwin Walker in Greece in 1948? Sincerely, Steve Rosen

Mr. Plumlee, Thank you for your detailed and informative responses. I don't think anyone here wants classified material posted on this forum that would get you in trouble. I have a question and a few comments about your responses. (1) What can you tell us about your personal knowledge of Bill Harvey and David Morales that is not classified? (2) Regarding my question about posting David Morales' signature on JM/WAVE "certified sign in sheets" from 11/22/63, you wrote: Yes... confirmed signature. Why would I want to post them? I am not even suppose to have them. Your a Lawyer. strange you should ask. Not so strange at all. In fairness, I do not see that you wrote anywhere in this thread that the "certified sign in sheets" are classified. If they are, obviously they cannot be posted at this time. (3) Regarding my request for you to "quote the prior question(s) or discussion(s) of Morales from that same testimony session", you wrote: Yes I can, but will not because its classified. ( no offence; your an attorney and that is a leading question which could incriminate me as to releasing detailed classified information. No offense taken, but my question was not leading. A leading question is one that suggests the answer, which mine did not. Also, I could not incriminate you to release classified information; you either would or you would not on your own. Again, I do not want classified documents posted. More to the point, your initial post in this thread already quoted a portion of the Senate transcript. I assume it was permissible for you to post that quoted portion, and so I think it was a reasonable request for you provide additional quotes from the same transcript, in order to provide further context. After all, no one here (except you) would know which portions are classified and which are not. (4) I'll send you a FREE copy. Thanks for your dedicated research into this delicate subject. Thank you, but I'll gladly purchase one to support your efforts. I may ask you to inscribe it though. Best, Steve Rosen

Mr. Plumlee: I have a few questions for you regarding your original post in this thread: " ... [F]ollowing is information that was given to an investigative committee in 1991 Senator John Kerry's Iran Contra Re-Supply network ref; Dick Mc Call and John Winner.., close door session..." classified Top Secret Committee Sensitive". Question: How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination? I was told by Tracy Barnes, John Martino, William "Wild Bill Harvey", and John Rosellie shortly after the assassination, that David was in Miami. The early records shows that Morales was in the JMWAVE complex at the University of Miami campus at 10am that day.. He signed in on the duty log sheet at 9:20 A.M. and at the gate at 8:45 A.M. He was checked in at the Green Mansions Resort Motel/Hotel the evening of the 22nd. Rm 102. " (1) Is the above statement a quote from Senate testimony transcripts, or is it your summary of that testimony? (2) Who asked the question "How do you know that Morales ... " ? (3) Are you the person giving the answer ("I was told by Tracy Barnes ... ") ? (4) If yes to (3), when and where did you first meet Bill Harvey? What prompted him to disclose to you David Morales' whereabouts on 11/22/63? When and where did this occur? What else did Harvey reveal to you about Morales and/or JFK's assassination? (5) Have you ever met David Morales? (6) You said that "I have the certified sign in sheets as well as other documentation from The Senate of the United States." Do these "sign in sheets" contain Morales' signature or name? If so, can you please post them here? That way they could be compared to his known signature. (7) The original question "How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination?" implies that there was prior discussion of David Morales in that same testimony session. Did you bring up his name or did the Senate investigator? Can you quote the prior question(s) or discussion(s) of Morales from that same testimony session? Thank you for your time and efforts. I look forward to your book. Best, Steve Rosen

Mr. Plumlee, What information did you have on George E. Joannides, if you can recall? Steve Rosen

This book is excellent. In addition to Winston Scott's life, family, and founding role in the CIA, there is much of interest here for JFK researchers. It discusses David A. Phillips nearly as much as Win Scott. Phillips apparently hid some Mexico City Cuban operations from Win, his nominal boss (and longtime friend), actions which may have prevented even closer scrutiny of Oswald when he visited Mexico City. It contains incisive analysis regarding the directives and efforts of the CIA brass (as well as Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission and Dave Phillips seemingly on his own at times), designed to deflect questions of Oswald's communist background and quash any meaningful investigation into his Cuban and Russian embassy visits. Scott knew that the CIA's claim to the Warren Commission that they only discovered Oswald's Cuban embassy visit after the assassination (due to a mere routine interest in him) was patently false. Still, our man Scott comes off as naive when he fails to grasp the cover-up taking shape around him from his close colleagues at the top, who didn't want various CIA surveillance & political/psychological operations exposed (Scott blamed the lack of investigation on "leftists and liberals") -- or was Scott merely part of the swindle? The book does not say definitively, although his son Michael Scott seems to think so, in his compelling search for his father's life story. With a strong, crisp narrative, this book brings into sharp focus the ties between Oswald's travels, George Joannides' DRE handling, Phillips Cuban operations, Dick Helms' and Jim Angleton's controlling influence, and Scott's deliberate and steady (if misguided) hand on the wheel of his station ship. Also included: the fascinating tale of how Scott's influence and friendship with his agents in Mexico's political elite failed him miserably in the 1968 massacre of protesting students in Tlatelolco; the description of Scott's excessive wedding (worth the price of the book); and the sad story of the likely fate of the Oswald embassy photos and tapes. All in all, a must read. ------ Mr. Morley: Thank you for the extraordinary book, and your continued research & advocacy efforts. A few questions: (1) I read somewhere else that Michael Scott had suspicions of foul play in his father's death. Can you please comment on this? (2) Various reports have David S. Morales traveling and perhaps operating out of Mexico City around the time of Scott's tenure there. Did you find any mention of Morales in your research? (3) Is it your conclusion that Oswald was part of an authorized CIA operation in Mexico City? How about in New Orleans with the DRE? If yes to either, what type of operation(s)? (4) Do you know if George Joannides knew Winston Scott? In your investigations, have you been able to further address or prove if Joannides knew Dave Phillips? (5) What is your expectation or sense of what the CIA will come up with regarding Joannides on the scheduled April 30 hearing? Best regards, Steve Rosen

I am an attorney with a background in American History and Spanish. I am interested in modern American history, including a better understanding of JFK's life and times.