Larry Hancock

With a focus on actual events related to Dallas I'd love to see you guys jointly do a dialog on a subset of David's questions: Who visits McKeown to buy rifles? Who visits Odio? Who is having a scope mounted? Who is at the Sports Dome while in Irving with his family? Who did they take out the back of the theater? ......I would also add Who was at Red Bird air field with the young couple talking about renting an airplane? Not saying that any of those can't be challenged or are simply mis-identification but I'd like so see your thoughts on each of them.

I've seen Weberman post on one Facebook page I view occasionally so he' still around somewhere. Of course Hemming routinely said that he made up stories and fed them to Weberman just for entertainment and in other instances he claimed Weberman totally misunderstood him. But of course Hemming said the same thing about Joan Mellon and the "help" he gave her on the Odio incident - which of course involved Murgado and de Torres rather than Paul's suspects. As far as I can tell if Hemming ever made a slip and told somebody something that might be important he would later blow it away in some fashion. As to Weberman, I was fascinated by his material for ages but then realized I was having a hard time figuring out where he would have gotten much of it; without being able to judge that I became more neutral. But it was all totally fascinating in the beginning. After investigating some of his material in the book on the tramps I also became a bit more disenchanted - that also fueled my issues with photos since at first his photo work seemed awesome and it had to be Sturgis in the picture. Then during my "photo period" I came across a shot of Sturgis with Pedro Diaz Lantz and his brother and darn it the brother was a total look alike for the tramp, much more than Sturgis. At that point I began to realize how easy it was to see what you wanted to see in the Plaza photos. So....beats me, I'm sure there is important material in Weberman's work, but there is a real challenge in sourcing it....at least for me.

Paul, I don't see what document classification has to do with Hemming's statement? As far as I know we only have Weberman's remarks about Hemming saying that - perhaps Hemming repeated it somewhere else and if anyone knows that they could help by posting it here. Beyond that there is no evidence that Hemming was in any sort of ongoing personal contact with Oswald and I cannot recall Hemming claiming that anywhere else - again, if someone has a source on that please post it. I don't know AJ myself nor anyone who is close to him so I'm not sure how to get a message to him. Perhaps someone who has searched his "nodules" might add some detail on the purported Hemming call. Speculation is fine, but without some sort of minimal corroboration it doesn't take us very far....and you have to admit a call from Hemming to Oswald in Dallas the day before the assassination is a pretty major point.

David, that's a well presented synopsis of Hemming's reliability. I would love to hear Weberman's details on when GPH said that and what details he provided. The point raised above on what telephone number is a great one as well, hard to think he called the Paines that evening and Ruth would not have picked up the call. I had never given any credit to Hemmings remark about the rifle but if its to be taken seriously the telephone call itself becomes a matter for examination.

Thanks Douglas, I will most definitely check out the link....

Douglas, I hope you will be discussing how you became close friends with Hunt prior to Watergate. If not perhaps you could give us some brief comments on that here?

Well said David, we know that Hall made ongoing contact with the FBI and did provide some information that way. If he did become even a potential informant at some point those informant class files are long gone. Of course even Hemming and Howard were providing some information to the FBI on an ongoing basis, hard to tell the point but they certainly seemed to like to talk about what other people were doing, especially if they were temporarily on the outs with them.

Don, l do see you begin that thread with a WC citation, for those interested the following is the complete excerpt of where a name is mentioned: Mrs. Odio. They told me they were coming because of the assassination of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray. I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about what happened in my house. Mrs. Odio. He did most of the talking. The other one kept quiet, and the American, we will call him Leon, said just a few little words in Spanish, trying to be cute, but very few, like "Hola," like that in Spanish. rs. Odio. to say I am not working in the underground." And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause. And let me see, if I recall exactly what they said about him. I don't recall at the time I was at the door things about him. I recall a telephone call that I had the next day from the so-called Leopoldo, so I cannot remember the conversation at the door about this American. Mr. Liebeler. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald? Mrs. Odio. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men. Mr. Liebeler. But she didn't remember it? Mrs. Odio. No; she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.

Gayle, I agree...I'm truly old school and believe how you play the game matters....whether you win or not or even if you can win or not. Certainly we should pursue accountability, truth, et al. I just think it needs to be done with a little spirit, a does of humor and not all that much angst .....I'd have had a "no angst zone" sign too but its really hard to find those...grin

David, could you give a citation for where Odio originally stated that the young man was introduced as Leon "Oswald". Either during the visit or during the call next day. Thanks...

Paul, I'm not sure Odio was that uncooperative after Fonzi had worked with her a bit. After all, she agreed to meet with and give testimony to the HSCA....and could have requested to be an anonymous witness with protected testimony as others did...but she did not. It was only after the interview was so horribly mishandled - in a hotel room for heavens sake - that she became offended, frustrated and told Fonzi that although she had been more than willing it was clear that they just didn't want to hear what she had to say. Very similar to Sandra Serrano in the RFK investigation. I just wanted to make my own reasons for not believing so clear and I'll leave it at that.

Paul, I certainly can’t speak to Gaeton’s exact reasons for finding Hall less than credible – from what I recall he simply found him to have lied consistently enough that he was not to be trusted. Circa 1963 Hall was so untrusted as a source that before being allowed to even speak to a John Birch Society group on the west coast, they demanded he take a polygraph. I’ve mentioned that before and if you have obtained all of Hall’s available files you should have that information among them. You have acknowledged that he was a proven xxxx, yet that does not necessarily mean he lied about everything he ever said….which may be true, just hard to prove one way or the other. I know from personal experience that even in his later years he lied on virtually everything he told an acquaintance of mine and that was when he was in jail over drugs and meth. However, in regard to a couple of points about your Odio comments. When shown Odio’s photo Hall said he had never seen her before. Years later to the HSCA he simply qualified that perhaps he had, Separately Sylvia and her sister were shown photos of Hall, Howard and Seymour and stated none of them were the men who visited. Sylvia reaffirmed that to Gaeton. As to why Hall would have ever been of interest to the FBI in the Odio visit, there are several reasons – one that his name surfaced very early in regard to a report on a rifle possibly associated with the assassination. (which I believe was a set up by Hemming to report him and get him out of their hair since Hall was trying to horn in on all their money sources, meagre as they were – just my speculation but that’s all in appendix H of SWHT). It would be very interesting to know more about the whole rifle investigation and the FBI’s contacts with Hall over it, something to look for when more files are released. Even then Hall was already well known to the FBI and had been in contact and interviewed by them multiple times following his return from Cuba in 1959. Between those contacts and the rifle report, Hall was already quite “visible” when the FBI began to investigate the Odio incident and they found evidence that he had traveled through Dallas – and even been arrested there. That certainly raised the level of his being a suspect in the visit – at least before they showed to the Odio sisters. The reasons behind Hall being a suspect in the Odio visit are clear; the fact that he originally denied it and that the Odio sisters both said he was not one of the men would seem to close it out. Later Hall opened the door to his perhaps having been there but like many of his other claims, I view that as very consistent with his ongoing attempts to enlarge his role in anti-Castro activities. I know his story is important to your scenario and I certainly cannot prove he and Howard were not at Odios but given her strong desire to identify the visitors and her consistent statements that they were not Howard and Hall and as for myself I’ll stay with that.

Of course "fraudulent" also implies some sort of absolute truth which can be used as a benchmark....which I'm not sure exists in the context of the "human condition". Sometimes I think people drive themselves a bit nuts holding expectations for human behavior that just aren't viable. An Eagles song comes to mind ("Get Over It") as does a sign I used to have in my cubicle declaring it a "no whining" zone.

Glen, no rock star here....serious lack of both roadies and groupies...grin. I have however been into this case for what seems a very long time and have worked with a goodly number of great researchers over the years. Actually Someone Have Talked was my second book; the first, November Patriots, was a docufiction written with a Dallas reporter who helped cover the assassination. Someone Would Have Talked went through three editions over the years, growing to its largest version in 2010 and followed by NEXUS, a study of CIA assassination practices and a scenario relating them to Dallas. I've published three books beyond that, Shadow Warfare is a 70 year history of clandestine and covert warfare and includes a study of the careers of a number of Agency, exile and paramilitary people often mentioned in JFK discussions. I've moved off to broader history work these days, my upcoming book, Surprise Attack is a study of warnings intelligence, national command authority and command and control from Pearl Harbor and the Philippines through 9/11 and up to contemporary events. Admittedly I've forgotten a lot of the detail from my early years of research on JFK so normally I only post here in regard to certain individuals who I have studied - or worked with - in some depth.

Glen, my reference to another option was as compared to Doug's separate writing on a major alteration of the film. I don't think the events at NPIC necessarily related to a major film alteration but I do think they are extremely suspicious. As for myself, whether or not some frames might have been altered, removed, etc. I'm open to that but skeptical of a massive rework comparable to creating virtually a new film.

It seems to me the whole NPIC story which Doug captured is extremely important because it dovetails so well with what else was going on during the first 72 hours. Actually I massively rewrote Chapter 15 of the 2010 edition of SWHT just to work in that information. Two trips to NPIC, the way they were handled, is extremely suggestive; especially the effort to conceal the second trip from the staff that handled the first visit. And all of that is going on at the same time Johnson calls Luce and LIFE just happens to reverse to of the frames that are printed. There is a big story going on behind the scenes and its called damage control.

Glenn, personally I think Doug has raised some real issues about the handling of the film and I know he is sincere. However, if you step back and take another look at the games that were being played during the visits to NPIC, another option surfaces. Its very possible that the first in depth blow up studies of the frames from the films revealed suggestions of multiple shooters. Yet those views and that analysis was not being done at NPIC...indeed nobody called the analytical resources at NPIC into the inquiry...they just went to them for high quality blow ups and reproductions of select frames. Now why wouldn't you let the best analysts in the country do the actual analysis....there is an answer for that and it appears to have been in the first showing of the selected frames to key individuals at the NSC levels. A showing which very likely suggested conspiracy at a point in time when the move to suppress just that line of inquiry was well underway already. That would mean that the first NPIC blow ups become an issue, a second trip and more blow ups are necessary and that set goes into the official record not the first set ...which results in some later day panic when its realized the first set might still be around. Its a longer story than that but there is a case for some real problems from early work with the film, irrespective of any major alterations... Larry

On the mole hunt question, it would depend on what level the hunt was focused and how broad it was. A simple example would be whether or not a group or station chief felt that he had someone inside his organization was leaking information. From that perspective, it would be up to that unit to respond. For example the Cuban exile CI group at JMWAVE was involved in multiple hunts for planted informants and we know they found several. Such a hunt would have been authorized by Shackley. During 1963 at least two CIA officers at JMWAVE were placed on a restricted list and investigated as their names were found on documents being used by Castro agents. Tracy Barnes was also at a level where he could have authorized a mole hunt related to Cuban operations and he had his own CI assets in Miami - and Phillips in Mexico City. If Scott has suspected a mole in Mexico City he could have ordered it and he had his own CI assets. However as I discuss in NEXUS there was CI competition in MC and Angleton wanted to take over CI totally in both Mexico and Viet Nam. Scott was not pleased with the turf intrusion. It confuses things a bit but with his new assignment under Barnes, Phillips could actually have been supporting a mole hunt initiated by Barnes, Angleton or Scott. The tie breaker has to do at what level records were altered to support the hunt and in this case that appears to have occurred at headquarters and involved CIA security and HQ CI/Angleton at a minimum. Bill would be in a much better position to give an educated opinion but my guess is that it was a mole hunt authorized by Angleton and possibly Barnes, with Phillips support and with Scott kept totally out of the loop. A mole hunt would be one of the most highly secret and compartmentalized operations in the Agency given that one was in progress, it would have been unknown by anyone outside Angleton's staff and those that had to be in the loop about the document control. It has to be that way.

Thanks Glenn, and for some of the more contemporary material I would recommend William Laws book on his Bethesda interviews, Ian Grigg's No Case to Answer, Bill Simpich's State Secrets if you really want to dig into Mexico City. John Newman has the first in a series out now dealing with Cuba and ultimately the assassination - as usual with John they are deeply researched with lots of names and connections. And if you want a much broader view of covert operations and warfare there is Shadow Warfare, out from me last year.

Having worked with Bill while he was doing the ground breaking document research I think the book is a tremendous contribution, not just the aspects of the spy games in Mexico City that were going on before and during Oswald's arrival but in our overall understanding of the highly complex counter intelligence work performed jointly by Mexico City staff and staff out of JM WAVE. Bill ties the two groups together operationally in a way we had never understood previously, even pointing out that JMWAVE had its own operations in Mexico, distinct from the CIA station. He also developed the operational link between the exile counter intelligence group in Miami and its activities in Mexico City. I don't think Bill would agree that there were not senior CIA officers involved in setting up what PDS and Newman have called a poison pill situation in Mexico City - one that would superficially connect Oswald to the Soviets/Cubans. I do think he believes it was even more complex than that, since under close examination that poison pill reveals knowledge closely held within the Agency itself. I certainly don't think Bill would exclude William Harvey as contributing to that knowledge or that he feels David Morales was not involved - and Morales operated at a far higher level than you often picture him, even attending Special Group meetings in Washington. My take on State Secret is that Bill has revealed an environment in Mexico City and among CIA CI that is an order of magnitude more complex than we understood previously. Newman is very likely carrying on that work with his new series of books. Both of them are doing work that was only possible after certain crypts and aliases had been cracked and CI assets within the Cuban diplomatic community identified - as well as new CIA assets. To me what is most interesting about Bill's work is that it establishes a context which suggests that within some 72 hours, the CIA high command was able to realize that some of their own people might have been the "others" working around Lee Oswald in the MC impersonation, the mystery people Hoover discussed in the impersonation when talking to Johnson. In short, they would have had good cause to suspect that American intelligence officers had been involved in some fashion, just as David Phillips finally remarked shortly before his death.

Paul, my connections are probably more a reflection of my being at this a very long time than anything else....we won't just the word "obsessive" as I reserve that for my wife's use...grin. I did know Gaeton for some time and do know Marie and very much hope she will be able to be with us in Dallas this fall. Actually serving as speaker chair for Lancer for many years also explains why I know a number of folks as well....but that has been useful in giving me a lot of insights and also allowing me to bounce ideas off a number of very good researchers - some who you see infrequently or never on line or even at conferences. Actually in contacting Marie I wanted to make sure that I had understood Gaeton correctly myself and that perhaps he had not gone beyond what I understood so actually I was testing myself as well. Also, I certainly agree that liars are not except and can still be suspects; I would just maintain they are going to require an extra dose of confirmation and corroboration. -- Larry

Paul, I'm afraid you are going a bit further in terms of Gaeton Fonzi's convictions than warranted. I did not recall his having specifically stated what you cite in his book or in my conversations with him so I checked in with his wife Marie and asked her - she has had reason to review his notes as well as reread his book several times. She responded that Gaeton had never reached a definitive conclusion beyond his belief that David Phillips had a role in the conspiracy. While he was suspicious of Morales, he could never produce enough research on that to reach a firm conclusion on Morales' involvement - he and I exchanged many messages on that since I had reached that view myself. Fonzi also did not name either Shackley nor Harvey as being a part of the conspiracy and Marie reviewed notes where he was specifically asked about other names and declined to give anything concrete beyond Phillips. As to Loran Hall, I can answer your question there. Gaeton felt that he was an inveterate xxxx and simply tried to insert himself into situations for notoriety and possible profit. That was something we both agreed on and Fonzi felt his whole connection to the Odio story was dubious and had ultimately been disproved. As to what Hall might have been trying to gain by his statements at any given time, I'd suggest anything that might gain him some "street credit" or attention. I know you will disagree on Hall so that's fine, but I think you have pushed Fonzi's views on individuals beyond what he would have found acceptable.

His last remark to the HSCA staffer seems quite credible to me, he knew he was terminal at that point I think and I suspect just gave in and expressed what he had come to believe regardless of his years of official and very active denial of just that. But when we get to the very last remark about Dallas, he was in the hospital, he had only hours or days to live, was under medication, etc. His brother was being awfully hard line with him, and as I understand it hung up immediately. Was it simply a test for his brother, if it was a confession why not go all the way. I can't pretend to get inside his head at that point. All we really know are that there are documents showing Phillips was supposed to be in MC that weekend, assisting with an extremely high value political exflltration from Cuba...possibly Castro's sister. On the other hand we also know, as Bill Simpich is developing, there was some real panic going on around the tapes of Oswald in Mexico City and Phillips should have carried that ball. There is the question of the very important pouch sent for him to pick up in DC on his trip there, etc. It's not impossible that Phillips was in Dallas related to Lee Oswald, an FPCC operation that appeared to have been turned by unknown agents in MC, somebody who knew way too much about the CIA electronic intelligence there. The thing is that we tend to look at everything involving these people as if it were part of the conspiracy and that they were involved in the conspiracy. But that may be wrong on both counts. So....color me clueless, maybe he was in Dallas, maybe not, if he was maybe it had to do with Oswald, with CIA spy games, with concerns about a conspiracy, or with the conspiracy itself. Got me....what I am inclined to belive is that his remark about a conspiracy and American intelligence officers reflects the truth.

It is true Ron, I've had it verified from the individual who heard it from Phillips (although that is not the exact quote which referenced "American intelligence" officers, not specifically "CIA" officers) - the quoted language for that and the exchange with his brother are given at the end of Chapter 10 in SWHT if you have it...

Brian and David, perhaps I can simplify matters by outlining a couple of premises for my work. Personally I think a case can be made that a through, open ended investigation of leads that would have pointed to individuals beyond Lee Oswald was aborted within 48-72 hours - for national security purposes. The corollary to that being that both information and evidence was managed to keep such leads and any suggestive evidence or conspiracy out of the official record - the result being exactly what the FBI itself was directed to do, prepare a difficult report presenting Lee Oswald as the sole individual involved in the crime. The Warren Commission operated with essentially that approach, I do think there were a number of loose ends left during that process, and a considerable amount of suggestive information withheld from the official investigation. I see that as sufficient to drive debate over criminal evidence and investigative practices far beyond my life time. Given that as an assumption I turn to leads and in particular individuals which offer indications of a broader conspiracy. To do that I'm willing to go further with particular individuals, both individually and with associations, than is generally accepted by the sorts of treatments you find on John McAdam's web site. At that point you have to make a decision and accept my analysis and estimates or John's; I suspect David would find John's more palatable. The the basic quandary that any jury would face, one side presents witnesses and the other tears them apart. I've made my assessment so I'm perfectly happy to let others accept or reject what they find in my books. I make no pretense that a good deal of what I cover is both subjective and circumstantial; given my starting premises as stated I don't see how it could be any other way.