Larry Hancock

I talked with Jones on numerous occasions about various Japanese he was suspicious of, in contact with Oswald, in New Orleans but it was never connected in any fashion. Basically just suspicions. What he was most specific about in our conversations was his belief that Roscoe White had killed the president, shooting from a position which I took to be on the Elm street extension. He apparently had a photo that he felt proved that. He also thought that that Zapruder was involved, that there was a DalTex connection. There were also connections to Honest Joes pawn job and his vehicle parked in the vicinity of the TSBD and to Dallas Jewish crime figures. We had dozens of calls with his discussing all those things but I never got a picture of how he felt that everything connected in a particular scenario - just that all those elements were suspicous.

We have some pretty solid descriptions of how the recorders were attached to the phone lines, these were electrical taps on actual phone lines, not wireless bugs. Which means that either the listening station sites which were locally tapped on the phones or the central switching site taps should have a very solid connection to the line which means they are going to pick up anything coming onto the telephone handset from either the transmitter or receiver. In those days telephone sets had reasonably sensitive voice pick ups but were obviously designed to pick up the person talking - if they held the receiver as they were supposed to of course. So bottom line, we could certainly be hearing surrounding background noise from either end, all it has to do is get into the handset transmitter. Which unfortunately tells us little about where the line itself was being tapped or for that matter which line...in the case of the Russian embassy we have some solid CIA records that tell us how it was tapped...via the central site...and in a fashion to pick up outgoing dialed digits. I did hear some dialed digits on a couple of tapes and that would differentiate outbound from inbound calls. Supposedly the Cuban embassy was tapped the same way at the central site. Its unclear whether the Cuban consulate was tapped either directly or from the local monitoring house in 1963. We also know that lots of places including private homes of select individuals were also tapped at the central site. So all in all it seems like it would take a lot of time and effort to parse out what locations are on these tapes - and if they are all from Nov 22....

Well at least the dates probably explain why they were actually saved and entered into the collection of materials related to the assassination. Sounds like these are all from the Cuban facilities - three observations that might be relevant. First, I heard dialed digits in a few of the calls and those were collected by the central switch facility which had the ability to collect outbound dialed digits. The taps and the local safe houses did not. Second, I wonder if the CIA even went so far as to use audio bugs on pay telephones near the embassies, if so that might explain the background noise - and they might have pulled out all the stops after the assassination, expecting the Cubans and Russians both to be suspicious of using business lines. In addition, as Bill Simpich has pointed out, central site taps were even placed on some private residences, that might also explain some of the background conversations and music. If anything following the assassination it might have been decided to tap a host of personal lines of diplomatic personnel.

Have you found anything which suggests the actual location of the point where the recordings were made - individual taps on building phone lines, the central switch tap facility or even wireless bugs in the area of the phones. At this point I'm quite puzzled by the degree of background conversation and even music on what were supposedly direct wire to recorder taps of phone lines locally or at the switching center?

I can say that the personal version I heard from David....no request for confidence.....was that there was a special room prepared within the hospital and a set of Doctors who were in place to somehow murder JFK at Parkland if he was not DOA. He did not specify what Doctors but mentioned several. I had the impression that he felt they were also going to alter whatever wounds there were to support a lone shooter - but while he talked of altering them at Parkland he was not explicit on any specifics. He also stated that Oswald was supposed to be shot dead inside the TSBD by Baker, he had interviewed Baker who denied it - but David felt sure he could judge that he had Baker lied. I don't recall further details as he offered no evidence and it just didn't stick with me, but at that point he was adamant that people at Parkland were committed to killing JFK whatever state he was in after being attacked.

Tom, the narrative is that the film showed up, specific frames were selected for briefing boards, the boards were created and taken away. Brugiani was there for that and made his own personal observations, no formal analysis was done and no comments were solicited. The following evening the film was returned, he was not told or invited to the selection of a second set of frames and a second set of boards were taken away - those ended up at NARA ultimately. The first set got stashed away and when somebody asked it they should be turned in to the HSCA the order was given to destroy them....apparently that had been ordered in the first place. Its not necessarily that the film changed but rather the selection of frames for the story boards was changed to support a particular scenario. And that was done in a very low profile manner. If you have SWHT 2012 its all there, most of it from Doug's work but a few more tidbits from some of my own research. While this does not seem to be an argument for a major alteration, it certainly does seem to argue that a new shooting scenario was being pitched and needed to be officially supported. NARA's official examination of the film occurred much later is not well documented and was not a major part of the WC narrative as far as I recall.

Robert is right, this photo will never go away though....in reality its Sturgis not Plumlee and as for Op 40, we have the history of that and its not Op 40 either....the Op 40 personnel are or were at one time listed on the Brigade web site, trained by Davit Morales as AMMOTS and later many became part of the Cuban Intelligence Service at JMWAVE, others went rogue on their own and some later became involved in drug smuggling. Anybody that has SMWHT will find this all in a bit more details there as far as OP40 goes.

Interesting what they may have thought, for all we know they might have believed he was being harassed b y the FBI...that would be in the spirit of the times and what they would be doing in a similar situation. If nothing else though I suspect that they looked at each other and said they were happy it would be New York who had to deal with he and his wife....especially since they knew that Marina's formal request to return to Russia was already in file and in review in Moscow.

There are actually a number of such incidents on record, for both US and American defectors going both ways....its was most used when the individual felt they were under suspicion at work and needed to do it as a surprise action. In that case they tended to declare themselves and stay under embassy protection. In other instances they picked weekends, did make brief calls and arranged for meetings elsewhere later. One of the best sources the US had in Russia came in as a walk in that way.... In any event, an American showing up unannounced on a Saturday asking for an urgent meeting, possibly protection and expressing fears of the FBI certainly would have gotten the attention of any of the KGB officers around at that time. Part curiosity and part day job responsibility.

Ben, an American showing up at an Embassy, claiming to need to urgently meet with diplomatic staff in Mexico City would be treated much the same as a Russian showing up in Berlin on a weekend needing to urgently meet with American diplomatic staff. Its the height of the cold war and the most desirable thing that can happen at an embassy is called a "walk in"....somebody from the other side, potentially a real voluntary defector of some sort....some of the most valuable intelligence came in just that way from walk ins who had been pushed over the edge for some reason. Saturday is another clue, the individual is not constrained by their day job and less likely to be seen defecting. You can bet all the staff, especially the KGB (or CIA) types in the building are going to want to talk to the person. Lots of Cold War spy novels started that way because it was very real, and dramatic. In this instance "its just Oswald" but at first the KGB guys would not have known that, could have been a very important American who was fed up and wanted to "come over".

Yes, given the size of the work and the limited potential audience I'm told the cost/price of a print version was considered prohibitive. We are fortunate to have it at all given his sudden death and the fact that Stu Wexler had to work with John's sister to reclaim his files, I had to work reordering them since he had anticipated doing more work with the book and Gary Murr played a major role in editing the whole thing. Unfortunately the huge collection of photos and illustrations he had obtained in his research to support it is not available due to limitations on Lacer's resources associated with Debra's health condition. https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Plain-Site-Search-Murder-ebook/dp/B0BR5WWY3Y

I honestly think it would be wrong of me to try and overview given the detail work John did - and the devil is in the details. Gary Murr might jump in and give it a shot as he is more recently familiar with it). Major takeaways - both the forensics consultant and the coroner were aware that the crime scene was been managed in a way to locate people and locations to support a Sirhan shooting scenario with fewer shots than there really were. Evidence of holes in the ceiling and pantry doors was first ignored, then some positions were changed and then the materials themselves were destroyed. So, way to many shots for just Sirhan. Everybody talks about that, John demonstrates it from the crime scene itself. Then John went into great detail on the autopsy and found paths what were not in the official report as well as strong reason to challenge the caliber of the gun used for the close range shot. He also had first hand access to ballistics materials and worked with Sirhan's attorneys aide Rose Lynn Magnan on it to show how the evidence was illegally handled and archived...he details that at length. But the real point is that he totally reconstructed (as a professional model maker) the crime scene, redid all the measurements and positioning related to the photos...and supported his findings with that level of detail. He did not go into conspiracy, what he did was go into the police investigation and the evidence presented in the trial - and how it was presented. You need that for context. Also, if you assess that Sirhan was totally unaware of what was happening in the pantry that evening, you really need to read the police transcript of his interviews and see how sharp he was at that point in time and how he was trying to play the officers. I summarize some of that in one of the early chapters in my RFK study at: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Incomplete_Justice_-_At_the_Ambassador_Hotel.html I offer all this is the spirit of providing information, not lobbying for it at all.

And for those who want to explore the subject with a comprehensive knowledge of both the crime scene and the related forensics, ballistics and autopsy work I suggest John Hunt's clinical study of the actual evidence: https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Plain-Site-Search-Murder-ebook/dp/B0BR5WWY3Y If you have not read it then you simply don't have all the facts...or at least I don't see how that would be possible and I've studied the LAPD materials extensively myself.....but that was nothing in comparison to what John did.

Martin Nee said it quite well, to my recollection as a long time member the forum is supposed to be about exploration and education - not advocacy and not evangelism. I sincerely hope to see it return to that mode of operation and moderation.

You have a very good point Allen and I've personally not done any work that at all going past his involvement with the restructuring of Domestic Ops beginning in 63 which David Boylan has written about. Given his egregious failures he mush have had one or more senior level champions at CIA and I would not be surprised to find it linked to Angleton and MH/CHAOS. Who was he doing liaison for in terms of the Black Panthers - given his disasterous liaison work on the Cuba Project I would not have expected that to work out well - which clearly it did not. If somebody carries that on one of the most important questions would be who remained his champion inside the CIA for the rest of his career and who were his 'angels' in public circles?

Ron, I think you will enjoy In Denial, its about covert operations in general although it delves most deeply into the Cuba Project of a prime example of why the cover operations model fails - but then is continually resurrected. You will probably find it amusing that Dulles went on record that the CIA should be removed totally from covert military operations but that actually was a result of the inquiry after the BOP and of course JFK did agree and began doing that first in Vietnam and then was well on the way to taking it from the CIA in the Americas - particular in regard to Cuba - and giving it to the Joint Chiefs (and CINCATLANTIC) totally by the summer of 63. On connections, I can say with certainty that Angleton and Harvey were still talking and close to each other before Harvey went off shore to Italy - Angleton did not really talk to many and for a few months Harvey had time on his hands. But of you want some equally interesting connections you might try Hecksher....SE Asia in Laos, then special assignment in the Golden Triangle, then back to the Cuba Project, into Mexico City on an assignment we totally do not understand but which may have involved Cubela (same time as Nagle talks about the mystery CIA guy who came and went), then back to the Cuba Project and on to AMWORLD which begins recruiting people like Carlos Hernandez and Felix Rodriquez. -- connections everywhere, the trick is the final connection to Dallas..

Ron, about all I can do is suggest suggest you read In Denial if you want a full understanding of the Cuba Project, the Bay of Pigs and Barnes role in both - in that project he was put in a very unique role, and in a strange situation that crossed a presidential transition. That made oversight extremely complex as did what was a virtually unique organizational structure for the whole thing - which along with Barnes was the subject of the entire project along with Barnes. The IG report was also quite an indictment of both King and Dulles for that matter - which I suspect is why Barnes was allowed to write his own rebuttal to it, a very unusual practice in itself. Unfortunately Barnes had the reach and support to market his version to the media, which was one of the reasons JFK ended up being so roundly blamed for failures that had been occuring months before he ever took office.

Barnes was the guy for Cuba, Dulles had left him virtually alone, J.C. King had no real clue as to what was going on operationally...that all becomes very clear in their testimony at the follow up hearings. Barnes was the one meeting with JFK, isolating him from the people actually in the operation, Barnes was the one talking directly to Commander in Chief Atlantic. Barnes was the one running the highly secret Castro poison plot. So yes in regard to Cuba Barnes was supremely important and the entire IG report on the failure focused on Barnes - which is why he was allowed to write his own rebuttal. As to the timing, the whole Cuba project Phase 1 was supposed to succeed before the election and both Nixon and Eisenhower were appalled when they found it it had totally failed on both concept and timeline.

Oh yes, David has developed quite a career history on him, much of that is Tipping Point but I'm sure he can do a synopsis here. Emileo had an exemplary career and was highly regarded in the Agency. He was also achieved a rather unique status as a political action agent and while with SAS at JMWAVE did a good bit of traveling. His address book is a who's who of familiar CIA names... I will alert David to this post and I'm sure he will follow up here.

Thanks Ron, certainly I'm up for another show with Jim. Two things, first on Barnes, there is no doubt that he was capable of independent action and although its speculation, he may have actually proceeded with is own very compartmentalized false flag operation after Eisenhower was out of office. There are suggestions that he had a plan in place to stage an attack on Guantanamo - that plan aborted due to a disastrous accident with the explosives that had been smuggled though Guantanamo. That would have involved a separate Navy task group deployed off Cuba without JFK's knowledge. Just traces of such a plan but I do discuss them in In Denial. On the Rodriquez's, Ernesto Sr and Jr in New Orleans, Jr connected to Oswald, both with a history at Camp Street and Bannister and brother Emilio in a senior CI and propaganda position with SAS at JMWAVE. Felix from a different family with his own backstory to a planned sniper attack on Castro (Pathfinder).

Thanks - and of course different takes are fine, this time I (and David) just happen to be the one(s) bringing them to the party.

David, and everyone else actually, what I have learned over the years and continue to learn is that I can't really tackle all the questions and views that have developed over sixty plus hears in 'sound byte' type posts...nor in interviews for that matter. Discussing any topic which has evolved though decades and eras of information and writing - with some things highly mysterious and suspect at first but explained and demystified with more information - just gets any particular remark I would make entangled by what has gone before. And in this instance, where the historical record regarding Oswald and the assassination has been intentionally obfuscated and in some cases filled with outright lies, its even worse. Including the fact that in many cases positions have been taken on what people wrote or presumed about Oswald, not what he said and equally importantly wrote for himself. We have learned a huge amount about CIA operations and practices since I started writing around 2000, some of the most key information only surfacing in the last five to eight years. The same can be said about the operations of FBI field offices - much of which Stu and I learned in a different venue, working on the MLK assassination. My view now is that context, continuity and consistency in regard to Oswald himself are critical to evaluating what Oswald did from his school years on. Beyond that his activities beyond New Orleans were seriously affected by people he came in contact with there, people who misrepresented themselves and played to his personal goals (and ego). We have only really come to understand who those people were in the last five years or so. In short, its a view of Oswald that developed for me only in the past two to three years once I decided to commit to focusing entirely on him, not Dealey Plaza, not the shooting scenario, not the cover up etc. Just on Oswald. It may be wrong, it may be right or just partially right. But its a deep enough story to require a book and the book will without doubt be contrarian. Well not totally contrarian, Oswald did not kill JFK, he was manipulated, and the most shocking part might that it was done in a manner that if he had lived and told everything he knew it might have made no difference in the end. Of course that is how 'true deniability works'.

Reasonable questions Ben, and ones that have been around for decades now. They were there when I started researching and writing and formed many of my earliest thoughts about Oswald - several of which have evolved and changed with time and with more information. What they are now - and why - will be explored in a forthcoming book by David Boylan and myself, The Oswald Puzzle. As it turned out nothing short of a book was sufficient to deal with those and many other questions about Oswald. And given the work that is still going into that book I'll be reserving further comments until it is available.

Ron, I think the argument - and the mystery - will always be how much of their behavior was intentional versus pure incompetence (magnified by hubris and career chasing by Barnes). Basically Barnes and Bissell had been hugely successful in the Guatemala project, so much so that Dulles gave them their head on Cuba and Barnes proceeded to set up and run the Cuba Project in a totally different manner than Guatemala or even the earlier failed effort in Indonesia. He totally changed all the operations practices the CIA had used and then when his new structure failed to produce results by the target date in October, moved from a low profile infiltration project to a D Day, hail Mary, full scale invasion - at the relatively last minute - with no experience and no resources for any such thing inside the CIA. That is why both the CIA IG report and separately the CIA historian effectively laid the blame internally on the Agency and specifically on his methods. I'm really not trying to pitch In Denial but in this instance the matter is so complex that a few sound bytes cannot describe something that happened not over three days on the beaches but an entire year. And of course the other factors that have to get some attention were the "wild cards" that Barnes put into play that totally failed - but which he of course could never talk about - the Castro assassination efforts only being part of that story. None of the wild cards being things that were ever conveyed to or discussed with JFK. What is not in doubt and is in the records is that in the weeks before the landings, the Joint Chiefs pointed out that even successful landings would be unsustainable without a major Cuba uprising occurring at the same time - that was discussed in several of the planning meetings and Barnes and company chose not bring up the point that Castro had crushed the changes of that by rolling up all the opposition groups some two/three months prior to the landings. In fact, nothing about the landings was coordinated or supported by any the counter revolutionary groups the CIA had been trying to support over the preceding year - Barnes chose to keep them out of the equation, supposedly based on security concerns. What is also not in doubt is the Joint Chiefs had pointed out that the landing would be in grave jeopardy if any Cuban military aircraft were operating over the beached - and Barnes was well aware of the fact that the latest estimates the day before the landings were launched showed that the pre-landing air strikes had been far less successful than previously thought - with much of the Cuban Air Force sill very much alive and operational. Yet he and Cabell failed to raise that as a critical issue the night they chose not to argue the issue of more air strikes with JFK - who very likely would have aborted the landings at that point.

Dulles was so disassociated from the entire Cuba project much less the landings its hard to tell what he knew - he had left the whole thing under the direct supervision of Barnes working under WestHem Director J.C. King...whose testimony after the fact showed his almost total lack of any detailed knowledge as well. The IG report states it was virtually unique in CIA history at that point because of its strange organizational structure - which allowed the Air Operations to be run completely independently than the ground operations or the sea operations for that matter. At the Bay of Pigs Air, Ground and Sea ops did not even use the same radio frequencies and their were not forward air controllers on the beach set up to direct Brigade or Navy air strikes in real time. Yes, Barnes and Bissell and King were responsible; I can't really get across in limited forum posts how much so. The IG report captured a good deal of it but even the IG and the CIA historians work doesn't tell the full story because they did now know how consistently Barnes had lied to Hawkins and Esterline. Why can be debated forever but clearly Barnes and had an ego and degree of hubris - and afterwards went into a state of obsessive denial, personally acting to place the blame on JFK.