Larry Hancock

Thank you Pat...I'll try to work that word into the day's conversation in order to claim it...grin.

I'll have to admit it does "bug" me a bit that Mr. Bubliosi doesn't seem to be familiar

with some of the credible people whose remarks have surfaced only in the last decade.

Then again I'm not reading his book at present so perhaps those who are will tell us differently as the

progress through his 1,900 pages....

-- Larry

Pat, it's the sort of totally independent corroboration that is key. Gaeton Fonzi was unable to find out

anything about "the big indian", the CIA totally stonewalled him and the HSCA as it had Garrison. Now

we know the facts about Morales. But then even a senior officer in a key position (Jenkins) was totally unknown

to us. Then what happens, within the last couple of years it turns out that Carl Jenkins was also

a key officer and now we have documents it was his operation that actually developed and launched

very real Castro assassination projected before the BOP...independently of the Roselli efforts. But

nobody had any idea of Jenkin's importance.

Some very important history is turning up in these documents and its real history. These people

were there, they were very important and they ran very real black operations. Combine Morales

remarks about JFK with Wheaton's information from Jenkins talking about the CIA officer/exile

involvement in eliminating JFK - and I have to have to ask why we should just not belive what these people

were saying?

-- Larry

Wait.. it sounds like you're saying SOMEONE TALKED... LOL. That "someone would have talked" argument has always annoyed the heck out of me...it's so willfully ignorant. Even worse, however, is the Hoover/Warren/Posner/Jennings/Myers/Bugliosi "not one scintilla" argument. What a load! As an homage to your book I think I'll rename my webpage "Scintilla."

Pat, it's the sort of totally independent corroboration that is key. Gaeton Fonzi was unable to find out

anything about "the big indian", the CIA totally stonewalled him and the HSCA as it had Garrison. Now

we know the facts about Morales. But then even a senior officer in a key position (Jenkins) was totally unknown

to us. Then what happens, within the last couple of years it turns out that Carl Jenkins was also

a key officer and now we have documents it was his operation that actually developed and launched

very real Castro assassination projected before the BOP...independently of the Roselli efforts. But

nobody had any idea of Jenkin's importance.

Some very important history is turning up in these documents and its real history. These people

were there, they were very important and they ran very real black operations. Combine Morales

remarks about JFK with Wheaton's information from Jenkins talking about the CIA officer/exile

involvement in eliminating JFK - and I have to have to ask why we should just not belive what these people

were saying?

-- Larry

Ussepa Island is off the coast of Florida.

Jose Basulto received part of his training there.

James

You're correct as usual. James. Hernandez said it was off the coast of New Orleans, but then said "I don't know where it was." I googled it and the source of his confusion became clear. While off the coast of Florida, Useppa is not in the keys. It is far up the western coast of Florida in the gulf, near Tampa Bay. It is almost equidistant between Miami and New Orleans. This puts it in Trafficante country, not Marcello country.

From wiki: "When tarpon fishing became popular in the 1880s, Chicago businessman John Roach established a resort on Useppa. Barron Collier bought the island in 1911, but the hotel was damaged by the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, and was torn down after World War II. William Snow bought the island in 1962 and refurbished its decaying buildings, initiating a recovery in Useppa's tourism industry."

Does anyone know much about Baron Collier or his family?. Apparently they owned the island in 61. What about William Snow? Was he a legit businessman? Or was he a front for someone else?

Larry, does connecting Hernandez to Jenkins help clarify a possible conspiracy? Does it bring any of your strongest suspects into contact with Jenkins, and complement Wheaton's statements?

I think Pat's find is very significant for a variety of reasons.

First, we leaned from both Carlos and Victor Hernandez that certain individuals were taken out of the

regular Brigade training that was going on outside New Orleans...and although the CIA tried to run

a cover that they were utinmanageable personnel, Victor Hernandez blew that with his statements

that they were taken to a safe house, then given special training and then sent into Cuba on

a mission peripheral to the Bay of Pigs invasion force.

Second, we know from Jenkins records and other sources that the did covert, infiltration training and among

other things actually ran Castro assassination missions in an attempt to take out Fidel prior to the BOP.

Thrid, all of this ties exactly to Op 40 and Morales AM/MOT intelligence and political team that was sent into

the BOP on a peripheral mission and most of whom did not land.

I'm forced to the conclusion that Jenkins was actually running operations in with Morales trainees and the

two must have known each other well.

So far everything Wheaton surfaced to the ARRB about comments he heard from Jenkins and his special

exile associates has checked out...now including his reference to Jenkins having connections to operations outside

New Orleans. It seems to me we should take their reported comments about the JFK conspiracy and the people

who were sent to Dallas very seriously.

Thanks much Pat, great work!

-- Larry

I was just reading the 1978 HSCA testimony of Carlos Hernandez on Larry Hancock's

cd rom (which I recently re-found). (Chapter 5, Exhibit 2) On page 42 and

43, he identifies Carl Jenkins as the agent in charge of an infiltration

training camp based on Usepa Island, off the coast of New Orleans. He

adds that Jenkins was using the name Carl James.

This supports Gene Wheaton's statements about Jenkins' connections to the anti-Castro community and New Orleans..

Larry Hancock has confirmed that he hadn't read Hernandez' testimony since the recent interest in Jenkins (had any of us?). He will be adding this information to his website..

James, I think we can confirm a few points in that:

Ohare did secure a good bit of land in Florida.....the date was in the late 60's as I recall, but much of the funding was private

and later resulted in a legal mess. A facility, mainly an airfield was built there, and some flights did start going in and out of

the place, apparently to Latin America. There was also some contention drugs were coming back. And people involved in it did

say he had pull with the Fla. Air National Guard. Afterwards there was a belief he had scammed folks into thinking it was an

Agency operation when it was not.

As to dispersing money to Cuesta....well we know Cuesta and Alpha 66 were not excited about taking Agency money and wanted

little to do with Alpha. If Phillips/Bhishop was being used as a cut out to deceive them perhaps Ohare/Bishop was too....and he

may have been even more disassociated from the Agency than Sturgis? Would be interesting to know where the money came from...

-- Larry

According to some men who knew him, Col. Bishop was not his real name and he wasn't a Colonel. His real name was John Adrian O'Hare. These men were under the impression that he was a WW2 and Korean War veteran.

At the time he was a Master Sergeant in the Air Force Reserves and in 1964, led the Air Commandos.

In 1963 using the Bishop alias, he was involved with supporting anti-Castro activity. The main group he delt with was Tony Cuesta and Commandos L. He would meet either Tony Cuesta or Ramon Font at various safe houses around Southern Florida and disperse funds that were spent on equipment maintenance and on raids into Cuba.

O'Hare was also in contact with General Francisco Tabernilla who back in the early 1950's, was one of Batista's guys. Serving as Tabernilla's general assistant was a General named Eulogio Cantillo. Cantillo's son is Amado Cantillo who was one of Rip Robertson's frogmen during the Bay of Pigs and a very experienced pilot.

Robertson, Cantillo, Tony Izquierdo and several others were responsible for many sabotage acts against Cuban targets during the summer of 1963.

The money for these missions was dispersed by O'Hare.

In 1966, O'Hare secured 21,000 acres of Florida swampland and transformed it into a training facility for all facets of the military who were given extra jungle warfare instruction before heading off to Vietnam.

O'Hare was also on first name terms with Florida Governor Reubin Askew.

This information came from men who knew O'Hare and I have no real way to verify its accuracy. I thought some forum members might find it of interest.

The image below shows John Adrian O'Hare on the right. The kid on the left is his son, Tom.

FWIW.

James

Charles, I'm not sure of the actual availability of Bugliosi but I think that Amazon does take "preorders" and counts those in

purchase / positioning numbers you are seeing....I've been seeing purchase numbers for Bugliosi for at least a week.

-- Larry

I'll chime in with a few of points for anyone who tends to dismiss Garriosn:

1. He undoubtedly demonstrated that the Lee Oswald was not the disconnected, lone nut that

he was prestented to be by the WC.... Garrison surfaced a variety of leads showing that Oswald was

immeshed in a variety of "games" with both the right and the left. That this scared both the FBI and

CIA significantly can be seen in the Justice Departments illegal, covert contact and support of Shaw's

defense team and the CIA's Garrison team, set up strictly to block Garrison form access to information

about Agency contacts and assets.

2. We can only speculate why at the first CIA Garrison Group team meeting, Angleton's representative

opened the meeting by telling the group that Garrison would successfully demonstrate Shaw was

involved in conspiracy (not the murder of the President necessarily but some sort of conspiracy).

3. Garrison was successfully diverted and his exile investigations were undermined by the actions

of Bernardo de Torres....who effectively sabotaged Garrisons first press meeting (among other

things) by going to the press independently and focusing media attention on a photo misdirection

relating to the leafleting incident .

4. Garrison was aslo diverted onto some very real plans by ultra right radicals who were definitely

discussing the assassination of JFK other major figures. This diversion cost him a large portion of

his available time and resources.

All in all, given Garrison's minimal resources, its amazing he managed to pull together as much

as he did...especially being stonewalled and undermined by numerous parties with their own

agendas....including two goverment agencies (Justice and CIA) with far more resources than

a poor DA could muster.

-- Larry

Does anyone else think its just a little strange that Hunt would be invited to join a

conspiract to kill the President, be told who was behind it and the names of several

key people organizing it - then back out and tell the guys no thanks....and not only

not meet with an accident ...but rather also be told the name of the shooter and where

the shooter was going to be recruited?

Don't we usually talk about all this being compartmentalized...not to mention mystery

deaths for people that would only have known a tiny part of what Howard claims to

have known and just walked away ....being trusted to keep it to himself, not leverage it or

to spill the beans when he was out drinking or something (not unknown for Hunt).

-- Larry

Francesca, looks to me that Morgan would have been gone from Japan before Nagell showed up...

Certainly Morgan was a highly visible name in the press given his fighting with Castro and then his

arrest and execution; sort of hard for me to see how Bishop would have met him in person or gotten

a referral and telephone number circa 1961.

-- Larry

And taking Francesca's post as an example, the following off a quick NARA search would also seem to raise

some doubts about Bishop as a deep, covert CIA employee circa 1961:

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER : 104-10071-10342

RECORDS SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : CHIEF, MIAMI FIELD OFFICE

TO : CHIEF, CONTACT DIVISION/SUPPORT BR.

TITLE : C.W.BISHOP (AKA WILLIAM BISHOP) /POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS

AGAINST CIA

DATE : 05/09/1961

PAGES : 3

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : BISHOP, C. W.

CLASSIFICATION : CONFIDENTIAL

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/31/1993

COMMENTS : JFK15 : F12 : 1993.07.31.10:49:49:500032 :

Great work Francesca, a very important post. Someone may have posted that before but I didn't pay

nearly enough attention.

So it seems that in January, 1961, shortly before the BOP, Bishiop is an outsider, attempting to

contact a number of parties including the CIA in getting some support for one of the exile groups that is not

playing in the preparations for the invasion and which has been rejected by Varona.

He goes to a CIA contact employee who doesn't think he has anything of value and is poorly informed -

and who apparently finds that he has a prior history of trying to contact the FBI with a variety of information.

Certainly makes him sound like an "opportunist" with no super deep agency or

MI contacts - and nobody to give him a solid introduction to the right people. It's this sort of thing

that worries me about all those "facts" in the namebase entry John posted...

-- thanks, Larry

It's my understanding that Gary had his files up for sale, at least at one time. He is still living in Texas so anyone

with serious interest might be able to reach him. He did supply a variety of materal to Noel and to Dick and Dick in

turn was kind enough to copy his for me. The problem is that much, if not most of it, has only one source e.g.

Bishop himself. That is true for his file address cards and a great deal of interviews that he did.

The only thing I recall that is not directly from Bishop is a series of newspaper and magazine articles from another source

which relate to an apparent smuggling scam he was involved in years after the BOP in Florida.

The challenge is not determining what Bishop says about himself - which seems to be mainly what John posted from

namebase - its determining what of it is true. There are far more actual documents about Tosh, again the problem

is that most of them reflect his approaches to and follow up reports by the FBI and are not independently verified.

I have no doubt both were involved in interesting things, how they relate to Dallas remains unclear to me.

Being the conservative type I am, its all very interesting but I haven't seen any sign that anyone has been able to

do much more with Bishop beyond the material that Gary collected and the address checking from his note cards

that Noel did and that I did independently which at least shows he was associated with Hargraves circa 1963.

If anyone has more I'd love to see it.. Larry

I'm faimiliar with the namebase info that John posted by my impression was that virtually all of itwas sourced from Bishop himself?

It would be really helpful if you three or anyone else could bullet out the points in it which have been independently

corroborated or verified.

About the only thing I'm sure about from third party data is that he clearly did know some of the folks involved in the initial

BOP project and had gotten some introductions from JMWAVE staff to Guard or Reserve contacts in Florida - mostly

because in later years he seems to have used these contacts in some smuggling scams. I can also verify from checking

out address entries in his notebooks that he did indeed know some of the Interpen folks. I'd just like to know what else about

what is in namebase is actually true vs. just being picked up from book entries.

-- Larry

Sorry Steve, nothing from me on Frank.....for me though Ruby's 1963 contacts with McWillie, his October call to Matthews wife,

his reported low profile trip to Vegas circa Nov 18 and the November visit from Gruber (LA) and November 22 call to Gruber

seem to be key elements of Ruby's involvement.

If anyone wants to do some solid background work, digging up more info on Gruber's history and associates in L.A. would be extremely valuable.

-- Larry

To complement Jame's post, Weiner was a silent minor investor in the Deauville Hotel and Casino in Havana (it was that

investment that he tried to conceal from the HSCA). And of course there are a number of intersting names

also associated with the Deauville...John Martino worked there for the Roths who opened the establishment -

prior to his being imprisoned in Cuba.

Martino's co-workers included Louis McWillie and R. D. Matthews and of course Ruby made a rather mysterious visit

to McWillie there - which may have involved courier duties in an attempt to broker Trafficante out of prison...a long story that.

It was rumored that Weiner investment came from his being a friend of Trafficante, a major investor in the Deauville.

-- Larry

Just a bit of elaboration on Ron's reply - I cover Weiner in some detail in the first chapter of SWHT and

its interesting to note that the FBI contacted him shortly after the assassination about his Ruby contact.

He told them to shove off, he didn't want to talk to them...and they apparently left it at that.

More importantly, HSCA internal notes and research done in conjunction with his testimony indicate

that they caught him lieing on several points and actually challenged him on some, forcing him in some

cases to admit things...like his business interest in Cuba which he initially denied.

Having said that though, I'd say Ruby's LA contacts including his visitor and his call there on November

22 are probably closer to his actual "control" than the calls Weiner. I suspect that is where Ruby's

payoff originated.

-- Larry

James, my best guess based on that document and a couple of related ones that I have is that

Sforza was coming out ostensibly to visit his wife but actually to drop off materials on

an exfilitration project that Morales was working. The info was supposed to be dropped through

Phillips in MC that weekend and forwarded ASAP to Morales. It was definitely a hot project and

my best guess at this point is that it pertained to a planned attempt to get Castro's sister

out of Cuba...because of events that was aborted until some time later.

-- Larry

For anyone who has a copy of Someone Would Have Talked, check the very last appendix - A Small Clique in the CIA. You will find a great deal of information on what Werbell was doing in the early 60's including his first approach to the Agency, its temporary use of him and his initial dumping...plus what he was actually doing to cause them grief in 63. This is based on a number of documents which I found to be very informative and also very different than some common concepts of what he was doing when.

He definitely has connections to the "far east OSS network" and he parlayed that for his first CIA introduction....

You might also check the appendix documents on the WEB site; I forget exactly what's up there now but I do reference a number of Werbell CIA documents in the book.

-- Larry

Charles, I'm not trying to "sell" it to you, in fact its not even a scenario I discussed in my book...as I pointed out in the message.

However, I don't work off "concepts" of the way things would have made most sense, I work off data that is a lot more messy

than concept. If that truly is Wallace's fingerprint then it has to be addressed at some point.

In any case, I must have been unclear, in no sense was I suggesting it was intimidation of Johnson. If Wallace was there he was ordered

there by Cliff Carter, just as Carter himself supposedly described and was taped doing so (taped in the presence of one live witness who

verified his remarks). If Wallace was there then he had to be doing something so incredibly stupid Johnson would never have had let

it happen unless he was forced to cooperate....and in no way does Wallace's MO suggest Johnson or anyone else would have picked him for a rifle

attack on JFK....Wallace was a killer alright but at close range, brute force and extremely sloppy as well.

If you are not familiar with Glen Samples work I would definitely suggest you at least read his book and my postings on Etes, Wallace and

Carter as background - but only if you are somewhat persuaded by Darby's print ID...if not the whole subject is meaningless.

It all comes back to the print(s); if its not Wallace this is all moot. If it is, then it important no matter how stupid it looks on the surface.

-- Larry

Hi Gene, thanks for the kind words!

I have to admit that wrestling with Hunt's reputation plus his true accomplishments is what caused me to add the appendix on he and

Barnes to the book...and with a lot of help from Pat....evaluate his possible contact or at least knowledge of Oswald via his 1963

Domestic Operations assignment.

I would agree with your assessment that his reputation far exceeded his skills (his tradecraft and security really were poor and

his political fixation on the ultra right didn't help his Cuba project work at all, Phillips had to step in and take over for him). It appears

that Barnes was his champion just as Dulles was Barne's. Both of them ended up sidelined after the Cuba project and it was likely

Dulles influence that got Barnes the Domestic Operations position and Barnes brought in Hunt. And it was Hunt's personal connection

to Artime and his history with Hecksher that got him at least a minor role in AMWORLD. Personally I suspect that Hunt was in some of

the secret Artime meetings going on in DC the week of November 22 and that explains why he was not with his family (as Lane brought

out to great advantage) but Hunt also was not going to talk about what he really had been doing....regardless of the consequence. Hunt

simply would not betray the Agency in that manner, he might talk about what he considered screw ups (as he did in his first book on the

Cuba project) but he would not disclose Agency secrets.

Hunt was loyal to the "cadre", at least to the officers he respected and he was fervantly dedicated to the anti-Communist

battle. I view him as less evil/mean than as dedicated/obsessive. I don't mean that in a good way, the same could be

said for Phillips, Morales etc. However in comparison people like Morales were far more effective, efficient and deadly. And

I don't see any sign that those officers had a lot of respect for Hunt's skills. The people who did support him were Dulles

and Barnes, who respected his political position, his dedication and his ability to write...they really did feel that he brought

some positives to the agencies (much as Phillips was supported for his writing later on).

OK, that was a long winded answer....but as to the conspiracy, personally I think it unlikely that the real operators like Morales would

involve Hunt any more than they would have brought in Sturgis or Barker (about whom Morales had little good to say). On the other hand

Hunt was well embedded among both the old boys like Dulles and Barnes - and perhaps more importantly in the "far eastern" clique

of Helliwell, Conein, Shackley etc to have heard the gossip that circulated about the conspiracy.

I would love to hear the inside gossip that I'm sure Hunt heard; however, given Hunt's loyalty to the types of views that resulted in

JFK being assassinated, I really don't think Hunt would ever pass on the truth. He might weave in elements of it into a good story,

one that would at least sound credible. But I don't think he would betray the "cadre", ever. On the other hand I think he could have told

us some very useful information about the agency and Oswald, possibly from first hand knowledge...but I don't think we are going to

see that in print either. All just opinion of course; perhaps I'm being overly skeptical?

-- Larry

La!rry:

Given your excellent research and insights, I'm very interested in your view of Howard Hunt. My instincts tell me he was an elitist "wanna be" (portrayed in Mailer's Harlots Ghost and books like The Company) as an original Yale OSS warrior close to Dulles, with aspirations towards CIA leadership. But he never quite impressed or succeeded. Yet he has what I intuit as an 'evil' nature and mean intent... I can't quite ignore him alone where suspicion and involvement are concerned. Mark Lane certainly was unconvinced. My instincts tell me he was up to his eyeballs in either the murder or coverup (or both)... and that he continued his 'dirty tricks' up and thru Watergate where he was finally disenfrachised by the intelligence community. Who knows what other nasty business he was responsible for. Please tell me what you see as his role in the assasination. Regards-- gene kelly

PS. Your book is marvelous

Charles, I'm a big fan of Occams razor however I don't think that what happened in Dallas was a nice smooth package or

that all the players had totally compatible agendas. As to why I think that I'd have to refer you to the book, I can discuss it

with short posts but explaining it that way is beyond me.

I think that Johnson was compromised by his connections to the Baker affair and that may well have served as the leverage

to involve him ....but I don't think anyone trusted him and they requred him to make a commitment to ensure he didn't'

double cross them. Nobody in their right mind would trust Johnson even when you had him in a headlock. Part of my thinking

on this is explained in the white papers section of this forum, in the pieces I posted dealing with Wallace, Cliff Carter, et al.

But I have to tell you if Glen Sample had never found Loy Factor and did the work that he has done I'd surely never even

consider this all in a scenario if I were building it from "concept"...or for elegance.

In regard to the prints, if Glen is correct and Factor telling the truth the prints were not a simple plant, they were part of Johnson

having skin in the game by having people that could be tied to him at the scene of the crime. Leaving actual prints may well

have been sheer bad luck for Wallace...but when you study Wallace you see that his MO was to leave tons of clues at the scenes

of his crimes (only Johnsons clout kept him out of jail).

-- sorry if all this is less than clear, its hard for me to get my hands around it in limited words... Larry

try to deal

Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.

My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print

with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there

was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were

sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response.

I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and

some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be

sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something

to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing.

A needless complication, surely but then the tactical team would know nothing of it. Only whoever was the cut out to Ruth Ann. But not a needless

complication if you want the ultimate insurance. But for those reading this, most of this is not in Someone Would Have Talked, it's in another

seven chapters that will not likely ever be published simply because it remains speculation until we get somebody else with the guts Nathan had

to stand behind a print ID.

-- Larry

Larry,

There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not.

Ron

Larry,

"Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise?

This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact.

While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops.

The fewer components the better, if you follow.

Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability.

So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team?

Charles

Charles, I'm a big fan of Occams razor however I don't think that what happened in Dallas was a nice smooth package or

that all the players had totally compatible agendas. As to why I think that I'd have to refer you to the book, I can discuss it

with short posts but explaining it that way is beyond me.

I think that Johnson was compromised by his connections to the Baker affair and that may well have served as the leverage

to involve him ....but I don't think anyone trusted him and they requred him to make a commitment to ensure he didn't'

double cross them. Nobody in their right mind would trust Johnson even when you had him in a headlock. Part of my thinking

on this is explained in the white papers section of this forum, in the pieces I posted dealing with Wallace, Cliff Carter, et al.

But I have to tell you if Glen Sample had never found Loy Factor and did the work that he has done I'd surely never even

consider this all in a scenario if I were building it from "concept"...or for elegance.

In regard to the prints, if Glen is correct and Factor telling the truth the prints were not a simple plant, they were part of Johnson

having skin in the game by having people that could be tied to him at the scene of the crime. Leaving actual prints may well

have been sheer bad luck for Wallace...but when you study Wallace you see that his MO was to leave tons of clues at the scenes

of his crimes (only Johnsons clout kept him out of jail).

-- sorry if all this is less than clear, its hard for me to get my hands around it in limited words... Larry

try to deal

Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.

My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print

with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there

was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were

sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response.

I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and

some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be

sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something

to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing.

A needless complication, surely but then the tactical team would know nothing of it. Only whoever was the cut out to Ruth Ann. But not a needless

complication if you want the ultimate insurance. But for those reading this, most of this is not in Someone Would Have Talked, it's in another

seven chapters that will not likely ever be published simply because it remains speculation until we get somebody else with the guts Nathan had

to stand behind a print ID.

-- Larry

Larry,

There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not.

Ron

Larry,

"Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise?

This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact.

While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops.

The fewer components the better, if you follow.

Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability.

So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team?

Charles

Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.

My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print

with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there

was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were

sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response.

I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and

some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be

sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something

to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing..

-- Larry

Larry,

There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not.

Ron

I'm going to jump into this one with Jack and Myra - whatever his loyalties to individuals within the Agency, Hunt was

known as much for his ability to write fiction and make a buck on the side as his notoriously poor tradecraft and

security (from Miami to Spain).

Not many active Agency employees manage to make money on the side by promoting spy stories.

Given Hunt's history of money problems, poor health late in life and his well known practice of

"shopping" his name (after Watergate) along with purported secret knowledge about the Kennedy

assassination (telling more than one interviewerer what he knew was worth a million bucks) I would

tread very carefully in supposing this book was his effort to come clean with the world vs. a last effort

to market his name and make some money for his kids.

Not that he might not have heard some gossip, many did, but Hunt was a good fiction writer and I see

no reason why he could not come up with the names to throw into a book that a publisher

couldn't resist.

-- Larry

Francesca, Harber was an Interpen associate and you will find a photo of him on the book web site - the photo page is "Shadow Warrors #2"

As I recall he was one of the few associates without significant military experience, he did have some academic background though, hence the

nick name. In 1963 he was engaged in a variety of minor projects including the preparation of a radio broadcast boat...you will find photos

of he, Seymore, de Torres and another of the Interpen folks whose name escapes me at present (maybe Collins) - all working on that boat.

He's mentioned a couple of times in the book and is in the index.

...I enjoyed the description Charles gave of the Hemming panel, I was there to observe that and certainly agree with his assessment. It was

one of the things that convinced me Gerry was an extremely sharp fellow and would likely always be well in control of any interview. I do

recall one comment of his that was most helpful, he suggested that researchers should look at what the national security agencies should have

been doing in the first 24 - 48 hours and compare it to what we see in the record. Chapter 15 of the book draws a good bit on that suggestion.

-- Larry

Charles, your mention of Gerry Hemming's story is interesting, I haven't heard it before. Could you expand on it? By windbreaker man, do you mean the man who some people think is Orlando Bosch or Felipe Vidal?

I get confused!

Larry, excuse my ignorance but who is Dennis Harbor? I have not come across that name before.

Francesca, I did a quick scan of The Last Investigation but could not locate anything on the Phillips indexed pages about Berlitz.

Beyond that though, I would think it would be a matter of coincidence; when Phillips needed to have someone on call he had

the resources to get them jobs as he did with Veciana.

As I recall Verona's job with Berlitz came after he had moved to New York and following an earlier job selling used cars; clearly he

was much better suited to the language teaching job.

I think the real question in play is why Verona virtually abandoned the exile movement for a considerable period of time, not only

abondoned it but left Miami where he obviously had a network and a lot of supporters. Not that there was not a very influential

exile community (old school) in New York but Verona doesn't seem to have connected with them....and they were of a like conservative

political orientation and could easily have found him a job in one of their businesses. Seems like there might be an interesting story there.

....and on Charles's mention of "The Professor"...seems to me like I've heard Dennis Harbor called that....but I think we can write him off as being a candidate

for "windbreaker man"...

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

in your book you mention that Tony Varona was a language teacher for Berlitz at one point - didn't David Phillips also have something to do with the Berlitz school? I seem to remember reading about it in The Last Investigation. Is this just a coincidence do you think or could there be more to it?