Larry Hancock

Mike, I would say that to a large extent Jim's book along with the movie JFK launched the surge of work in the 90's - leading to the efforts of the ARRB, the

JFK records act and the amazing amount of information we have now that was lacking before.

On the other hand, I've chided Jim in person several times for taking away my last 16 or so years....he shows no sign of guilt that I've seen so far..grin.

I would like to paraphrase another remark by Jim - made in opening a JFK Lancer conference a few years ago. The wording is not his, its my

recollection but I think it is telling.

..........................

....people, we know Lee Oswald did not act alone, we know there was a conspiracy, when are we going to stop arguing over the

details, get past that and move on to what needs to be done next?

..........................

I think it was shortly after that when I stopped obsessing about the Plaza and batting my head against the cover up and started looking for

a flanking maneuver.

-- Larry

Francesca, there are some great posts on the fingerprint issue in Glen Samples book thread and by Richard Bartholemew (sp...sorry Richard, I know I get that spelling wrong way to frequently) on the forum...you might do a search for his posts.

The issue with the prints is twofold (as I understand it). One is obtaining the originals of the prints which are on the boxes from the snipers nest. The other involves obtaining comparison prints of very good quality for Malcolm Wallace....that's where Houston PD comes into the picture. Again, as I understand it, the master prints used by Nathon Darby were obtained by Jaye Duncanson and are now in possession of Walt Brown, don't know what Walt is doing with the material left to him by Jaye.

Dawn has asked Glen if he is doing something further with the prints...perhaps some more discussion will emerge on that thread. Also, you do need to find and read

Richard B's great paper on the fingerprings, he posted a link to an updated version last year.

-- Larry

Nathan Darby was indeed the extremely experienced fingerprint expert who did the Wallace match....and based on Glen Samples posts I belive that Glen made contact with Darby and became convinced by Darby's continued conviction and elaboration. At least one other print expert also give a positive match to Wallace, he was hired by Barr McClellan - however when he became aware of exactly what was involved in his match he backed off permission to use his ID and officially began to hedge. Of course the FBI responded that it was not a match to Wallace...but refused to provide any detail and of course they did not consult with Darby.

And of course now the prints are being very closely held by Houston PD and it would require an official investigation to get another good set released.

In regard to Harlandale, my understanding is that as in other locations, many DRE members also were active in Alpha 66 and both DRE and Alpha members frequented Harlandale. I don't know of any specific leads tieing "Ruth Ann" to DRE though....I would not be surprized if she had some connection to the Brigade though, perhaps a relative. Which could well have associated her with Alpha circa 1963.

Actually the fact that Loy Factor would - out of the blue - associate to young Latino's Wallace and then specifically state that

the young woman was effectively in charge and brought in both intelligence and directions to their planning meetings strikes

me as something very unlikely to come from Factor's imagination.

Hi Anthony, glad you are enjoying the book so far.

I also think that avoiding the whole subject in terms of issues with

the RFK assassination is a bit hard to understand. Especially since

he didn't have to turn it into a conspiracy film to do so. Clearly

there were individuals in the pantry and individuals in the area that

experienced things that are hard to explain with Sirhan as a lone nut.

In making the film he could simply have picked one or more of those

people and covered their experience without being judgemental...why

not introduce a figure who sees something they cannot explain even to

themselves with Sirhan as the single shooter...could have some interesting

dialog or introspection. That would be a perfectly honest way to handle

the controversy...and there surely was controversy.

-- Larry

Another freightening thing about it is that those folks, like the current military and intelligence "contractors" in

Iraq could well end up outside the Military Code of Justice and the military legal system. Which permits them to

engage in behavior which would at least have some oversight within the military. It also puts them outside

the chains of command.

For some reasons the neocons seem to have a real passion for their own private armies....oh yeah, forgot, then

you don't have to be accountable to the democratic system....you can just do what you feel is right. Much

quicker to get things moving that way...

...Larry

Hi Francesca, actually as you noted, one of the big obstacles in RFK research is that aside from a very limited number of

researchers mostly tied either to Sirhan's legal process or towards commercial book projects, there really is not a research

base for RFK as there is for JFK. There are great collections of documents in archives in California, at Dartmouth etc but again

nothing like what we enjoy for JFK. I've issued an open call for individuals who want to work on that process but still the

response is very small, right now two people are slogging through film and photo records simply trying to locate known

persons of interest like Cesar and Wayne in footage. Or to do even more basic things like build collections of people going

in and out the service pantry access doors....just the basic slogging that was done by hundreds and thousands of people to

establish basic reference data for DP. It's clear that LAPD never really considered the crime scene to involve more than

a small area of the service pantry where Sirhan was (reminds one of the TSBD and DP) so there work is

of limited help in studying movements of other people...heck, they never even prepared a consolidated illustration of all

the witnesses reporting the movements of the polka dot dress girl and her companions (probably decided it would be

better not to; much easier to difuse that if you considere everything separately).

--- Larry

Hi Francesca, you are correct, the RFK film does not address conspiracy and as I understand it that was a conscience

decision on the film maker who has said something to the effect that he did not want to go through what Oliver Stone did.

Apparently he is persuaded there was a conspiracy but he didn't want to tackle that with his film....

As to my book, well as it turns out it is going to be a work on both RFK and MLK (and that probably says something right

there) so its going to take a bit longer than planned. The case for conspiracy in both is relatively easy to make and much of the

work in that vein has been done, I've drafted several chapters on RFK already. However going to the next stage and

dealing with the actual conspiracy is where the challenge lies. Much research is being done now and I owe thanks to a small

group of researchers who are driving the effort on.

As to a date, I might have a research level manuscript done this year but I don't see any actual book until sometime in 2008,

when it is done it will be at the same level of detail as Someone Would Have Talked. l

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. It is a shame the film maker didn't have the guts to tackle the idea of conspiracy as I think it would bring about a bigger awareness of the RFK case as Oliver Stone did for JFK. Maybe one day!

I look forward to reading your book on RFK for the future. Hoepfully in the near future, there will be more internet resources such as databases were to be made, particularly a photo database as has been done with JFK. It would be interesting to study photos of the ballroom etc to see if any other interesting or recognisable figures pop up as in the oneson Main and Houston street in JFK.

Hi Francesca, actually as you noted, one of the big obstacles in RFK research is that aside from a very limited number of

researchers mostly tied either to Sirhan's legal process or towards commercial book projects, there really is not a research

base for RFK as there is for JFK. There are great collections of documents in archives in California, at Dartmouth etc but again

nothing like what we enjoy for JFK. I've issued an open call for individuals who want to work on that process but still the

response is very small, right now two people are slogging through film and photo records simply trying to locate known

persons of interest like Cesar and Wayne in footage. Or to do even more basic things like build collections of people going

in and out the service pantry access doors....just the basic slogging that was done by hundreds and thousands of people to

establish basic reference data for DP. It's clear that LAPD never really considered the crime scene to involve more than

a small area of the service pantry where Sirhan was (reminds one of the TSBD and DP) so there work is

of limited help in studying movements of other people...heck, they never even prepared a consolidated illustration of all

the witnesses reporting the movements of the polka dot dress girl and her companions (probably decided it would be

better not to; much easier to difuse that if you considere everything separately).

--- Larry

Hi Francesca, you are correct, the RFK film does not address conspiracy and as I understand it that was a conscience

decision on the film maker who has said something to the effect that he did not want to go through what Oliver Stone did.

Apparently he is persuaded there was a conspiracy but he didn't want to tackle that with his film....

As to my book, well as it turns out it is going to be a work on both RFK and MLK (and that probably says something right

there) so its going to take a bit longer than planned. The case for conspiracy in both is relatively easy to make and much of the

work in that vein has been done, I've drafted several chapters on RFK already. However going to the next stage and

dealing with the actual conspiracy is where the challenge lies. Much research is being done now and I owe thanks to a small

group of researchers who are driving the effort on.

As to a date, I might have a research level manuscript done this year but I don't see any actual book until sometime in 2008,

when it is done it will be at the same level of detail as Someone Would Have Talked. l

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. It is a shame the film maker didn't have the guts to tackle the idea of conspiracy as I think it would bring about a bigger awareness of the RFK case as Oliver Stone did for JFK. Maybe one day!

I look forward to reading your book on RFK for the future. Hoepfully in the near future, there will be more internet resources such as databases were to be made, particularly a photo database as has been done with JFK. It would be interesting to study photos of the ballroom etc to see if any other interesting or recognisable figures pop up as in the oneson Main and Houston street in JFK.

William, one of the things that does have to be addressed in discussing the tramps is that there seems to be a clear

"time stamp" on the ones taken into custody in the yard behind the TSBDthem...as has often been discussed. The DPD

tapes contain reference to a railroad employee notifying police about an individual being reported in a gondola car. \ It's pretty clear Bowers saw a tramp inside a gondola/hopper car, not a boxcar and notfied police. It's clear that Bowers stopped that train which was moving past

his tower coming from downtown Dallas to the east and moving across the TSBD overpass...because the DPD

tapes locate the engine of the train.

Now I agree Bowers did not report seeing three tramps, only one, but that would mean four people taken into

custody if three were in a boxcar. It also might mean he simply didn't see the other two down

inside the gondola car. It's also clear from the tapes that other tramps were arrested in the second

switching yard across the bridge and over in the area of the postal annex. If nothing else the references on the tape

to tramps should be part of any discussion of the tramps.

-- Larry

Now, since I am nonetheless also very much interrested in the real ID of the 3 tramps,

this is not only addressed to you but all researchers who followed the tramps story over the years.

I think that's doubtful, or you would have ordered the dvd

And to you Wim, one last question, did you personaly investigate Gedney,Abrams and Doyle

like investigators do and therefore rule them out or do you base your opinion on Louis Gibbons (sp ?)

work and the claims of Chauncey Holt only ?

Yes I did investigate them. I rule them out based on my own eyes plus the inconsistencies in their stories and those of the arresting officers, the absence of pictures of a younger Doyle, Gedney and Abrams, and the shadows of the photographed tramps which irrefutably indicate a time past 2 PM. Gedney, Doyle and Abrams say they were detained right after the shooting, mentioned no word of being photographed either and they said they were taken from a flatbed train, a coal wagon, not a boxcar. I am not ruling out they were detained that day, but they were just not the tramps in the photographs. I don't need Lois Gibson to determine that.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=7580200071522387891

Wim

Thanks for the kid words Francesca.

As to your question on Johnson - I'm still of a mixed mind. I certainly do think there is a case to be made that Johnson was forced into some level of participation in order to ensure that he took an offer he couldn't refuse. However proving that

largely lies in the Wallace prints and Loy Factor. I can tell you that I am inclined towards that and have actually written six

unpublished chapters that would lay that out in great detail....some of that is posted in the papers section of this forum.

However, Estes has done so much in the last couple of years to compromise himself as a source that he really had

contaminated the Johnson side of the story.

If we are to stick with "beliefs" I do tend to belive the print matches, Glen Samples work and Jenkins statements. Which means Johnson was forced into contaminating himself and essentially leaving "fingerprints" which would likely have emerged in any real criminal investigation....ensuring that he preventing that from occuring. As it happens the timing of events fits perfectly to support that scenario.

If we just had a few print experts with the guts to go on record it would be a done deal...or if only one law enforcement agency had the nerve to pursue that aspect of the case. Not sure that will ever happen though.

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

on another note, I'm nearing the end of your book and it is great reading. Congratulations on such a well researched book! You make the point that the plot was to portray Oswald as part of a communist conspiracy and the cover up was to portray Oswald as a 'lone nut' and erase any thought in the mind of the public of him acting with others. This is something that is so clear from looking at the evidence, yet is is a point which never occurred to me until you pointed it out! It makes total sense now how the whole thing was put together I don't know how I didn't see this before. That the plot and cover-up were two separate things. I'm reading your chapter on Bobby Baker and Johnson. Do you believe that Johnson was activelyinvolved in the conspiracy? I'm not sure whether I believe he was actively involved in the conspiracy or that he knew something was going to happen but didn't act to stop it. If you believe Wallace was on the 6th floor as I do, then I wonder if Johnson would have known about it?

Hi Francesca, you are correct, the RFK film does not address conspiracy and as I understand it that was a conscience

decision on the film maker who has said something to the effect that he did not want to go through what Oliver Stone did.

Apparently he is persuaded there was a conspiracy but he didn't want to tackle that with his film....

As to my book, well as it turns out it is going to be a work on both RFK and MLK (and that probably says something right

there) so its going to take a bit longer than planned. The case for conspiracy in both is relatively easy to make and much of the

work in that vein has been done, I've drafted several chapters on RFK already. However going to the next stage and

dealing with the actual conspiracy is where the challenge lies. Much research is being done now and I owe thanks to a small

group of researchers who are driving the effort on.

As to a date, I might have a research level manuscript done this year but I don't see any actual book until sometime in 2008,

when it is done it will be at the same level of detail as Someone Would Have Talked. l

-- Larry

Francesca, nothing more on Sanchez Diaz from me. As in most cases anything I could find is in the book. I'm afraid the chance

for a real investigation of many of these subjects has passed with this much time. I must say though that as I reread the HSCA

report I'm impressed by how many times they chide the FBI for not really following leads...and for putting things aside without

serious investigation. I probably should have mentioned that in the book.

I am investigating some of the sources on the leads a bit further and may add end notes or points on the web site in regard

to them as time permits.

Thanks for the offer but the good news is that with my shift in focus to RFK/MLK I doubt that many of my sources are going

to need translation...grin.

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

I would like to research this Sanchez Diaz further sounds interesting but as you say with the passage of time, these things get more and more difficult. I wish the HSCA had investigated more leads themselves but with someone like Blakey in charge that was never going to happen.....

Do you have any idea of a date for your RFK book yet? I see over here that the film Bobby is going to be released in a few days but I understand it isn't a 'conspiracy' film, but part fictional?

I think Sanchez did function as Artime's actual case officer although I'm now awere of the exact dates.

What is clear though is that in 1963, Hecksher assumed a senior officer role in the AM/WORLD project which

was built around Artime. Whether or not you would consider him a case officer at that point or something else

could be debated, you certainly find his name on a great number of memos dealing with Artime and you find

Jenkins name on a lot of them as well, including routine travel, training and security memos.

I do think Hecksher was well known within the agency in the 50's and 60's but I don't know that he became

a semi-public figure until his assignment to Chile much later. He certainly was assigned to a lot of trouble

spots from Laos to Chile and he had a high profile inside the agency as well as some high level sponsors like

Dulles. AsI relate in Appendix B the ambassador in Laos tried to get him removed with no luck. I think its safe to say

that he was never a favorite with his State Department counterparts.

After his tour in Laos he was assigned to the transborder area down towards the Golden Triangle and there is

no information at all on his role there; I also know of absolutely no details on his assignment to Japan.

-- I think he is a very fertile area for more research....especially with both his Guatemala and SE Asian associations. Larry

Two thoughts on Heckscher. First a question and then a little piece of info. 1) is that I thought Nestor Sanchez was Artime's case officer. If I'm mistaken, or if he was his case officer before Heckscher, please clarify. 2) is that Heckscher's exploits were well-known in his time. At one point, he was stationed in a latin American country--was this after Chile?--and the leaders of that country noted that every country Heckscher visitied soon suffered an overthrow. They asked for his replacement. If someone remembers where I read this, please relate the whole story.

John, I noticed the obit thing but its not uncommon for CIA officers obits to be a bit off the mark, note Morales. I

do cover his career in some detail in Appendix B and my impression is that instead of the OSS he was in the regular Army and

with Army CIC after the war. He went from Army CIC to CIA in Berlin, very similar to Morales actually.

I did run into one reference that speculated that he might have been a deep cover double agent but I don't recall the source

off the top of my head... there would always be the question of whether or not his strong anti-Communist views might

have been a front - if he was deep cover.

We tried to do some checking with his brother who was still living a year or so ago at least but he quickly made it clear

he had no interest in discussing Harry or any of his activities.

-- Larry

I was very interested in reading your account of Henry Hecksher. Did you know that his father worked for Kaiser Wilhelm II? Edward M. Korry, the US Ambassador to Chile, described him as a "Prussian gentleman". Is it possible that he came to the USA as a Nazi spy in 1938. His extreme right-wing views make him a strange refugee from Nazi Germany.

The obituary that you have on Hecksher seems to include a mistake. It says that he was member of the OSS in Berlin in 1946. In fact, the OSS was disbanded by President Harry Truman, on September 20, 1945. I assume in reality he was a member of the Department of War's Secret Intelligence (SI) unit.

According to Joseph Trento (The Secret History of the CIA), Edward M. Korry discovered that Hecksher was working with Patria y Libertad (Fatherland and Liberty). In his confession to the FBI, CIA associate, Michael V. Townley, admitted he worked closely with Patria y Libertad in the assassination of Carlos Prats, Bernardo Leighton and Orlando Letelier.

Do you know what Hecksher got up to after he retired from the CIA? I wonder if he became involved in Ted Shackley's business activities.

Francesca, nothing more on Sanchez Diaz from me. As in most cases anything I could find is in the book. I'm afraid the chance

for a real investigation of many of these subjects has passed with this much time. I must say though that as I reread the HSCA

report I'm impressed by how many times they chide the FBI for not really following leads...and for putting things aside without

serious investigation. I probably should have mentioned that in the book.

I am investigating some of the sources on the leads a bit further and may add end notes or points on the web site in regard

to them as time permits.

Thanks for the offer but the good news is that with my shift in focus to RFK/MLK I doubt that many of my sources are going

to need translation...grin.

-- Larry

Francesca, I think if you read Nagell really closely on the Cubans in NO, at least one of them was an individual he had known in MC and also in California....exact names is still guesswork of course although if you read closely you find a couple of guesses on that in my book. Clearly Nagell had to have done some favors for these guys on an ongoing basis to get the sort of introductions he got in Miami and in NO. However one of the folks appears to have been local from NO and that may have been what got Nagell turned e.g. someone obviously became suspicious of him and began training him, hence his run for the border. Whether or not he actually "took out" one of them on the way remains pure speculation although he implies somebody did get killed, mistakenly. Whose mistake it was...

As to the Italian book, I had a good deal of correspondance with the author a few years ago and he actually provided the translated passages, as far as I know the book is only available in Italy and in Italian.

-- Larry

Hi Francesca, actually I doubt that Nagell and Morales ever crossed paths. At least to this point, despite what his tombstone says, there is no direct evidence Morales served in Korea and his time seems pretty well accounted for elsewhere.

I do suspect Nagell crossed paths with Phillips in Mexico City, he may have had no direct contact but given his CI role in MC it is very likely that Phillips would have been aware of anything Nagell was doing in that regard and certainly Nagell's rather strange pseudo defection looks like some sort of security test.

My current thought is that Nagell worked with a variety of Domestic Ops folks, primarily in California as his notebook supports; that he had some CIA contact in MC but that Hecksher pulled him off to play some very deep games that may or may not have been fully reported inside the agency. I do imagine that CIA knew about some of his activities in MC and may have been aware that he had peripheral contact with Oswad - if not before the assassination they certainly knew about it afterwards and it appears that he used that efficently later on to negotiate some sort of quid pro quo with them. Something that would go into a soft file I'm sure....never to see the light of day elsewhere.

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

thanks for your thoughts. I had not thought it likely but just wondered. As you say in the book seems like the 'blurb' written on Morales' tombstone was a cover for his real activities.

You read my mind and answered my next question though about whether or not Nagell would have encountered Phillips in his 'work'.

I always wonder about that story told by Nagell about Oswald meeting with cubans in a square in NO - Im not sure if I'm remebering it correctly but I think Nagell claimed to have a photo of it. If true, wonder who those Cubans might have been. So many interesting things to ponder!

Also, I wanted to ask you where you found a book you refer to in Chapter 10 on DAP by Claudio Accogli called 'Kennedy e il centro-sinistra'. It sounds very interesting and I'd like to get hold of it if I can but an amazon search doesn't turn up anything.

The book is in Italian I take it? Or has it been translated into English too?

Thanks

Hi Francesca, actually I doubt that Nagell and Morales ever crossed paths. At least to this point, despite what his tombstone says, there is no direct evidence Morales served in Korea and his time seems pretty well accounted for elsewhere.

I do suspect Nagell crossed paths with Phillips in Mexico City, he may have had no direct contact but given his CI role in MC it is very likely that Phillips would have been aware of anything Nagell was doing in that regard and certainly Nagell's rather strange pseudo defection looks like some sort of security test.

My current thought is that Nagell worked with a variety of Domestic Ops folks, primarily in California as his notebook supports; that he had some CIA contact in MC but that Hecksher pulled him off to play some very deep games that may or may not have been fully reported inside the agency. I do imagine that CIA knew about some of his activities in MC and may have been aware that he had peripheral contact with Oswad - if not before the assassination they certainly knew about it afterwards and it appears that he used that efficently later on to negotiate some sort of quid pro quo with them. Something that would go into a soft file I'm sure....never to see the light of day elsewhere.

-- Larry

-- Larry

Hi Larry,

I am very much enjoying your book - have just finished the chapter on DA Phillips. Very interesting! I didn't know he was also working in New Orleans.

I have a question for you about Morales - you said he was linked to Henry Hecksher, so I wondered if there is any evidence that Morales was directly involved with Nagell at any point. I wonder if he was one of the people either monitoring Oswald that Nagell talks about or Nagell himself?

I don't remeber that Nagell ever mentions Morales in TMWKTM but was just wondeing if Nagell would have come into direct contact with him seeing as how they were both in the army as well. i can't remember if Morales would have b een in the army at the same time as Nagell.

Thanks!

Thanks for the post John, yes, Simon was good enough to send me a copy and we have not linked his review

and the interview into www.larry-hancock.com

Also, I think all the document links are now working, we have been doing a lot of work on the site recently and

everyone should be able to view some of the new documents that went up on the site in conjunction with the

second edition. I would also encourage everyone to read Edward Martino's background statement which has been

placed on the site.

Ed has also consented so a couple of short interviews and as time permits those will also be posted.

-- A very Happy New Year to you and all the forum members, Larry

Larry, have you seen this?

http://www.bloggernews.net/13370

Mark, my only point is that you should judge his remarks to the ARRB....some 30 years after the fact....in context of his very early interviews with the Secret Service, the FBI and his internal remarks to his MI supervisor.

And its important to keep in mind that in 1963 his job was primarily doing background checks for military security clearances - that sort of investigation. You can also judge his remarks by the sort of language and descriptions used by his fellow MI personnel who were also interviewed by the ARRB.

I just don't think the one interview should be judged in isolation and wanted everyone to know the other material that

is available.

-- Larry

I'd suggest that anyone considering this subject needs to look at all the pieces - for example Powell gave statements to the Secret Service, the FBI and eventually was interviewed by the ARRB. He also filed a report on the incident with his military supervisor. A close read of all these will answer the question as to all his photos and will also show that he was quite consistent in his remarks.

Larry,

As I mentioned above, Powell's interview is strange -- his answers are cavalier and imprecise, his recollection seems sparse. So he either attached little importance to being an eye/earwitness to and recorder of one of the most shattering events of the 20th century, or he's lying about some/all of it. Is this macho swagger? Or an attempt to aw-shucks his way out of more intense scrutiny?

If he's not lying, then he might have been a Barney Fife type of wannabe, injecting himself in the action of the day.

If he is dissembling, his presence could indicate anything from mere surveillance to participation as a possible assassin of LHO.

His actions, based on his testimony, aren't sufficiently explained, in my opinion. The story he tells doesn't hold water.

I'd suggest that anyone considering this subject needs to look at all the pieces - for example Powell gave statements to the Secret Service, the FBI and eventually was interviewed by the ARRB. He also filed a report on the incident with his military supervisor. A close read of all these will answer the question as to all his photos and will also show that he was quite consistent in his remarks.

In addition the ARRB interviewed all the other members of the Dallas MIG unit they could locate as well as a senior office for the 112MIG (not Jones) and took testimony form Fletcher Prouty.

You can obtain all these records from NARA or you will find them and my anaysis on a CD available from JFK Lancer on the subject of the 112th....all also contains an great deal of background material that the ARRB collected on the 112th, its duties, tasks and organization structure.

Just to cut to the chase, I do find some very suspicious things associated with the 112th but they primarily have to do with Col Jones and his statements to the HSCA rather than Powell. I'd very much like to know who and why the HSCA selected Jones to testify as it was his testimony that essentially allowed them to cover up the issue of mysterious people with credentials in DP.

-- Merry Christmas everyone, Larry

Robin, that's a very interesting point....clearly there had been some consideration of Sylvia Duran as a target; she was at least

a partially known quantity. And we do know from recent releases that CIA had both electronic and humint sources within

the Cuban embassy. We have no idea of their names though and probably never will. And there were other human recruiting

targets in their embassy - and an ongoing effort to recruit several people it appears.

I will say that if she was a knowing informant its unlikely that the Agency had the Mexican's pick her up and treat her

as they did (unless that was all a cover). One thing that troubles me is this - given the huge importance of the information

which might have been held by both Duran and Alvarado and given the apparent cooperation by Mexican officials....why

leave the two in Mexico, fly down polygraphy specialists and peform an investigation there. I mean potentially either individual

could have held information which would trigger either a Cuban invasion or WWIII? If you were in charge would you not get them

on a US plane, on US soil and under US security during interrogation?

Yet we just left them down there - and conducted commnications by telex and couriers....pretty amazing.

It's just possible we will learn more about the CIA recruiting efforts in the future, its certainly something to keep going

back to the new releases on. What we really need are folks routinely going through the ongoing releases looking for

this type of thing.

-- Regards, Larry

In Appendix C,you write of "recruitment operations in progress against both Veciana's own cousin and Sylvia Duran." I've always wondered if Duran was already a U.S. asset,either witting or unwitting, at the time of Oswald's visit to Mexico City.All of the CIA people that spoke to the HSCA were very wary of talking about the possibilty,and it was established that Win Scott had a "P" file on her.I can see how she might have been"false flag" recruited by the belief she was working for the Mexicans.

Mike, this is an area that deserves further research but as far as I am aware neither the boxes nor their

contents made it into the FBI evidence inventory. You will find some further elaboration of this in the end notes

of the book - interestingly, there were apparently a lot of rumors about this material floating around DPD and other

parties in Dallas. Enough that the WC actually interviewed Walthers on this point; however they did their

usual terrible job of closed end questioning - essentially doing nothing more than attempting to get him

to confirm that the material which was widely reported to be in those files really was not as the rumors

described

However, rather than agreeing with that Walthers simply stated that he had not sorted the boxes and placed the contents into

inventory, rather he had only transported them.

Which of course did not resolve the issue at all but apparently gave WC counsel an out so they could call the

matter closed.

If anyone does find evidence that the file boxes were inventoried and placed into evidence I'd be happy to post

the listing on my book WEB site.

-- Larry

We do now have something concrete as to when Cuban intelligence became aware of and decided to move against Morales. That is covered in the new edition and the action appears to have been triggered by their finding Morales name on a list of secret police badges issued by Batista. Based on that they issued an arrest warrant to the American Embassy, the Embassy pushed back but that was pretty much the end of Morales in Cuba and it appears that he may have had to exit Cuba shortly thereafter.....this detail can be seen in the new "Zamka" document provided for Chapter 8 on the book WEB site.

-- Larry

It would be interesting to hear from him but I have some of the same concerns that Stephen Roy expressed in his

forum post. Without documents it's insteresting but I'm not sure that it gives us anything really usable...after all these

names have been in play for some time.

And you would have to think that any document as "hot" as one showing Cuban G2 monitoring Oswald in a Miami

meeting would have gotten some special treatment and generated a lot of dialog at high levels within the Cuban

government. Why would Fidel hesitate to turn something like that over to the HSCA....for that matter why would Fidel

hesitate to turn over any real documents which would implicate the CIA or exiles...and the HSCA did go to Cuba.

...Larry

John that is quite interesting, a few observations:

1) That would be the first time anyone had put Posada and Bosch in New Orleans as far as I

know...and of course Arcacha Smith had left NO for Florida and then Houston by the end of

1962.

3) On the Oswald meeting in Miami...so does that suggest Cuban G2 knew who Oswald was?

That they had a file on him before his trip to Mexico City?

3) On the Dallas report, that's pretty interesting...does Escalante provide copies of any of these

reports or corroboration for them....it would be good to know that they are real documents from

1963. If he has samples can we get them scanned and uploaded?

-- thanks, Larry

Except for a couple of letters, Escalante does not provide documents or references. He also says that he has not had recent access to the G2 files and much of what he writes is based on what he remembers from earlier investigations.

I have invited him to join the forum.

John that is quite interesting, a few observations:

1) That would be the first time anyone had put Posada and Bosch in New Orleans as far as I

know...and of course Arcacha Smith had left NO for Florida and then Houston by the end of

1962.

3) On the Oswald meeting in Miami...so does that suggest Cuban G2 knew who Oswald was?

That they had a file on him before his trip to Mexico City?

3) On the Dallas report, that's pretty interesting...does Escalante provide copies of any of these

reports or corroboration for them....it would be good to know that they are real documents from

1963. If he has samples can we get them scanned and uploaded?

-- thanks, Larry

Hi John, thanks - I had not seen that. JFK Lancer issues a new release on Monday which included

Edward Martino's corroborative statement. It was put out though a commercial service (see below)

because we really have had little success in getting any media coverage. This one has generated

some response inclouding some media in Dallas and it looks like the article you found was picked up

from the release. It's certainly an uphill battle though.

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/dec/1...riddles-solved/

-- thanks again, Larry

Larry, have you seen this?

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2006/Dec/EEN457da1736fdcf.html

Well Myra, by now you may be getting the impression that I'm pretty conservative...for a conspiracy nut that is...grin.

Yes, I've played the "faces in DP" game for awhile, a good deal with James as well. For the two photos you

show, I belive that is Florer and not Shackley, too young for Shackley in 63. And I don't belive that to be Morales and

I think at this point James agrees.

I've gotten to the point that if I have some evidence that puts an individual in a given site I consider photo matches

as corroboration but beyond that I've seen way to many people that look like other people.

At present, I tend to think that there is a good possiblity that we have a photo of Vidal on Elm, that we may have a photo

of Milteer on Houston (and yes I'm not at all convinced by the HSCA, heck they didn't even do the leg work to check where

he really was that day) and as a very wild card I'm open to Conein being in DP although somebody really needs to do some

more extensive background work on him; what I've managed to do seems to show that he was in Saigon at this time

frame and tied up with inquiries about the Diem disaster.

Awhile back I tried, with introductions from Sherry G., to contact some specialists in photo ID to get some opinions but

once they found out the location and date nobody was willing to play.

In regard to John's question on Escalante, I read the earlier books he was a primary source for but have not read this one. The list looks pretty much the same as in the earlier books. My problem with Escalante is pulling out the actual Cuban G2 data from the stuff the Cubans have gotten from JFK assassination books which they clearly do read. Having said that there were some good tidbits in the earlier books and I'm wondering if he provides more primary source data in the current one?

-- Larry