Larry Hancock

Mark, that question was explored by a lot of people in regard to the Elrod encounter story and as I recall those efforts confirmed that Oswald was most certainly not being held in the general pick up cell area with all the routine arrests and custody prisoners. Which certainly makes sense, why one anyone put a cop killer and potential presidential assassin in with a batch of other people in an open row of holding cells and just close the door ....? Does that make any sense at all. I would want to check this out with Gary Mack for sure and there are others who would be certain as well but as I say, the work all of us did in checking out the claim that Elrod (who was one of those run of the mill arrests) was in a batch of cells along with Oswald certainly disproved that claim.

-- Larry

Ron, you would be amazed at the amount of trivial receipts and paperwork you would find in my possession after a 35 year business career.....grin.

In response to Paul's comments, although I normally try to avoid speculation other than in conference hotel bars, I'll let myself go a bit and offer up the following which

would be at least consistent with known facts.

Beginning with Chicago and that trip cancellation, the President would very likely asked questions and been told of possible threats....by the time of the Miami trip he would have

been further advised there were security issues with groups of Cuban exiles - hard to avoid given the extreme preparations for Miami. We also have at least on exile close to RFK who has stated he shared info on such

threats with RFK and its likely that RFK was very much aware of the hostility in certain exile circles.

The problem would be that JFK had little ability to respond to that other than rely on the Secret Service. On the other hand, RFK was close to certain exiles and although

he was generally resented and had poor relationships with JMWAVE leadership, he had worked with Lansdale very closely for over a year. You can see how closely

by reading Lansdale's Church committee interview. The second problem would be that Lansdale himself had few operational level contacts with the exiles and the

JMWAVE leadership from Shackley to Morales had viewed his Mongoose program with skepticism if not outright hostility.

Still, if RFK was worried he might well have turned to Lansdale and asked him to be on the lookout for any threat rumor and gossip, and if Lansdale had been in the Dallas area

he might have been in the Plaza doing just that...fruitlessly. We know that RFK's first thought was that the shooting was related to the exiles, his phone call that afternoon

demonstrates that....so his having asked Lansdale for help is speculative but not impossible or inconsistent.

Personally I doubt that photo is of Lansdale but if definitive proof were to show up that it was he, I would lean towards the preceding for an explanation.

Paul, not to be a pest, but you mention working with somebody for years. I've posted sources on this thread which should allow anyone to determine how long and how closely Prouty

worked with Lansdale. I don't think it adds up "years" of constant contact....have you taken a close look at how long they really were together, where their duties overlapped

and how much personal contact they would have had? I don't think it was as much as you may assume. The men did work inside the same group for a time and certainly knew each other, but

the question is were they close as office mates over years or really as close as the family members you describe?

We really do need to hear from Paul on this; the remarks posted in the review either either undermine what Paul has been posting or, as an alternative, reflect on

Harry as a source....of course its not the first time we have seen books dealing with purported witnesses being repudiated but its something that does raise

crediblity issues.

I really think we need Paul's comment on this; certainly Harry's comments have a bearing on a number of threads that have involved him.

Ron, my suggestions were strictly along the line of evaluating the context of the Prouty's remarks about Lansdale, as you note there was nothing specific in his ARRB dialog about his identification.....however since he himself offered his remarks to the ARRB and it was all about JFK, it seems strange that he did not bring up Lansdale if he felt the identification was solid. It would have been extremely relevant and extremely substantive in respect to the other things being discussed. In addition, I suggested a study of SACSA would be relevant to how long and how closely the men worked together and where their jobs crossed - or didn't.

I think that is as relevant as understanding the fairly close and positive personal relationship between he and JFK. JFK was actually about the only guy in Lansdale's court at that point in time, had tried to move him into a very senior position in Vietnam and been opposed by both CIA and State. It's my view that a lot of conspiracy speculation gets tossed about without a solid study of the context and background of what's being discussed - in my view broad speculation that Lansdale would be an enemy of JFK just because he had been detached to the CIA or because he was military or even because his Mongoose assignment was over is pretty uniformed. In regard to the latter, he had even been fired from Mongoose, the whole project had been shut down following the promises made and the general reset of all things Cuban after the missile crisis.

I hate to be repetitive but I'm curious to see if anyone posting on this has read the Prouty's ARRB interview and related ARRB memos as I suggested earlier. Or actually studied SACSA, where Prouty and

Lansdale worked and developed the timeline for how long the two men actually worked together, what their respective roles were, what their duties were and essentially established a context this

discussion? Or overlaid Lansdale's career during this period with Prouty's remarks from a chronological standpoint?

In other words, since its an education forum I was just wondering if anyone had done some homework they would be willing to share....

Bowers notified the police that he had stopped a train moving past his tower and out of the yards over the overpass. The way I read the report is that the engine was pointing away from the yard/TSBD and the train had

been coming from down town when he spotted a tramp in a hopper car and stopped the train. The report is part of the police radio calls for that afternoon. So...the train was coming from beyond the TSBD and headed

away from it when he stopped it.

What is known is that the train that was stopped had not been parked on the TSBD yards but had actually been stopped a good distance from there when

Bowers put a hold on train traffic for the motorcade. The train only began to move after he released traffic and it was headed out over the overpass ...so

if the tramps had gotten on there in Dallas it was not from in the immediate vicinity of the plaza...and they would have to be pretty stupid to board a train

going back through the plaza when they were well away and facing the likelihood that it would be stopped sand searched going that direction.

Kathy, what I was interested in as far as sources would be what individuals are on record as seeing those details in the film...specifically by name. I've tried to keep up with comments about it but what you

posted was so detailed and on many points so much more specific than what I have seen previously that I would like to know exactly who saw and reported that....thanks, Larry

Kathleen presented considerably more detail than I ever heard from Jack White or that I can recall from Greg or Pamela. Its also more detail than I heard from William Reymond when he described seeing a second film. Since both Greg and Pamela post here perhaps they can comment on that level of detail. If not I would also like to know the source.....no offense, but if you offer that much detail as factual information you really need to at least cite a source.

Tommy, according to Martino the exiles presented themselves as Castro agents. Its my impression that Oswald was interested in establishing and maintaining contact

with Cubans of all stripes, pro and anti Castro agents. I also think Nagell had not idea of the role in which Oswald was operating...how much of that was self directed

and how much was instigated by the FBI is certainly unclear but I think both factors were in play. Nagell remembered Oswald from Japan as someone outside the normal

institutional box, very open to both the pros and cons of the American system - as was Nagell himself. Based on that I don't think the realized that Oswald's Russian

experience had turned him around a bit......and why he would continue hanging with anti-Castro exiles when Nagell told him who they really were.

So yes, I think that is the explanation and things were moving to fast for Nagell to figure it out. He was thinking of Oswald in the context of an earlier paradigm and as

a less complex individual than he had become.

Tommy, I suggest you contact Jeff Morley......I know he and Talbot specifically followed up on the Morales ID, interviewed his family members. etc. He would be a

good place to start in determining what they did find out about Morales whereabouts at the time.

In his case it was probably known as being a scope dope.....my guess is that he had picked up some basic electronics and radio from the CAP experience and may even some terminology from reading SF....that could place you well on the career aptitude test....actually it worked for me when I went in the Air Force, I just ended up in comm rather than radar.

Bingo, that rings a bell Scott, I wish I could point Tommy to the additional research but I'm afraid it escapes me...

Tommy, all I can tell you is that the story goes even further than that....the individuals identified as CIA agents were actually contacted, they stated that it was them in the picture, as I recall they had been at a company event in the hotel and wondered over to the ballroom but that's just my recollection. However, far be it from me to try to take away an identification that someone wants to make - I think I've made my position clear on the risk of photo ID so I'll just let it lie. I did want you to know that a lot of follow on work had gone on, some of it in the article I linked and more later. You can probably find it with some searching but I'll just leave it at that.

Thomas, are you aware that the purported CIA characters included in Shane's video have been positively identified as other people, those ID's have been corroborated by the individuals themselves and Shane has agreed that his original ID's of them were incorrect? That took a couple of years to come about but the video like many other things remains a part of internet history.

You can find the investigation by Morley and Talbot as well as the resolution below, I have exchanged emails with Shane on it but I don't know if he ever issued a public retraction or not?

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_BBCs_Flawed_RFK_Story

On the contrary Paul, I'm always at the risk of remembering something incorrectly and very aware of it. But my point is that citing another book or a video is not what I'm seeking. What is the primary source that verifies that Hoover had specifically tagged Oswald as a lone nut shooter unassociated with anyone else at that early place and time....primary means a document, telephone call, oral history etc.

Of course if that were true, then he certainly began going off target and introducing remarks and references to a possible conspiracy later that day and over the weekend.

Thanks Brian, much appreciated. And for Paul, that is a pretty amazing position to take since as I recall you were unable to provide an actual citation or source for Wrone's view on the matter. If you can give us a citation that's fine but if you are saying that Dr. Wrone simply had an author epiphany and that outweighs an actual series of primary sources then...well hey, I can have an author counter-epiphany as well.

Although I have to admit the level of specificity in "from his office overlooking the banks of the Potomic" is pretty darn convincing....

Cliff, could you put in a link to that Hoover senior staff memo....I've referred to it several times but when I need it I can never find it quickly.

I'm afraid I've pointed out to Paul that there are a number of incidents which prove that Hoover was very open to pursuing a conspiracy - as long as it could tie

Oswald to Cuba or to commies in general. On Saturday morning he was telling Johnson about an impersonation in Mexico City, obviously suggesting that

if Oswald was being impersonated there a broader conspiracy could be in play. Viewing Hoover as the sole instigator of the Lone Nut concept is just not

accurate....he was being pressured in that direction by Johnson if anything. It is true that he was quickly focused on Oswald as the shooter but not

necessarily on Oswald as an isolated, lone nut. That was coming from elsewhere. And certainly Hoover was not driving the commentary coming from

the Situation Room to Air Force One.

Brian, that is indeed an excellent synopsis. It seems to me that numerous folks have a very narrow view of Lansdale and if you really dig into his philosophy and world view you find something much

different. I suspect that if Lansdale had become point man across Latin America the story there might have been less tragic - instead, rather than Lansdale it was ultimately David Morales who took point for

the Joint Chiefs in South America and Morales's views and Phoenix experience served as precursors for the brutal Condor counter insurgencies.

While not directly related to this question, I would recommend reading Prouty's lengthy interview with the ARRB and their related internal memoranda for some general context. If you happen to have Shadow Warfare, take a look at Lansdale's relationship with JFK who supported his appointment to Mongoose and then to a senior position in Vietnam - an appointment strongly opposed by both State and the CIA. - as well as some further detail about the nature and evolution of the special Joint Chiefs unit in which Lansdale and Prouty worked. There is a bit of background on that in one of my blog posts:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/lansdale-oso-and-sacsa/

Well I have to admit that much of it is very "old school" but its amazing how many of the subjects discussed today were explored in considerable depth back in the first years.....of course lots of things looked mysterious then that have sorted themselves out but there was also a lot of early research in the journals that never became "institutionalized" in the books. Penn Jone's newsletters are fascinating as are Jerry Rose's journals. Over the year's what was initially "research", published as articles began to be incorporated in books and books were more easy to pick up than following a journal over many years. When I started you could still order Jerry Rose's back issues and I came across a full collection of Penn Jone's journals at a conference. Many of the researchers that have faded away or now really don't participate....William Weston would be an example...routinely were found in print then. And some of the books, such as Ian's and Bill's, just never made it into general discussion, which is sort of sad. As a career police investigator, Ian has a real feel for what to look for in regard to evidence and police procedures, his research on the line ups is an example of that.

Of course this may prove that I've just been following this for way too long....grin. I'll be interested if you or anyone else begins to dig into some of those sources and finds interesting things there. And of course these days much of that historical information including notes and correspondence is at the Baylor archives and is going online from there as they are able. For those obsessed, a trip to Baylor would no doubt make a fine "assassination vacation"....as strange as that sounds.

Robert, I think I must not have been clear. What I was proposing was building a master list of interviews done by all investigative groups, DPD, FBI, Secret Service and WC. You would need to profile the individuals interviewed by class - civilians, DPD, Sheriffs Officers, other law enforcement, and possibly even FBI. And of course the interviews have to be split by dates, lots of witnesses were interviewed multiple times. When you have done all that you would have an interesting research paper demonstrating what was and was not done. Of course even then you are left with proving that a massive failure to obtain DPD statements was something intentional and suspicious rather than just a lack of protocol or poor practice - and heaven knows we have enough examples of sloppiness and failure to follow protocol for DPD already. Bill mentioned the whole thing being a scandal, very possibly that's true - whether it reflects evil or conspiratorial intent remains an open question. I was also wondering if you had been able to determine what DPD rules of the time required in the way of obtaining officer statements, I would think they would be required for officers involved in an actual arrest but I don't have any idea of what the rules said should have been done and if there was a required time frame for taking statements....that would important to know.

We have had some very good, factual studies done comparing police written practices vs. what was actually done that day and its fair to say the DPD did not score well across the board, from crime scene work to chains of evidence. If you could actually determine that the officers were interviewed and the interviews are all missing, that would be extremely suspicious, but a failure to take written statements from all the assigned DPD officers within say 48 hours could be innocent enough even if it frustrates us at this point in time.

I jumped into this thread to offers some thoughts about very specific reports that appear to have gone missing and which I think are very suspicious - I'll have to leave proving in either suppression of officer interviews or a conscious decision not to take them as a subject that should be explored....it would be nice to see that sort of research documented and presented...

Robert, after taking a look at the files I have, they do indeed largely consist of first day civilian witness and Sheriff's interviews. There are some police files including interviews with senior officers about trip security

and some overall reports on that subject. There are also documents dealing with individual officers but they are not necessarily "first day"type interviews. A lot of them, especially with motorcycle officers

and foot patrol officers assigned to route security occurred later. Bill lists some sets of documents that do exist above but if he can't find the ones you want they well may not exist.

I'm still more cautious than Bill and no doubt you in thinking its a scandal, after all, the police department was investigating a crime and witnesses would have been the first priority time wise. Obviously everyone

should have given statements at some point in time....if not to internally within DPD but either to the FBI or the WC. Maybe there is a big story as to why police officers were not required to give first day

statements....one thought would be to step back and make a list of those who did and compare it to who is missing and look for patterns. That might give you a clue as to who was doing the interviews

and a real insight as to whether interviews were actually done and "pulled". I do know of a couple of areas where there should be reports, one involves the officer who called for the crime scene folks to

search for a bullet on the south side of the street, his interview is specific about that and photos show that they were there (or at least their equipment was) but there is no report on what they did or found.

Others include the list of patrons at the theater and there should have been a list of individuals with cars who were interviewed as they exited the parking area on the west side of the TSBD; officers are on

record of having done that.

In any event, those are the best observations I can offer on the subject....