Larry Hancock
-
Posts
4,052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Larry Hancock
-
-
Steve, there are a few other names that come up in regard
to the weapons shopping…I cover that in obnoxious detail
in my book in the section on Ellsworth, Masen, Nonte et. al.
The reference documents are all provided as exhibits.
However there is good reason to suspect that there never was
any weapons cache or necessarily even the money to pay for
them if they had been located.
As far as a list goes, there are a variety of FBI documents
which essentially provide an index to various organizations
and reports on Dallas exiles and exile organizations – but
none of the actual data documents themselves. The FBI
did not volunteer actual data to the WC or the HSCA and
apparently nobody ever asked for any details.
Larry,They never
attempted to construct a list of actual residents or visitors.
About the only name I've run across is a guy named George F. Parrel.
SS Rowley Memorandum of 4/24/64 CD 853
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...250&relPageId=2
1/16/64 Frank Ellsworth was interviewed about Orcarberro.
Ellsworth had been working undercover gathering evidence against John Thomas Masen.
Masen told Ellsworth that Orcarberro had been trying to buy guns and bazookas from Masen.
Masen told Ellsworth that Rodriguez and George F. Parrel were leaders of the local DRE and also members of Alpha-66
Masen told Ellsworth that George Parrel, an associate of Orcarberro, had also been trying to buy guns from him.
They had made purchases from him and that they presently have a large cache of arms located somewhere in Dallas.
Parrel was a student at Dallas City College.
Agent Ed Coyle was also contacted about Orcarberro.
Steve Thomas
-
Robert, there is a nice photo of 3126 Harlandale, rented by Salazar and
Rodriquez, in Tagg's book on Walthers.
The CIA never could locate the place, they searched for Hollandale and Harlendale
and could find neither....not noticing Harlandale in the listings it appears.
Walthers himself has mistakenly listed it as 3128 Harlandale in his report.
For reference, the reason Walther's was aware of the place was that his
mother in law who lived in the area...which is why he did not name her. And
apparently no agency ever asked him for the information nor tried to contact
his informant first hand, reflecting a pretty serious lack of interest. The FBI
did go to their local informant on Alpha 66 who "cleared" the house of any
suspicion and they dropped the whole matter at that point. They never
attempted to construct a list of actual residents or visitors.
-- Larry
Which is it, 3128 or 3126 Harlandale? It would be interesting to see if we could dig up exactly who rented the location and list all the names of the indivuals who lived there in the fall of 1963.
Place this in the 'trust me' but find out for yourself if it makes you feel better category, for years I alway's believed it was 3126 Harlandale, until I really studied the documentation. You will find that there was a lot of stumbling and bumbling by the investigatory agencies ala Inspector Jacques Closeau that appear as if they could not have found it on mapquest. When you look at the ascending chronology of the reports you will find that it is indeed 3126 Harlandale, Anthony Summer's muddled the waters a bit by linking the Buddy Walter's 'Oswald at Cuban meeting' to 3128 Hollandale, which is in Farmer's Branch which I attribute to not being familiar with Dallas in the geographical sense, if someone can produce evidence to the contrary, I would very much like to made aware of it.
-
Robert, you have the name of the owner of the house but he was renting it to a man
named Salazar so its likely that if it did have a phone listing it was in his name.
Orcarberrio and others lived in it, apparently with Salazar's permission.
On another note, I can't prove it for sure but there is some reason that the informant
that the DPD used to write off their investigation and certify that Oswald and
nobody else suspicious had ever been there may have been Orcarberrio himself.
-
Steve, my memory will be faulty but I think this is covered at some length in the
LaFontaines book.
My benchmark on the FBI inquiry is that they were trying to minimize the Odio
incident and even had instructions from Hoover to position her as mentally
ill....they tried to get her Uncle to go along with that and he refused. So
did her Doctor.
Add that to the fact that she wrote her father in Cuba (before the assassination)
about two unknown men who had visited her and who she was worried about
and I have a difficult time accepting that she knew either of her visitors.
Of course, as with how many shots came from where, there are innumerable
ways to spin the Odio incident and to marginalize its significance.
-
Pat, I suspect the liklihood that Sanchez actually left CIA is slightly less than zero.
Morales operated under a State Department and later an AID cover for most of
his career.
....probably a promotion... Larry
As I remember the Church Report, Sanchez was both Cubela's and Artime's case officer, and was responsible for putting them together, whereby Artime created a silencer for Cubela to use on Castro. I also seem to recall that Sanchez eventually escaped the CIA and ended up in the State Department as Under Secretary for Latin America or some such thing. I hadn't thought about it much, but if this took place under Reagan/Bush/Casey it would make perfect sense. -
James, at this point the documents tell us that Quintero was involved in the French
trips and that Jenkins was doing some support for them although there is no
mention he himself went.
And of course Wheaton does specifically say that Jenkins introduced him to Nestor Sanchez
among others (suggesting JM/WAVE involvement for Sanchez as Jim mentioned).
One of the problems is that most of the documents from that period use
crypts extensively so without knowing what Sanchez crypt may have been its
going to be hard to locate him.
Now if somebody tells me he was called Segundo we might have something going.
-- Larry
Well OK, so I should look first next time...anyway, I think the following would give James
a yes to his question and likely confirm Jim's comment as well:
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : CIA
RECORD NUMBER : 104-10102-10026
RECORDS SERIES : JFK
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : CIA
FROM : SANCHEZ, NESTOR D., SAS/EOB
TO : THE RECORD
TITLE : AMLASH/1/DAINOLD
DATE : 11/13/1963
PAGES : 2
DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT
SUBJECTS : JAMES CLARK
CLASSIFICATION : SECRET
RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/19/1993
COMMENTS : JFK34 : F7 : 1993.07.19.16:39:58:280270
The following pretty well firms up the answer...yes Sanchez was part of AM/WIRLD,
yes he was working with Atime, Quintero and Jenkins circa 1963 and certainly
out of the JM/WAVE complex.
AGENCY : CIA
RECORD NUMBER : 104-10215-10169
RECORDS SERIES : JFK
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : CIA
FROM : DIRECTOR
TO : PARIS, LONDON, HAMBURG, FRANKFURT.
TITLE : CABLE:MR NESTOR SANCHEZ ETA PARIS 3 OCT CONTINUE MEETS
AMLALSH/1.
DATE : 09/30/1963
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT
SUBJECTS : JFK ASSASSINATION; MHAPRON PROGRAM; SANCHEZ NESTOR
CLASSIFICATION :
RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/17/2004
COMMENTS : JFK64-50 : F24 : 20040311-1057057 :
-
Herb, Lamar's research is meticulous and you will see that in his documents, references
and index. I can vouch for that as Lamar and I've been in communication on this
sort of material for some time now.
And there is no particular reason that Harry Williams would be making up a story on
a very private, potential coup agreement with a high Cuban revolutionary official. All
the documents show that Williams was where he described to Lamar, doing what
he described. And the fact that Robert Kennedy made one of his very first post
assassination calls to Williams is pretty significant in my book.
Given that, the book is a significant work of cold war history irrespective of anything else.
Where matters get more complex is tieing all that to a plan originated and
driven by the three mob bosses Lamar identifies. I'll have to leave it
to Lamar and the book to support those connections. I think its possible to make a very
good case they were aware of a plot, encouraged it and supported it. But whether
the were the originators and "operators" of it remains an open question for me...
I tend to take a bit of a different slant on it.
Hopefully this year in Dallas, Lamar and I will both get behind a table and let folks
toss questions at us for a lively discussion.
DISCOVERY CHANNEL, "Conspiracy Files: JFK",
scheduled to air in March 2006, produced by NBC
Primetime feature based on the thesis of Ultimate Sacrifice
Larry,
What's your take on the book and theory?
Thanks, Herb
-
For a few more comments and thoughts on Saul, see this thread on the forum, from some time back.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=1116&hl=saul
Fellow Forum member Justin Martell tells us that a law enforcement guru by the name of Hugh McDonald has tracked down the man in the Mexico city photos and claims to have spoken to him. Further, McDonald claims that the man is called Saul.
According to Martell, this information is available in the book titled "Coincidence or Conspiracy?"
It seems that now two separate sources identify this man as Saul Sage (Sague). I believe the Yuriy Ivanovitch Moskalev story is a CIA disinformation attempt, merely because "there ain't nothin' Russian about the way that fellow looks".
Antti, I think you're confused on this info. The name "Saul" was given to the mystery man by Hugh McDonald in his book "Appointment in Dallas." McDonald was a former Los Angeles County Chief of Detectives and claimed a relationship with military intelligence and the CIA. Hemming's calling this man "Saul" is just him being cute. "Saul" was not his real name. McDonald did indeed claim to have tracked down the man and to have spoken with him. The story recounted by Saul is not all that believable, however. There is reference to McDonald in the HSCA's report on De Mohrenschildt, indicating that McDonald did indeed conduct his own investigation and that his story is not all b.s. McDonald eventually came to theorize that LBJ cut a deal with Russian hard-liners, and that the Russians, with Oswald's Mexico City travel companion Albert Osborne as operative, set up the assassination. I think McDonald was well-intentioned but was misled by "Saul" and some of his CIA contacts.
I was just browsing this thread again when I came upon Pats post here. I just want to say that I have just finished reading this book and nowhere in it did I read a part saying that LBJ cut a deal with the Russians. McDonald does not in fact speculate as to wh ordered the assassination.
I think Pat may have been mistaken or thought of a different book.
I posted this just in case someone stumbled upon this thread in the future.
John
-
Hi James, actually I have....
I have a June 21, 1972 memo of a conversation of Morales in which he relates
that Barker was recruited as a support agent in Havana in 1959. Barker was
used to provide information on police and political matters and also to transport
agents to various harbors for exfiltration.
Barker himself was exfiltrated to Tampa in 1959.
Morales expressed the opinion that Barker was such a loudmouth and talked to
so many people that he considered him a security risk and had recommended
that he be terminated in 1962.
In addition a CIA Biography on Barker, prepared in 1973 mentions that Barker
recruited agents for the CIA while in Cuba in 1959. Barker was recruited because
his police position had detailed him to be liason with a number of US agencies
in Havana; the FBI is not specifically mentioned but its pretty obvious that the
Bureau would have Havana police liason.
For reference, Barker went on full contract as a CIA employee in April 1960 ...
his first assignment was to a group working on "psychwar" projects against
Castro. Unfortunately his primary Havana contact is not identified other than
as A-1.
-
There's a copy of it on the document CD that goes with the first edition of Someone Would
Have Talked.....we will be putting allt those documents up on a WEB site in
support of the second edition.
-
DISCOVERY CHANNEL, "Conspiracy Files: JFK",
scheduled to air in March 2006, produced by NBC
Primetime feature based on the thesis of Ultimate Sacrifice
-
Fancesca, I know that there are plans to make it available in the UK but I'm not sure
about Amazon/UK. I'll try to find out. It should have broader distribution than the
first edition, partially because the format for the second edition will be that of a standard
size and bound commecial book. That makes it far easier to ship overseas.
We will also be moving all the original and the new documents onto a WEB site, as
well as the new charts. That should make the reference documents much easier
to browse than on the CD and allows for easier update as well. I expect there
will be a variety of support material on the WEB site that simply won't fit
in the size constraints of the print book....the charts and some of the photo pages
just don't work well when you squeeze them onto a book page. So in reality it
gets to be two pieces of work, not just one.
In any event, both the book and WEB site will hopefully be available this summer.
-- Larry
Hi Francesca, well first I certainly would not write off Barker from being of interest. If nothing
else he was in the ideal position to circulate information among some truly suspicious
folks in 1963.
However that's a far cry from making him part of the tactical team in DP - unless you want
to posit that he was willing to take the fall as a Castro double agent in case he got caught.
Otherwise he would be pointing at some people in Miami that would not have been all
that happy coming under scrutiny.
I imagine his photo was being shown because of Weberman's focus on Howard
Hunt as being one of the three tramps and Barker having worked with Hunt prior
to the BOP.
Hi Larry,
thanks for the clarification. I didn't know he had worked with Hunt before the BOP.
On a side note, I ran across an interesting memo in which Morales remarks that
Barker had a real problem keeping anything confidential and was known to talk
about way too many things to too many people. Which doesn't seem to give him
the right credentials to be pulled into a serious conspiracy of serious people (and given
Hunt's reputation for poor tradecraft and his screw ups at Watergate, well Barker seems
more like a Hunt type than the sort of folks I belive put Dallas together).
Interesting - so Morales was associated with Barker then? Will this memo be in your book?
Thanks for asking about the book, I'm deep in doing proffing of the publishers first layouts
and things are going resonably well. I'm still thinking that June availability is possible, the one
thing I can say is that the delay has given a bit more time to include brand new information from
archives document research.
Great news, June is not too far off! Look forward to reading the new research, do you know yet if the book will be sold on the UK amazon?
-
Hi Francesca, well first I certainly would not write off Barker from being of interest. If nothing
else he was in the ideal position to circulate information among some truly suspicious
folks in 1963.
However that's a far cry from making him part of the tactical team in DP - unless you want
to posit that he was willing to take the fall as a Castro double agent in case he got caught.
Otherwise he would be pointing at some people in Miami that would not have been all
that happy coming under scrutiny.
I imagine his photo was being shown because of Weberman's focus on Howard
Hunt as being one of the three tramps and Barker having worked with Hunt prior
to the BOP.
On a side note, I ran across an interesting memo in which Morales remarks that
Barker had a real problem keeping anything confidential and was known to talk
about way too many things to too many people. Which doesn't seem to give him
the right credentials to be pulled into a serious conspiracy of serious people (and given
Hunt's reputation for poor tradecraft and his screw ups at Watergate, well Barker seems
more like a Hunt type than the sort of folks I belive put Dallas together).
Thanks for asking about the book, I'm deep in doing proffing of the publishers first layouts
and things are going resonably well. I'm still thinking that June availability is possible, the one
thing I can say is that the delay has given a bit more time to include brand new information from
archives document research.
-
This was from an interview conducted by either Weberman or Canfield when Weitzman
was in a rest home/sanitarium ...several years after the assassination.
Weitzman refused to sign a statement to the effect and later others interviewed one
of his Doctors who said that he had been terribly stressed by the interview and
willing to say virtually anything to get the interviewer satisfied and to leave.
One of those things that is just what you want to hear...and then starts to fall apart.
-- Larry
-
Thank you Mike and Tom for the kind words, I do appreciate it and it helps during those deadly hours sorting through the galley's and endless edits.
One thing that I did want to mention is that the second edition will contain appendices which present documents/analyses beyond what could be addressed in the body of the book without totally defocusing the reader.
They will include (among other things) new information on:
The FBI Odio investigation
The Rose Cheramie remarks and drug investigation
The mysterious death of Garrett Underhill
Mitch Werbell's contacts with the CIA
The Kirknewton incident and pre-assassination leaks
Suppressed CIA Castro assassinatation activities
Henry Hecksher's CIA career
Richard Case Nagell's activities in Mexico City
-- Larry
-
Hi Mike and thank you.
Certainly it should be available this summer, hopefully as early as June.
It has slipped a bit, among the reasons way my decision to add a good deal
of information which came out in 2005 including some significant work
by other authors. I wanted it to be as current as possible for 2006 and not
the "last book of 2005".
I've pledged to restrian myself from further editions and that should help
meet the new target. We do plan to start sharing some of the content in
advance of publication, especially for folks who didn't get the first
edition.
-- Larry
Hello Larry,Can you give any indication as to when the updated version of Somebody Would Have Talked will become available?
I have always admired your approach to research. Thanks.
Mike Hogan
-
I would agree with Tim and indeed it needs to be said that Gary Mack requested a review
copy of my first edition - however the first edition was developed primarily as a source
document for researchers (hence on the CD exhibits rather than putting it into
other areas). Also, we didn't feel that the "form factor" was right for a retail sales
environment. For those reasons we didn't pass a copy to Gary.
The second edition has been professionally edited, has been fact checked, will have an index
and expanded bibliography and will be bound for retail sales - so we do anticipate
submitting it to him.
On the other hand, I'm still not going to gurantee that the reader won't find a typo or
a bad use of grammar on my part. They will however find a great quantity of new
material, a streamlining of the presentation, easier reading (well some easier at least
due to the editor's persistance) and appendices running through "J" to accomodate peripheral
material.
-- Larry
-
Lamar Waldron be giving a his first talk and signing since the Lancer conference in New York City on April 4, 2006. At 7pm at McNally Robinson bookstore, 50 Prince St. (between Lafayette and Mulberry)., Waldron will be talking about how the operations revealed in "Ultimate Sacrifice" set the stage for many of today's government secrecy problems. He'll explain why one million JFK files are still withheld from Congress and the America people, and why others were destroyed in 1995.
Waldron will also show how new information in "Ultimate Sacrifice" finally clears framed ex-Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, as well as what people can do to get justice for Bolden and get all the remaining JFK files released. Waldron's discussion will be hosted by noted author Mark Crispin Miller, as part of his "First Tuesday" series at McNally Robinson. Following the discussion, Waldron will answer questions and sign copies of "Ultimate Sacrifice." For bookstore directions or info call (212) 274-1160 or go to:
http://www.mcnallyrobinsonnyc.com/
Also on April 4, from 10pm to 11pm (Eastern), Waldron will be a guest on New York's "Joey Reynolds" radio program, heard on WOR and other cities in the US. He'll be talking about "Ultimate Sacrifice" and taking questions from callers. Later in the show, they will be joined by long-time JFK researcher Jones Harris.
-
Richard, thanks for the detailed clarification...I'm definitely printing this off and saving it with
your sheet on the prints!!
You bring up a good point on the number of matches, perhaps someone decided that would be an
issue - but I too have read of cases taken to court with fewer than the twelve points. And given
the higher point match on the primary print it makes the others much more likely IMHO.
Very important information, thanks again! Larry
Larry, I posted the correction. But after 8 years away from being immersed in the subject, my proofreading was faulty. The current web posting now matches my original, faded hardcopy exactly. On first review, I had thought the fingerprint "New Totals" number for Box B was a mistake because 8+3=11, not 10. Also, my analysis in my last reply to you was incomplete. Here is the definitive explanation on how the WC did and did not account for the Wallace print matches:Print 29, Box A (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 9 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 8 for Studebaker and 1 for Oswald. Print 29 was hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC accounted for it as an identifiable print, there would be a "1" in the "Unidentified" column, instead of a "0". So, Print 29, Box A, is now accounted for as a 10th identifiable print, as well as a 10th identified print.
Print 20, Box B (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left thumb) was also not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, 2 for Lucy. However, the WC seems to have made a mistake in that attempt to hide Print 20. Print 20 was labelled "unidentified," a catagory in the WC lists of identifiable latents. The WC further accounted for it as an unidentified, identifiable print by mentioning it in the Report, on page 566. So, Print 20, Box B, was accounted for as an 8th identifiable print, as well and now as an 8th identified print.
Print 22, Box B (a single number for two latents matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger and left ring finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, and 2 for Lucy, plus the obscured unidentifed Print 20. As with Print 29, Box A, latent prints 22 were hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC fully accounted for them as identifiable prints, there would be a "2" "3" in the "Unidentified" column (or "3" with the inclusion of Print 20, Box
, instead of a "0" "1". So, Prints 22, Box B, are now accounted for as 9th and 10th identifiable prints, as well as 9th and 10th identified prints.Finally, please note that this correction applies also to the fingerprint subtotal, which is now 24, and the grand total, which is now 32.
Thanks, Larry, for your expert peer review, and help with this proofreading.
As to your comment about Nathan, I don't remember whether or not Nathan made or verified the matches on latent nos. 20 and 22. I don't think so. I could be wrong about that, however. I'm still reviewing my files for the answer. As for Barr's apparent lack of knowledge, I have no explanation. It could be that the other three matches may have been below the standard of 12 points. I have a vague memory that this was the case. I can tell you that it was not a problem for Jay or myself me. There was and is no universal standard. The FBI's handbook on fingerprint science, which Barr gave to me for study at our Dec. 1997 meeting, even stated that Bureau examiners are so highly trusted that a 3-point match by them was acceptable to the FBI.
Richard
Thanks Richard, that's most helpful. And as usual the cover-up comes across as
very consistent, no need to really alter anything, just make it disappear by
"managing" the information in the reports. Leave something out here, renumber
something there......just a little careful editing...
I guess the only thing that surprises me is that Darby doesn't seem to have intimated
to anycone includeing Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?
-- Larry
RE: "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints"
http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm
Larry, you're close -- and you made me aware of two typos.
Two latents, #29, Box A, and #20, Box B were the only Wallace prints officially accounted for by the WC/FBI as "identifiable." So, the number in the "New Totals" column, "Box A" row, should be "9" instead of "10". I'll make the correction.
"Box B" row gets a little tricky. The WC itemized lists of identifiable Box B prints should have accounted for 8, not 7. The neglected print was numbered (20) and labelled ("unidentified"). As I noted in comment D, the print in the "Unidentified" column, "Box B" row, is print 20. Jay's print examiners matched #20 to the inked print for Wallace's left thumb. It is one of the three in the "Wallace" column. The other two Wallace prints were numbered as one print (see below). So, the Box B "New Totals" should read "10" instead of "11". I'll make that correction too.
As far as I have been able to determine, there were at least four ways by which the WC/FBI investigators hid Wallace's, and/or other, identifiable prints:
1) Judging identifiable latents as not identifiable, thus excluding them from their accounting method.
2) Labeling multiple latents under one number, or not numbering them at all. Print #22, Box B is actually two prints, matched by Jay's examiners to Wallaces left little finger, and left ring finger. Keep in mind that print #29 was also matched to Wallace's left little finger.
3) Labeling a latent as having "indistinct characteristics" -- which is a non-designation that means neither identifiable nor unidentifiable. This appears to have been a tricky way to distract attention from an identifiable print, and allow for impunity should a subsequent examination catch the "error." (This trick was used on Print #29, Box A -- matched to Wallace's left little finger.)
4) Reporting numbers that differed from both their official itemized lists, and from testimony that was itself numerically inconsistent. (See comments B1 through B4.)
Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is
that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints
attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI
count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.
-- thanks, Larry
-
Not to my knowledge, I've heard something about April but nothing more specific.
-- Larry
-
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/liz/liz.htm
EXPECT TOP-SECRET JFK DOCUMENTS
by Liz Smith, New York Post
March 14, 2006 -- 'IN AMERICA there are factions, but
no conspiracies," wrote a French statesman about the
United States back in the 1800s. Times have changed.
LAST NOVEMBER we told you here about a book titled
"Ultimate Sacrifice" that purported to offer new
details about the death of President John F. Kennedy.
It's too complicated to go into all the revelations in
this massive work by Lamar Waldron, but suffice to say
that the San Francisco Chronicle recently ran a rave
review written by Ronald Goldfarb. He was the Mafia
prosecutor under Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, and
this is the first time anyone closely associated with
either brother has offered praise for a JFK
assassination book.
Now we can tell you that NBC has completed an hourlong
documentary focusing on the information in "Ultimate
Sacrifice," and this top-secret project will air soon
on the Discovery Channel. It is to be titled
"Conspiracy Files: JFK" and will include material
withheld from the Warren Commission and from
congressional investigations as well. Such material
has never been seen on TV before.
Some of the protagonists are Mafia kingpin Johnny
Rosselli and other godfathers telling how they tried
to kill the president first in Chicago, then in Tampa
and later in Dallas, where they ultimately succeeded.
This documentary will offer the only TV interview in
more than 40 years with the first black presidential
Secret Service agent, Abraham Bolden. Framed by
Rosselli's gang, he was arrested on the day he went to
appear before the Warren Commission. He has fought for
a very long time to clear his name.
Discovery will offer us a few startling realities
about how the Secret Service destroyed crucial files
covering the Tampa and Chicago attempts in January
1995. And how there are still "well over one million
CIA records" about the assassination that remain
secret even to this day.
"Sunshine Week" (March 12-18) - when the media presses
for more access to all things shadowy - is an apt
moment to focus on government secrecy, and with this
documentary, it takes on even more importance.
-
Thanks Richard, that's most helpful. And as usual the cover-up comes across as
very consistent, no need to really alter anything, just make it disappear by
"managing" the information in the reports. Leave something out here, renumber
something there......just a little careful editing...
I guess the only thing that surprises me is that Darby doesn't seem to have intimated
to anycone includeing Barr that there were multiple fingers involved in his ID?
-- Larry
RE: "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints"http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm
Larry, you're close -- and you made me aware of two typos.
Two latents, #29, Box A, and #20, Box B were the only Wallace prints officially accounted for by the WC/FBI as "identifiable." So, the number in the "New Totals" column, "Box A" row, should be "9" instead of "10". I'll make the correction.
"Box B" row gets a little tricky. The WC itemized lists of identifiable Box B prints should have accounted for 8, not 7. The neglected print was numbered (20) and labelled ("unidentified"). As I noted in comment D, the print in the "Unidentified" column, "Box B" row, is print 20. Jay's print examiners matched #20 to the inked print for Wallace's left thumb. It is one of the three in the "Wallace" column. The other two Wallace prints were numbered as one print (see below). So, the Box B "New Totals" should read "10" instead of "11". I'll make that correction too.
As far as I have been able to determine, there were at least four ways by which the WC/FBI investigators hid Wallace's, and/or other, identifiable prints:
1) Judging identifiable latents as not identifiable, thus excluding them from their accounting method.
2) Labeling multiple latents under one number, or not numbering them at all. Print #22, Box B is actually two prints, matched by Jay's examiners to Wallaces left little finger, and left ring finger. Keep in mind that print #29 was also matched to Wallace's left little finger.
3) Labeling a latent as having "indistinct characteristics" -- which is a non-designation that means neither identifiable nor unidentifiable. This appears to have been a tricky way to distract attention from an identifiable print, and allow for impunity should a subsequent examination catch the "error." (This trick was used on Print #29, Box A -- matched to Wallace's left little finger.)
4) Reporting numbers that differed from both their official itemized lists, and from testimony that was itself numerically inconsistent. (See comments B1 through B4.)
Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is
that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints
attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI
count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.
-- thanks, Larry
-
Richard, I'm probably being dense on this chart but the way I'm reading it is
that the additional Wallace prints are not formerly unidentified prints nor prints
attributed to someone else but actually prints totally missing out of the FBI
count and talley. Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.
-- thanks, Larry
The fingerprint evidence is far to important to allow to wither on a vine.
In reading this thread it seems that some "insiders" know a good deal more than some of the rest of us. There is reference in this thread to an article by Richard Bartholmew on the "Mac Wallace" print(s). Could Mr. Bartholmew please post this article (or a link)? I am sure it would help the rest of us get up to speed on the status of this controversy.
Larry Hancock was referring to my monograph, "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints". Larry has the version ordered abridged by J. Harrison to hide the existence of matches to other Wallace fingers. The abridged version was part of the press packet at the failed Mac Wallace press conference. I have now posted the original, unabridged version, which has never been seen until now except by the late J. Harrison, and the late Mike Blackwell. Here is the link:
http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm
Richard
-
Jack, its almost certainly a Murrey photo.
In Trask's second book, That Day In Dallas, there is a very similar view probably
taken within half a minute or less shown on page 84.
It's taken from a little further up the knoll but shows essentially the same scene
but with different vehicles in view as traffic continues to flow.
-- Larry
, instead of a
file cabinets
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
It seems to Steve, he did stay in Dallas for some time and then
moved to Puerto Rico...can't tie down a definite date but it seems
a pretty good fit.
-- Larry