Larry Hancock

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

Thanks James and Larry. Will look into that other name.

Just to be sure I didn't take Hersh out of context, here is the preceeding paragraph:

Trafficante normally spoke wiout a lot of passion, but that didn't mean it was a good idea to discount what he said. His reputaion

rested partly on rumors that he had engineered the extermination of the dreaded Albert Anastasia. Aleman passed trafficante's

threat (on JFK's life) along to his FBI handlers at the Miami Rield Office. Hoover had fair warning.

By November 1963, the structure of the attempt on JFK the Mob had in mind was very clearly prefigured. A scheduled November2

presidential visit to Chicago was abruptly canceled when officals discovered that "there were four men in town who planned an

assassination attempt from one of the overpasses from O'Hare into town. They were siezed but apparently not arrested." One of the

men, a seeminly hapless "Cuban agent referred to as Miguel Casas Saez," had reportedly gravitated to Tampa ahead of of the next

attempt on Kennedy's life (p.420).

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

Hi Robert,

I must admit to being confused about who the two Cubans were who visited Silvia Odio. So many differing sources identifying them as various people I don't know what to think!

In TMWKTM, Richard Nagell seemed to point towards Tony Cuesta being one of them (can't remember which one).

I have not read the updated version of AFTJ, I have the first edition but agree with your comments on it. I think the book received some very unfair criticism.

As to Lawrence Howard, yes he seems to have been involved a lot with Oswald imo. During the HSCA investigation, during questioning of the Clinton/Jackson witnesses, a place called Marydale Farm came up. Apparently quite a few Cubans worked there and Howard was identified by one of the locals as working on the farm in the period leading up to the assassination. The farm was owned by Clay Shaw's friend Lloyd Cobb. I don't think the HSCA followed up on this though.

I had read about Shaw owning a Rambler in an article by Walt Brown. What exactly does John Armstrong say about it? Does he have any more details on this?

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

Hi Larry,

Many thanks for your quick comeback.

From your first edition I knew your book deals with many of the details at the bottom of the chain while David Talbot deals primarily with the top of the pyramid.

I just learned I could order your extremely important book Someone Would Have Talked from my local Borders Books, as I was under the false impression it was only available via Lancer on line.

I'm not surprised that your updated version zeros in on the same suspects mentioned in Talbot's Brothers.

While I haven't heard from them in awhile, I look forward to hearing from Newman, Rex Bradford and Stu, and I thought of another document guy in your class, Doug Horne, who has already checked in on Bugliosi. I'd like to hear from them all on Talbot.

BK

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

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

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

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

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

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

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.

Larry, is there any evidence that MI ever approached any individuals from such lists for use in any operations?

Who was Philips working under at the time of his sting (my first thought was Tracy Barnes, but on checking, he took over the DOD in '62)?

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.

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.

- LH

Thanks 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

Perhaps this is the real reason the FPCC collapsed after the assassination?

From "Low Intensity Operations" by Frank Kitson pp 88-89:

It is far easier to penetrate a subversive movement [which uses] non-violent means than it is when the movement is wholly clandestine because of the number of people overtly involved. Although this cannot be a reason for containing it in this form indefinitely, it is worth considering whether it should be broken up before some headway has been made towards discovering the identity of the people who are really behind it

In June 30, 1961. The MSC. received a list of 230 FPCC members from R.J. Strickland, Chief Investigator of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee. (I have trouble finding out if even a relative is coming on a flight. This man had access to full planeload lists. Would this have been easy in the 60's?)

- JD

According 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

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

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

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

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.

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

As your book points out, RFK was right on the money almost immediately:

"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."

-- go get 'em, Larry

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

Not that it doesn't fit Ron - but again in my opinon the things that really fit and class as major diversions are:

1. The stalled pick up under the overpass which distracted officers for a good hour before the motorcade.

2. The ambulance call to Elm and Houston which distracted everyone in the area for

about 15 min right up to the arrival of the motorcade.

3. A first shot that made the SS detail look back over their shoulders

just as they entered the kill zone.

4. The "beret" man waving on the sidewalk which clearly drew Greers eyes

immediately afterwards

5. The smoke and noise from the grassy knoll that drew everyone there after the shooting.

Those are my picks for major diversions; I'm guessing the shooter on the south knoll

was not just inserted there at the last minute nor the last hour.

-- Larry

Larry,

In a nutshell, we have evidence that the fatal head shot came from the area of the south end of the overpass. This source of the shot was persuasively argued by Al Carrier, and is also now the opinion of blood spatter expert Sherry Gutierrez. Now consider that we have a bunch of people on the north end, who would unwittingly distract attention from the south end, and we have a police officer who sees a non-existent train that blocks his view of the south end.

It all fits pretty neatly, doesn't it?

Ron