Larry Hancock

Thanks for posting this Doug, I have been in touch with Joan and I'm sure we will see the details of her research forthcoming. I certainly think the fingerprint issue needs to either be cleared up or cleared away. Its remained in limbo for what seems ages now. I've thoroughly expressed my own thoughts on Johnson in SWHT so anything further from me would be redundant. I suppose the only thing I might say is that I clearly consider Johnson's involvement with Wallace in regard to the Kinser murder and Wallace's sentence and the West Texas murders to be independent of any conclusions as regards to the fingerprint issue and events in Dallas. My own articles on Wallace and Johnson that remain in the Ed Forum archives and are still available the last time I looked. I asked Joan to address the fingerprint issue in her Lancer conference talk because I know she is a diligent and methodical researcher and I felt both the subject of Wallace and the fingerprint "question" should be updated - she was kind enough to oblige and I look forward to seeing more of it, especially as I was able only to catch part of her Dallas presentation due to my own role at the conference. -- Larry

One good starting point for putting this in context would be to think through what Phillip's jobs were in the fall of 63. His regular job had involved intelligence operations against the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, even he admitted that. And that amounts to true counter intelligence. And in 1963 Angleton was making a major move to insert himself in CI being conducted in both Mexico City - and in Saigon for that matter. He had done just that successfully at JMWAVE following the BOP fiasco. Phillips new job under Fitzgerald was going to be anti-Castro propaganda and operations throughout the region, not just in Mexico City. For example, only he and the station chief were briefed about AMWORLD and Phillips was assigned support tasks for that in Mexico and possibly elsewhere in the region. So...Phillip's job was in transition. It would be likely to see him involved in the expansion of the anti-FPCC effort we know was going on, in the AMSANTA effort and other intelligence operations against Cuba. Certainly the MC station had been trying to either turn or contaminate virtually all the Cuban staff there. and was continuing that effort. So does all this put Phillips in some conflict with Angleton's drive to expand his CI influence in Mexico City, possibly. Does it put Phillips in between new boss Fitzgerald and his boss at the Mexico City station, possibly. And of course there is Phillip's on ongoing connection with Veciana which seems to be virtually outside his day job. Not to mention that the original Castro assassination plot against Castro in Havana, carried out with Phillips in contact with Veciana, had involved associates of Sylvio Odio's father and that is what put he and his wife in prison. Or that JMWAVE was virtually at war with JURE in the fall of 63. So we have Oswald with Phillips in Dallas and Oswald with Sylvia Odio in Dallas... -- I think my point here is that in the larger picture there were lots of concurrent things going on in the fall of 1963, and unfortunately we do sort though all of it... Larry

Guys, there may be an even simpler explanation. Phillips was a headquarters guy, his tradecraft skills were not necessarily in practice (same with Howard Hunt) and Dallas would not be considered a hostile environment - not like MC where everybody fielded surveillance teams. So he meets with Oswald to discuss a pending visit to the embassies in Mexico City and some potential anti-FPCC propaganda. Veciana shows up early or Oswald stays late...done. Veciana thinks nothing of it and later wonders only because he was talking to Phillips about more Castro assassination attempts and links that to Oswald. And if you question my comment on Phillip's tradecraft, in a separate instance in a hotel room, Phillips goes to the bathroom leaving his open briefcase for Veciana to peruse and Veciana sees and later describes what is pretty clearly an AMWORLD memo with Henry Hecksher's initials on the distribution....which Veciana later thought might have been Howard Hunt. -- not all these headquarters guys were up to 007 class field work, both Phillips and Hunt have security violation citations in their files on more than one occasion, Larry

Blair, I can sympathize, I've been working in all these areas for a good decade now and it makes my head spin. Basically from my view there are at least three very separate threads going on here. 1) One has to do with Phillip's activities with Veciana, which began in 1960 in Cuba and involved multiple Castro assassination attempts, none of which has ever been officially admitted by the CIA and all of which were stonewalled during both the Church Committee and HSCA inquires. That is a story in itself and a nasty one if Veciana were to sign an affidavit that could be taken to the CIA for documents disclosure. It ranges as far as 1971 in Chile. 2) Equally importantly Biship/Phillips actively helped fund, organize and get publicity for Alpha 66 via Veciana - while Alpha 66 was conducting attacks on Russian targets in Cuba in direct opposition to US policy and presidential directives to shut down such things - this has the potential of exposing rogue CIA action during the Kennedy Administration that would be explosive - at least to the history of the period. 3) Finally you have the Veciana observation of somebody who looks identical to Oswald with Phillips in Dallas. That could go off in lots of directions, at a minimum it would corroborate a lot of new information turning up about the extent to which Oswald was under CIA observation and even direction in Mexico City. That would expose a massive coverup somewhere inside the Agency during the WC and HSCA investigations. -- hope that helps, still makes tends to give me a headache.. Larry

I'll pass the word on to Joan, although I have to say I hope McClellan does a better job with this book than the last....Sardie's work was far superior IMHO -- Larry

Chris is right - Veciana's statement confirms Phillips perjury to a Congressional committee and strongly suggests - given their mutual involvement with each other for a decade after 1963 - that Phillips was organizing Castro assassination attempts either on his own or under a CIA operation never divulged to Congressional inquiry. Beyond that, given the Alpha 66 connection, it demonstrates that Phillips and possibly his superiors were working directly against Presidential policy directives in encouraging not only missions against Cuba but missions specifically targeting Russians in Cuba. There is a major story in the Phillips - Veciana relationship beginning in 1959 and extending to 1973.

Pat, all the Lancer presentations in the main room were videotaped and recorded, they will be available for purchase through Lancer and normally Debra announces availability with a general Lancer email. Normally it takes a couple of months to put everything together and package it for sale, I'll check with Deb on the timeline, but yes, they should all be available on DVD. -- Larry

Tommy, not to be repetitive but not only did Phillips work for the CIA in Havana before the Cuba project kicked off, he contacted anti-Castro types who were working on a Castro assassination and Phillips even mentions using an alias and disguise in those contacts. If you have SWHT I go into great detail on that in my chapter on Phillips, pointing out a great number of such details - down to the level that Veciana notes contacting Bishop at a certain restaurant -which David Phillips identified as his personal favorite. Of course each detail was circumstantial but together they made such a tight case that I've never doubted Phillips was Bishop. As to Weberman, uh, well not exactly, Phillips worked as a contract undercover employee in Havana for the CIA, was exposed, recalled, then went back briefly before leaving permanently. I suppose he might have infiltrated back in 61 but I'm not sure of any source or corroboration for that...it doesn't seem to fit with the work or station he was assigned to at the time. -- Larry

Douglas, I really could not say in regard to People's papers but I'm sure if she has not, she would be happy to receive copies. My recollection of individual documents is too vague to speculate whether or not they would be in addition to Sardie's document collection which I did forward to Joan. That had extensive material on the Kinser trial, the Estes investigations and a couple of Defense security investigations of Wallace which were extremely thorough. As for myself, I talked at some length about Peoples with Madeleine Brown, who recounted many of his remarks and observations on Estes and Wallace however I don't recall ever discussing any documents he may have had with her. -- Larry

Actually I know that Joan had access to that as I provided her with quite extensive materials from several years research on the subject. She had Sardie's materials and documents as well and a variety of published and unpublished material - from what I saw in Dallas she developed considerable more research material on Wallace in her own inquiry. I also referred her to Richard Bartholomew's (sp) work as part of the fingerprint team and she interviewed him as well. I think its probably safe to say she had the full body of work - lacking only material that Walt Brown has and I'm not sure she managed to get any of that - might have, just don't know myself. I wanted to make sure she had as much as possible so as to take a close look at it from a fresh perspective. I think she also had all the versions of Estes various written works, including the most recent one in which he made so many changes and recantations - well all I can say personally is that I considered it all a lot more credible before he put out that last version, but that's just me. -- Larry

Unfortunately not, they had a sales table for it at the Lancer conference and I kept passing by and thinking I should look at it but the conference was pretty hectic for me since I do a lot of the speaker logistics in multiple rooms. It seemed to be a pretty small book, more like booklet and I do wish I'd looked at it...nothing to report though. Larry

Blair, actually if one could project that fellows view it might be towards the DalTex. I once did a quick head count of the people looking up and back at the time of the shooting and more were looking back to the DalTex than up to the top of the TSBD. Certainly people were looking to both as if they heard noise further to the east of the TSBD. In regard to this thread though, what had just happened was unclear to a great many people on the scene, especially those east on the street towards the TSBD, only the folks down by the head shot immediately knew what was going on. The fact that it was a real attack on the President and not just firecrackers or somebody shooting off a gun for show or in protest took some time to jell....I clearly recall hearing early news reports that just talked about "shots fired".

Well Dave, its the holiday season, perhaps we will all cut each other a bit of slack. On the other hand I do have to duck every once in a while when I conclude not everything is directly connected to the attack in Dallas. As a general remark on Rose, it is pretty obvious that there was a lot of rumor and gossip going around, especially in Miami and Chicago that JFK was at risk in the fall of 1963 and that there were people stalking him and preparing plots against him. Unfortunately by itself that doesn't much help us narrow down anything until you can trace back the gossip. The one thing we can say at this point is that Rose's description of the drug deal she was on is very accurate and the DEA document makes it clear that the whole thing was dropped in Houston only because the guy assigned to trail the sailor off the ship busted the tail on him and blew the whole effort. -- Larry

Chris, the Veciana/Bishop relationship is exceedingly complex....if you have SWHT take another look at my Phillips chapter which goes into it in detail or get Fonzi's book. One of the things that is important is that the relationship continued long after 1963 with Phillips/Biship using AID as a cover to get a job for Veciana in Latin America - while under a restraining order not to leave Miami Dade county. Phillips also used both Veciana and Posada for a variety of actions including multiple assassination attempts in Latin America. I go over the implications of that in more detail in Shadow Warfare since it addresses the broader picture. As to your question on Dallas, if you look at the original info from Veciana you find he showed up for a meet in Dallas with Bishop and arrived as a young man who had been talking with Phillips/Bishop was leaving - after the assassination he felt the young man was identical to Lee Oswald. He may have heard some tag end remarks but it was not a meeting between the three, set up as a joint meet. It may well have been a brief for Oswald by Phillips before Oswald went to MC for an anti-FPCC propaganda operation, part of Phillips day job. Veciana was there to talk Castro assassination plots, which were clearly an ongoing subject for he and Phillips - only question was whether or not that was day job for Phillips or his own private agenda, we have no way of knowing for sure but it "smells" like the latter since Phillips kept at that for years with no sign of a sanctioned project in play.

If you have SWHT 2010 edition check out Appendix G on this, some of the more interesting reports released are actually from the Fruge/DEA agent effort to intercept the drug shipment in Houston. Although not directly connected to anything JFK related it certainly goes a long way to validating Cheramie's overall remarks which she provided to law enforcement. It also gives names related to the people in Dallas holding her baby.

First, just to be safe, I wonder if Steve could give us some further corroboration on the letter...has Hardaway published this somewhere, I don't find any news stories on it but that may not mean much. I'd just like to be certain Hardaway, Marie and Veciana will stand behind that letter. To Tommy, Simpich is certainly making a case Phillips and many other officers were all over the telephone impersonation but that the phone call may have been a surprise to everyone while events at the embassies were not. If that is true Phillips and his superiors would have almost immediately known that they had been compromised in a variety of ways. But Bill tells that much better than I...

Thank you Steve, that is a massive disclosure given what we know about their relationship, not only in the U.S. but across Latin America. For example it would prove that Phillips was driving Alpha 66 in actions which were in direct contradiction to Kennedy administration policy and official CIA directives. -- truly a big story, Larry

David, Nagell would have known the Oswald in Japan which is where they first crossed paths. I doubt that he would have had a clue that there could have been two or more folks using the name and in 1963 he reconnected with the same fellow from Japan. In terms of the fake ID card with Oswald's name and Nagell's photo, I certainly wish I knew but it would seem possible that somewhere, most likely in Mexico City, possibly even in Miami, Nagell may have been "dropping" Oswald's name, claiming to be him. Of course nobody would know any better. Its an interesting thought that several people report someone named Oswald in Miami in late Spring or early Summer and while we can't place Oswald there we certainly can place Nagell in Florida. Why Nagell would be doing that escapes me but perhaps it was a fishing expedition to turn up people who had been in contact with Oswald who would reveal themselves by pushing back that Nagell was an imposter? As to who he was supposed to kill, its pretty clear that it was the individual that Nagell knew in Japan and whom the Soviets knew from Russia....beyond that my head explodes so I'm not going there. One thing we do know for sure is that the Lee Oswald that Nagell described being contacted by Cuban exiles for something in Washington DC was indeed writing about relocating there - to both the SWP and CPUSA. -- Larry

Since we are suggesting alternatives, I would note that Dick Russell's most recent edition as well as my 2010 edition of SWHT both contain additional information on Nagell including a strong candidate for "Bob" in Mexico City and details which would explain the relationship with him Nagell described. If you really want to dig into the story yourself, get Keys to the Conspiracy on CD from Lancer which contains a host of Nagell documents and an analysis of them - it is important to note that Nagell's story and remarks are indeed "situational" in context of his jail sentence, his effort to obtain custody over his children and his disability settlement. You just can't cherry pick quotes, you have to look at the full and extremely broad story which developed over many years beyond 1063.

Very good Gene, generally I'm not sharp enough to actually make puns though I do love them. In this case its probably my aging vernacular that is to blame. In this case my usage was simply because it strikes me that Cuesta as well as his long time associate Tony Varona were extremely brave, totally committed to the cause against Castro and never tried to personally capitalize on their military operations - which were quite successful in limited terms and which received coverage in major American magazines such as LIFE and LOOK. Both continued their campaigns as long as they were able but never turned to "terror" attacks and certainly Cuesta never attempted to seek any personal fame or to "shop" what he had head from Diaz Garcia after his release from Cuba. Interestingly enough both he and Varona had been involved in CIA affiliated missions such as the Tejana insertion operation before the Bay of Pigs but apparently neither was recruited into ongoing CIA operations and they pursued their independent actions though and beyond the missile crisis, becoming major media thorns in the side of both the administration in early 1963. That sort of independent and consistent behavior makes Cuesta quite credible in my view, a "straight shooter" in my terms. And of course the involvement of Diaz Garcia in Dallas would be very consistent with the scenario that I've been describing in my "connecting the dots" blog series, one which involved Cuban exiles who had participated in efforts to kill Castro were turned on JFK - the same scenario which John Roselli actually offered to individuals ranging from Earl Warren to LBJ, (although spun to point to Castro) in a successful effort to preempt the Garrison inquiry before it could gain any traction, especially as Garrisons very early Miami investigations even got started.

Hmmm, did I miss something or was DPD lagging a little behind current events in preparing for a trial against Oswald in Feb 1964? However, that quote should definitely be headlined somewhere this coming anniversary week, it sort of captures the whole spirit of the investigation of the murder....

Given Barry's rational and restrained comment I decided against my better judgement to make a couple of final observations about the article and comments Robert posted. First, note the title of the article: "The Last Stand of the JFK Truthers - Dallas plans to memorialize the fallen president on the 50th anniversary of his death, and the conspiracy theorists aren't invited."The article is about the city of Dallas and its activities on the anniversary. That subject was the focus of something on the order of 30 mins time with the author and her interest was in our message about conspiracy has been received and why it continues to be marginalized. She also wanted to discuss the frustrations of researchers who have been at this a very long time and to some extent why we continue given the response we get from the mainstream - not to mention the city of Dallas. My comments as well as the others need to be read in context of the articles thrust. But I will go a bit further, in my comments I was definitely trying to convey the frustration that if one spends too much time on it, accumulates to many detail and is willing to go into extreme detail on sources and studies - people begin to categorize you, unfairly I think, but it happens. In regards to Robert's other comment: "Larry, I know you wrote a book called Someone Would Have Talked and you left out Madeleine Brown, Billie Sol Estes and CIA officer E. Howard Hunt who flat out said LBJ and the CIA were involved in the JFK assassination. And now you are pooh poohing Roger Stone who, unlike you or me, had close personal relationships with Richard Nixon and John Davis Lodge. Stone was getting a heavy dose of "LBJ Did It" from the highest levels of the GOP of that era." Yes I did write a SWHT but years before that I helped fund publication of Madeleine Browns book, I also drafted a book length manuscript centered around a Johnson based conspiracy - some of my early essays relating to Johnson are still on this web site. And then after further extensive study I tossed it as being essentially flawed. If Robert had my original book November Patriots he would find an essay Madeleine wrote for me in the book. Its really not like I have ignored LBJ, you will find him in several chapters in SWHT with extensive material from Debra Conway. As far as Howard Hunt, his analysis of his story is in the final chapter of my 2010 edition. I don't ignore these things but I have my own standards and if things don't pass in the long run, I make that call. And at this point I have published what I think sticks and deserves to be credited, based on the corroboration I present. And honestly "heavy doses" of anything are the starting point, not corroboration. I've spent 20 years studying what I feel fits and what I feel does not and I'm becoming less bashful about that point, which is another reason for my remarks in the article. So...full disclosure...I'm always eager to speak to new folks about the conspiracy and the most likely villains, but I'm not interested in converting researchers, they can make their own decisions. -- Larry

Robert, just a short reply to you - most of us to not have the absolute, total, evangelical certainty that you do. Which means we leave you to your own views. I won't speak for the others but I personally believe your grand conspiracy driven by LBJ is just flat wrong and about as reasonable as - well as using Richard Nixon as a credible source on anything. Your truth is not my truth and I continue to offer a very specific explanation of the conspiracy and attack in Dallas, my own "truth" but still arguably a personal view. The people you mention in your post are simply trying to open peoples minds, you are dead set on insisting they and everyone else accept your personal conclusion. That in itself turns a good number of potential listeners off and they never go further. You clearly have the right to do that, just don't expect us to line up behind your campaign, well don't expect me at least. One of the rules for the reopening of the forum was to take personality out of the dialog - something you either forgot or can't bring yourself to do. That's to bad and if the moderators want to take down the whole thread that's fine with me but I will not allow myself to be bullied in any venue. -- Larry

Don, the Lancer interactive forum area has had some significant technical difficulties and it appears that it will have to be rebuilt. The main Lancer web site is fully operational but there are some issues with the forum that Debra simply doesn't have time to delve into with the Dallas conference being imminent. If you have been to the Lancer site you know there are lots of things going on there with a new design, new interviews, new resource links etc. But that's where the effort and energy are going right now - well that and what looks to be an extremely well attended event in Dallas. -- Larry

To elaborate a bit further on this, I will be taking a CD of the Wheaton interview with me to Dallas and will make it available for limited attendee viewing during my focus group sessions. My work on my next book, "Shadow Warfare" took me deeply into Contra era activities and reinforced my belief that Wheaton is an extremely important and credible source as to the remarks that he heard while in the company of Quintero and Jenkins. It is a documented fact that Quintero was actively working in Contra supply activities along with other Cuban exiles including Luis Posada. "In an interview with William Law and Mark Sobel in 2005, Gene Wheaton claimed that Carl Jenkins and Rafael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. John Simkin attempted to contact Rafael Quintero via his close friend Don Bohning. Quintero refused to be interviewed but he did say that Gene Wheaton was telling the truth as "he knew it". His explanation of Wheaton's story was that he and Carl Jenkins had been lying to him when they said they were involved in the assassination. However, Quintero was once quoted as saying: “If I were ever granted immunity, and compelled to testify about past actions, about Dallas and the Bay of Pigs, it would be the biggest scandal ever to rock the United States.” My own impression of the Wheaton interview does not lead me to think that he was claiming that Jenkins and Quintero were directly involved in the assassination conspiracy, rather that they had trained and been associated with individuals during their earlier anti-Castro efforts who were either involved or had direct knowledge of who was in Dallas. And I certainly believe that Quintero was telling the truth in the last remark quoted... -- Larry