Larry Hancock

The title is "The Man on the Grassy Knoll", by "anonymous". You can find it on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Grassy-Knoll/dp/0615531555/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328667395&sr=1-2 Capital pictures has supposedly optioned it and I had some exchanges with the screen writer - who seemed like a nice fellow. The position he has been given is that it is actually factual. I scanned a Kindle version and told him there were lots of issues - it could easily have been written with what info is pretty widely available these days but the inconsistencies are pretty obvious if you look at it closely (most of them having to do with the CIA and Cuban operations circa 62/63). We really didn't have much dialog after that exchange. Actually its well written fiction and all in all a pretty good story. Of course its the same story that has been told time and again in fiction. It's getting sort of boring; for my money Assassins from Tomorrow is a lot more fun if you are going that route...well and of course November Patriots...grin. -- Larry

I have to chime in with Jim on this folks. Let's display some critical skills one this one. There are so many inconsistencies its almost laughable. I mean do we really think JFK took time off during the missile crisis to visit an intern? Is that better dead than red thing reflected anywhere else in JFK's verbiage? So much of this appears totally derivative - plus why right now? Didn't we just get blasted with the "anonymous" book abut the college kid being recruited to kill JFK...the detailed story of a CIA plot that he won't support in public but just let his lawyer submit to the publisher and film industry for him, the fiction story that's supposed to be really true and has already been optioned for a movie. As no doubt this will be. -- OK, I'm done.. Larry Beyond that is there anything at all solid to confirm her story - if so can someone please post it.

Mark, its an interesting idea but here are some of the related problems. Technically speaking Estes has already done that multiple times. William Reymond could tell you far more than I but even before William worked with him, Estes had provided elements of his "true" story to the Justice department and offered an iron clad witness who could confirm the conspiracy information related by Cliff Carter. Of course Estes backed out of a deal Justice was offering to pursue that... Then William worked with him and ultimately William published a book which contained the true story of Estes. OK, fine. And the witness earlier mentioned was named and I have seen a video of him certifying exactly what Estes first claimed to Justice. But - then a bit later, Estes, apparently unsatisfied with the lack of royalties from an English version of William's book, brought in a young man to do some writing, added a lot of really juicy stuff that nobody had been told before (secret meetings in Dallas, etc). And in doing that book he recanted portions of his earlier statements and totally disavowed the eyewitness he had first offered and who has confirmed the Cliff Carter meetings and revelations. I'm sure William could tell all this better than I - up to the point that Estes "final" version came out in print we at least at a pretty consistent scenario and even an independent witness; at this point in time if Estes did exactly what you suggest its hard to say what he would write but equally hard to it tell if it were true or possibly just one final effort to make some money for his family (the problem we have with Howard Hunt's final "confession").

Laurent, that's a great question and I agree with your thoughts on the "mastermind" issue as my friend Phil knows. Walt Brown did not unearth the prints, that was done by a former Dallas Police reserve officer and the story is an extended one. Walt was part of the team which took the story public and has become associated with it but people like Richard Bartholemew were also involved. I wish someone would do an update on the whole matter - its not nearly as clear as it seemed at the beginning. One of the issues seems to be that the first fingerprint expert to do the ID appears not to have found a match until told of certain injuries to Wallace's hand - which of course adds a real issue of subjectivity. And of course the whole issue of human print matching is being called more and more into question - recently in a blind test several experts were embarrassed by not matching print sets which they had in earlier criminal cases and now those convictions are being challenged. At one time I was very excited by the Wallace matches but time has not seemed to make the story stronger...still perhaps it is but if so then Walt Brown or someone else needs to take up the challenge and move forward with it. I wonder if William might be in a position to give us an update on the fingerprint issue?

William, I think the real issue may be the word "investigation". Agricultural allotments are regulated by law and if you use false information to obtain them (or exaggerate the size of your claim) you are subject to penalties and fines as well as the loss of your allocations. And that can have a major financial impact since your allocations go with the land and have an impact on its valuation and even leasing rights. Certainly Marshall was not a criminal investigator in the classic sense but if you have your allocations challenged (and living in wheat and cotton country and having a history with them I can say this from personal experience) you would certainly feel like you were being investigated - and there can be a number of sources for charges that allocations are questionable. Certainly Marshall would have done a very limited investigation, checking ownership and leasing rights and making sure that all the filings were in place to ensure that Estes did have legal rights to the allocations he was claiming. That sort of investigation is very much paperwork and records oriented. I'm sorry but it's just plain wrong. Marshall was not an investigator and he never did any kind of investigation on BSE. I know that this story is wide spread but the facts and the files do not support it. Quite a contrary. Marshall's job was to approve or not cotton allotments and he did change his position several times. Few days after his meetings, he wrote a memo stating that the deals were legitimate. And few days before his death, he did approve some allotments on Billie's behalf.

I'm sorry but it's just plain wrong. Marshall was not an investigator and he never did any kind of investigation on BSE. I know that this story is wide spread but the facts and the files do not support it. Quite a contrary. Marshall's job was to approve or not cotton allotments and he did change his position several times. Few days after his meetings, he wrote a memo stating that the deals were legitimate. And few days before his death, he did approve some allotments on Billie's behalf.

CHRIS, THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS, I'M USING CAPS SO I CAN INSERT COMMENTS BELOW AND HAVE THEM STAND OUT...

One of the things that makes it complicated is that there were a couple of generations of SE Asia guys. There were the folks like Fitzgerald and Lansdale that had been all around SE Asia before being inserted into the Cuba project. Included in that group, and actually of more interest to me are folks like Hecksher. Then there is the second generation who went to SE Asia after the Cuba project and ended up operationally back in Latin America afterwords - like Morales. And there were the Cuban exiles who went directly to Latin America to challenge Castro and the ones who went there first via SE Asia. On top of all that, there is the fact that a number of the Agency logistics fronts and the financial networks that supported them, were first set up in SE Asia and then expanded into the Caribbean to support Latin American activities - Paul Helliwell (sp) is a major name that comes up there. If you want to talk paramilitary operations guys, Morales, Sforza and their trusted exile assets certainly show up in Latin America. But its also clear that many of their activities were enabled there at a much higher level by folks like Phillips and Hecksher. And of course, just to make matters worse, it appears that a lot of the later nasty Latin American stuff began to move outside the CIA itself and into some of the Army counter insurgency contacts - which of course corresponds to the fact that Morales moved into a major counter insurgency role as a consultant to Joint Chiefs staff. I'm not trying to be coy in naming names and there is certainly a larger story that extends beyond 1963, maybe we will get a handle on it at some point but for right now Nexus and 1963 is as far as can get my own head around it. Well that and the chapter 20 in SWHT - because I do feel that Underhill had come across the existence of this particular network/clique sometime in 1963. -- Larry

Hi Steve, thanks very much for taking the time to post on Nexus and if you have questions or want to chat about it don't hesitate to contact me. One of the great things about the evolution of SWHT into three editions and now Nexus is that I've been able to use them to include information from a number of great primary researchers who need a forum for what they have been digging up. There is so much in the released documents, in the oral histories and contacts of the last decade and the spin off from the ARRB that just was not making it into print. Pieces by themselves often mean little but once you have a framework to integrate them it becomes a totally different story - our much expanded understanding of Mexico City station, the JMWAVE/AMOT operation in MC and Angleton's involvement in Cuban affairs is a primary example. It's a long and strange road but I think we have jointly come a long ways down it from the mysteries faced by the first and second generation researches. I just wish we could have supplied HSCA investigators like Fonzi and Hardway the sort of information we have now....or Garrison for that matter. -- Larry

For those of you who happen to be reading NEXUS or may in the future, Debra Conway has taken the time to enhance my book web site and add some links (provided by Zach Robertson and Bill Simpich, thanks guys) to certain articles and interviews relating to the individuals discussed in NEXUS. It would be good background reading for context...the Harvey memo to Helms on the Kennedy administration's post 1962 position in regard to the ongoing effort against Castro is particularly interesting. We will come up with better scans for a couple of the items when time permits. You will find the links at: http://www.larry-hancock.com/nexus_studies.html -- Larry

I suspect their involvement in the drug trade commenced much earlier than the '66-'67 time frame. ........ Absolutely Cliff, it started at the end of WWII with the OSS guys serving in the SE Asia detachment. Once it was determined to support the Nationalist Chinese and in particular their army group that retreated into the Golden Triangle, the Agency had to put a lot of supply lines including front companies in place to supply them....and with tons of weapons and supplies going in via truck, air and boat...well naturally life being what it is, the drugs are going to start coming out and a lot of private business opportunities are going to open up... -- no such thing as a one way supply line into a drug production area, Larry From Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used In the JFK Conspiracy by Richard Bartholomew (emphasis added). http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html#N_119_

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry Hi Larry, I just want to say I have both editions of your book SWHT, and have read your many posts, and essays on this forum as well as Lancer's. I congratulate you on your latest literary effort "Nexus" and have my copy ordered from Amazon. As I anticipate your book in the mail, I would like to pose a question to you. I have read up on Edwin P. Wilson and believe that his close dealings with Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, and Rafael "Chi Chi" Quintero put him in a very close circle of folks I believe had knowledge of, or were participants in the JFK assassination. I have posted it here and have been told that trying to reach out to Edwin Wilson would be a futile effort. Given that Edwin Wilson is in the twilight of his life, and the fact that the CIA literally turned him into the "Man in the Iron Mask" doesn't it seem likely that he has a few motives for which to set the record straight on issues such as the JFK assassination? I just think if someone who has interviewed Ed Wilson in the past could come forward and contact him now before he dies, I think he could shed some serious light on the assassination. I believe Ed could corroborate many facts about the players we suspect, and possibly even give us a few we don't know about. I know he trusted Joeseph Trento, and have thought about contacting Mr. Trento myself to make this appeal, but I defer to your opinion on the matter. Do you see any merit in chasing down this lead? Best regards, Greg Kooyman Greg, I posted earlier this afternoon and again just now but it does not appear to be showing up - I'll try again below, if it does not show please email me at larryjoe@westok.net so I can reply direct.. thanks: Greg and Bill, my thought on Wilson is that given his position in 1963 (with setting up and running front companies) I do not believe he would have had any direct knowledge of the JFK plot. My view is that sort of knowledge would have been circulating only within some very select groups of paramilitary assets in touch with or having been trained by JMWAVE operations. On the other hand I'd be willing to bet that he heard the same sort of gossip that Wheaton heard when associating with Quintero and Jenkins. If you hung with the right crowd it appears that they were not bashful talking about it - just another cover ops war story. If someone talks with Wilson it might be a good angle, just ask about gossip he heard afterwords, anything could be useful. Beyond that its pretty clear that Wilson played the same game that several like him did, leverage your old true agency connections to make your own money, implying its Agency sanctioned. And on the backside, pass on some intelligence to your old CIA associates so they look the other way if they hear what you are doing. A really nasty side effect of deniability. Doubt he would talk about that angle but if so would help us understand a lot about how that sort of game was played. -- Larry

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry Hi Larry, I just want to say I have both editions of your book SWHT, and have read your many posts, and essays on this forum as well as Lancer's. I congratulate you on your latest literary effort "Nexus" and have my copy ordered from Amazon. As I anticipate your book in the mail, I would like to pose a question to you. I have read up on Edwin P. Wilson and believe that his close dealings with Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, and Rafael "Chi Chi" Quintero put him in a very close circle of folks I believe had knowledge of, or were participants in the JFK assassination. I have posted it here and have been told that trying to reach out to Edwin Wilson would be a futile effort. Given that Edwin Wilson is in the twilight of his life, and the fact that the CIA literally turned him into the "Man in the Iron Mask" doesn't it seem likely that he has a few motives for which to set the record straight on issues such as the JFK assassination? I just think if someone who has interviewed Ed Wilson in the past could come forward and contact him now before he dies, I think he could shed some serious light on the assassination. I believe Ed could corroborate many facts about the players we suspect, and possibly even give us a few we don't know about. I know he trusted Joeseph Trento, and have thought about contacting Mr. Trento myself to make this appeal, but I defer to your opinion on the matter. Do you see any merit in chasing down this lead? Best regards, Greg Kooyman Hi Larry, I don't know if you've had the chance to read my question, but I am interested in your feedback.. Any thoughts? -Greg Hi Greg, sorry, I had posted a reply earlier this afternoon and thought it was in this thread - but now I don't see it either...anyway, let me try again: Greg and Bill, my thought on Wilson is that given his position in 1963 (with setting up and running front companies) I do not believe he would have had any direct knowledge of the JFK plot. My view is that sort of knowledge would have been circulating only within some very select groups of paramilitary assets in touch with or having been trained by JMWAVE operations. On the other hand I'd be willing to bet that he heard the same sort of gossip that Wheaton heard when associating with Quintero and Jenkins. If you hung with the right crowd it appears that they were not bashful talking about it - just another cover ops war story. If someone talks with Wilson it might be a good angle, just ask about gossip he heard afterwords, anything could be useful. Beyond that its pretty clear that Wilson played the same game that several like him did, leverage your old true agency connections to make your own money, implying its Agency sanctioned. And on the backside, pass on some intelligence to your old CIA associates so they look the other way if they hear what you are doing. A really nasty side effect of deniability. Doubt he would talk about that angle but if so would help us understand a lot about how that sort of game was played. -- Larry

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry Larry, Can I get you to autograph my Kindle? :-) You bet David - uh, just as soon as I find my digital pen...grin... Larry

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry

Thanks Lee, I appreciate it. As for myself while I do have Kindle on my PC and have read a couple of books in digital format, I have to save that for entertainment type reading. For something I'm going to read seriously I have to have a physical book, a marker, lots of sticky notes, etc. And of course that is mandatory for anything I'm reading for research. -- but then I'm incurably "old school" in many ways, Larry

Thanks for the kind words Zach and I have to admit that Amazon caught us by surprise on this one - previously the kindle version had not gone up prior to print availability and the print version is still a few weeks out. Hence the lack of an announcement (which should be soon) and an update to my website (a bit later). As you can imagine its a hectic time to get a book out with the Dallas conference only a few weeks out. As Zach noted, I had not really planned much more than a monograph - and even that grew out of some late night discussions in Dallas last November. But we put together a small work group and with Bill Simpitch's guidance we dug deeply into a host of new Agency operational documents which in turn caused me to look at other material and I decided to go ahead and confront the subject head on. I'll be happy to respond to readers here or as usual you can always email me at larryjoe@westok.net Because the Amazon description is a bit sketchy at this point, I will say that the book is part both a study of the Agencies real world political assassinations history, part a study of the individuals involved with those actions and part a very specific scenario that represents my current view of the genesis and chronology of events in the Kennedy assassination. It also deals in considerable depth with CIA operations at both JMWAVE and Mexico City station as well as the links between the two - which the documents have disclosed in much detail (especially now that we can translate many more of the crypts). - regards to all, Larry

John Newman’s analysis sounds very similar to his remarks during his Lancer Presentation a few years ago – when he was just finishing reviewing many of the Mexico City documents for the first time. And of course it is very consistent with Peter Dale Scott’s work in Deep Politics II and III (which I heartily recommend). Personally I think there is little doubt that Angleton and CI/SIG were involved in a heavily compartmentalized operation involving Oswald. Whether that compartmentalization was for true operational (CI or psychops or both) remains open to question as does to what extent Fitzgerald and Phillips were also involved. Of course the ultimate question is whether it was “stolen” by the JFK plotters or whether it was created from scratch for use in the conspiracy. PDS clearly raises all three options and indeed if it were a true covert operation any of the three men could have “stolen” it. All three could have had much of the necessary information outlined by Newman. But as Newman points out, Angleton would have to have been involved in managing the CI/SIG and at a minimum lied about that and covered up Oswald’s use. Phillips’ efforts in his book to claim he had never even met Angleton suggest to me that there actually was a relationship and that certain activities involving the two had to be covered up. I totally agree with Newman’s summary paragraph and the fact that Angleton was involved in a CIA project involving Oswald. However, I don’t know if we can determine whether that was a brilliant CI/psychops operation that got hijacked or whether it was a brilliant ploy to manipulate government response to the assassination. If I were to bet, I would bet that it was a legitimate operation that was hijacked by some of the officers involved and aware of it, that Angleton realized that and preferred to cover up everything rather than damage his beloved Agency. I have no problem viewing Angleton as a villain, I’m not sure that I see him as the driving force behind the JFK conspiracy.

Hi John, thanks for the kind words. As to the highlighted text, all my studies suggest to me that there were certain officers whose convictions and pure hatred of anything they considered "Communist" that murder was certainly permitted, just as it would be in war - they certainly felt they were in a live, hot war - not a cold one. Morales is an example of such an officer. And these folks felt very strongly about "treason" as well. You have to assume that if senior officers were willing to eliminate foreign leaders who they felt were merely Communist dupes or enablers, they would have felt equally as strongly against any US leader they suspected would put the country itself at risk. It's back to the equation that for these folks national security becomes a moral imperative. On your "two sets of books" question. My best guess is that it was not nearly that structured. Legal and sanctioned missions were "deniable" but documented. After all we do have files on ZRRIFLE which was an executive action project. We might disagree with them but they were authorized. Then there were two other categories of operation: Vest Pocket - where a senior officer would merely give some rather vague directions, perform no documentation and then rely on subordinates to make it happen "off the book" - no project, no crypt, no documents. Well maybe a few documents but all in so called "soft files" sitting in an officers desk and not circulating throughout the system. Rogue - I believe but cannot document that certain officers were more than willing to wage their own private opearations, using untracable money and not agency resources (no vouchers, no documents). In these projects they used non-agency resources and non-employees (not even contract folks) - and often implied that they were real agency projects. I think we run into individuals who may well think they were working for the agency on real projects when it most certainly was not. Sorry for the long winded answer but that's the best insight I can offer, Larry

I present a number of incidents which implied that Oswald was either a paid agent of Castro or a political follower who was acting to somehow protect the Cuban revolution and Castro. As an example, the infamous Pedro Charles letters clearly suggest Oswald was following orders, had been in Cuba, that the Chief was well pleased and he would be rewarded when he made it back there. Hoover was initially very interested in that view and was for holding out for a possible Cuban involvement in the FBI report – that can be seen in FBI internal communications. Martino had tried the same pitch directly to the FBI immediately after the assassination. Later, in 1966, Roselli tried to float the story of Castro operatives and a hit team sent into the U.S. by Castro. My remarks about the Dallas attack requiring local intelligence was in regard to details of the motorcade, police assignments, security plans – and possibly even the identification of police who could be used for certain minor tasks. That sort of intelligence could only come from someone with a broad exposure to the force, including experience with officers considered “dirty” or open to supplying information for money or favors. Obviously, Jack Ruby was a perfect fit for such tasks. The fact that the extensive problems with the medical evidence remained obscure does not alter the fundamental problems with the official autopsy conclusions. Problems so severe that the Justice Department had to covertly prepare one of the autopsy doctors as a “backup” witness and hold him in readiness in New Orleans during the Garrison medical testimony. The point is that there are glaring problems which argue against a smoothly planned cover-up integrated with a well- oiled conspiracy. It’s also important to remember that in the face of gag orders, security oaths, burned notes and missing reports, individuals such as David Lifton and Harold Weisberg had been fighting through the quagmire for decades before the revealing work of the ARRB.

From what we now know of his phone calls, contacts and activities immediately following the assassination (starting with the calls that night from Johnson’s aide to a variety of law enforcement people, including orders not to file any charge of conspiracy against Oswald) it seems to me that Johnson immediately began to suppress any suggestion of a conspiracy. His motive for doing that is debatable and I present two scenarios: i) that Johnson was manipulated by events and ii) that Johnson had some level of pre-knowledge and was a willing or at least partially willing participant. For the second, speculative, scenario which does mention Fred Black, I use sources other than Baker’s book on the Baker scandal (certainly I would not consider him a reliable source on his own sins. More importantly, I discovered and present independent documentation of a possible connection between the Baker scandal, Fred Black and Johnson. That documentation is in the form of a Presidential Diary entry showing a meeting between Baker, Black, Johnson and a senior officer of the firm that was at the heart of the Baker influence pedaling scandal – the meeting occurred in Vice President Johnson’s office and there is no question that it connected Johnson to Black and presented the possibility of blackmail if the matter had been discussed with Black’s close personal friend, Johnny Roselli. I present Johnson’s efforts to first simply accept the Hoover FBI report with no independent investigation at all. Then I describe his effort to convene a Texas Court of Inquiry which would certify the FBI report. Both those efforts occurred well before Johnson was forced into the concept of a Congressional committee and much of it is recorded in meetings and telephone calls in his own office diary. Johnson, in dialog with Hoover, was certainly responsible for the FBI’s marching orders but I will certainly revisit the wording in this area and see if I can improve it. My view is that Johnson was very heavily involved in ensuring that the “lone nut” view was presented to the American public and that the FBI “conclusion” of Oswald acting as the sole participant ended up as the official history of the murder.. It was inaccurate of me to suggest that he personally controlled all the elements of the investigation.

My reference to Phillips and Morales as “generals” was to the ultimate degree of influence and positions of the two individuals. At the time of his early self- retirement, Phillips next promotion in the agency would have to have had Congressional approval, as do generals. However, as of 1963, both individuals were indeed simply in very key positions. As I demonstrate in the book, both were also very independent and would engage in actions during their careers that went far beyond their apparent charters and orders – Phillips was specifically cited in that regard by the Church Committee.) I’ll concede this point though and change my wording on this in the next edition. Actually it’s Roselli who described himself as a “strategist” and given his business dealings that seems fair. I certainly can visualize that he could have added a good deal of strategy to a criminal conspiracy where the key tactical people were experienced paramilitary. I do not see Roselli as the master conspirator nor the initiator - working from the bottom up with Martino’s information, I can only take it to a certain level and certain people.

My source for the Ruby meeting with Roselli is not all “American Mafioso” nor is that book the source for the fact that Roselli confessed his involvement in a conspiracy against JFK to his lawyer (that comes from “Sons and Brothers” by a reputable Kennedy historian, Richard Mahoney). Obviously I try to pick and choose the information I consider consistent or reasonable but certainly”American Mafioso” contains a great deal of research which it would be unreasonable to totally disregard. To be specific, I view Roselli and various criminal elements, including Ruby, in a strictly support role – not as organizers or instigators but rather as advisors and accessories available because of Roselli’s connections to key CIA officers.

I disagree with certain conclusions in “Ultimate Sacrifice”, something that I’ve discussed personally with Lamar. However, I do find new information in it – including the private statements by Harry Ruiz Williams about a backchannel approach to Cuban army commander Almeida (an approach known only to Williams and the Kennedy brothers) credible and informative.. Clearly JFK and his brother were very much involved in looking for paths to trigger a coup against Castro – we have more than enough hard information to document that. And I see no reason to call Mr. Williams a xxxx, especially as the documented call for Williams from RFK on the afternoon of his- JFK’s- assassination suggests there was something very important going on between the Kennedy’s and Williams.

Nagell’s story had already been told in detail by Dick Russell and others. Martino’s full story had not been told before, indeed nobody had realized that Martino was closely connected to CIA officer David Morales, even mentioning Morales by his real name in his book about Martino’s Cuban imprisonment. More importantly, Martino identified himself as being involved in the conspiracy, described his rather minor role and made a series of very specific statements about the conspiracy – which can be tested. A good portion of the book is structured to explore and evaluate those statements. In contrast Nagel made no direct observations about the Dallas conspiracy. He did state that he had become aware of a general plan to kill JFK and blame it on Castro a full year earlier in Mexico, that he observed Cuban exiles impersonating Castro agents in contact with Oswald and tried to warn Oswald off from them. The plot known to Nagell involved something planned to happen in September in or around Washington D.C.; Nagell himself was first on the run from Cuban exiles and then in jail in the weeks before Dallas. Martino himself described his participation in the conspiracy, his role as a courier and his prior knowledge of the conspiracy. A good deal of the book is devoted to testing his statements to that effect. I will acknowledge that there is ambiguity in my specific wording as to his telephone calls on November 22,, certainly his family was convinced that he was talking to Cuban friends, some in Miami and some most likely in Dallas. One of his good exile friends was admittedly in Dallas that day and Martino himself traveled to Dallas that fall. I will qualify this point in the next edition. The specification for Oswald’s first involvement with Cuban exiles and some sort of plot is based in statements made by Richard Nagell and supported by Nagell’s claim to have warned Director Hoover about a September incident and about Oswald. The corroboration is a series, not just one, of letters by Oswald on the subject of his planned relocation to the Baltimore area. Further corroboration comes from the FBI’s very early interrogation of Marina on Oswald’s possible travel not only to Mexico but also to the Northeast. Certainly Oswald did a lot of things in New Orleans. I do mention a number of them which seem relevant to his “use” in CIA propaganda efforts, ones well known to Guy Bannister and even the fact that Bannister’s agency had been evaluated as a front for CIA activities before the Bay of Pigs. In addition I present remarks by Oswald to a Cuban doctor at the hospital Jim mentions. I think all of that was quite key but I make no pretense of fully understanding everything that went on during Oswald’s time in New Orleans and focused on the elements that related to his contacts with Cubans, both pro- and anti- Castro Cubans. As to the exact timing of when Oswald’s manipulation began, that is not my speculation, rather it is specific information from Richard Nagell. My effort was to bring in information that would corroborate Nagell by investigation of exiles who would be possible matches for the types of people described by Nagell. Especially ones coming from Miami to New Orleans, as had Nagell himself.