Larry Hancock

Myra, my answer is a bit less global in scope than the others but it would also be yes. However it would be very specific and involves the names in the chapter of my last appendix on a small clique in the CIA. I'm virtually certain that it was the broader drug/arms "network" which served as the incubator and shield for the people who murdered JFK; without its power they might not have had the means, even if they had the will. Don't think just drugs though, think drugs and arms...the two go hand in hand with these folks. The weapons buy the political influence the want and the drugs fund the power game. -- Larry

Just curious, are there no legal implications at all for the individuals or agency in regard to witholding this information from Congress and various Congressional inquiries. Can they deny they have it, say so under oath and then a few years later say...oh yeah, we just didn't happen to mention these documents when you asked for them....

A couple of comments for Herb and for Francesca, Herb, I'm certainly not entirely discounting Hunt at this point....we are going to have speakers in Dallas in November who should be able to add a good deal to the origin of Hunt's comments, prior to St. John's involvement, and that will be quite important. I'm skeptical about a couple of the names such as Meyer, that almost strikes me as something from one of Hunt's novels....jilted CIA husband kills wife's lover...who happens to be President. However, the Corsican involvement is still open to further exploration. As I recall, French intelligence was the source for the alibi's for a couple of the names tossed out on that and of course the SDECE is never going to admit assets they once used in any fashion could even potentially be involved. It is important to recall that Hunt was well acquainted with Lucian Conein and if anybody was in position to shop a hit to the Gurini family it would have been Conein or one of the other old CIA vets of the SE Asia golden triangle. For those of you who have my book, I would recommend rereading the chapters on the Kirknewton intercept...which very well could have involved some drug network gossip about a Gurini or Venturi contract... as well as the final chapter on a small clique in the CIA which definitely suggests some names from SE Asia who had the right connections to bring in Corsicans. It's early days yet...much to learn about all this. Larry

Mark, hopefully my reply to Myra will give you what you need as well. If not or if either of you have more questions don't hesitate to post or email if you prefer. You might also want to check out Glen Sample's web site for The Men on the Sixth Floor, a search will find it for you and you will find some key documents there. -- Larry

Myra, I do mention it briefly in the book - but I cover it in depth in the two white papers on Estes/Carter/Wallace that are in the white paper section of this forum. There are at least two individuals on record as having heard Cliff Carter describe to Estes his participation in a conspiracy, taking orders from Johnson and involving Malcolm Wallace. At one point Estes even offered this to the Justice Department - before backing out. Unfortunately, in his final self-published book, Estes does a lot to muddy the waters on all this, even denying one of these sources. However there seems to be good reason to belive Carter did make the remarks - shortly before his somewhat mysterious death. In addition to the white papers I would refer you to Glen Sample's book The Men on the Sixth Floor. I'd also refer you to a source book on the whole thing but it has not been distributed in the US and not in English. -- hope that at least takes you in the right direction, Larry

I'd suggest that Jack P. may not be suspicious in and by himself...but recall that he was reporting to Cliff Carter daily and that Cliff did go to Dallas in advance as well. Given that Carter was LBJ's advance man of choice, ask why they picked Jack to advance Dallas (having no experience in Texas politics at all) and not Cliff himself (Johnson's lead aide in Texas politics). One answer would be that he functioned as a nice cut-out, being privy to all the motorcade and security planning without being involved as a matter of record - Jack gets called to provide testimony, Cliff stays in the background. Interesting to recall that Carter is also supposedly on tape admitting to a conspiracy... -- Larry

James, Bolden heard Gonzalez mentioned as one of the suspects, apparently one of the two that got away. He briefly saw the one individual taken into custody and described him as "swarthy and stocky", five foot nine or so, dark hair in a crew cut. -- Larry

James, that is correct, it was a CIA report. However there are follow on reports inside the CIA that looked into it and found it to be highly unlikely and actually question where the information originated. Independent researchers who have looked into it also find schedule issues and other problems. It's a lot like the story about luggage with Oswald's name found at the Mexico City airport...makes a very interesting story but when you look for what's behind the smoke you find.........mirrors...grin. -- Larry

Thanks Nathaniel, looks like that might be the hardcover first edition reference? If so it translates to page 247 in the second edition. In any event, looking at Lamar's primary reference, it is to the CIA document on Saez which makes no specific mention of the Chicago JFK trip, only mentioning that Saez had been in Chicago. Actually when push comes to shove it appears the CIA report was mirroring an INS memo that said he might have been in Chicago. And indeed all the most suspicious and inflammatory reports about him as a Castro agent do come from Morales' AMMOT intelligence network. Strangely the CIA does not seem to have, at the time brought in the FBI on an alert that a dangerous Cuban intel agent was traveling through Miami, Chicago, New York, etc. And eventually, even the broader base of CIA analysts seem to have become suspicious of the reports, refusing to substantiate some of them....I would also note others including one that he showed up back in Cuba with large quantities of American made t-shirts, jackets and shoes as suggesting that if anything he was more likely into smuggling than assassination. The CIA report does include the other name that James cited and at first I thought that might be a clue to something new in that it would match one name recalled by Bolden in Chicago...but that was "Gonzalez" - so no match there. At this point, unless we find something new or until I get to ask the author, it looks to me like this is perhaps a generalization and that there is nothing specific (nor even credible) to tie Saez to the incident described by Bolden in Chicago...which I do happen to think was real and significant in terms of showing that the FBI was aware of some radical exiles that were indeed stalking JFK. -- Larry

Nathaniel, does he give any reference or citation to the Chicago incident. We need to know if he is writing from all the JFK literature about the Bolden information on Chicago or if Hersh has original sources -- the Bolden material certainly does not name Miguel Casas Saez and if he has connected that to another name that is mentioned then I hope he has an end note on it. -- thanks for looking, Larry

First, the easy answer, WH designates the Western Hemisphere focused segment of the Agency (vs. European/Soviet etc). Definitely Agency and not Bobby, virtually all the names we normally are interested in as far as CIA staff were under the Western Hemisphere umbrella. I'll be fascinated to find if Hersh found a solid source for the names of those taken into custody in Chicago (not arrested actually, no record of charges unless he has located something in the Chicago PD files, a possiblity of course). That would be really big news. I recall looking into the intel sources on Saez and everything I could find pointed towards Morales AM/MOT organization...which I certainly belive was feeding in bogus data to point certain people towards Castro at that point. I have recently come across documents showing that Barker and Sturgis had shown up on a list that caused them to be investigated as Castro agents during the last half of 1963....no sign of that having any truth at all. But possibly convenient. This is a very interesting area for study though because there are suggestions that Hoover may have had far more serious warning of plots in action than we have known in the past...in any event, Hersh has approached Lancer and he will likely be speaking in Dallas in November. I'll certainly be looking into his Saez information in detail and will report back to the forum on it. -- Larry

Jim, a good catch but I also think it further illustrate's Bugliosi's management of information. Surely if he had read Hosty's book or talked with Hosty himself he would know that Hosty feels that a great deal of information about Oswald was suppressed, that evidence was removed from the record pertaining to Oswald's contacts in Mexico City, etc. Indeed Hosty states (and I have heard him do so in person) that that the MC investigation itself was gutted in regard to Oswald's contacts and that he was very likely being manipulated by others e.g. some sort of conspiracy was involved. Jim suspects the Cubans but of course the real point is he does suspect conspiracy and Bugliosi should be obligated to report on that. Hosty also accuses Hoover and the FBI of manipulating his own files and statements on the case. If Bugliosi does not comment fully on Hosty in the book, at least in an end note, he is certainly not doing a fair job. -- Larry

Well at least, unlike the Warren Commission, we know three people that they were not. The FBI showed pictures of Howard, Hall and Seymour to Sylvia and her sister who specifically said that none of them matched their three visitors. Of course the FBI conveniently decided not to share this information when telling the WC that indeed it was all a mistake and the visitors were Hall, Howard and Seymour. -- Larry

Thanks Bill, actually the second edition takes things a bit further based on some key new information and some new names - Henry Hecksher, Carl Jenkins, Gene Wheaton plus considerable documentation on Werbell's relationship with CIA circa 62-63 (not what one might suspect). More importantly, I was able to pull together a number of documents provided me by Larry Haapenan (who generally seems to have been everywhere I go, years before) to develop an additional appendix titled "A Small Clique in the CIA". It is built around the truly mysterious death of Garett Underhill - which I feel to be very significant in understanding the network (or "nest") which allowed the conspiracy to develop. On a related note, the book is available though Borders, Amazon and the web site. It has done relatively well on Amazon - nothing like "Brothers" of course but did manage to hold in the 4 - 10,000 range for several weeks. -- Larry

Bill, the following is from Talbot: "Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba." Anyone reading my book will find that the leaks, gossip, insider remarks and the documentation that corroborates them points to exactly the same group of suspects. Time after time. And each year we get more documents to corroborate the informants and sources that point in that direction. What we don't get is any of the media types or investigative journalists that are willing to deal with it. And we get Vince B writing off Martino's remarks as hallucination based on his medical connection...without contacting the family or providing any data at all to support that speculation (I have; they don't). ...probably enough said from me, Larry This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good. Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book. Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges. One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances. I believe the documentary record supports David Talbot's view, and the view of RFK, LBJ, Stockdale and others that there not only was a conspiracy, but it was a high level coup d'etat, connected to the CIA-Mob-anti-Catstro Cuban nexus. The minutes of the National Security Council that approved the supposidly covert Cuban commando missions mentions many of those suspected as being behind Dealey Plaza and I'm sure there are other unreleased records that are being surpressed for a reason. The best JFK document specialists I know - John Newman, Rex Bradford, Larry Hancock and Stu Wexler are all much more familiar with the documentary record than I am, and I would like to hear from them as to whether Talbot's perspective of the assassination is supported by the available records. I'd also like to hear what David has to say about this. Thanks, Bill Kelly

Bill, the following is from Talbot: "Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba." Anyone reading my book will find that the leaks, gossip, insider remarks and the documentation that corroborates them points to exactly the same group of suspects. Time after time. And each year we get more documents to corroborate the informants and sources that point in that direction. What we don't get is any of the media types or investigative journalists that are willing to deal with it. And we get Vince B writing off Martino's remarks as hallucination based on his medical connection...without contacting the family or providing any data at all to support that speculation (I have; they don't). ...probably enough said from me, Larry This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good. Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book. Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges. One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances. I believe the documentary record supports David Talbot's view, and the view of RFK, LBJ, Stockdale and others that there not only was a conspiracy, but it was a high level coup d'etat, connected to the CIA-Mob-anti-Catstro Cuban nexus. The minutes of the National Security Council that approved the supposidly covert Cuban commando missions mentions many of those suspected as being behind Dealey Plaza and I'm sure there are other unreleased records that are being surpressed for a reason. The best JFK document specialists I know - John Newman, Rex Bradford, Larry Hancock and Stu Wexler are all much more familiar with the documentary record than I am, and I would like to hear from them as to whether Talbot's perspective of the assassination is supported by the available records. I'd also like to hear what David has to say about this. Thanks, Bill Kelly

Greg, in doing some checking it appears that AM/SANTA actually kicked off operationally as early as December 1962, so I magine that somebody was looking at list's back in 1961. And as far as I know, AM/SANTA was generally not known to us until last year - 2006; I really have not seen any discussion of it in print outside my book. Which suggests that there could well be other projects we don't know about. The same goes for Castro assassination projects; we picked up knowledge of three more of them only in the last year or so. -- bottom line, there is still a lot of Cuban secret war history coming into view. Larry Larry, this is very enlightening. Your book is on my Christmas Wish list, but in the meantime, your patience in answering these questions is much appreciated. Since MI started collating these lists in 1960, is it likely in your opinion, that individuals on them were used in similar fashion prior to 1963 - perhaps under some other operational code name?

Greg, the FPCC incident occured when Phillips was assigned to WH/4/Propaganda for the Cuba project; he was working in DC at that point before he relocated to Miami. From an organizational stand point he was under Bissell but Bissell was leaving most of his operational chores to Barnes. It also appears that Phillips worked in tandom with Hunt on certain propaganda tasks and in exile leadership contacts...as you know he eventually took Hunt's place as lead political contact prior to the BOP. On your second question, there is no indication that MI contacted any of the people on the list - they were really just into data collection. On the other hand they shared their lists with FBI and CIA and there is one example I discuss in the book of an FBI operation that was going on in 1963 which used individuals with FPCC connections as penetration agents into Cuba. In fact these folks were briefed by CIA and apparently managed some really solid intel work, even taking photos for purported propaganda purposes which were really data collection for the CIA. You will find this operation in the index, look for AM/SANTA. Interestingly Oswald would have been an almost perfect fit for AM/SANTA. -- Larry

Greg, I definitely agree with your point and suspect the FPCC was penetrated from the very beginning - if not actively organized by intel connected individuals. On the chart...my mistake...its not on the site; may have been just too darn big to display correctly, I'll check. But here are some details: Documents show that as far back as 60-61 the 111th MIG was compiling a list of all persons going to or from Cuba...(special note was taken if they showed any signs of associating with the FPCC). The other MIG's were very likely doing the same thing. In early 61 David Phillips set up the first sting against the FPCC using an individual that was connected to a newly forming chapter. In May of 61 the FBI ran a leadership disruption campaign against the FPCC, mailing conflicting material in an effort to stir up ill will and in December of the same year they conducted a disinformation mailing program against the membership. And in the fall of 63, as Newman discoverd, the CIA and FBI were cooperating in a new effort against the FPCC outside the US and the CIA requested FBI obtain and provide names and addresses for that effort. - LHThanks Larry. My point was that Lee lied. If, as I believe, the FPCC was either set up, or infiltrated at the very start, for the purpose of counter-intelligence operations, being able to easily identify supporters via membership list or mailing lists would be one purpose. I couldn't find the appropriate chart on your website. Can you tell me when MI target lists of those traveling to (or attempting to) travel to Cuba began to be collected - was it prior to the travel ban instituted on Feb 1963?

The FPCC office was black bagged on at least one occasion in the fall of 1963 to produce mailing addresses for a new CIA project going into action against them outside the U.S. That appears to be the reason the FBI had Oswald's letter to the FPCC in their possession at the time of the assassination. But beyond that the regional military intelligence organizations were maintaining lists of FPCC members that they could identify as well as target lists of individuals traveling to or attempting to travel to Cuba. If you check the events diagrams/charts on the SWHT web site you will see references to the various anti-FPCC projects and the book has end notes identifying the military intel sources for this tracking. -- Larry - JDAccording to Lee, there were no membership lists kept, and not even a proper mailing list: Mr. LEE - Well, it is like I say. As for membership, this is an almost impossible situation in view of the fact that we didn't conduct a membership file or a duplicate membership card system and we just had mailing lists. In fact the mailing lists-- even the mailing lists wouldn't tell very much, if anything, and that was just a case, anybody who thought somebody should receive a communication gave the name of somebody, in fact for now deceased Governor Lehman was on that list, Senators and Congressmen were placed on the mailing list, everybody and his brother who we thought should be---well, we thought some reason should receive the material which we sent out, we just sent material. It could be anybody. And like I say, stuff went to all over the country, just automatically, just did large mailings to every place we could think of, dream of or hope for in any of our activities of mailing.

Hey Bill, once you have his attention don't forget to tell him that the fellow, Cliff Carter, who Jack P. had been updating on the trip and who had also been in Dallas before hand, was the fellow that started the calls to all the law enforcement folks Friday night ordering them not to file conspiracy charges...if they had a problem he offered to get LBJ on the phone to help them get in line. That might help peak a little discussion for the next round... -- Larry Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris. Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more? This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda. Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible. Punch & Judy show. Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will. I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route. Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer. Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level. The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again. The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere. A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon. BK Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!'' Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act. Yo! Miles, You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ? I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government." He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well. I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue. He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?" And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then). And take a sip of my drink. I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style. The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one. If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions. It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous. BK

John, we did several press releases and sent out a host of press notices to individuals. Lancer even used a commercial press service. Review copies were sent out to selected individuals although not in great numbers. There were a few newspaper stories including one in Dallas, a few reviews - one Blog review got substantial distribution on the internet. However, without being a known media name like David or a known name period like Bugliosi... Actually I'm not sure a big name publisher would have made that much difference, might have helped in book store stocking but as far as the media is concerned I'm afraid my book is i) way too hard a read, ii) way too detailed and iii) not from an estblished author with a string of successful books. My hope is more that it will serve as back up for what Talbot is doing and as a resource for real historians...some of whom I am in contact with. It is also being used in a few college history courses; I spoke at one for about half a day last week. -- Larry

John, I'm told that I also have the honor of having totally escaped the notice of Mr. Bugliosi. Not that I'm complaining since I don't generally enjoy being called names and having my ethics and paternity questioned...but it might also reflect that Vince's research is lagging just a bit behind the times in regard to the documents and oral histories that I present. Then again, considering how he savaged Doug Horne - someone who is ethically and logically extremely accurate, objective and responsible and one of my personal heros... perhaps I should just keep a low profile....nah.... Would be nice to at least have his readers know about what's in SWHT though, especially since he goes to such great lengths to claim nobody ever did. -- Larry

Thanks for the kind words Mike, I have to admit that I'm not reading Bugliosi although I am following posts on his book. One of the things that bothers me is that he seems to have broken with some of the investigative instincts he used earlier in his career. For example he has unkind remarks in his Manson book for several LAPD detectives who did not do their homework throughly enough and settled for easy, pat reports...he points out that he had to tell them to dig further. He also recounts key Manson witnesses that were initially rejected for minor inconsistencies or because pieces of the big picture were missing. He also points out the mistakes Wolfer, their criminalist, made in evidence evaluation - but that was only visible when confessions of the parties involved were actually made. He seems to bring nothing of this perspective to his JFK work, relying on assertions and sarcasm (along with his name) to carry the day. He apparently feels that Martino was hallucinating in his remarks which were taken to the HSCA, because of illness. Yet he did not confirm any aspects of Martino's health at that time with the family (I have; he wasn't and indeed was still making business trips to Guatemala, explaining why he was in touch with his business partner to make the remarks he made). The he ties up the package with reference to Matino saying he had seen Oswald in Miami...when Oswald was supposed to be in Dallas. Of course numerous people placed Oswald in Miami..that was part of the set up to pitch him being in contact with Castro and Castro agents. From Buglio's viewpoint it allows him to discard Martino; with a fuller view to what was going on it can actually be seen as corroboration. I don't flatter myself in thinking I could successfully debate an experienced criminal court lawyer - but I think I could fall out on a position that John Newman has used in similar situations - he simply points out to the LN party that they don't have a full knowledge of all the relevant facts - and they will not find it in the material offered to the WC. Making an arguement on WC data is circular. Making an arguement based on the FBI investigation is also circular since it was ordered to focus on convincing the public that Oswald acted as a lone nut and had no connections to anyone else. End of story. -- Larry

Bill, one of the things we now know about Sforza is that he operated under deep cover in Cuba for some years after the Castro revolution...and his primary cover seems to have been as a gambler - possibly using the name Frank Stephens. If so we now know he was associated with at least one serious Castro assassination attempt - that's one of the new ones I made reference to in my other Talbot thread post. Apparently he was deep enough to stay in Cuba even as both Morales and Phillips were compromised and had to get out of the country before the end of 1959. Morales himself had the bad luck of showing up on a Batista secret police ID list that Castro's intel folks dug up. It also appears that Sforza was close enough to Morales to actually take over as case officer for the AMOT's after his return; the AMOTS were Morales personal and very covert exile intelligence service that he kept working in Miami even after the BOP....lots of new information on that in my book (courtesy of Malcolm Blunt). In any event, this particular document relates to an exfiltration that Morales was going to organize out of Florida, Sforza was coming out to Mexico City supposedly on a visit but was to carrying details on the operation that would be passed via Phillips to Morales. This shows the ongoing cooperation between the two even with Morales in Miami and Phillips in MC. My speculation given some other background on Sforza is that this particular exfiltration - which was very high profile - may have been related to getting Castro's sister out of Cuba in support of the AMWORLD project (Phillips was the only officer in Mexico City cleared for AMWORLD). On a side note, it's amazing to me in reading Talbot's work to realize how quickly that RFK intuitively understood the mix of characters who were involved in the Dallas attack. I just wish we could give him what we have now....on the other hand if we could send it back in time there might really be blood in the streets.